Originally posted by dfm65Irony's clearly beyond you. You were advocating invading regimes which support 'terrorists'. My point was, which regimes are behind ETA? Or the IRA? Or the Red Brigades?
In case you haven't heard, Basque is already part of Spain, so Spain can't invade it as such. And England invaded northern Ireland a long time ago, and NI is part of the UK, so again it cant be invaded in a technical sense. still, it ramians true that ETA and the IRA gain their strength from support from these areas. The solution, as you point out is more di ...[text shortened]... this doesn't mean the solution is wrong - merely that it has not been implemented effectively.
Oh, and I think you'll find Irelnd and Nortern Ireland are different things.
You advocate an increased military presence in the areas where support is strongest - that's just counter-productive, as the Brits learned in Ireland.
Originally posted by pradtfI don't know, his insults can be quite entertaining at times. Still, they don't exactly lend weight to his arguments.
There is no reason, in my opinion, why people on the forums, moderators included, need to endure insults, taunting, patronization, ridicule, profanity etc etc from the one who shall remain nameless.
There is no reason, in my opinion, why the one who shall remain nameless cannot conduct himself to at least a minimal degree of civilized behaviour on these forums.
In friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfYea! That mean old nameless thing! Down with him and all his family before him! Geez he makes me just SO mad. I'm with you, carrot snapper. Lets get him banned! How dare he actually make sense and point out silliness? There should be a law protecting those of us who refuse to debate and defend our pointless existence. I'm with you. That stinker! Let's drag him through the streets!
There is no reason, in my opinion, why people on the forums, moderators included, need to endure insults, taunting, patronization, ridicule, profanity etc etc from the one who shall remain nameless.
There is no reason, in my opinion, why the one who shall remain nameless cannot conduct himself to at least a minimal degree of civilized behaviour on these forums.
In friendship,
prad
In FiendShip,
Mike
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeIt is simply that you have chosen a narrow interpretation of my main point, which is that to supress terrorism, their support bases must be neutralised. If this support base is another state, then that state can be invaded in self-defence. If it is a particular region within a state where terrorists are operating against the state for separatist or whatever reasons, then the equivalent of military action is justified, only technically it is not an 'invasion'. The situation is complicated because the people the state has to root out are technically citizens of the state. So it becomes a matter of a police action, rather than a military one. But the wider citizenry of democratic countries usually resists a police presence strong enough to deal effectively with terrorism. This is probably wise, since they fear such a strong police force could become abusive of their rights. Ditto for domestic intelligence services. This is the real reason the UK had trouble eradicating the IRA, and Spain ETA.
Irony's clearly beyond you.
But, if the terrorists are supported from without the target country's borders, and it had the military power to do it, then neutralising the sponsoring state is the way to go. there really aren't that many of them.
BTW, it is well known that those who resort to insults are those who have run out of arguments.