Originally posted by chancremechanicSo Cancremechanic, name calling and bullying 14 year olds, all in the same night. Again, your mother must be proud that she raised an all american hero like yourself.
Your country (Iran) supports international terrorism. Your fellow Iranians are the same insurgents blowing up innocent people in Iraq and disallowing Iraqis to form a Democratic government; your Ayatollahs are bedmates to Osama bin Laden and Zarkawi....Iran is a tripartate of the 'Axis of Evil'.....you say Iran wants to advance into modern science ...[text shortened]... Muslims persecute Christians living in Iran....what more can I say?...modern state?...ha, ha....
Did you ever think that the Ayatollah wouldn't be in power if America hadn't deposed the democratically elected government and installed a dictator, the Shah, who killed hundreds of thousands?
'Axis of Evil' is just something that bush made up so that idiots like you would buy into children killing sanctions or war on N Korea/Iran.
As for states sponsoring terrorism. Do you ever reflect on the irish lives which american money paid for through the american's sponsorship of the IRA? Should the u.s. be bombed and invaded for sponsoring terrorism? You'd like that wouldn't you?
D
Originally posted by chancremechanicHi.
[Proof that you ask for: On December 14, 2001 Iranian leader Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani stated that "when the Islamic world has the atomic bomb, the strategy of the west will hit a dead end-since the use of a single atomic bomb has the power to destroy Israel completely, while it will only cause partial damage to the Islamic world..from "Ttreachery ...[text shortened]... ishing
Israel's destruction isn't a walk in the park for a "friendly" nation like Iran...[/b]
Please do not be worried over the security of the nation of Israel. Read Zechariah 2:8-10
Gerrit
Originally posted by RagnorakThe "terrorists" the United States was supporting and continues to support in Ireland is the government of Great Britain in their immoral occupation of Irish soil. As a person who supported and still supports whatever resistance is necessary to free Northern Ireland from British occupation, your idea that the US supported the IRA is laughable. Millions of individual americans supported the end of the tyrannical British control of Northern Ireland and still do; that is not government "sponsorship" but support for a just cause.
As for states sponsoring terrorism. Do you ever reflect on the irish lives which american money paid for through the american's sponsorship of the IRA? Should the u.s. be bombed and invaded for sponsoring terrorism? You'd like that wouldn't you?
D
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is the funniest post I've seen for a while.
The "terrorists" the United States was supporting and continues to support in Ireland is the government of Great Britain in their immoral occupation of Irish soil. As a person who supported and still supports whatever resistance is necessary to free Northern Ireland from British occupation, your idea that the US supported the IRA is laughable. ...[text shortened]... thern Ireland and still do; that is not government "sponsorship" but support for a just cause.
How many countries is the US immorally occupying?
Should US citizens financially support terrorists from these countries to act against America?
You are losing the plot No1.
Originally posted by gumbieIf you had read almost ANY of my posts, you'd know that I vehemently oppose the US government's occupation of ANY country! So I'm being entirely consistent by opposing Great Britain's occupation of Northern Ireland. I see nothing immoral for people from other countries to give money to insurgents in Iraq fighting against the US occupation or for people in the US to give money to the IRA which is fighting the British occupation of Northern Ireland. Clear?
This is the funniest post I've seen for a while.
How many countries is the US immorally occupying?
Should US citizens financially support terrorists from these countries to act against America?
You are losing the plot No1.
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree with both occupations. However, from what I've read, the IRA seem(ed--they're not nearly as bad as they were in the 70s and 80s) like a bunch of thugs looking for an excuse to do violent things, motivated possibly by bad personal experiences (in both memoirs by former IRA members I've read--Eamon Collins and Sean O'Callaghan, specific personal experiences led to their joining), an incoherent sense of ''our ethnicity and religion vs. theirs'' and the problem of having nothing better to do. The last is important, as I suspect that the quieting-down of that situation in the past fifteen years has more to do with the huge growth of the Irish economy during the 1990s than anything else.
If you had read almost ANY of my posts, you'd know that I vehemently oppose the US government's occupation of ANY country! So I'm being entirely consistent by opposing Great Britain's occupation of Northern Ireland. I see nothing immoral for people from other countries to give money to insurgents in Iraq fighting against the US occupation or ...[text shortened]... US to give money to the IRA which is fighting the British occupation of Northern Ireland. Clear?
I don't know much about the Iraqi insurgents, but to the extent that they some are motivated by a desire for religious hegemony (analogous to the Catholic/Protestant conflict in NI) I have no sympathy whatsoever. However, for reasons of sheer scale they have much more justification in opposing an occupier than the IRA do for the simple reason that British forces/RUC etc. didn't go around indiscriminately blowing up tens of thousands of N. Irish citizens, which Coalition soldiers have done in Iraq on 2 occasions.
In other words, I see both occupations as wrong, and I don't support terrorist tactics, but the Iraqis have many fewer options in their situation than the people of Northern Ireland do (did, really), because the former situation is a real war while the latter is a largely artificial smoldering of some stupid 800-year-old petty hatreds.
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, I wasn't aware you approved supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas etc
If you had read almost ANY of my posts, you'd know that I vehemently oppose the US government's occupation of ANY country! So I'm being entirely consistent by opposing Great Britain's occupation of Northern Ireland. I see nothing immoral for people from other countries to give money to insurgents in Iraq fighting against the US occupation or ...[text shortened]... US to give money to the IRA which is fighting the British occupation of Northern Ireland. Clear?
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat drives particular individuals to join resistance movements or occupying armies for that matter, is irrelevant to the immorality of occupying someone else's country.To bring such a trivial matter as a couple of individuals motivations (who also felt that their own personal motivations were sooo important they wrote books about it) into the Irish political situation is typical of the standard "Oprahization" of larger issues, where everything is judged by how people "feel".
I disagree with both occupations. However, from what I've read, the IRA seem(ed--they're not nearly as bad as they were in the 70s and 80s) like a bunch of thugs looking for an excuse to do violent things, motivated possibly by bad ...[text shortened]... artificial smoldering of some stupid 800-year-old petty hatreds.
You apparently "feel" that because the British have occupied Northern Ireland longer than the US has occupied Iraq that therefore, the Irish are less "justified" in resisting this occupation. Why this would be true I have no idea, perhaps you could explain why hundreds of years of occupation, oppression and murder is less objectionable than 2 years of the same! The occupation of Northern Ireland is what's "artificial" not the legitimate hatred against it.
Originally posted by gumbieMy approval or non-approval is irrelevant; if the situations which lead to terrorist tactics were resolved, as I support, the tactics wouldn't exist. Give oppressed and occupied people anonther method by which they can resist oppression with some hope of ultimate success and they'll do it; but faced with overwhelmingly military inferiority and oppressors who refuse to negotiate at any point without their surrender first, the resistance movements of the 21st century have little other choice.
Sorry, I wasn't aware you approved supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas etc
I think it is quite possible. But I am afraid that the third time could be even more catastrophic for the world. I worry that terrorists will get ahold of nuclear bombs and the outcome of that will be horrific. By, invading the middle east, Bush has opened a Pandora's box of war that may never be closed.
Originally posted by no1marauderLook, politically, Northern Ireland, apparently by the will of a narrow majority of the people, is part of Great Britain. The British military presence was an attempt to restore order to a part of Britain made violent by cinflict between citizens. The whole situation was not initially an insurgent versus occupier thing, but rather several groups targeting each other because of religious hatred and opposed nationalistic viewpoints; the British military presence is analogous to impositioni of martial law. The situation is more complicated because the internal conflict was motivated by the fact that NI is a part of Britain, but it remains that the situation is entirely different from Iraq, where a sovereign nation was imposed upon by a foreign power in recent history. The British government in 1916 and 1921, however oppressive they were, were in no way responsible for the actions of Britain in the Middle Ages or in the Battle of Kinsale or anything else. The conflict in NI is fundamentally and Irish-versus-Irish conflict, and the acting government used force, admittedly injudiciously, to keep the peace. I support the right of those interested in independence from Britain to peacefully express their opinion, but the IRa nad the defunct Protestant militant groups saw things mainly in sectarian (or in the case of certain IRA splinter groups, class warfare) terms and as such were really no better than the Ku Klux Klan, as some of their methods bore out.
What drives particular individuals to join resistance movements or occupying armies for that matter, is irrelevant to the immorality of occupying someone else's country.To bring such a trivial matter as a couple of individuals motivations (who also felt that their own personal motivations were sooo important they wrote books about it) into the ...[text shortened]... Northern Ireland is what's "artificial" not the legitimate hatred against it.
I brought up the 'personal experience' thing primarily because very few IRA members are motivated by political ideals or even care very much about the independence issue. The number of people involved is very small (for example, the most hardcore IRA group, responsible for the Omagh bombing, was estimated to have numbered just 50 people at its peak), and personal vendettas dominate the modern conflict as much as anything else. By contrast, the Iraqi insurgency is much more ideological and faces a foreign invader rather than a (possibly unfair) government.
Originally posted by royalchickenThe "will" of a narrow majority in an artificial entity, created solely by the British government to maintain control over Irish territory is unimportant. Check a map out: there's an island (Ireland) one contiguous piece of land and there is no geographic reason why Northern Ireland should be separate. That British policies over the last several centuries (what would now be called "ethnic cleansing"😉 have created a pro-British enclave does not mean that it is legitimate to keep that area of Ireland separate from the rest of Ireland, anymore then the pro-British area of Hong Kong is was "British". Ultimately Hong Kong was returned to China and Northern Ireland should be returned to Ireland.
Look, politically, Northern Ireland, apparently by the will of a narrow majority of the people, is part of Great Britain. The British military presence was an attempt to restore order to a part of Britain made violent by cinflict between citizens. The whole situation was not initially an insurgent versus occupier thing, but rather several groups targe ...[text shortened]... is much more ideological and faces a foreign invader rather than a (possibly unfair) government.
Your characterization of the IRA is simple propoganda; they have since their inception been dedicated to a united, free Ireland. The Irish had to fight for their independence just as we did, it was not benevolently granted by the British. The British are foreign occupiers in Northern Ireland just as the US is foreign occupiers in Iraq; the fact that Britain is closer to Ireland than the US is to Iraq has no relevance whatsoever. You don't know jack about the motivation of IRA members just because you read a couple of "tell all" books; ten of thousands of Irishmen joined the IRA and millions of people supported them and still do. I'm suprised you of all people would take that a splinter group only had 50 members the conclusion that therefore, the IRA membership has a whole must have been small; you should know that reasoning is fallacious. Support for the IRA was widespread and not "based on personal vendettas"; it was, and is, based on a belief that Ireland should, must and will be united and free.
Originally posted by no1marauderSeveral of your points are factually incorrect according to those two and other accounts I have read of the IRA by former members.
The "will" of a narrow majority in an artificial entity, created solely by the British government to maintain control over Irish territory is unimportant. Check a map out: there's an island (Ireland) one contiguous piece of land and there is no geographic reason why Northern Ireland should be separate. That British policies over the last seve ...[text shortened]... ttas"; it was, and is, based on a belief that Ireland should, must and will be united and free.
Second, I agree that the British imperialism in Ireland was not justified (hell, I'm half Irish myself), but that is somewhat beside the point. A Prostestant of British heritage living in NI has no responsibility for the actions of his ancestors. Just as, for example, the American militant group AIM was wrong to hold the US government in 1973 responsible for the actions of the US government in 1890, those wishing for Northern Irish independence have no right to hold their Protestant neighbours responsible for the atrocious actions of the original Protestant settlers. A majority of the current citizens of NI support their British status (which is likely to change anyway now that Ireland is no longer poverty-stricken), and it is ludicrous to claim that someone's vote is less valid simply because of the actions of his grandfather.
Also, your geographic argument is smoke and mirrors; clearly Alaska should be part of Canada or Russia, right?
In short, I agree that British policy over the past few centuries, in almost every part of the world, was unconscionable, but thinking in those terms tend to do a pretty good job of dividing the world along historical/ethnic/nationalistic lines which, as the Israelis are discovering, is a bad idea.
Some parts of the IRA have been dedicated to a united, free Ireland. I would have fully supported the Easter Uprising. I would have fully supported Irish independence. My comments about the IRA are all related to the IRA from 1969 onward, and in particular to the Provisional IRA.
Originally posted by royalchickenYour whole view of NI is for the birds (just realised my pun when I reread the post). I'd like to try to correct you, but to be honest, I can't pick anything out of this post which is accurate.
The whole situation was not initially an insurgent versus occupier thing, but rather several groups targeting each other because of religious hatred and opposed nationalistic viewpoints; the British military presence is analogous to impositioni of martial law.
Rubbish! The British army controlled an unhappy population in ALL of Ireland until the original IRA, which was formed to fight the british OCCUPIERS, rose up in arms in 1916.
The situation is more complicated because the internal conflict was motivated by the fact that NI is a part of Britain,
You seem to forget about the history of the situation, and assume that the troubles began in the 70's with the spate of tit for tat bombings between nationalists and unionists.
The British government in 1916 and 1921, however oppressive they were, were in no way responsible for the actions of Britain in the Middle Ages or in the Battle of Kinsale or anything else.
so the british government created circumstances in which over 2,000,000 irish people died, but they're not to blame cos it was in the past. They murderously put down a guerilla war for independance in 1916, but they're not to blame cos it was in the past. They initiated a period of ethnic cleansing to replace the catholic majority with a protestant majority (which is the root of the irish-versus-irish conflict you allude to), forcing the catholic minority in NI to live like animals, but they're not to blame cos it was in the past. They murdered in cold blood 13 catholics at a peacefull march and then covered it up, but they're not to blame cos it was in the past.
I don't get your logic.
The conflict in NI is fundamentally and Irish-versus-Irish conflict, and the acting government used force, admittedly injudiciously, to keep the peace.
Fair enough, but the fact is that the irish on one side have always been irish. The irish on the other side are english/scottish people who have been transplanted there to ensure a love of the queen in the north. And then, these newly transplanted Irish, were given all the jobs, all the money and all the power. The acting police force and army racially targetted catholics in a spree of hate and oppression spanning decades. You have to look at the situations in which these irish people have been forced to coexist, to see the reasons behind the troubles.
I support the right of those interested in independence from Britain to peacefully express their opinion, but the IRa nad the defunct Protestant militant groups saw things mainly in sectarian (or in the case of certain IRA splinter groups, class warfare) terms and as such were really no better than the Ku Klux Klan, as some of their methods bore out.
That whole line stinks to high heavens. How can you even dare to compare the original IRA with the KKK? So, by your analagy, anybody who fights an aggressive, oppressive, tyrannical occupation is the same as a dumb hick racist? Please explain.
Why do you refer to the 'IRA' and the 'Defunct Protestant militant groups'? Do you not realise that there are still daily beatings and kneecappings happening in the north?
I brought up the 'personal experience' thing primarily because very few IRA members are motivated by political ideals or even care very much about the independence issue....By contrast, the Iraqi insurgency is much more ideological and faces a foreign invader rather than a (possibly unfair) government.
Look, you're being plain silly now. You can't compare Iraq and Ireland as they both stand today. If you're going to compare the two, then that has to be done on timelines... u.s. invade and occupy Iraq, britain invade and occupy Ireland. Iraq fights for freedom, ireland fights for freedom. You honestly can't compare the sentiment of republicans now with the sentiment of republicans when the fighting was being done, ie: 1916 on. The war in the north is over now. What is remaining in the north are parties who have suffered so badly at the hands of the british that they will never see peace, and gangs who can use their muscle in drug wars.
I try not to get drawn into discussions about the north, cos there is always somebody who knows something different to you who is read y to argue with you, but RC, if you're going to spout so knowledgably about it, read about the history, and not what is going on now.
D