| « Fundamental Failure to Understand Unionists | Who Will Police the Police-Police? » |
There Was No "War"
The suggestion that the group run by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley to look at how best to deal with "the troubles" might recommend the government officially declare that the various murder campaigns constituted a war is a risible attempt to allow the Sinn Fein to justify their crimes.
Yes they were crimes. There was no war. There was a concerted effort by criminal gangs to disrupt law and order and force their will on the population by terrorising them into submission. No amount of retrospective equivocation will ever change that.
It may be well-intentioned but this will not encourage anyone, least of all high-ranking members of Sinn Fein (who have the most to lose) to admit what they have done. All it will end up doing is vindicating their attempts to rewrite history to suit their own narrow sectarian objectives.
"Other mechanisms can be created to encourage paramilitaries to come forward without granting their wish for a rewrite of history."
Stephen Farry MLA, Alliance
The IRA and the alphabet soup of miscellaneous paramilitaries had no recognisable rules of engagement, they did not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, they did not identify themselves as combatants by dressing in military uniforms, instead hiding amongst the law-abiding civilian population, they did not look after prisoners of war (preferring to torture and execute them). Worst of all they targeted civilians (and then lied about it).
Sadly it looks like just another example of the political classes seeking to sacrifice common sense, majority opinion and pure, simple, truth on the altar of political expediency; all in the name of The Process.
Trackback address for this post
75 comments
Well said Beano.
The really sad thing is that it will happen.
Government policy is appeasment and that is likely to continue.
The really sad thing is that it will happen.
Government policy is appeasment and that is likely to continue.
08 Jan 2008 @ 18:31
Well no, this isn't sad. Whether the lot of you want to accept it or not the majority of Republicans recognised it as a war. Not only as a war but a just war.
And Beano saying that Sinn Féin members have the most to lose is bullocks. The people with the most to lose are people like Ronnie Flanagan, Maggie Thatcher and all the other evil bastards who forced British occupation on the people of Ireland and terrorised the Irish people in Northern Ireland.
And Beano saying that Sinn Féin members have the most to lose is bullocks. The people with the most to lose are people like Ronnie Flanagan, Maggie Thatcher and all the other evil bastards who forced British occupation on the people of Ireland and terrorised the Irish people in Northern Ireland.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:11
"majority of Republicans recognised it as a war."
The majority of people didn't. By the way, the majority of children believe Santa's real (sorry kids).
"evil bastards who forced British occupation on the people of Ireland and terrorised the Irish people"
LOL oh for the love of God get over yourself.
The majority of people didn't. By the way, the majority of children believe Santa's real (sorry kids).
"evil bastards who forced British occupation on the people of Ireland and terrorised the Irish people"
LOL oh for the love of God get over yourself.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:15
What, events like Bloody Sunday, Internment, the Falls Curfew weren't evil and terrorist acts?
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:17
And Beano the only reason that the majority of people in Northern Ireland don't view it as a war is a simple sectarian number game, there are more unionist than nationalists.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:24
We'll have to agree to disagree there Seamus. From my experience many Catholics feel something between contempt and apathy for the IRA. Oh and you'll always find the odd loyalist who thought they were fighting a war too, but they're just as wrong as you are.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:27
You still haven't answered the question of whether Bloody Sunday, Internment and the Falls Road curfew, and many other incidents, were terrorist acts.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:31
And from my experience, growing up in a Catholic area, the firm majority of Catholics, while wanting peace, believed in what the IRA were fighting for.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:32
I have no intention of passing judgement on every act that went on here over the past 30 years. Suffice to say I don't think the public will ever know the whole truth about Bloody Sunday, internment was badly organised and a mistake and it's the first I've heard of the curfew.
Finally, believing in what the IRA were fighting for ... Fighting for or claimed to be fighting for? Are we talking united Ireland or the civil rights which were in place by the mid-70s anyway? Either way believing in a cause and supporting violence do not equate. I support what Loyalists (calim to have been) fighting for, yet totally reject their methods and would never claim they were involved in any kind of legitimate war.
Feel free to address my points regarding the conventional 'rules' of war at your convenience.
Finally, believing in what the IRA were fighting for ... Fighting for or claimed to be fighting for? Are we talking united Ireland or the civil rights which were in place by the mid-70s anyway? Either way believing in a cause and supporting violence do not equate. I support what Loyalists (calim to have been) fighting for, yet totally reject their methods and would never claim they were involved in any kind of legitimate war.
Feel free to address my points regarding the conventional 'rules' of war at your convenience.
08 Jan 2008 @ 21:58
Name me one war where the British respected the Rules of War.
08 Jan 2008 @ 23:22
And from my experience, growing up in a Catholic area, the firm majority of Catholics, while wanting peace, believed in what the IRA were fighting for.
And did they agree with their methods?
Under generally accepted international law, "war" is defined as:
"A military conflict between two states or, in the case of civil war, between different groups within a state."
The IRA did not represent any state.
If they, as Seamus alleges, represented the Catholic population of NI you could argue that it was a civil war.
And did they agree with their methods?
Under generally accepted international law, "war" is defined as:
"A military conflict between two states or, in the case of civil war, between different groups within a state."
The IRA did not represent any state.
If they, as Seamus alleges, represented the Catholic population of NI you could argue that it was a civil war.
09 Jan 2008 @ 22:09
Well, there is no actual international law when it comes to the declaration of war. There are laws, the Four Geneva Conventions for example, that deal with the conduct of war, but no international law that deals with the actual declaration of war. That is the difficulty that many non state backed military organisations face. Organisations in history, like the American Continental Army, the Forces Françaises Libres, and the ANC in South Africa, are general viewed in the world today as acceptable, despite the fact that when they declared war against certain governments, (the Americans against the British, the Free French against the Germans, and the ANC against South Africa), they didn't represent actual legitimate states. The reason that people accept these organisations is the fact that they were succesful in supplanting the governments in their country.
09 Jan 2008 @ 22:27
When it comes to declaring whether it could be called a war or whether it could be called a civil war is difficult. If you see the IRA as representative of the catholic population of the North then it is a civil war. If you see them as representative of the IRISH people in the north then it is a war. It is a war between two different nationalities rather than between two different sections of one nationality. If you look at civil wars in history, the English Civil Wars were between two sects of Englishmen. The Irish civil war was between two sects of Irishman. The American civil war was between two different sects of Americans. The Troubles were between to different nationalities, between Irish people and British people, not between different sects of the same people.
09 Jan 2008 @ 22:32
Jesus wept. War? It was a failed attempt to overthrow the legitimate authority and internationally recognised government of the region.
09 Jan 2008 @ 22:53
That is what I am saying. The only difference between terrorist fighting a terrorist campaign and freedom fighters fighting a war, is that freedom fighters win.
09 Jan 2008 @ 23:00
Freedom fighters!!!
Jesus wept.......indeed.
Jesus wept.......indeed.
09 Jan 2008 @ 23:41
If the IRA had defeated the British army then they would be known as Freedom Fighters. If the American Continental Army had lost the American War of Independence then they would be known as terrorists. It is as simple as that.
09 Jan 2008 @ 23:52
The Troubles were between to different nationalities, between Irish people and British people, not between different sects of the same people.
The Unionist people of Northern Ireland are also Irish.
The IRA's "campaign" included such "efforts" as Enniskillen, La Mon and Frizzells, where they massacred their fellow Irish men.
The Unionist people of Northern Ireland are also Irish.
The IRA's "campaign" included such "efforts" as Enniskillen, La Mon and Frizzells, where they massacred their fellow Irish men.
10 Jan 2008 @ 08:57
Not to mention gunning down people going into/coming out of church. Does that sound like the actions of an "army" fighting a "war"?
10 Jan 2008 @ 10:26
When I say they are Irish, then I mean their nationality is Irish, they believe in an independent Irish nation. Most unionist people in Northern Ireland consider Irish as an identity, not a nationality.
10 Jan 2008 @ 17:15
Every war includes the massacre of civilians. Just because the British committed war crimes in Dresden doesn't make the Second World War not a war.
10 Jan 2008 @ 17:16
Comment from: belfastman [Visitor] 
with regards to the past 30 years.
what happened in this period,
a lot of wrongs were committed on both sides,
but this should not be used to say that a war was not being fought.
A war was fought, there was an initial cause, wrongs were then committed on both sides and the war ended.
the british government treated it like a war.
Whatever your view on the IRA, the wrongs that people suffered under the PIRA and the British army and UDA,. a war was clearly being fought,
secret agents were sent to spy on both sides, it was not a totally open war but was a war none the less.
If people want to know the full truth f what happened, by admitting the war and getting people to speak the truth on both sides without fear, maybe the North of Ireland will become a better place for the future. I understand how people can detest the PIRA and also can understand why people hate the British Army, if you hate or love the PIRA, they did have an initial cause, then greed and many wrongs were committed on both sides.
wrongs were committed in World War 2 and 1 by both sides, does that mean it was not a war?
the Vietnam War?
what happened in this period,
a lot of wrongs were committed on both sides,
but this should not be used to say that a war was not being fought.
A war was fought, there was an initial cause, wrongs were then committed on both sides and the war ended.
the british government treated it like a war.
Whatever your view on the IRA, the wrongs that people suffered under the PIRA and the British army and UDA,. a war was clearly being fought,
secret agents were sent to spy on both sides, it was not a totally open war but was a war none the less.
If people want to know the full truth f what happened, by admitting the war and getting people to speak the truth on both sides without fear, maybe the North of Ireland will become a better place for the future. I understand how people can detest the PIRA and also can understand why people hate the British Army, if you hate or love the PIRA, they did have an initial cause, then greed and many wrongs were committed on both sides.
wrongs were committed in World War 2 and 1 by both sides, does that mean it was not a war?
the Vietnam War?
10 Jan 2008 @ 20:53
Belfastman
The 'North of Ireland' will never be a better place to live when people like you are so embittered with hatred that you can't even bring yourself to call NORTHERN IRELAND by it's correct name.
Until as something as simple as that happens there is no future for anyone.
The 'North of Ireland' will never be a better place to live when people like you are so embittered with hatred that you can't even bring yourself to call NORTHERN IRELAND by it's correct name.
Until as something as simple as that happens there is no future for anyone.
10 Jan 2008 @ 23:17
Considering this blog is called 'Everything Ulster' I think most people are used to people using different terms for Northern Ireland, whether it be Ulster, the North or even Norn Iron.
11 Jan 2008 @ 00:28
Comment from: belfastman [Visitor]
sorry to be more correct Jumkmale to help you understand my point if you read it N.Ireland.
does that help to clarify any confusion,
I know it must have been hard for you.
Read my point and don't make comments that have very little to do with my point
does that help to clarify any confusion,
I know it must have been hard for you.
Read my point and don't make comments that have very little to do with my point
11 Jan 2008 @ 12:54
It perfectly addresses your point Belfastman, in that it's meaningless. Until people like yourself recognise that Northern Ireland has a right to exist we are all going nowhere.
Just around and around the same never ending circle.
Just around and around the same never ending circle.
11 Jan 2008 @ 17:04
Comment from: Reg [Visitor]
"The 'North of Ireland' will never be a better place to live when people like you are so embittered with hatred that you can't even bring yourself to call NORTHERN IRELAND by it's correct name."
What's the difference? You knew where he meant. IAnyway it's hardly hatred and embitterment; it's just choosing a more preferred name.
What's the difference? You knew where he meant. IAnyway it's hardly hatred and embitterment; it's just choosing a more preferred name.
11 Jan 2008 @ 17:55
Comment from: belfastman [Visitor]
Until people like yourself recognise that Northern Ireland has a right to exist we are all going nowhere.
Just like I recognise your beliefs
you must respect and honour mine
While I am open and respect your beliefs, all you do is show hatred for mine.
Just like I recognise your beliefs
you must respect and honour mine
While I am open and respect your beliefs, all you do is show hatred for mine.
11 Jan 2008 @ 18:00
Guys can we stick to the topic?
And while we're at it, leave the self-righteous stuff about "honouring beliefs" out of it. If we really must do this I'll do a post on terminology another time.
And while we're at it, leave the self-righteous stuff about "honouring beliefs" out of it. If we really must do this I'll do a post on terminology another time.
11 Jan 2008 @ 18:08
Comment from: belfastman [Visitor]
How else but by the government admitting ti was a war will the truth ever come out about N.Irelands(North of Irelands) dark past.
I would say that a war was being fought, the PIRA had a cause at the start, became corrupted by greed and committed many wrongs, but none the less a war of some sort was fought. By admitting this the truth might start to filter out. Just like the PIRA killed innocent people so did the British Army as well as secret agents AKA Stakeknife who killed other agents to maintain his position as head of the nutting squad, as well as bloody sunday which is another debate altogether.
I would say to Junkmale how with your comments made do you reallly think N.Ireland is to become a better place. Would you ever be friends with a republican? or are they just too bitter and twisted.
I would say that a war was being fought, the PIRA had a cause at the start, became corrupted by greed and committed many wrongs, but none the less a war of some sort was fought. By admitting this the truth might start to filter out. Just like the PIRA killed innocent people so did the British Army as well as secret agents AKA Stakeknife who killed other agents to maintain his position as head of the nutting squad, as well as bloody sunday which is another debate altogether.
I would say to Junkmale how with your comments made do you reallly think N.Ireland is to become a better place. Would you ever be friends with a republican? or are they just too bitter and twisted.
11 Jan 2008 @ 18:45
"How else but by the government admitting ti was a war will the truth ever come out about N.Irelands(North of Irelands) dark past."
Two things:
1. Are you assuming the truth would come out if this sort of amnesty were granted? I still think SF (among others, I'm sure) have too much to lose for the likes of Adams and McGuinness to admit what the dog in the street knows.
2. Even if it did, would it be worth it to literally let people away with murder? (Although to be fair, I think the agreement already did that).
Two things:
1. Are you assuming the truth would come out if this sort of amnesty were granted? I still think SF (among others, I'm sure) have too much to lose for the likes of Adams and McGuinness to admit what the dog in the street knows.
2. Even if it did, would it be worth it to literally let people away with murder? (Although to be fair, I think the agreement already did that).
12 Jan 2008 @ 01:18
Because it would be closure Beano. Currently, people whose loved ones were murdered don't know who killed their loved ones or even have an understanding of why. The people who killed their loved ones aren't in gaol and aren't ever going to go to gaol. An amnesty should not be a complete amnesty, but only for people who give information to a Truth and Reconciliation commission. Only then will all the things that happened in the Troubles, and most importantly, why they happened, come to light.
12 Jan 2008 @ 10:06
Comment from: yermanthere [Visitor]
If the situation here was a war, then the IRA broke the basic rules of engagement by the Geneva Convention and are guilty of war crimes. Stting off firebombs in the windows of a hotel where a kids party was to be held was not an act of war. Taking ten men out of a mini bus and cutting them down and leaving them lying on the road like animals was not an act of war.
16 Jan 2008 @ 22:53
Bombing a city and killing 40,000 people isn't an act of war but Arthur "Bomber" Harris was never convicted of war crimes. Just because the IRA committed acts that aren't acts of war doesn't mean that the conflict wasn't a war.
17 Jan 2008 @ 16:54
What about the Battle of the Bogside in 1969?
18 Jan 2008 @ 12:49
A glorified riot.
18 Jan 2008 @ 13:00
Still called a battle.
18 Jan 2008 @ 17:26
Comment from: Reg [Visitor]
Sure the Battle of Dolly's Brae was a glorified riot as well. (Nice part of the world, mind.)
18 Jan 2008 @ 17:33
Seamus, lots of things get called lots of things that aren't accurate. For a topical example, Saint Patrick isn't really a saint (never being canonised by the Pope).
18 Jan 2008 @ 17:48
Up until about 1000AD Saints were canonized at a Diocesan level, not by the Pope. Many of the most famous Saints in History were not canonized by the Pope, such as eleven of the Twelve Apostles. The first Saint canonized by the Pope was Saint Udalric, canonized by Pope John XV in 993. Are you saying every other Saint before Saint Udalric aren't Saints?
But to an extent, I agree about things getting called things when they aren't accurate. [EDITED - any more of that shite and you're getting banned Seamus]
But to an extent, I agree about things getting called things when they aren't accurate. [EDITED - any more of that shite and you're getting banned Seamus]
18 Jan 2008 @ 21:38
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
Seamus/Beano,
Jersey holds an annual "Battle of the Flowers" - usually with remarkably few fatalities.
I meant real battles, not riots that lasted half an hour longer than usual.
Jersey holds an annual "Battle of the Flowers" - usually with remarkably few fatalities.
I meant real battles, not riots that lasted half an hour longer than usual.
19 Jan 2008 @ 21:51
But Da, who decides what is a battle. The IRA once had a gun battle with the British Army across the Dunville Park in West Belfast. Two units firing at each other against a stretch of open terrain. Seems a lot like the Battles of the First World War.
19 Jan 2008 @ 22:03
Comment from: Adam Hardie [Visitor]
Seamus
The Diocesan or the Pope's of sainthood is totally ubsurb. They wait until a person is dead before they call he/she a saint. However in the New Testament Epistles these letters were written to the saints in particular places. Funny thing though Im sure these church members were still living (please correct me if I am wrong) Within religion the whole concept of "sainthood" is simply a person who has been set apart for a specific work to do. Can dead people work?!!!!!
Theology Teacher
aha
23 Jan 2008 @ 18:16
Many of the Saints do have work to do. Many people pray to the Saints, talk to God through the Saints etc.
To respond to people in the New Testament being referred to as saints, saint is a title that just means holy, from the Latin Sanctus. Most of the early Christians were all called saints, meaning holy. As the Faith grew in Rome it began to refer only to a specific few who where recognised as being exceptionally holy men or women.
To respond to people in the New Testament being referred to as saints, saint is a title that just means holy, from the Latin Sanctus. Most of the early Christians were all called saints, meaning holy. As the Faith grew in Rome it began to refer only to a specific few who where recognised as being exceptionally holy men or women.
23 Jan 2008 @ 19:42
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
Seamus "Seems a lot like the Battles of the First World War".
Now you really have lost the plot, Seamus. To compare a minor skirmish like this with World War One really is pathetic.
I think it says a lot about you, though.
Now you really have lost the plot, Seamus. To compare a minor skirmish like this with World War One really is pathetic.
I think it says a lot about you, though.
24 Jan 2008 @ 19:47
It's just a comparison. The only difference is that they didn't run straight at machine gun fire. And how is it pathetic. Yes World War One was larger, but that doesn't mean a comparison can't be made.
25 Jan 2008 @ 10:43
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
The "only" difference. Have a wee think about that.
I think I'll stand by my previous comment.
I think I'll stand by my previous comment.
26 Jan 2008 @ 18:28
Tell me in what way the two were massively different.
26 Jan 2008 @ 22:11
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
They are about as similar as a snowball fight and an atomic bomb blast.
Look into your reasoning for trying to pretend they are similar and you might learn something about your own hatreds and tribalism.
Look into your reasoning for trying to pretend they are similar and you might learn something about your own hatreds and tribalism.
27 Jan 2008 @ 20:31
Well, tell me in what way the two differ and I'll answer. You haven't given me a way that they two are different.
27 Jan 2008 @ 20:59
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
It's like trying to sum up "War and Peace" in a sentence, Seamus.
Briefly - World War One consisted of standing and conscript armies from all over Europe and beyond, they had defined lines which they attacked and/or defended, they wore uniforms so that they could identify who was who, they weren't able to go home when they felt like it, they didn't complain about "shoot to kill" tactics ('cos it was a war you see).
I could go on but, as I said previously, the fact that you can't, or don't want to, see the difference seems to me to reflect more on your own prejudices.
Your skirmish at Dunville Park, in the setting of the First World War, wouldn't have merited a mention in the newspapers of the day bearing in mind what was happening on the Western Front.
Briefly - World War One consisted of standing and conscript armies from all over Europe and beyond, they had defined lines which they attacked and/or defended, they wore uniforms so that they could identify who was who, they weren't able to go home when they felt like it, they didn't complain about "shoot to kill" tactics ('cos it was a war you see).
I could go on but, as I said previously, the fact that you can't, or don't want to, see the difference seems to me to reflect more on your own prejudices.
Your skirmish at Dunville Park, in the setting of the First World War, wouldn't have merited a mention in the newspapers of the day bearing in mind what was happening on the Western Front.
27 Jan 2008 @ 22:42
Yes, World War One was on a larger scale, and the combatants wore uniforms. I personally have no problem with shoot to kill. I know people who do but I disagree with them. But the basic principle of two armed units firing across at each other still in my mind constitutes a battle, so the skirmishes that happened all over the North were minor battles.
28 Jan 2008 @ 00:52
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
At least we have got you down to "minor battles," Seamus - these would, presumably, include one shot being fired and then the perpetrators fleeing the scene? So the murder of civilians, even unarmed ones, on either side was also a minor battle?
You will never convince me of that - and I don't think I'm alone in that view.
You will never convince me of that - and I don't think I'm alone in that view.
28 Jan 2008 @ 23:23
One shot sniper attacks happen in war. During Vietnam and World War 2, the sniper was one of the most feared units in the army. The killing of civilians happens as well in war. The majority of people killed World War 2 were civilians, unarmed civilians. Not everything that happens in war are battles. Bombings also occur in war. The murder of civilians happens in war.
29 Jan 2008 @ 01:35
Lots of things happen in war Seamus.
The sun rises and sets every day during a war, but that doesn't mean that we're in a war because the sun rises. The Austin Sniper wasn't fighting a war. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't fighting a war.
The sun rises and sets every day during a war, but that doesn't mean that we're in a war because the sun rises. The Austin Sniper wasn't fighting a war. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't fighting a war.
29 Jan 2008 @ 10:04
Well, if there was a war, I would want Lee Harvey Oswald on my side, as he can shoot around corners. But the point I was making is that everything that happened in the troubles happens in war and everything that happened in most wars, happened in the troubles.
29 Jan 2008 @ 17:11
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
I would have to point out one major exception to your theory, Seamus.
In a war it normally doesn't fall to one side only to decide when they are "soldiers" and when they are "civilians".
In a war you don't go out to shoot someone and half an hour later decide that you are a civilian again.
In a war it normally doesn't fall to one side only to decide when they are "soldiers" and when they are "civilians".
In a war you don't go out to shoot someone and half an hour later decide that you are a civilian again.
29 Jan 2008 @ 21:29
Yes that is what makes it a Guerrilla war. The French Resistance used those tactics during the Second World War. It's a very effective means of combat when facing a larger, more equipped enemy.
29 Jan 2008 @ 23:14
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
You're not trying to compare the Provisionals with the French Resistance - are you?
I can't recall the Nazis allowing marches by the Resistance, allowing them to stand in elections, having to listen to allegations of shoot-to kill etc etc.
Give me a break!
I can't recall the Nazis allowing marches by the Resistance, allowing them to stand in elections, having to listen to allegations of shoot-to kill etc etc.
Give me a break!
02 Feb 2008 @ 19:59
Last time I checked, the IRA aren't allowed to march, aren't allowed to stand in elections etc. etc.
03 Feb 2008 @ 00:19
And yet they do.. Hmm, funny that.
03 Feb 2008 @ 14:56
If the British Government had thought they would have got away with stopping Sinn Féin contesting elections they would have. And my linking the IRA to the French Resistance is simply in terms of the tactics in which they used. Even people who disagree with what the IRA stand for and fought for can't disagree that they used the same tactics as the French Resistance.
03 Feb 2008 @ 16:09
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
I think you will find that the French Resistance targeted the Nazis, not civilians with maybe the occasional assault on the army if it suited. I don't recall hearing of their heroic efforts targetting businesses either.
Of course some of the tactics were the same or similar (shooting someone is shooting someone) but I think you are trying to justify things to suit your own beliefs and prejudices, Seamus.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it was fine for the IRA to shoot any Protestants/Unionists because they were "collaborators."
I don't think the French Resistance would be acclaimed for something like the Darkley massacre.
Of course some of the tactics were the same or similar (shooting someone is shooting someone) but I think you are trying to justify things to suit your own beliefs and prejudices, Seamus.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it was fine for the IRA to shoot any Protestants/Unionists because they were "collaborators."
I don't think the French Resistance would be acclaimed for something like the Darkley massacre.
04 Feb 2008 @ 00:59
Actually, Marquis, the major group in the French Resistance used bombings as a major tactic, whether it be bombing of factories, or civilian infrastructure. They targeted business and political leaders who collaborated with the Germans. And in terms of justifying the IRA, I don't need to. I believe in what the IRA fought for and you don't. Nothing either you or I are ever going to say are going to change that for either of us.
And just to point out, the IRA didn't commit Darkley, the INLA did.
And just to point out, the IRA didn't commit Darkley, the INLA did.
04 Feb 2008 @ 10:02
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
Let's not get silly now! It's "Maquis" not "Marquis" but the principle is the same.
Basically, Seamus, from what you say you believe that killing people who disagree with you politically is fine and I disagree with that.
I notice you avoided responding to the comment I made about shooting "collaborators", which really tells me a lot about how you see life.
We could go on like this for ever but let's just say I don't think people should be killed because they disagree with me. You appear to feel that it is okay.
Basically, Seamus, from what you say you believe that killing people who disagree with you politically is fine and I disagree with that.
I notice you avoided responding to the comment I made about shooting "collaborators", which really tells me a lot about how you see life.
We could go on like this for ever but let's just say I don't think people should be killed because they disagree with me. You appear to feel that it is okay.
05 Feb 2008 @ 21:55
My mistake about the name "Maquis". That aside, your comments about me believing in killing people who don't agree with me couldn't be further from the truth. I believe in the freedom of my country and like shown by patriots around the world, if an obstacle to your country's freedom stands in your way then you remove that obstacle by any means. I believe that any man has the right to lift up arms to expel the army occupying their country.
05 Feb 2008 @ 23:18
The problem, Seamus, is that nobody but the Ra recognise the British presence here as a military occupation. How far are you prepared twist reality to justify murder?
05 Feb 2008 @ 23:47
No, the majority of the Nationalist population viewed it as a military occupation. There were just some who were willing to do more to end it.
06 Feb 2008 @ 21:58
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
Seamus
"if an obstacle to your country's freedom stands in your way then you remove that obstacle by any means."
You must be a big fan of the UVF and UFF as well then Seamus!
"if an obstacle to your country's freedom stands in your way then you remove that obstacle by any means."
You must be a big fan of the UVF and UFF as well then Seamus!
07 Feb 2008 @ 20:42
I didn't agree with what they fought for but I respect their right to fight for their country. I have as much respect for men and women who fought and died for Ulster as I do for men and women who fought and died for France or England or America.
07 Feb 2008 @ 22:42
I am a pacifist. But also as I pointed out in another topic, there is a difference between peace and non violence. I would prefer if disputes are sorted out peacefully but if they can't I hold a lot of respect for the people who die for country.
There are many British pacifists who would still wear their poppies. Surely in your opinion Da those two can't go together.
There are many British pacifists who would still wear their poppies. Surely in your opinion Da those two can't go together.
09 Feb 2008 @ 18:14
Comment from: Da [Visitor]
I don't see a problem with being a pacifist and honouring fallen soldiers - maybe it can even go some way towards stopping major wars ever happening again.
You seem to be a pacifist who approves of taking up arms in some circumstances.
That's the bit I find strange.
You seem to be a pacifist who approves of taking up arms in some circumstances.
That's the bit I find strange.
10 Feb 2008 @ 18:01
Because a pacifist is someone who wants to avoid war. I would prefer if disputes were settled peacefully but I don't believe at peace at any cost. Most pacifist would for example know that the Second World War had to happen.
10 Feb 2008 @ 22:06
Comment feed for this post