I take it you're anti-agreement then. I also take it you don't mind innocent people being killed in cold blood for the sake of a strip of polyester on a stick.
Elliot:
"I take it you're anti-agreement then"
No Eilliot, I am a staunch advocate of the movements peace strategy and believe it is the best blue print for realising the re-unification of this island. I was merely stating that the youth of to-day should have more respect for the freedom fighters of yeter year and should not be quick to dismiss their contribution. How does this make me anti-GFA?
"I also take it you don't mind innocent people being killed in cold blood "
Wrong agin Eilliot (or should that be idiot) hence why I am opposed to the British occupation of the 6 co's and support the republican movement in their quest for re-unification.
Adelante
"No Eilliot, I am a staunch advocate of the movements peace strategy and believe it is the best blue print for realising the re-unification of this island."
If the agreement is the best way forward what was all the fighting for?
"I was merely stating that the youth of to-day should have more respect for the freedom fighters of yeter year and should not be quick to dismiss their contribution. How does this make me anti-GFA?"
Their contribution can largely be summed up as pointless bloodshed with an aim that is contradictory to the principle of consent that was enshrined in the agreement which came about when it was finally acknowledged said bloodshed wasn't helping.
"Wrong agin Eilliot (or should that be idiot) hence why I am opposed to the British occupation of the 6 co's and support the republican movement in their quest for re-unification."
If you were talking about the republicans of the Tan War in your original post I would agree with you but as that is not the case I can only surmise that your regard for innocent life is selective at best.
As for idiocy I think the real idiot here is the one tongueing the arse-holes of men who kept what is widely known as a grubby secterian conflict with pretensions going for thirty years when what is really needed is to try and undo the hateful legacy left by both them and their opponents.
Eilliot:
"If the agreement is the best way forward what was all the fighting for?"
As someone of the Unionist persuasion you would see the post partition 6 co's as perfectly acceptable. What was all the bloodshed for? As a Unionist perhaps you could ask your loyalist cohorts in the UVF as they carried out the first killings of the so called troubles and indeed killed the first cop. So Eilliot it was loyalists and the Unionist regime that stoked the fires of secterianism. Demanding Civil Rights is hardly engaging in a secterian war is it Eilliot? Was defending Bombay ST or St Matthews acts of bloodshed Eilliot? The only onesd intent on blood shed were the Unionist militia attacking the homes of Nationalists. Indeed Eilliot were the forces of so called law and order not willing participants in these pograms Eilliot. Indeed were it not for the IRA the entire Nationalist population would have been eth ically cleansed. Protection and self defence is why Nationalists and rtepublicans took up arms. As for why there was bloodshed as a Unionist I feel tyou are better placed than me to answer that Eilliot!
Adelante
"As someone of the Unionist persuasion you would see the post partition 6 co's as perfectly acceptable."
No I wouldn't, it was horrible, and don't make assumptioms about my 'persuasion' I'm not fond of either alignment. I also take exception to being accussed of supporting the UVF, I'm not like you, I don't look up to terrorists.
"Demanding Civil Rights is hardly engaging in a secterian war is it Eilliot?"
But the PIRA weren't demanding civil rights were they? they helped kill that movement as sure as the loyalists did. In fact their methods flew in the face of the ideal of passive resistance, you're equating NICRA to the likes of the Provos is, like you, deeply insulting.
"The only onesd intent on blood shed were the Unionist militia attacking the homes of Nationalists."
And I suppose leaving bombs in cars was a more rigorous method of clamping was it? What did they think would come pouring out of the men they'd forced out of the bus just outside of Kingsmill, candy?
"Protection and self defence is why Nationalists and rtepublicans took up arms."
Retaliation is not self defense, it is revenge and revenge is the preserve of the petty, the bitter, the hedonistic and the over-proud. None of these classes of people are well regarded in society and for good reason.
Eilliot:
Your post is riddled with inaccuracy and sheer incompetence.
"But the PIRA weren't demanding civil rights were they? they helped kill that movement as sure as the loyalists did. In fact their methods flew in the face of the ideal of passive resistance, "
We all know what resulted from this passive activity ie Bloody Sunday and Burntollet. Are you suggesting that Nationalists should have remained sitting ducks for loyalists and trigger happy Paras? Indeed Bloody Sunday demonstrated the futility of peaceful protest aginst what was irrefutably a regime incapable of reform. The NICRA were never going to succeed in their campaign of reform. The Nationalist community realised this and flocked in their thousands to the PIRA. Who else was going to defend them? Bombay St showed the police force were not interested and Bloody Sunday showed the real purpose of the British Army on the streets of the 6 co's. If anyone killed the NICRA Idiot it was the Paras that massacred 14 innocent civilians!
"What did they think would come pouring out of the men they'd forced out of the bus just outside of Kingsmill, candy?"
Kingsmill occured against a backdrop of secterian onslaught against the Nationalist community in S Armagh. The Reaveys, Donnellys, Ludlow, JF Green, Martin Rowland, but you have divorced Kingsmill from its context. Kingsmill demonstrated to the Glenanne Gang, aided, abetted and directed by the RUC, the cost of such a ploicy odf ethnic cleansing in S Armagh. Indeed Idiot, Kingsmill put an end to the slaughter of innocnent Nationalists by the Glenanne Gang. This was later followed by the execution by the 1st Batt S Armagh Brigade Oglaigh na hEireann of several of the dispicable creatures implicated in the Glenanne Gang attacks!
"Retaliation is not self defense, it is revenge and revenge is the preserve of the petty, the bitter, the hedonistic and the over-proud"
Kingsmill was not retailiation, it was apre-emptive strike that showed loyalists the consquences of their murderous campaign. Indded the blame for this entire episode lies with the RUC and securocrats who directed, armed, and assisted the Glenanne Gang, Eiliot!
Adelante
"We all know what resulted from this passive activity ie Bloody Sunday and Burntollet."
You don't seem to have much of an idea what a civil rights movement in the American style is all about. You don't lash out, you don't send people out on reprisals, you stand with your head held high and show that no amount of threats or abuse will make you back down or turn into a paranoid thug like them.
"Bombay St showed the police force were not interested and Bloody Sunday showed the real purpose of the British Army on the streets of the 6 co's."
The various police forces in the US weren't interested either, did that stop King? I would agree with you on Bloody Sunday had the PIRA not been active and armed and attacking British forces in Northern Ireland in the years prior to the march. I'm in no way trying to justify what happened that day (trying to blame someone's actions on other people is more in your area) but given the condiditons the killings took place in I would hardly say PIRA were any help in preventing things from escalating.
"If anyone killed the NICRA Idiot..."
Glad to hear your opinion on non-violence, very christian of you.
"Kingsmill occured against a backdrop of secterian onslaught against the Nationalist community in S Armagh. The Reaveys, Donnellys, Ludlow, JF Green, Martin Rowland, but you have divorced Kingsmill from its context."
So Kingsmill was a reprisal then. I beleive I've already made myself clear in what I think of reprisals, they only make things worse and are murders just like the murders used to justify them. You can throw up all the names and numbers you like but where you see a sectarian bodycount I just see a slightly larger pile of innocent dead.
"Indeed Idiot, Kingsmill put an end to the slaughter of innocnent Nationalists by the Glenanne Gang."
Now who's divorcing events from their context? Those are the stated reason amongst various loyalist terrorists for making the decision to toss away their humanity. No matter why you do it every innocent man, woman and child whose life is ended before its time in a conflict such as the Troubles will see the recruitment of yet more terrorists who go on to take more innocent lives, see what I'm getting at?
"This was later followed by the execution by the 1st Batt S Armagh Brigade Oglaigh na hEireann of several of the dispicable creatures implicated in the Glenanne Gang attacks!"
Bully for them, but if it was within their power to do so why did they not just do that instead of killing more innocent people?
"Kingsmill was not retailiation, it was apre-emptive strike that showed loyalists the consquences of their murderous campaign. Indded the blame for this entire episode lies with the RUC and securocrats who directed, armed, and assisted the Glenanne Gang, Eiliot!"
Pre-emptive strikes are supposed to pre-empt whatever it is their striking against. I doubt it was much comfort to all those poor p
people whose names you've thrown about or their relatives.
Now I've got places to be so I will be out of your hair for the next while so in parting I'd like to point out you've just tried to justify taking innocent human life. So congratulations! you fail at humanity!
Outstanding thread Adelante!
We all should remember these volunteers who fought for us.
I watched the video on the website it was great, funny enough the opening scenes have Glasgow cross viewed from Argyle street with the Barras behind, and the Calton area merged into it. The statue is actually of King Billy, he of questionable masculinity. And has now been retired to a quiet spot up near the top of High st. There is a famous play called Calton to Catalonia, based on the experiences of the Maley brothers. The link is below.
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL...ALTON/
catal.htm
A great line in it goes like;
"Franco in the middle. Mussolini oan the right-wing. Hitler waitin' tae come oan. When they three goat thigether an came up against the Spanish workers, they didnae expect the Calton tae offer handers."
I've never managed to see the play but intend to next time it's performed.
Oh and Elliot, I see no shame in remembering with honour those volunteers who gladly gave up their normal lives, and some their actual lives.
Do you treat others with the same standards that you seem to be treating Republicans with?
Tony
Yes I do. Willfully killing an innocent person for any reason or advocating doing so is repulsive be it PIRA, RIRA, UVF, UDA, RUC, British Army, MI5, IDF, Mossad, Hamas, Fatah, US Army, CIA, Al Qaeda etc etc.
3 of my family members served time in prison for their Republican activities so I have a lot of respect for POWs who served time and are currently serving time. It annoys me that a lot of former prisoners seem to have been forgotten about.
For example in the Simon Community in Newry there are currently 3 Ex-POWs one of which was an internee, and all of them alcholics. If there was some sort of support group or a club where these men could call in to their lives could be a lot better.
A place where these men could meet for a cup of tea, a sandwhich and a bit of craic would mean the world to them and a lot more like them as there are between 60-70 Ex-POWs in the Newry area.
Are you a pacifist Elliot?
Observer
No. I just don't see any reason to run around murdering non-combatants, sadly too many people seem to think it's a good idea.
Eilliot:
"I just don't see any reason to run around murdering non-combatants"
What about the massacre on Bloody Sunday? Eilliot it is ok for the likes of you sitting in cosy little places. It was never your door kicked off its hinges, its was never you dragged from your bed or you that was beaten after Brits took you out of your car in front of your children! Your response to Bloody Sunday is do nothing and march again and no doubt another 14 will get shot! This is absolutely absurd. You are arguing that the opressed have no right to use physical violence to over throw their opressors. This puts you in a league with the opressoors! It was the Brits that started the whole sorry mess. Look at the history books Eiliot this is obvious. Passive resistance was not very successful during Internment or Bloody Sunday was it Eilliot? Are you saying that Nationalists should have stood idly by and watch their homes in Bombay St and watched ST Matthews Chapel get burned to the ground? Your argument defies all logic in this context Eiliot!
"No. I just don't see any reason to run around murdering non-combatants, sadly too many people seem to think it's a good idea."
I presume, as you are not a pacifist, you support the use of lethal force if you could see a reason for its use?
Adelante.
"They was meeeeeeaaaaaannnn to us!"
No disrespect to the dead whose bones you're rattling so vigourously but quite fankly I think this is substanceless bullshit as far as this discussion is concerned. My position is that deliberately killing non-combatants is reprehensible, your reflexive MOPEing adds nothing to this debate as it does noting to address that point.
"Eilliot it is ok for the likes of you sitting in cosy little places. It was never your door kicked off its hinges, its was never you dragged from your bed or you that was beaten after Brits took you out of your car in front of your children!"
Oh yes silly me! Everyone knows that anger clouding judgement is a myth! I bow to your irate pubescent wisdom.
"You are arguing that the opressed have no right to use physical violence to over throw their opressors."
No. I'm arguing that no-one has the right to kill innocent people.
"It was the Brits that started the whole sorry mess."
Only half right I'm afraid.
"Look at the history books Eiliot this is obvious."
I have and while doing so I noticed that PIRA were engaged in what most people would call shit stirring.
"Your response to Bloody Sunday is do nothing and march again and no doubt another 14 will get shot!"
Oh well looks like you've got me again. It's plainly a better idea to go to war for thirty years and get 1855 more killed instead.
"Passive resistance was not very successful during Internment or Bloody Sunday was it Eilliot?"
Am I speaking Swahili or something? Passive resistance is intended to humiliate and discredit the opposition, the British Army didn't come out smelling of roses did they Adelante?
"Are you saying that Nationalists should have stood idly by and watch their homes in Bombay St and watched ST Matthews Chapel get burned to the ground?"
No. Your turn: Should Unionists have stood idly by and let their friends and family get murdered for acts perpetrated by other people?
Observer.
Yes I do see a need for lethal force if the need arises, I don't see how that justifies seeking out unarmed civilians and killing them.
Eilliot:
"I have and while doing so I noticed that PIRA were engaged in what most people would call shit stirring."
You have a bizzare notion of 'shit stirring Eilliot. It seems that from above that you consider supporting demands for Civil Rights as shit stirring. It also seems that you regard defending your neighbourhood from onslaught at the hands of loyalists and state forces as shit stirring. If this was the case then anyone with a shred of moral fibre or indeed any length of back bone would be guilty of shit stirring. This is absurd Eilliot!
"You are arguing that the opressed have no right to use physical violence to over throw their opressors."
No."
But according to the above this defence was shit stirring Eiliot. You can not have it both ways.
"Yes I do see a need for lethal force if the need arises"
And the massacre of 14 innocent civilians in Free Derry on Bloody Sunday didn't demonstrate this? Was this not indicative of how futile passive resistance was in the Unionist dominated 6 co's at the time? The Falls Curfew, Internment, Bloody Sunday, Harry Thorton, St Matthews, Bombay St, Burntollet Bridge, all showed the hostility of the stae towards Nationalists. This was manifest by lethal force in several of the above cases. Was it not time for this lethal force? Is the murder of innocent Nationalists by state forces and thier surrogates in loyalist death squads not one of the needs that arise that you spoke of? Is the massacre of your own people not the greatest platform for one to resist the forces of tyranny in arms?
"You have a bizzare notion of 'shit stirring Eilliot. It seems that from above that you consider supporting demands for Civil Rights as shit stirring. It also seems that you regard defending your neighbourhood from onslaught at the hands of loyalists and state forces as shit stirring. If this was the case then anyone with a shred of moral fibre or indeed any length of back bone would be guilty of shit stirring. This is absurd Eilliot!"
Seeing off a bunch of rioters intent on burning your home is understandable. Tossing grenades at soldiers during a search for illegal weapons is quite another kettle of fish, and guess what PIRA did? Thanks to that stroke of genius the Lower Falls was a war zone for the next two days. To escalate a bad situation is to stir shit.
This is on top of the grenade thrown into a Belfast police station the following year and the deaths of BBC staff and construction workers when they drove over a Provo landmine escalation, escalation, escalation.
"And the massacre of 14 innocent civilians in Free Derry on Bloody Sunday didn't demonstrate this? Was this not indicative of how futile passive resistance was in the Unionist dominated 6 co's at the time?"
That year saw an end of the Unionist dominated Stormont and an end to gerrymandered local councils in Northern Ireland as well as the equalisation of voting rights. What was that about futility?
"Is the murder of innocent Nationalists by state forces and thier surrogates in loyalist death squads not one of the needs that arise that you spoke of?"
I've said before yes. Provided lethal force is directed at the people responsible and not unarmed civilians, which is the poit I have been making and you have been ignoring.
"Yes I do see a need for lethal force if the need arises, I don't see how that justifies seeking out unarmed civilians and killing them."
Who decides when the "need" for lethal force has arisen?
Observer
Whoever is under attack. If you are faced with someone showing every intention of ending your life fight back, no-one is disputing this as I have said over and over again my point is that killing non-combatants does not constitute a legitimate defense, it is not within their power to harm you and it gives legitimacy to those in whose power it is.
Eilliot:
You really have dug a hole for yourself this time.
"Seeing off a bunch of rioters intent on burning your home is understandable. Tossing grenades at soldiers during a search for illegal weapons is quite another kettle of fish,"
And why were those illegal weapons there Eilliot? Because the very people 'searching' for them were doing absolutely nothing with their legally held weapons to defend the Nationalist community! Would it not have been a better use of their time to defend Nationalist areas from loyalist pograms rather than tear them up looking for weapons that were effectively for self defence? Indeed why did they not raid loyalist areas for illegal weapons? The UVF had been active since 1966 and had already murdered several Ctholics as well as security personnel.
"I've said before yes. Provided lethal force is directed at the people responsible 2
But you said earlier that by killing members of the British forces (the ones responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre) the PIRA were shit stirring! This position is illogical and untenable Eilliot. You can't have both sides of the argument!
"This is on top of the grenade thrown into a Belfast police station the following year "
Was this not the same police force that partook in the attack at Burntollet and the burning of Bombay St? Once again is this not the case of hitting back at those involved Eilliot?
"That year saw an end of the Unionist dominated Stormont and an end to gerrymandered local councils in Northern Ireland as well as the equalisation of voting rights. What was that about futility"
Stormont was prorogued due to the overwhelming escalation of violence. To think otherwise is naive Eilliot!
Adelante:
"And why were those illegal weapons there Eilliot? Because the very people 'searching' for them were doing absolutely nothing with their legally held weapons to defend the Nationalist community!"
Actually those weapons were there to force the North into a united Ireland, which I understand was the sole objective of the IRA. It should also be pointed out that the weapons in question were only a part of what was found after the Provos decided to start lobbing grenades and would have been all that was found if they'd have kept their bombs to themselves.
"Indeed why did they not raid loyalist areas for illegal weapons? The UVF had been active since 1966 and had already murdered several Ctholics as well as security personnel."
For the first time ever Adelante you present me with a poser. I put it down to an ill thought remit given to the troops in that they were instructed to act in aid of the police, whose partiality is well known, and a decision to indulge in the bloody factionalism of the time period subsequent to being fired upon.
"But you said earlier that by killing members of the British forces (the ones responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre) the PIRA were shit stirring!"
Well then can you explain why they were doing it two years before it actually happened? Can you also explain why these valiant protecters did nothing while it was actually happening?
"Was this not the same police force that partook in the attack at Burntollet and the burning of Bombay St? Once again is this not the case of hitting back at those involved Eilliot?"
It's hitting back after the fact, an act known as retaliation. That grenade prevented no deaths in Nationalist areas and most likely spurred on loyalists to greater heights which would have caused more attacks in response again I say: Escalation. I also see those men from the BBC have slipped your mind, care to explain how that was defending the Nationalist community?
"Stormont was prorogued due to the overwhelming escalation of violence. To think otherwise is naive Eilliot!"
It was prorogued for refusing to let Westminster take full charge over public order and security, in IMHO this should have been followed by a purge of local security institutions.
Now would you like to tell me how murdering non-combatants is justified by all this? I'd say that you don't seem to remember the point I'm making but it's plain you're just ignoring it in favour of pointing accusatory fingers at some straw-man you have lovingly named Eilliot.
Elliot:
"Actually those weapons were there to force the North into a united Ireland, which I understand was the sole objective of the IRA"
This is distortion of history Elliot. The IRA were utterly incapable of an effective guerilla campaign at this time. The weapons used to defend Bombay ST and St Matthews were engaged in self defence. How is preventing your home being burnt a campaign for a united Ireland Elliot? Surely even you can see that these weapons were used in self defence. Indeed Elliot the IRA were almost defunct during these attacks. People from Catholic Defence groups like Henry Mc Ilhone defended their homes, so in many incidences it was not the IRA, hence the 'I Ran Away' tag. How is this a
campaign for a united Ireland?
"It was prorogued for refusing to let Westminster take full charge over public order and security"
Yes and why did Westminister seek control? Due to the escalation of violence and the rising death rate. Nothing to do with shit stirring Elliot. Indeed by 1972 the IRA were off the back foot and now engaged in an offensive.
"Well then can you explain why they were doing it two years before it actually happened? Can you also explain why these valiant protecters did nothing while it was actually happening?"
Because a foreign enemy force of occupation invaded the country! They came to 'protect' but in reality offered only brutality and marginalisation. Look at what happened in the Bogside and the murderous campaign the Brits went on in Ballymurphy after their deployment. Are you saying that this was the IRA's fault Elliot? Furthermore the inability of the IRA at the time rests squarely with the Dublin Stickie leadership. Anyone with have an ounce of knowledge of Irish history knows this!
Elliot:
"I'd say that you don't seem to remember the point I'm making but it's plain you're just ignoring it "
Elliot it appears that you have embarked on a tangent from the point that I was making originally. That was that republicans should pay the relevant degree of respect to our aged veterans. People like Brian Keenan, PJ Caraher and Mickey Terence Mc Cressh etc.. The British armed forces have rememberance Sunday and Americans have Veterans day. How comes republicans can not pay tribute to our veterans Elliot? Is it one rule for the oppressor and another for the oppressed. Furthermore Elliot, people of your ilk are incapable of even tying the boot laces of veteran republicans. I do not expect a Unionist, anti-repubican like yourself to have any concept of the high esteem that veteran republicans are rightfully held in by their comrades!
Please outline to me what your objections are to republicans honouring their veterans. Do you feel that occupational forces have a right to remeber their veterans? What are your views on the Royal British Legion clubs and such assiociations? How do they differ from the Felons or Cumman na Meirlach? You can not argue one rule for one side, and another for the other and then try and lecture me on democracy Elliot!
Adelante:
"This is distortion of history Elliot. The IRA were utterly incapable of an effective guerilla campaign at this time."
Didn't stop them trying though. As I said tossing grenades through windows and killing innocent people with land mines does not constitute self defence.
"The weapons used to defend Bombay ST and St Matthews were engaged in self defence. How is preventing your home being burnt a campaign for a united Ireland Elliot? Surely even you can see that these weapons were used in self defence."
Then explain all the IRA rhetoric prior to and for the next three decades of bloodshed.
"People from Catholic Defence groups like Henry Mc Ilhone defended their homes, so in many incidences it was not the IRA, hence the 'I Ran Away' tag. How is this a
campaign for a united Ireland?"
Well as he wasn't a member of the IRA I don't see how his actions could reflect on them. Plus you've also just effectively told me what I already know: It was bad enough without them then when they did take action they decided to make it worse.
"Yes and why did Westminister seek control? Due to the escalation of violence and the rising death rate. Nothing to do with shit stirring Elliot. Indeed by 1972 the IRA were off the back foot and now engaged in an offensive."
So escalating violence and engaging in an offensive campaign isn't making a bad situation needlessly worse? Sounds like shit stirring to me. Plus with the achievement of civil rights objectives such as vote equalisation and an end to gerrymandering, what was the point of continued violence if it was only for self defense? Another question: What was the point of civilian targets if it was only for self defense?
"Because a foreign enemy force of occupation invaded the country!"
Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. This is recognised by the rest of the world, the Republic of Ireland and all who signed up to and voted for the Good Friday Agreement. You've also just sunk you're 'self defense' spiel. Again.
"They came to 'protect' but in reality offered only brutality and marginalisation."
So did the IRA they killed more Catholics and more civilians than anyone else. Face it Adelante it a disgusting war fought by disgusting people that had nothing to offer but what it gave; death, destruction, misery and a bitterness that will persist for years to come.
"Look at what happened in the Bogside and the murderous campaign the Brits went on in Ballymurphy after their deployment. Are you saying that this was the IRA's fault Elliot?"
No, you're just saying that I am. I'm saying that the IRA is not free of responsibility for its actions. Those people shouldn't have died and neither should those other civilians the IRA have killed. I see the deaths of civilians as a crime whoever does it unlike you.
"Furthermore the inability of the IRA at the time rests squarely with the Dublin Stickie leadersh
Elliot:
More side stepping I see Elliot!
"Those people shouldn't have died and neither should those other civilians the IRA have killed."
It was the murder of innocent civilians in Ballymurphy by the Brits that created the context for the IRA campaign to flourish. Initially for self defence, after a boost in numbers, better arsenal and a much needed change of leadership the IRA went on the offensive. To paraphrase Gerry Adams, Elliot, the IRA would have been incapable of mounting this offensive if the population of areas like West Belfast and S Armagh did not support it. This has widely been acknowledged, even by the Brits. Are you now disputing this? It was the murderous deeds of the Brits that escalated the violence. The IRA were hated in many parts for their ineffective action during the pograms. The Brits brutality and violence drove Nationalists towards the IRA!
Furthermore Elliot, the IRA issued an apology in the last number of years outlining its regret at the death of all non-combatants!
"Well as he wasn't a member of the IRA I don't see how his actions could reflect on them."
No but he was killed defending St Matthews from loyalists. He died fighting along side IRA volunteers, one of which was the legendary Billy Mc Kee. How can it be ok for Catholic Defnce groups to use arms to defend themselves and their homes but not for the IRA to do the same?
"Face it Adelante it a disgusting war"
Who started the disgusting war Elliot? Would be a totalitarian state incapable of reform? Look at the response to Bloody Sunday and Burntollet. Brutality and murder of overwhelming ferocity. Are you suggesting that these events happened because of the IRA? The forces of law and order not only sat back idly while this occurred but in many cases were part and parcel of loyalist pograms. Still the IRA's fault? The UVF responded to the emergence of NICRA by killing a number of innocent Catholics. Are the IRA to blame for this as well Elliot? It seems that up to mid-1969 the IRA were the only faction not attcking innocent civilians. When British Forces arrived they backed up the RUC and loyalist position. Bloody Sunday, Harry Thornton, Lower Falls Curfew, Sammy Devenny. All the IRA's fault as well. The IRA responded due to the nedd to respond. Would you have preferred Catholics to remain unarmed and defenceless Elliot?
"Furthermore the inability of the IRA at the time rests squarely with the Dublin Stickie leadership."
Very anti-partitionist of you.
Now would you finally like to answer my question at how murdering non-combatants is self defense?
Elliot:
"Now would you finally like to answer my question at how murdering non-combatants is self defense?"
It isn't Elliot. I never said it was. These occurred whenever the IRA moved from the back foot onto the offensive. Innocent civilian deaths are a regretable reality of any war Elliot. The IRA acknowledged this in a recent statement. How many innocent civilians died during the bombing of Hiroshima? How many died during Dresden? How many died during the IRAQ WAR? You can not argue that these are acceptable in a war fro democracy or freedom whenever it comes from super power imperialists, but it is unacceptable when it happens in a war waged by people seeking their own freedom Elliot! Furthermore Elliot, numerous IRA POWs especially on the Continent, expressed their remorse and regret at civilian death. One went as far to say that it should not occur in a liberation struggle. And he was right. However Elliot throughout the palimphsest of history the Brits have killed more innocent civilians in many more parts of the world than the IRA ever have!
"Elliot it appears that you have embarked on a tangent from the point that I was making originally. That was that republicans should pay the relevant degree of respect to our aged veterans. People like Brian Keenan, PJ Caraher and Mickey Terence Mc Cressh etc.. The British armed forces have rememberance Sunday and Americans have Veterans day. How comes republicans can not pay tribute to our veterans Elliot? Is it one rule for the oppressor and another for the oppressed."
Depends on the veteran really. If they'd been engaged in acts such as say attempting to blow up a company of Boys Brigade (luckily it the bomb failed to go off) or shooting a little girl dead in the street after 'seeing' a gunman in the bushes (unlickily the gun didn't jam) then 'cashiered and imprisoned' sounds more appropriate than 'remembered'.
"Furthermore Elliot, people of your ilk Furthermore Elliot, people of your ilk are incapable of even tying the boot laces of veteran republicans."
I wouldn't want to and neither should you. Despite what they claim they didn't do you many favours. What do you think my ilk is exactly?
"I do not expect a Unionist, anti-repubican like yourself..."
I've told you before I'm not a Unionist.
"Please outline to me what your objections are to republicans honouring their veterans."
The same reason I'm not feeling too sorry for 'our boys' in Iraq. They took part in acts that shame the name of soldier and bring shame to the country.
"What are your views on the Royal British Legion clubs and such assiociations? How do they differ from the Felons or Cumman na Meirlach?"
I think the British Legion should take into accounbt the actions of the veterans on a case by case basis or be suspended until true accountability is brought to soldiers who act maliciously or obey orders to do do. I think all such movements should do this and avoid rewarding or lauding those who deliberately took innocent life. I don't want to buy a poppy and have the money go to whichever scrote thought it was a good idea to start firing into a crowd of unarmed protesters.
Elliot:
"I do not expect a Unionist, anti-repubican like yourself..."
I've told you before I'm not a Unionist"
No but you are an anti-republican. It is merely axiomatic from this that you will take issue to republicans remebering the sacrifices of their veterans!
"I wouldn't want to and neither should you. Despite what they claim they didn't do you many favours."
Well Elliot I would consider the demilitarisation of my home area S Armagh as a favour. The veterans and soldiers of Oglaigh na hEireann South Armagh Brigade, drove the Brits to the talks table, a deal was secured and demilitirisation occurred. Definitely a favour in my books! Are you aware of the amount of cancer inducing rays these spy posts emitted Elliot? Then again why would you care, you are not from the area!
Adelante:
"To paraphrase Gerry Adams, Elliot, the IRA would have been incapable of mounting this offensive if the population of areas like West Belfast and S Armagh did not support it."
Most Americans supported invading Iraq. Does that make it right?
"It was the murderous deeds of the Brits that escalated the violence."
It takes two to tango Adelante. It still doesn't explain why it's ok to target civilians.
"he UVF responded to the emergence of NICRA by killing a number of innocent Catholics. Are the IRA to blame for this as well Elliot?"
No the IRA are responsible for the deaths of the people killed by the IRA, nothing more, nothing less.
"Furthermore Elliot, the IRA issued an apology in the last number of years outlining its regret at the death of all non-combatants!"
If that's the case then why is a true beleiver like yourself still trying to justify them?
"How can it be ok for Catholic Defnce groups to use arms to defend themselves and their homes but not for the IRA to do the same?"
Catholic defense groups aren't going to perpetuate the cycle by running off and attacking soldiers and policemen thereby adding an appearance of truth to the Unionists deluded and pervasive paranoia.
"The forces of law and order not only sat back idly while this occurred but in many cases were part and parcel of loyalist pograms."
Like I said; it didn't stop King.
"The IRA responded due to the nedd to respond. Would you have preferred Catholics to remain unarmed and defenceless Elliot?"
You are failing to differentiate between defence and retaliation. By all means shoot at those who are trying to burn your street down but such attacks will not stop if you go out and attack people yourself as you are convincing the 'other side' as it were that their suspicions of you are correct, it is a two-way street.
Adelante:
"Innocent civilian deaths are a regretable reality of any war Elliot."
You say this and then subsequently use civilian deaths as a stick with which to beat me. Explain this sanctimony.
"How many died during Dresden? How many died during the IRAQ WAR?"
Too many.
"You can not argue that these are acceptable in a war fro democracy or freedom whenever it comes from super power imperialists, but it is unacceptable when it happens in a war waged by people seeking their own freedom Elliot!"
Hear hear. Now would you kindly stop assuming what my opinions are.
"However Elliot throughout the palimphsest of history the Brits have killed more innocent civilians in many more parts of the world than the IRA ever have!"
And this makes me objectively wrong how. I state it here and now that I hold this fact as a matter of deep shame. Now where is your regard for the lives of those killed by the groups you admire? Where is the shame they have brought on you? If thay are so regretted why do you keep trying to claim someone other then the perpetrator is responsible and try to justify their happening in the first place?
I could easily weasel out of this by saying most of it happened before I was born and that I have never voted for anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq, but I don't but there is no end of weaseling from you: "they did it first" "they killed more" "we apoligised afterwards so it's ok"
"No but you are an anti-republican. It is merely axiomatic from this that you will take issue to republicans remebering the sacrifices of their veterans!"
I'm not so much ant-republican as anti-physical force. It had its day in 1919-1921 and hasn't done much good since.
"Well Elliot I would consider the demilitarisation of my home area S Armagh as a favour."
I hold an end to bombings and the decomissioning of IRA weapons in the same regartd. Jaw jaw is better than war war.
"The veterans and soldiers of Oglaigh na hEireann South Armagh Brigade, drove the Brits to the talks table, a deal was secured and demilitarisation occurred"
The veterans and soldiers of the British Army drove the Provos to the talks table, a deal was secured and decomissioning occured. In truth I hold neither view and see it as the inevitable result of the fizzling out of a futile conflict. Plus the Óglaigh na hÉireann only consists of three brigades: 1 Southern, 2 Eastern and 4 Western on top of the Naval Service, Air Corps and Reserves but that's another argument.
"Are you aware of the amount of cancer inducing rays these spy posts emitted Elliot? Then again why would you care, you are not from the area!"
My sympathy is with all those civilians harmed by the conflict in any way. I lay the blame for their harm with whoever caused it and am not in the business of trivialising it because of their identity or their place of residence or an interest in artificially inflating the reputations of those who did it. Unlike you.
Elliot:
"I'm not so much ant-republican as anti-physical force. It had its day in 1919-1921 and hasn't done much good since."
Ok Elliot so you support the IRA's right to use physical violence in the period of 1919 -1921. So you view the retailiation by the IRA in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in Croke Park in 1920's as justified. Fastforward 50 years and the Brits murder 14 unarmed people on the streets of Derry, also known as Bloody Sunday. How can you say that in one situation the IRA had a right to hit back, yet in the other they did not Elliot?
"My sympathy is with all those civilians harmed by the conflict in any way. I lay the blame for their harm with whoever caused it "
The UVF carried out the first killings of the troubles. The 'police' militia aided and abetted attacks on the Nationalist community. The Brit Army continued the marginalisation of Nationalists( the murders in Ballymurphy prove this as I pointed out earlier). So is it not therefore axiomatic that it was not the IRA that created the context for war. Indeed did the IRA not enter the war later than any of the above groups?
My sympathy is with all those civilians harmed by the conflict in any way."
And I too feel for civilian casualities. I never ionce said that targetting civilians was acceptable. Please outline for me (direct quote no distortions please) where I ever stated that it was ok to target civilians. No war has ever been free from the scourge of civilian casualities. The war in the 6 co's is no different. As I outlined before civilian deaths were a regretable consequence of the IRA's freedom struggle.
"
Adelante:
"So you view the retailiation by the IRA in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in Croke Park in 1920's as justified. Fastforward 50 years and the Brits murder 14 unarmed people on the streets of Derry, also known as Bloody Sunday. How can you say that in one situation the IRA had a right to hit back, yet in the other they did not Elliot?"
Firstly: The IRA in the the war of independance were a legitimate force of the Irish state as are their descendant body; the Irish Defense Force, the PIRA has never had any such legitimacy. On top of that I'm saying the IRA had no right to kill innocent civilians (or determine Northern Ireland's constitutional status unilaterally).
Secondly: The IRA that answered to the first and second Dála were not widely known for deliberately killing innocent people and even if they did, they shouldn't have.
"Please outline for me (direct quote no distortions please) where I ever stated that it was ok to target civilians."
Your post of 04.18.08 - 3:10 pm, you defended forcing fourteen innocent men off a bus and gunning them down into a ditch (and then sank your own argument). You have ignored questioning on any other incident involving the deliberate targeting of civilians I've raised: For instance the deaths of those BBC workers. Plus I'm not talking about people killed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when a gunfight broke out, I'm talking about deliberate, calculated attempts on the lives of civilians.
As an aside I was wondering if you would be able to enlighten me as to IRA practices in issuing warnings about devices they planted. What was behind the practice of issuing them through TV stations or newspapers? Not trying to raise more fuss, just curious.
Elliot:
"Your post of 04.18.08 - 3:10 pm, you defended forcing fourteen innocent men off a bus and gunning them down into a ditch "
This is factually incorrect Elliot. Fourteen people were not killed at Kingsmill. Plesae check your facts.
Adelante:
"This is factually incorrect Elliot."
I will admit to that. You in fact defended the killing of ten innocent men and the grievious wounding of an eleventh in your post of 04.18.08 - 3:10 pm, my apologies.
"Whoever is under attack. If you are faced with someone showing every intention of ending your life fight back, no-one is disputing this as I have said over and over again my point is that killing non-combatants does not constitute a legitimate defense, it is not within their power to harm you and it gives legitimacy to those in whose power it is."
Are you referring to individuals or states, Elliot?
Observer:
Both. I assume you're now going to launch into the republican spiel that the border is a delusion that only exists in the minds of the rest of the world the law of both affected states and the Good Friday Agreement.
So many assumptions, Elliot.
I was going to ask you if you thought a state had more right than an individual to make decisions about who lives and who dies.
Observer:
Sorry, I thought this was going somewhere else, again; my apologies.
As to your actual question even in states without the death penalty the state is allowed to kill so long as it adheres to due process of law. I beleive that as far as domestic matters are concerned the individual has as much right as the state in that if someone is showing every sign of presenting a clear and present danger to those around him or her then a judgement call can be made. However in international law war is legally reserved to states, albeit in largely the same overall principle, that is; in self defense or in aid of others.
Elliot
Apology accepted.
When you say the "state is allowed to kill..", whose permission does it seek?
"..albeit in largely the same overall principle, that is; in self defense or in aid of others."
Does this include killing civilians in order to get at combatants?
Observer:
"When you say the "state is allowed to kill..", whose permission does it seek?"
Itself. The state's monopoly on punitive violence is a generally accepted principle in political theory.
"Does this include killing civilians in order to get at combatants?"
In my own opinion no, it denies their basic humanity by labelling them expendable.
In the opinion of the Geneva Conventions belligerent states are not to touch a hair on their heads unless they are established as aiding the opposing force, are citizens of a state not bound by the convention or are citizens of a neutral state (belligerent states are to help neutral citizens leave if they so wish). The fourth Geneva Convention, which adresses the rights of non-combatants, also expressly forbids reprisals and in Protocol II (1977), which was written specifically for non-international conflicts, Article 13, Paragraph 2 states that civilians shall not be an object of attack.
"Itself. The state's monopoly on punitive violence is a generally accepted principle in political theory."
Now, that is another argument!
"In the opinion of the Geneva Conventions belligerent states are not to touch a hair on their heads..."
Have you ever heard of a conflict in which these principles were adhered to?
Have you ever heard of a state which insisted upon it's armed forces being treated as "disgusting people" in the event of civilians being killed?
"Have you ever heard of a conflict in which these principles were adhered to?"
Sadly no. Doesn't make it right not to do so though.
"Have you ever heard of a state which insisted upon it's armed forces being treated as "disgusting people" in the event of civilians being killed?"
No. Again; it doesn't make it right not to do so. Wearing a uniform does not absolve you from disgracing it.
Elliot,
Thank you for your patience.
Given that no-one appears to pay any attention to these laudable principles, does this mean that states are not "allowed to kill" even if they grant themselves the apparent right to do so?
Observer:
You're very welcome.
"Given that no-one appears to pay any attention to these laudable principles, does this mean that states are not "allowed to kill" even if they grant themselves the apparent right to do so?"
If that were the case then that would be all our Armed/Emergency Response Units out of a job on top of the thousands of servicemen and women. The sad fact is that as nasty as the state often is we're stuck with it if we want a safe and orderly society.
Elliot
"If that were the case then that would be all our Armed/Emergency Response Units out of a job on top of the thousands of servicemen and women."
Aren't these the very people who are responsible for ignoring the Geneva Convention?
Shouldn't we be trying to bring an end to their activities?
"The sad fact is that as nasty as the state often is we're stuck with it if we want a safe and orderly society."
An orderly society, perhaps.
Safe for some.
Observer:
"Aren't these the very people who are responsible for ignoring the Geneva Convention?"
Afraid so.
"Shouldn't we be trying to bring an end to their activities?"
Only the activities that violate the Geneva Conventions or other inernational laws. I personally beleive the first thing to do is remove the right to a Court Martial and have members of the armed forces face a proper trial and also place public enquiries solely in the hands of the judiciary.
Elliot:
"The sad fact is that as nasty as the state often is we're stuck with it if we want a safe and orderly society."
The safe and orderly society the state created at Burntollet Bridge, Bloody Sunday? Did the state give itself permission to murder Majella O Hare, Aiden Mc Anespie, Sammy Devenny, Anthony Hughes. Was this in line with the Geneva convention so rigidly adhered to by the British state in the murders of Dessie Grew and Martin Mc Caughey, Peter Cleary, Kevin Barry O Donnell, Paddy Vincent, Peter Calncy and Sean O Farrell, in the mureders of Laurence Mc Nally, Pete Ryan and Tony Dorris? Where was the states consideration for the spirit embodied by the Geneva Convention when they used their surrogates to murder Rosemary Nelson, Pat Finnucane, Sam Marshall, Larry Marley, John Davey, Tommy Casey, Gearard Casey or Eddie Fullerton( in a different jurisdiction as well).
Your argument is riddled with incoherence, inconsistent and irrationality!
Elliot
"Only the activities that violate the Geneva Conventions or other inernational laws."
Would it not be prudent to act against an armed organisation which habitually violates the Geneva Convention?
Adelante:
"Your argument is riddled with incoherence, inconsistent and irrationality!"
My argument is that the state should be held to account as far as it violates the law, nothing more, nothing less. I am not denying that the state has wilfully violated the law before or now.
In fact I've stated more than once now that I've never condoned aforementioned violations or somehow thought they were justified in doing so. The fact that despite this you insist on rattling the bones of the dead at me and wailing about how evil the Brit is like I've just turned up twirling my moustache and tied your girlfriend to the railway tracks shows you either can't grasp what is being said or can't formulate an original or relevant argument.
Observer:
"Would it not be prudent to act against an armed organisation which habitually violates the Geneva Convention?"
While that would be relatively easy if it was a non-state actor, the fact is that in the case of the state you ARE stuck with it as a concept. Anarchy does not work, so when it is the state that has stepped out of line you can only groin it back into place again. So act against it by all means, gut it, overhaul it, prosecute, dismiss or even smash it but only so much as there is something left that can carry out its lawful function.
Elliot
What should you do if the state resists your attempts to force it to behave in a civilized manner?
Observer:
Give it a bloody nose and replace whichever idiot whose idea it was. If it's really bad give the system an overhaul.
I mean really resists.
Shooting, beating, interning.
What then, Elliot?
Observer:
"I mean really resists.
Shooting, beating, interning.
What then, Elliot?"
You can either shoot back until it stops or keep on as before until the combination of electoral disgust and international outrage shows the state that its efforts are futile. Neither option entails irridentism or terrorism however.
"Neither option entails irridentism or terrorism however."
Why not?
"Why not?"
Irridentism is irrelevant as I'm sure those who would support it would do so regardless of how the state is behaving and unlike Northern Ireland not everyone has the option of deciding they are rightfully part of a different country when things get nasty.
Terrorism targets civilians so its not something you do if you want the people on side and an eternal reward that isn't characterised by burning. On top of that it also gives the state being opposed something to hide behind, they can not only claim they are trying to stamp out a criminal element it will also be true.
Elliot:
"You can either shoot back until it stops"
But did you not say that the IRA were simply shit stirring whenever they shot back at the state that was "Shooting, beating, interning"? Double standards I think Elliot. Please clarify your position for me. Either the IRA were defending themselves and their community in terms outlined by you above or they were shit stirring? Which is it Elliot?
"But did you not say that the IRA were simply shit stirring whenever they shot back at the state that was "Shooting, beating, interning"?"
No I said they were shit stirring when they were engaging in pointless retaliatory attacks.
"Please clarify your position for me."
When they attack; you defend. When you toss a grenade through the station window or abduct and murder them; they attack. Congratulations, you have failed to halt the attacks you'd set out to prevent.
"Either the IRA were defending themselves and their community in terms outlined by you above or they were shit stirring? Which is it Elliot?"
Shit stirring. Their primary aim was to force a united Ireland, they stated it openly and your first comment in this discussion also asserts this was their objective. On top of that their strategy in this period was summarised by Sean MacStiofain as 'escalate, escalate, escalate', hardly self defense.
Elliot:
You are distorting Mc Stiofans sentiments. He was refering to escalate the war effort. Do all armies not escalate as they get stronger and into new postions of strength? This is not shit stirring but sound military tactics Elliot.
"When they attack; you defend."
I raised this earlier ie Bombay St etc and you said that the IRA were shit stirring Elliot. How come you have now revised your position? Furthermore Elliot after defence, you need to escalate whenever you then engage in an offensive. This is what the IRA did. Hardly shit stirring Elliot! Defend your community and homes from attacks by loyalists, state forces and an occupying army, then move forward in an offensive to defeat them and ensure the marginalisation and subjugation of your people does not occur again! Not shit stirring by any extent Elliot!
Adelante:
"You are distorting Mc Stiofans sentiments. He was refering to escalate the war effort. Do all armies not escalate as they get stronger and into new postions of strength? This is not shit stirring but sound military tactics Elliot."
The IRA is not an army, neither is it the legitimate government of Ireland or anywhere else, it did not and does not have the right to declare war. Plus how am I distorting Mac Stíofáin's sentiments? I said he wanted to escalate the conflict, he said he wanted to escalate the conflict, what's to distort?
"I raised this earlier ie Bombay St etc and you said that the IRA were shit stirring Elliot."
No I said the IRA were shit stirring in planting mines, tossing grenades into police stations, quite a different kettle of fish from putting bullets into a lynch mob.
"Furthermore Elliot after defence, you need to escalate whenever you then engage in an offensive."
So you admit the IRA were escalating and weren't just acting in self defense?
"Defend your community and homes from attacks by loyalists, state forces and an occupying army, then move forward in an offensive to defeat them and ensure the marginalisation and subjugation of your people does not occur again!"
First off there is no occupying army in Northern Ireland, it is a part of the UK and this has been recognised in the Good Friday Agreement. Secondly the moving forward only led to deeper divisions and bloody stalemate, not such a good idea in hindsight is it Adelante? Finally aren't the Unionist community supposed to be your people too?
"Irridentism is irrelevant as I'm sure those who would support it would do so regardless of how the state is behaving and unlike Northern Ireland not everyone has the option of deciding they are rightfully part of a different country when things get nasty"
When the state breaks it's contract with the people, or even a section of the people, then it loses any right to act as a lawful authority.
History is full of examples of this.
The U.S., for one.
Irredentism becomes an option.
"Terrorism targets civilians so its not something you do if you want the people on side and an eternal reward that isn't characterised by burning."
We have established that the "state", in our discussion, has been engaging in this activity.
The main difference is that they are using our taxmoney to fund it.
So we can add extortion to their crimes.
"On top of that it also gives the state being opposed something to hide behind, they can not only claim they are trying to stamp out a criminal element it will also be true."
If they have breached the contract and are ignoring the Geneva Convention, are they in a position to determine what is a "crime"?
Elliot:
"The IRA is not an army,"
We will have to disagree on this one. Btw Elliot you might want to tell this to the Brit Generals who recently said that the IRA were "the most sophisticated guerilla army in the world" and that the Brit Army were "incapable of defeating them". Furthermore I always thought the 'A' in their title stood for Army, silly me. Furthermore what about all the other non-armies that recieved support from your Geneva Convention loving states ie Iraq, Chile, Afghanistan. Were these not war lords installed under the guise of a state?
"So you admit the IRA were escalating and weren't just acting in self defense?"
Whenever you survive a concerted effort at ethnic cleansing and have organised and armed more effectively are you not going to try and remove the elements that committed these attacks on your community? In many ways is it not just an extension to self defence? Ciuld the allies not have just left it whenever they defeated the Germans instead of trying them for war crimes and carving up Berlin and Germany for their own greed? This is the type of thing you are arguing in favour of!
Observer:
"When the state breaks it's contract with the people, or even a section of the people, then it loses any right to act as a lawful authority.
History is full of examples of this.
The U.S., for one.
Irredentism becomes an option."
So a section of the total population can give the territory away to whoever they fancy because they are opressed regardless of what the rest of the population think? Could the African Americans have turned the Southern US over to Mexico if they wanted to? Do you know what irridentism actually means?
"We have established that the "state", in our discussion, has been engaging in this activity.
The main difference is that they are using our taxmoney to fund it.
So we can add extortion to their crimes."
So basically you think that if one group kills innocent people it's ok for their opponents to do it to. I don't think the bereaved will care much where the money came from.
"If they have breached the contract and are ignoring the Geneva Convention, are they in a position to determine what is a "crime"?"
That is the state's job. If they have breached the contract then those amongst them that have are to be replaced, with what is a consensus issue 'they was mean to us' does not constitute or trump a mandate.
Adelante:
"Btw Elliot you might want to tell this to the Brit Generals who recently said that the IRA were "the most sophisticated guerilla army in the world" and that the Brit Army were "incapable of defeating them"."
The same Brit Generals who said that the IRA "could not acheive its ends through violence" and called its campaign from 1972 onwards the 'terrorist phase'.
"Whenever you survive a concerted effort at ethnic cleansing and have organised and armed more effectively are you not going to try and remove the elements that committed these attacks on your community?"
I would see to it they weren't able or willing to try it again whether or not they're still around afterwards is immaterial.
"Furthermore what about all the other non-armies that recieved support from your Geneva Convention loving states ie Iraq, Chile, Afghanistan. Were these not war lords installed under the guise of a state?"
Pretty much. And would you please stop assuming I maintain your 'it's ok when we do it' mentality.
"Ciuld the allies not have just left it whenever they defeated the Germans instead of trying them for war crimes and carving up Berlin and Germany for their own greed?"
The carve up was on the part of the USSR. America, Britain and France left behind an independant Germany that exists to this day, the only allied power who didn't respect Germany's right to a state were the Russians.
Elliot:
"I would see to it they weren't able or willing to try it again whether or not they're still around afterwards is immaterial."
And was the IRA's war campaign not a war of attrition to wear down the Brits and prevent them from backing up these programs again? The Brits shot dead Peter Mc Bride, the RUC let Robert Hamill be kicked to death, is this not indicative that the Brits were "able or willing to do it again". Therefore along the lines of your argument the IRA's armed campaign was justified. Furthermore the GBrits used proxy killers via loyalist death squads to continue murdering the Nationalist community, just like in 1969-72. Are you contesting this fact? Sean Grahams Massacre, Greysteel, Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Louhlinisland, Castlerock are all demonstartive that the state was still willing , likely and capable of slaughtering Nationalists. Does this not justify the IRA's armed campaign, as your reasoning above states? Was the IRA's campaign not an attempt to "see to it they weren't able or willing to try it again "?
Adelante:
"Furthermore the GBrits used proxy killers via loyalist death squads to continue murdering the Nationalist community, just like in 1969-72. Are you contesting this fact?"
No, why do you ask? I never willfully implied that I did, what with my 'disgusting war fought by disgusting people' remark and it really doesn't make any case against the objections I've listed below.
"Does this not justify the IRA's armed campaign, as your reasoning above states?"
I have made plain that while the state can be given a kicking on an institutional level that does not entail the questioning of its territorial integrity without the will of the inhabitants of the region in question. In fact any settlement afterwards at all requires the consent of the people regardless of territorial issues.
"Was the IRA's campaign not an attempt to "see to it they weren't able or willing to try it again "?"
Right I'll say it again: The IRA's primary objective was to force a united Ireland, they had no right to do so without the consent of the rest of the people of Northern Ireland.
They also plainly thought that came first over the people they claimed they were protecting given that they killed more Catholics than any other organisation, fired on Irish police and soldiers and more than once engaged in armed robbery and kidnapping for ransom throught Ireland. That is the first objection I have to the IRA's campaign.
The second objection I have is their engaging in strategically useless retaliatory attacks at the beginning of the conflict in order to enflame the situation, if you're protecting someone you don't place them in further danger.
The third objection I have is the attacking of civilian targets, these are the reasons I do not condone the IRA's campaign.
Elliot
"Do you know what irridentism actually means?"
Absolutely.
Your " Could the African Americans have turned the Southern US over to Mexico if they wanted to?"
remark suggests that you don't.
"I don't think the bereaved will care much where the money came from."
I imagine most people would be unhappy if they were forced to finance a group making war on them, don't you?
"That is the state's job. If they have breached the contract then those amongst them that have are to be replaced, with what is a consensus issue 'they was mean to us' does not constitute or trump a mandate."
I thought we had moved on from the premise that the state will always act in a democratic and civilised manner. The point in the discussion, which brought the above, baffling, reply was types of opposition open to people living in a state which violently refused to behave in the manner you suggest.
There's no need for tetchiness
Observer:
"Your " Could the African Americans have turned the Southern US over to Mexico if they wanted to?"
remark suggests that you don't."
I've always been given to understand that irridentism was the beleif that part of a state's territory should either be given to or taken by another state with common ethnicity or prior posession as justification. Mexico did use to control parts of the Southern United States, most notably Texas and California, with France and Spain also having former territories in that part of the USA, most notably Louisiana and Florida.
"I imagine most people would be unhappy if they were forced to finance a group making war on them, don't you?"
True.
"I thought we had moved on from the premise that the state will always act in a democratic and civilised manner. The point in the discussion, which brought the above, baffling, reply was types of opposition open to people living in a state which violently refused to behave in the manner you suggest."
Ah, I was getting ahead of myself then. I was referring to the composition of the state after the offending institutions have either been forced to comply or destroyed as I said "...those amongst them that have are to be replaced, with what is a consensus issue..."
As for the types of opposition open to those against a state breaching its social contract I would say nothing that can be construed as being a non-political crime or terrorism, especially no torture or theft of private property.
"There's no need for tetchiness"
I apologise if I seemed tetchy, that was not my intention.
Think nothing of it, Elliot.
"I've always been given to understand that irridentism was the beleif that part of a state's territory should either be given to or taken by another state with common ethnicity or prior posession as justification."
Correct.
"Your " Could the African Americans have turned the Southern US over to Mexico if they wanted to?"
remark suggests that you don't."
Incorrect. No ethnic associations I am aware of between these groups.
Having said that, the slave states were open to whatever the subject population chose to do to right the massive injustice visited upon them.
Having said that, the Union fought an irredentist campaign, did they not?
Apologies for the grammatical error.
"As for the types of opposition open to those against a state breaching its social contract I would say nothing that can be construed as being a non-political crime or terrorism, especially no torture or theft of private property."
Given the nature of the state's willingness to use tactics mentioned in the above paragraph, are you suggesting the people should apply constraints on themselves which their opponents are not subject to?
An example would be Bosnia's seccession from the Balkan "UK", Yugoslavia.
Should the Bosnians, Croats and Slovenians refrained from responding to state violence and terror with a terror of their own?
Observer:
"Incorrect. No ethnic associations I am aware of between these groups."
There was prior posession however. Ethnicity is not always the basis of irridentist claims; Spain's claim to Gibralta and Argerntina's claim to the the Falkland Islands for example.
"Having said that, the slave states were open to whatever the subject population chose to do to right the massive injustice visited upon them."
Are you referring to just the slaves or the whole state?
"Having said that, the Union fought an irredentist campaign, did they not?"
They did.
"Given the nature of the state's willingness to use tactics mentioned in the above paragraph, are you suggesting the people should apply constraints on themselves which their opponents are not subject to?"
Given how such tactics are what are alienating the population in the first place I don't think it's either moral or wise to alienate the population yourself. Don't make enemy claims about you true.
"Should the Bosnians, Croats and Slovenians refrained from responding to state violence and terror with a terror of their own?"
If said terror involved deliberate targeting of civilians and the same kind of atrocities against non-combatants yes they should.
Elliot
"There was prior posession however. Ethnicity is not always the basis of irridentist claims; Spain's claim to Gibralta and Argerntina's claim to the the Falkland Islands for example."
Mexico's claim to parts of the Southern states only covered a fraction of their territory and, even then, was more notional than real.
"Are you referring to just the slaves or the whole state?"
I understand the slaves were unable to exercise influence in any political way, therefore, I would assert they had a right to oppose the actions of the state in any way which offered a prospect of success.
"Given how such tactics are what are alienating the population in the first place I don't think it's either moral or wise to alienate the population yourself. Don't make enemy claims about you true."
You seem to be suggesting that the rationale of military action is unimportant, only the methodology is relevant.
Does this make RAF bomber crews, bombing Germany nightly (killing civilians) as culpble as Luftwaffe crews bombing Guernica or Rotterdam?
Could you suggest an alternative course of action, offering a similar prospect of success?
I am basing this question on the presumption that allowing the state to terrorise and murder is as grave as opposing it militarily in spite of the risks to non-combatants.
I imagine that is the root of the dilemma.
Obeerver:
"Mexico's claim to parts of the Southern states only covered a fraction of their territory and, even then, was more notional than real."
So you think African Americans shouldn't have been able to turn over the part of the country they lived in to some former outside ruler? If so, why did you say irridentism is an option? I also mentioned France and Spain as possible options, not just Mexico, I should probably have included the UK to cover Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas.
"I understand the slaves were unable to exercise influence in any political way, therefore, I would assert they had a right to oppose the actions of the state in any way which offered a prospect of success."
Would they have as much practical success killing the local township and burning their homes as they would killing their owner and overseers and burning the crop?
"You seem to be suggesting that the rationale of military action is unimportant, only the methodology is relevant."
No such thing. I'm saying that the methodology should not contradict the rationale. If you're trying to stop the state you live under from kidnapping, torturing and murdering the population by kidnapping, torturing and murdering the population as opposed destroying state installations and driving their patrols back into their bases with mines, ambushes and suchlike then the whole excercise becomes absurd and rather pointless.
"Does this make RAF bomber crews, bombing Germany nightly (killing civilians) as culpble as Luftwaffe crews bombing Guernica or Rotterdam?"
If it's bad when one person does it, it's bad when another person does.
"Could you suggest an alternative course of action, offering a similar prospect of success?"
The views expressed by Churchill in his memo to General Ismay on 28/03/1945 are pretty much in along the same lines of my thinking: Greater concentration on military objectives. His later memo also raised a legitimate point of the difficulties you're in for when you come into possession of a ruin.
Elliot
"So you think African Americans shouldn't have been able to turn over the part of the country they lived in to some former outside ruler?"
Not at all. I merely pointed out the slight inaccuracy of your earlier assertion.
"If so, why did you say irridentism is an option?"
I think the slave population would have been entitled to bomb their "masters" back to the stone age, if they had chosen that option.
"Would they have as much practical success killing the local township and burning their homes as they would killing their owner and overseers and burning the crop?"
Difficult to say, but I imagine the local townsfolk would have rallied to the cause of the slavers, as would the militia (townsfolk in uniform).
"No such thing. I'm saying that the methodology should not contradict the rationale."
Whereas I'm suggesting the methodology should reflect the capacity and resources of the combatants.
Whilst the Salvation Army is a fine organisation, I would rather have someone rather more aggressive in my corner, in the event of a fight.
"If it's bad when one person does it, it's bad when another person does."
Well said.
Would you have been prepared to allow Nazism to prosper because resistance would entail too great a risk to civilians?
"The views expressed by Churchill in his memo to General Ismay on 28/03/1945 are pretty much in along the same lines of my thinking: Greater concentration on military objectives."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that memo penned after the last German defensive front had been broken?
Churchill had no difficulty sanctioning the mass murder of men women and children civilians for four and a half years.
He also supported the development of penetrator bombs to ensure air raid shelters did not survive the blanket bombing of civilian targets.
He wasn't outraged by the extermination of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"His later memo also raised a legitimate point of the difficulties you're in for when you come into possession of a ruin."
Course he did. Where's the profit?
I'm trying to get this straight, Elliot, was anyone on the side of justice in WW2?
Should non Nazis have surrendered rather than inflict casualties on innocent civilians?
Observer:
"I think the slave population would have been entitled to bomb their "masters" back to the stone age, if they had chosen that option."
And then what? What do you think should come afterwards?
"Whereas I'm suggesting the methodology should reflect the capacity and resources of the combatants."
Regardless of practicality?
"Would you have been prepared to allow Nazism to prosper because resistance would entail too great a risk to civilians?"
No. Risking something and targeting it deliberately are two different things.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that memo penned after the last German defensive front had been broken?"
It was all but when Dresden was bombed, Nazi Germany was finished.
"Churchill had no difficulty sanctioning the mass murder of men women and children civilians for four and a half years.
He also supported the development of penetrator bombs to ensure air raid shelters did not survive the blanket bombing of civilian targets.
He wasn't outraged by the extermination of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Which is why I referred to the memo instead of the man himself, I'm well aware of what he was actually like.
"I'm trying to get this straight, Elliot, was anyone on the side of justice in WW2?"
Not really. There was certainly a lesser evil, but given the prior and subsequent actions of the powers involved I'd hardly say anyone was innately good.
Sorry missed this one:
"Should non Nazis have surrendered rather than inflict casualties on innocent civilians?"
Nope. But this is a trick question as you're refusing to distinguish between atrocity and collateral damage.
Elliot
"And then what? What do you think should come afterwards?"
Matter for themselves.
I wouldn't presume to apply my "objectivity" to their reality.
"Regardless of practicality?"
It has ever been thus.
When the strong dictate the rules of engagement, the weak invariably lose.
"No. Risking something and targeting it deliberately are two different things."
I would be interested in reading the RAF's risk assessment before the blanket bombing, at night, of German cities.
"Which is why I referred to the memo instead of the man himself, I'm well aware of what he was actually like."
Wasn't the memo written by the man?
"Not really. There was certainly a lesser evil, but given the prior and subsequent actions of the powers involved I'd hardly say anyone was innately good."
Agreed.
"Nope. But this is a trick question as you're refusing to distinguish between atrocity and collateral damage."
No trick.
There can be no excuse for the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians. Every army in every conflict has probably done this. Some, like the Nazis and the British developed entire strategies around the effect it would have on the enemy's moral.
Others, like the U.S. have sufficient control over the media to ensure killing everyone at a wedding, in an effort to eliminate one man, is described as collateral damage rather than a war crime.
I do believe there should be rules for combatants. No one else seems to care that much and the media, for the most part, are happy to go along with the line that only enemies are capable of atrocities.
It was right that Germany was defeated, in spite of Allied atrocities. The greater evil would have been a German victory.
Observer:
"Matter for themselves.
I wouldn't presume to apply my "objectivity" to their reality."
Do you think any advice should be withheld?
"It has ever been thus.
When the strong dictate the rules of engagement, the weak invariably lose."
When the weak are only capable of acts that will enflame opinion against them and thus strengthen the enemy they've already lost, rules or not.
"Wasn't the memo written by the man?"
Only to cover his own arse. Some RAF officer decided to shoot off some remark about crushing morale which had the Associated Press proclaiming to the world that the allies were undertaking terror bombing. I only chose that particular document as it is a handy summary of my own views.
"No trick."
Ah, in that case in answer to your question I'll say that no such casualties should be inflicted deliberately, the amounts of people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time to be minimised as far as practically possible.
As for your subsequent comments I agree wholeheartedly.
Elliot
"Do you think any advice should b