Supid Hollywood Bimbo

[C0ckney]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supid Hollywood Bimbo

Originally posted by Agathon

The IRA would have no reason to exist, if the British had simply left the Irish alone.

given that the english (and then the british) have been involved in ireland since the 12th century and that ireland was part of britain from 1801 to 1921, this is an extremely simplistic viewpoint.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supid Hollywood Bimbo

Originally posted by C0ckney
given that the english (and then the british) have been involved in ireland since the 12th century and that ireland was part of britain from 1801 to 1921, this is an extremely simplistic viewpoint.

That's the ****ing point.

[Sandman]

If you do something extremely big and bad to some other group of people over a very long period of time, and you continue to do it with no signs of stopping, then they are entitled to fight back in whatever way is necessary because they are fundamentally in the right, and you are fundamentally in the wrong.

There's no 'you' in this, you're anthropomorphising. The children aren't responsible for the sins of the parents.

[chequita guevara]

No, they aren't. But if a cop shoots at a suspect and misses and hits an innocent person, it's the criminal who gets blames. Great Britain is the criminal here. If you weren't colonizing other countries, they wouldn't be fight back.

[Elok]

So, if the cop shoots back with a minigun and takes out forty people along with the criminal, it's still the criminal's fault for provoking him? That's the argument Aggie's making, or seems to be.

[Zkribbler]

Any plaintiff's counsel can tell you there's plenty of blame for everyone.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
So, if the cop shoots back with a minigun and takes out forty people along with the criminal, it's still the criminal's fault for provoking him? That's the argument Aggie's making, or seems to be.

That's the argument he'd be making, if the IRA had been that indiscriminate. They weren't. They aren't Israelis.

[Elok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supid Hollywood Bimbo

Originally posted by Agathon
If you do something extremely big and bad to some other group of people over a very long period of time, and you continue to do it with no signs of stopping, then they are entitled to fight back in whatever way is necessary because they are fundamentally in the right, and you are fundamentally in the wrong. This is different from a regular war where both sides are often equally to blame.

"Whatever way is necessary" covers everything from non-violent resistance to terrorism to open revolt and war depending on the circumstances. French partisans did some pretty revolting stuff, but you don't hear that much about it because they were fundamentally in the right. Terrorism is a legitimate tactic in many instances. The only people who tend to say it isn't are those who benefit from saying so.

I don't know how indiscriminate the IRA are, nor do I much care. If they happened to only blow up or torture or shoot a few dozen innocent people, so much the better. But Aggie's argument doesn't mention any rule of thumb for number of casualties acceptable. He says...well, you can read for yourself what he says. QFInsanity.

Now, if by "whatever is necessary" he meant "the minimum amount of violence that will achieve the desired ends, assuming that amount is in proportion to the extremity of the situation and is targeted exclusively at the enemy, making all possible efforts to avoid harming the innocent," he should have and no doubt could have said so. But he didn't; instead he trotted out this crusader bull****.

[DanS]

I had a good third generation Irish-American friend who -- after the 9/11 age -- argued forcefully for Palestinian right of terrorism.

You Brits don't know what you're up against. A large minority of Americans have strong sympathies with the IRA.

[DaShi]

And by large minority, he means his Irish-American friend.

[DanS]

Fact is, if you asked Irish-Americans (which, after all, is where the majority of those with Irish descent live) to choose between the Brits and the Irish, you would have a landslide for the Irish and no sympathy for the Brits.

There are those who remember the grain exports from a starving Ireland. And these folks are the descendants of those who left Ireland and didn't experience the relatively few, recent good times.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
No, they aren't. But if a cop shoots at a suspect and misses and hits an innocent person, it's the criminal who gets blames. Great Britain is the criminal here. If you weren't colonizing other countries, they wouldn't be fight back.

Again, there's no 'you'.

Should the Native Americans begin a violent, vicious uprising?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
No, they aren't. But if a cop shoots at a suspect and misses and hits an innocent person, it's the criminal who gets blames. Great Britain is the criminal here. If you weren't colonizing other countries, they wouldn't be fight back.

If you're using the "they started it!" argument, just be aware that for a good thousand years most of the invading was the Irish invading Britain.

[Myrddin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supid Hollywood Bimbo

Originally posted by Agathon


This is how it works.

If you do something extremely big and bad to some other group of people over a very long period of time, and you continue to do it with no signs of stopping, then they are entitled to fight back in whatever way is necessary because they are fundamentally in the right, and you are fundamentally in the wrong. This is different from a regular war where both sides are often equally to blame.

"Whatever way is necessary" covers everything from non-violent resistance to terrorism to open revolt and war depending on the circumstances. French partisans did some pretty revolting stuff, but you don't hear that much about it because they were fundamentally in the right. Terrorism is a legitimate tactic in many instances. The only people who tend to say it isn't are those who benefit from saying so.

Frankly the IRA did some awful things, and some stupid things, and there was a small amount of collateral damage, but the opposition were far worse (and even bombed stuff to make it look like the IRA were doing it). It would have been very easy for the British to remove all responsibility for the conflict by getting the hell out of Ireland.

The IRA would have no reason to exist, if the British had simply left the Irish alone.

And your position on reservations for Native Americans is???????

[Heraclitus]

I think the native Americans do have a right to fight the white man by any means necessary.

They just don't cause they have learned that there are to few of them... maybe biological terrorism would work for them? Perhaps they could start by infecting some blankets and then distributing them to the poor white folk during a particularly harsh winter...