SF now the largest political party in the north.

owenc

Ment and how do you know what religion I am?

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

Ment and how do you know what religion I am?

It's irrelevant what religion anyone is.

Southsider1

Sinn Fein scored a spectacular own goal by not taking their seats in Westminster. They could now be calling the shots to form a coalition Government with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Independents. Now that would be Power!!

ardmacha

I mention native Irish

i.e. anyone born here.

People born in Ireland have ancestors that come from many places. I don't think where you ancestors come from the basis of seperate treatment.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DoireNod wrote: »

You could easily argue that Sinn Féin was being pro-nationalist rather than anti-SDLP.

I think they were doing both. They may be the party due to the largest amount of votes but they aren't the most powerful, they know if the SDLP crumble they'll get the lions share of their voters which could bring them close to matching the DUP's number of seats. I do have a lot of respect for Sinn Fein but I also like the SDLP and after observing both their behaviour during this election I've moved closer to SDLP

That's a bit disingenuous. Certainly, Ritchie was an easy target, but it's not right to say that he bullied her as if she was some helpless kid. They had digs at one another and to be honest, Ritchie's only comeback, that is trying to make an issue of abstentionism, was, to be frank, stupid. In the TV debates, Ritchie was her own worst enemy and came across as being very contrived.

Well as I said I agree she pulled the abstension card far too much, but it was wrong of Adams to come out and say she failed her first test of leadership because she wouldn't do a deal with him. A deal which simply had no benefits on offer for SDLP. So one can understand why SDLP would be a tad defensive/anti-Sinn Fein

Bottle_of_Smoke

Southsider1 wrote: »

Sinn Fein scored a spectacular own goal by not taking their seats in Westminster. They could now be calling the shots to form a coalition Government with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Independents. Now that would be Power!!

Not really. They could still take those seats if they wanted to, its not like they've missed the boat.

I was of the same thinking as yourself about this issue up until recently, even brought up your point on another board, but all in all Sinn Fein are elcted to not take their seats. The voters know and expect them not to, I guess its like Sinn Fein are making a symbolic point on behalf of their constituencies

A Dub in Glasgo

Southsider1 wrote: »

Sinn Fein scored a spectacular own goal by not taking their seats in Westminster. They could now be calling the shots to form a coalition Government with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Independents. Now that would be Power!!

More like fanciful thinking

Labour - 258
SNP - 6
SF - 5
PC - 3
SDLP - 3
Green - 1

Total - 276 = nowhere near calling the shots on anything

Edit: It would be a totally different story if Labour were on 321 then any party with at least 5 seats can maybe call the shots on something

Our man in Havana

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not really. They could still take those seats if they wanted to, its not like they've missed the boat.

I was of the same thinking as yourself about this issue up until recently, even brought up your point on another board, but all in all Sinn Fein are elcted to not take their seats. The voters know and expect them not to, I guess its like Sinn Fein are making a symbolic point on behalf of their constituencies

They never state that fact in any party election literature or party election broadcasts.

karma_

Bond-007 wrote: »

They never state that fact in any party election literature or party election broadcasts.

Give those voters who do vote SF the credit of at least acknowledging that they are fully aware that SF don't take their seats and yet it doesn't appear to bother them. The folk up here aren't some backwater idiots who don't have a clue as to whats going on.

dlofnep

Bond-007 wrote: »

They never state that fact in any party election literature or party election broadcasts.

Do you think the voting public is that stupid? They have been abstaining for a century. It's not as if it warrants broadcasting. Don't be silly.

mcmickey

I'm not a SF supporter, but fairplay to them, in particuliar for winning Fermanagh/South Tyrone, as a nationalist I'd rather see it stay in our hands. My father would have been a happy man today been a Fermanagh man though not neccessarily a SF supporter, just a general nationalist.

mcmickey

Here's the break down on FST. It's interesting because you hear people, generally of unionist views but sometimes on the left, always proclaiming how because of the Good Friday agreement the views of nationalists and unionsts would become less sharp and class politics etc emerge. Certainly doesn't look like it now.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Nobody said anything about Apartheid. You infact brought it up. The original context for discussion was on the basis of a poster claiming to admire Mandela, while on the same page - claim that no terrorist should be allowed to enter politics. I highlighted the fact that Mandela engaged in exactly the same strategies as the IRA.

While I did say that no terrorist should ever hold power I never said Mandela was a terrorist. You said that.

dlofnep wrote: »

You then went on to rant on about racial discrimination for a few posts - claiming that there were no similarities. I explained that there was discrimination on civil/cultural grounds, and that discrimination was and is wrong - and that in that context, the two situations were very much comparable - because one group of people controlled the politics, while the other was oppressed. The grounds for which they were oppressed on is irrelevant, and this is the key point that you have routinely missed.

Definition of Unionist: an upholder of the legislative union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unionist

Definition of Republican: of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republican

Northern Ireland is divided purely on Sectarian/Cultural grounds unlike in South Africa. People can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of those living in Falls Road/Shankill Road change address. One cannot however change their race.

Your comparison of Catholics in NI to black people in South Africa is not only incorrect, it is damm right sinister.

I got bored after page 15.Same old stuff.

Anyhow in my view,the result of the current election is a golden opportunity for Sinn Féin to secure an oath of office for Westminster thats similar to Stormont and for them to take up their seats in the commons.

They could liaise with the SNP and plaid cymru to gain that and I'm sure Gordie is keen enough to remain at no 10 to agree.

As regards SF being the largest party in NI now...THEY are GET OVER IT PEOPLE.
I suspect that they wouldn't be the largest party vote wise if the TUV hadn't taken some of the DUP vote and of course some of Peter Robinsons vote had'nt gone to the Alliance party.

It's my own view that NI isn't ready yet for a border poll but it will be in my lifetime.
I've absolutely no doubt about that.

I've also no doubt that all the Republican/Nationalist represtentatives and the Dublin government and the UK government of the time and stormont will be off to Europe securing a decade or more of funding to pay for it.
Anyone that thinks they wouldn't get the funding is deluded.
BY then I'd expect SF's economic policies to have moved inexorably more towards that of labour,ie moderately mainstream acceptable as opposed those they have now which in the south are niche economics moderately unacceptable to most.

We'll see anyhow.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

I got bored after page 15.Same old stuff.

They could liaise with the SNP and plaid cymru to gain that and I'm sure Gordie is keen enough to remain at no 10 to agree.

Should have stayed the course then you would have seen post 258

Southsider1

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

More like fanciful thinking

Labour - 258
SNP - 6
SF - 5
PC - 3
SDLP - 3
Green - 1

Total - 276 = nowhere near calling the shots on anything

Edit: It would be a totally different story if Labour were on 321 then any party with at least 5 seats can maybe call the shots on something

You're assuming that the Lib Dems are going to definitely side with the Tories? They're miles apart on policy.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While I did say that no terrorist should ever hold power I never said Mandela was a terrorist. You said that.

Actually I didn't. I said, he was called a terrorist. I don't believe he was. You claimed that no terrorist should be allowed to enter politics - but there is no difference in the tactics used by the IRA and Mandela. Both engaged in public bombing campaigns. So it's highly hypocritical of you, and also convenient for you to take such a stance, but exclude Mandela from it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your comparison of Catholics in NI to black people in South Africa is not only incorrect, it is damm right sinister.

No, it is not sinister. My comparison of one group in society being oppressed, to another group in society being oppressed is a perfectly valid comparison. There is nothing sinister about. Your hyperbole is humorous, as is the utter lack of logic in your argument.

DoireNod

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well as I said I agree she pulled the abstension card far too much, but it was wrong of Adams to come out and say she failed her first test of leadership because she wouldn't do a deal with him. A deal which simply had no benefits on offer for SDLP. So one can understand why SDLP would be a tad defensive/anti-Sinn Fein

I don't think Ritchie and the SDLP's decision not to deal with Sinn Féin was necessarily because of the nature of Sinn Féin's proposal. Rather it seems, at least to me , that the SDLP wished to take the moral high ground and stay 'neutral'.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While I did say that no terrorist should ever hold power I never said Mandela was a terrorist. You said that.

Mandela was considered a terrorist.

Terrorists are holding power in the UK, USA and across the globe; I hope you object to their being in power equally as much.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Northern Ireland is divided purely on Sectarian/Cultural grounds unlike in South Africa. People can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of those living in Falls Road/Shankill Road change address. One cannot however change their race.

Your comparison of Catholics in NI to black people in South Africa is not only incorrect, it is damm right sinister.

Sinister? Seriously?
There was state-sponsored discrimination, end of. It was wrong and it seriously affected the well-being and liberty of those subjected to the discrimination. Is there a hierarchy of discrimination in your world or what?

mcmickey

Here is a link analysising the vote. As you can see in 2010 SF and the SDLP vote is 42%. In 2005 it was 40.6%, an increase of 1.4 obviously. So, if this trend continues and the nationalist percentage continues to increase at this 1.4% every 5 years, then in 30 years they will have 50.4% of the vote.

It may not have to wait that long as the Alliance got 6.3%. How this would split on a border poll remains to be seen. Eammon McCann ( People Before Profit ) in Derry got 0.4%, a vote that would surely be pro United Ireland.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually I didn't. I said, he was called a terrorist. I don't believe he was. You claimed that no terrorist should be allowed to enter politics - but there is no difference in the tactics used by the IRA and Mandela. Both engaged in public bombing campaigns. So it's highly hypocritical of you, and also convenient for you to take such a stance, but exclude Mandela from it.

If we agree that Mandela is not a terrorist then how is it hypocritical of me to suggest that no terrorist should be in power ? Sure some people will say he was a terrorist but some people say Brian Cowen is a traitor.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it is not sinister. My comparison of one group in society being oppressed, to another group in society being oppressed is a perfectly valid comparison. There is nothing sinister about. Your hyperbole is humorous, as is the utter lack of logic in your argument.

As i've said in my last post, which you ignored one can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of people living in the Falls Road/Shankill Road ones address but one cannot change ones skin colour. That is why I consider your comparison sinister.

DoireNod wrote:

There was state-sponsored discrimination, end of. It was wrong and it seriously affected the well-being and liberty of those subjected to the discrimination. Is there a hierarchy of discrimination in your world or what?

I know what you are trying to say. And I believe that I have covered that above but I'm quoting this passage purely for the last sentence. I just want to be sure to put that to bed.

Of course there is a hierarchy of discrimination. The Holocaust was discrimination but on a much worse scale then what we saw in NI or South Africa.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If we agree that Mandela is not a terrorist then how is it hypocritical of me to suggest that no terrorist should be in power ? Sure some people will say he was a terrorist but some people say Brian Cowen is a traitor.

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So it's irrelevant who you think should be in power and who shouldn't. The fact of the matter is Mandela was called a terrorist by the same right-wing media outlets that would label McGuinness a terrorist. They both engaged in the exact same activities. One was oppressed for their colour, the other was oppressed for their political beliefs. Being oppressed for either is fundamentally wrong.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As i've said in my last post, which you ignored one can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of people living in the Falls Road/Shankill Road ones address but one cannot change ones skin colour. That is why I consider your comparison sinister.

I haven't ignored it. It wasn't even worth discussing, as it's an absurd point. You are suggesting that someone should have to change their political beliefs, as a means of convenience. That's fascism. It's moot whether or not someone can change their skin colour. The main point is that people are oppressed for something which is core to them.

DoireNod

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know what you are trying to say. And I believe that I have covered that above but I'm quoting this passage purely for the last sentence. I just want to be sure to put that to bed.

Of course there is a hierarchy of discrimination. The Holocaust was discrimination but on a much worse scale then what we saw in NI or South Africa.

This is your problem then. Severity of discrimination may vary from place to place, but there is no hierarchy of discrimination. The fact remains that Blacks in SA were treated similarly to how Irish Catholics were in the Orange state. As such, there is solidarity.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So it's irrelevant who you think should be in power and who shouldn't. The fact of the matter is Mandela was called a terrorist by the same right-wing media outlets that would label McGuinness a terrorist. They both engaged in the exact same activities. One was oppressed for their colour, the other was oppressed for their political beliefs. Being oppressed for either is fundamentally wrong.

That is a nonsensical statment that I should call Mandela a terrororist because "some right wing media outlets" label him so.

Nevertheless being opressed for political belifes is not the same thing as being opressed by colour. Granted being opressed in any sense is wrong but as I've said before one can change ones political belifes, one cannot change ones colour.

dlofnep wrote: »

I haven't ignored it. It wasn't even worth discussing, as it's an absurd point.

Newsflash, that is ignoring.

dlofnep wrote: »

You are suggesting that someone should have to change their political beliefs, as a means of convenience. That's fascism. It's moot whether or not someone can change their skin colour. The main point is that people are oppressed for something which is core to them.

Here is a quote from wikipedia on what facists believe:

wikipedia wrote:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong

Sound anything like nationalists in the North ?

Iwasfrozen

DoireNod wrote: »

This is your problem then.

What is my problem ?

DoireNod wrote: »

Severity of discrimination may vary from place to place, but there is no hierarchy of discrimination. The fact remains that Blacks in SA were treated similarly to how Irish Catholics were in the Orange state. As such, there is solidarity.

Yes there is, you've said it yourself the severity of discrimination varies from place to place. The more severe the discrimination the worse it is.

DoireNod

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes there is, you've said it yourself the severity of discrimination varies from place to place. The more severe the discrimination the worse it is.

The difference is, I don't consider the discrimination in the North to be any less wrong than other more severe cases of discrimination, which you appear to be saying when you claim that there exists a hierarchy of discrimination.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That is a nonsensical statment that I should call Mandela a terrororist because "some right wing media outlets" label him so.

Define terrorism.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nevertheless being opressed for political belifes is not the same thing as being opressed by colour. Granted being opressed in any sense is wrong but as I've said before one can change ones political belifes, one cannot change ones colour.

It's the exact same thing. It's irrelevant why someone is being oppressed - the same outcome exists. Your suggestion that they could/should have just casually changed their political affiliation is asinine.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Newsflash, that is ignoring.

Actually, it isn't. I acknowledged your point (not ignored your point), but felt it was so absurd, that it didn't warrant a response.

Winty

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

snow ghost

Winty wrote: »

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

Well they did say they wanted to take the gun out of Irish politics.

dlofnep

Winty wrote: »

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.

Not really - Banning the hunting of animals for fun has no correlation to using physical force resistance against a Government that upheld gerrymandered votes, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, and protected (and rewarded) soldiers who murdered civilians.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Northern Ireland is divided purely on Sectarian/Cultural grounds unlike in South Africa. People can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of those living in Falls Road/Shankill Road change address. One cannot however change their race.

Your comparison of Catholics in NI to black people in South Africa is not only incorrect, it is damm right sinister.

It is really not that simple. When you say Roman Catholics in the north you're really refering to people of native Irish decent. When you refer to Protestants you're refering to people of ulster plantation decent.

Catholic and Protestant are simply markers for ethnicity required because its difficult to tell native/planter decendents apart on looks alone.

So same race but slightly different ethnicity. My opinion is it was a lot closer to a racial conflict than a sectarian one. In most conflicts that's the case, look at Iraq - Sunni/Shia violence described as sectarian violence but its really down to ancestry. On the surface the conflict between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria might be a "proper" sectarian conflict but it really wouldn't surprise me if ethnicity is the real issue

So the comparisons with South Africa stand, and I don't know what you mean by describing them as sinister.

Winty

dlofnep wrote: »

Not really - Banning the hunting of animals for fun has no correlation to using physical force resistance against a Government that upheld gerrymandered votes, Blaaaa Blaaaa Blaaa

Ya your right, we needed to stop all them people in Enniskillen and Omagh from all that bad stuff they did

Bottle_of_Smoke

On the whole "terrorist" issue. That's a word that basically has no meaning these days. Both ANC/IRA used terror as a tactic, so by the proper definition yes Mandela/McGuinness were terrorists.

snow ghost

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Care to cite me the skin colour bars in the penal laws?

This was your original comment, you made no mention to skin colour, so why bring it up now instead of responding to the response I gave you:

“There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.”

Discrimination and racism is not only a skin colour issue, years ago when scientists believed in different races some people in power viewed the Irish as basically a white simian sub-species.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Grow up, people. You didn't live through Apartheid. It's not the West Bank either. Your constant attempts to equate the chequered and in many cases monstrous history of your movement with the likes of Mandela is beyond risible. It's contemptible.

I’m neither a republican nor a SF supporter, as an objective observer - like much of the World - I can indeed equate apartheid in South Africa with what has happened in Ireland and see siilarities. And as I pointed out earlier - but you have conveniently not addressed - so have members of the ANC and Mandela (see qoutes below, again), so could you kindly explain how the ANC and Mandella are indulging in MOPERY?
　
"Kathrada [ANC Hunger striker at the ceremony] added that the hunger strike by IRA political prisoners was an inspiration for prisoners on Robben Island which made them feel more determined to win their struggle."

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.ph...3926876I650891
　
Nelson Mandella: “… We recognise in the possibility you have thus given us the reaffirmation by the Members of this House and the great Irish people whom you represent, of your complete rejection of the apartheid crime against humanity, your support for our endeavours to transform South Africa into a united, democratic, non-racial and nonsexist country, your love and respect for our movement and the millions of people it represents. We know that the joy with which you have received us and the respect for our dignity you have demonstrated, come almost as second nature to a people who were themselves victims of colonial rule for centuries.

We know that your desire that the disenfranchised of our country should be heard in this House and throughout Ireland derives from your determination, born of your experience, that our people should, like yourselves, be free to govern themselves and to determine their destiny. The warm feeling that envelops us as we stand here is therefore but the affinity which belongs to peoples who have suffered in common and who are tied together by unbreakable bonds of friendship and solidarity.

The very fact that there is today an independent Irish State, however long it took to realise the noble goals of the Irish people by bringing it into being, confirms that we too shall become a free people; we too shall have a country which will, as the great Irish patriots said in the proclamation of 1916, cherish all the children of the nation equally."

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28

owenc

Winty wrote: »

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them... That's the exact same thing that my dad said

snow ghost

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

On the whole "terrorist" issue. That's a word that basically has no meaning these days. Both ANC/IRA used terror as a tactic, so by the proper definition yes Mandela/McGuinness were terrorists.

Most nation's armies use terror as a tactic - e.g. the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima, the Carpet bombing of Dresden in WWII. Both designed to terrorise the enemy into submssion. The US airforce general in WWII stated that their carpet bombing strategy in Germany and Japan was designed for this purpose and he admitted that if they had lost WWII he and the British airforce general would have been tried for war crimes. That's the cruel and horrible reality of war and conflict.

The word terrorist tends to be have a semantic meaning these day to suit the beliefs of whoever is using it.

Durng the ANC's campaign many people did deem him a terrorist, in retrospect many now see he was fighting a just war.

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them

No, they should be voting for whomever they feel serves their interests best. In this case, it's Sinn Féin. That's democracy, and you don't get to dictate who people should and shouldn't vote for.

Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

Winty

dlofnep wrote: »

n't vote for. Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

karma_

owenc wrote: »

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them... That's the exact same thing that my dad said

You can't 'tell' people who or who they can't vote for, that's the polar opposite of democracy and a fairly idiotic thing to say.

DoireNod

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to elaborate upon that rather bold statement?

*Assuming you mean Ulster Unionists in the broad sense.

karma_

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

the UUP don't have a single seat and the SDLP is losing it's voter base year on year. Yes, in an ideal world the UUP and SDLP would be the 2 main parties but we have to accept that the DUP and SF are now the most supported parties in the North and get over it.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they should be voting for whomever they feel serves their interests best. In this case, it's Sinn Féin. That's democracy, and you don't get to dictate who people should and shouldn't vote for.

Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

Ulster unionists my dad voted for them... They are the only sensible ones I feel the dup are bigoted.. I hate them there's just something about that boy Robinson that I hate... I feel that the dup and sf are just having a competition to see who gets highest as anyone i've asked says oh im Protestant i'm catholic.. they don't actually have a reason... People need to get over it!! Maybe bringing conservatives and other uk parties will stop that..

Winty

karma_ wrote: »

in an ideal world the UUP and SDLP would be the 2 main parties .

A man must live in hope that others will follow

snow ghost

Taking the history of the troubles and the United Ireland versus UK iissue out of the equation, if I lived in the North I'd want to have the likes of Martin McGuinness or Paisley Jnr representing me - they will get more from London for the North than all of the SDLP or UUP could ever. The government don't relish having to deal with them - they are good at what they do.

All Durkan used to do was cry that the British and Irish governments didn't listen to him - that says it all.

karma_

owenc wrote: »

Ulster unionists my dad voted for them... They are the only sensible ones I feel the dup are bigoted.. I hate them there's just something about that boy Robinson that I hate

In fairness to the DUP, I do feel they have somewhat mellowed over the years. It's teh TUV who are the danger, hopefully they will not garner any popular support.

Winty

DoireNod wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to elaborate upon that rather bold statement?

*Assuming you mean Ulster Unionists in the broad sense.

What is bold about supporting SDLP and UUP, they dont have blood on their hands so they are the best hope the lead both communities.

Bottle_of_Smoke

snow ghost wrote: »

Most nation's armies use terror as a tactic - e.g. the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima, the Carpet bombing of Dresden in WWII. Both designed to terrorise the enemy into submssion. The US airforce general in WWII stated that their carpet bombing strategy in Germany and Japan was designed for this purpose and he admitted that if they had lost WWII he and the British airforce general would have been tried for war crimes. That's the cruel and horrible reality of war and conflict.

The word terrorist tends to be have a semantic meaning these day to suit the beliefs of whoever is using it.

Durng the ANC's campaign many people did deem him a terrorist, in retrospect many now see he was fighting a just war.

I see what you're saying, its difficult to seperate it from any war really. I use it for mostly for guerilla warfare and my use of the term has no bearing on whether I feel the war is just or not.

Like say the IRA attack on Bishopsgate and the July 05 attacks on the london underground were both in my opinion acts of terrorism, though I'd condemn the latter a lot more than the former.

dlofnep

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

You're joking, right?

The UUP didn't get a single seat in the elections. They are counter-productive to peace, and are irrelevant at present. The SDLP will be soon joining them as they continue to slip.

snow ghost

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I see what you're saying, its difficult to seperate it from any war really. I use it for mostly for guerilla warfare and my use of the term has no bearing on whether I feel the war is just or not.

Like say the IRA attack on Bishopsgate and the July 05 attacks on the london underground were both in my opinion acts of terrorism, though I'd condemn the latter a lot more than the former.

I see your pont Bottle of Smoke, personally I usually define it the following way:

If there is an armed conflct in a country over legitimate grievances then I'd usually term the unconventional combatants 'guerillas', e.g. the ANC.

If there are a group of unconventional combatants with no legitimate or dubious grievances outside a specified territory or their indigenous homeland I usually define them as terrorists. e.g. Those involved in 9/11

The former is based on a right to equality and self-determination. The latter is based on hatred.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

You're joking, right?

The UUP didn't get a single seat in the elections. They are counter-productive to peace, and are irrelevant at present. The SDLP will be soon joining them as they continue to slip.

That's because the people of northern Ireland are just voting over religion!!! They need new parties or bring in uk parties and dump them ones to stop that whole religion **** I mean for god sake get over it!!!

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

That's because the people of northern Ireland are just voting over religion!!! They need new parties or bring in uk parties and dump them ones to stop that whole religion **** I mean for god sake get over it!!!

Your ignorance is astounding. You lack any understanding of democracy, and any understanding of the political differences in the north (and I assure you, religion has nothing to do with it).