SF support for an illegal IRA war in NI Vs their protest at an illegal war in Iraq-is it hypocrisy?

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

strongly disagree then
the invasion was illegal I find it absurd that people can gloss over the cause of the conflict an illegal invasion and occupation and brand the response to it as illegal

I'm not talking about the illegality of the invasion,I'm talking about the support that the insurgents who are responding in the way you are supporting have.

The same insurgents that didnt want a vote that how many million voted in at the risk of being blown to bits by the same insurgents....
Their actions are not legal .They don't have the approval of an elected Iraqi parliament.
If anything in fact, the amount of people who queued in their millions to vote when the vote was utterly opposed by the insurgents, underlines the shakeyness of an argument that they would have widespread popular support.But then these days, they are often foreign and spend most of their time blowing up fellow arabs.

given the ammount of censorship in Iraq I honestly doubt we are getting the full story no matter who we read

Nonsense.
If you believe the BBC or Robert Fisk amongst others are censored in the information or the quality of opinion they give from Iraq, thats your perogative.

Of course the people demanding civil rights and who were beaten of the street and the people who suffered the loyalist pogroms should have known that britain would enter the EEC in about 3 or 4 years time

And in 1980 or 1990...
There were many avenues open during those years besides pub bombings,Enniskillens and warringtons.

not to mention that the EU that turkey is having to adapt for is far different from the common market that the UK joined in 1972

The European court of human rights was there.

silly arguement so because more people travel to dublin it is different so if it was leitrim or donegal we could just forget about it

Nope it would all be relative, but yes,it's a road best not gone down.

well I'm pretty confident that to threaten people with an immediate and terrible war if they dont agree to your suggestion would have legal implications
however i'am unwilling to pay for a barrister to check that at this juncture money is a bit tight

yup,that money would be better spent...

except this state was founded on the actions of a small number of people engaging in military action against a "legal" occupation
I presume you find those events that led to the foudation of this state equally repugnant

I would if they were to happen today, just like the spanish inquisition and the lack of voting rights for women.

Now if you want to continue to discuss whether or not the IRA or Iraqi insurgents have the right to have done or to do what they are doing, please open another thread and I will gladly go there,it's not for discussion here.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Whats the title of the thread, oh yeah, SF and illegal iraq war, yourself and dub do like to drag it OT.

I can understand that the WW2 was a necessary action while at the same time, regret and condemn the behaviour of say bomber harris.

It's just justifying the IRA's campaign as a protection of innocent civilians in the north, while ignoring the fact that they've killed more innocent civilians than anyone else is a joke.



Alternatively they should just not go around kneecapping people.



Well you have a grand line in fundraising from the US. Doesn't change the matter at hand, an organisation which targets civilians, cripples children to instil control over a community, and robs and extorts money to fund these activities, is not an organisation that favours violence as a last resort. It's an organisation that sees violence and the most immediate and efficent route to success, and has no qualms about using violence to achieve it.




No I'm aware of ideal behind it, it's just a far cry from taking up arms to protecting their countrymen up north.



I was talking specifical about the international bridages. Again don't take a point of mine and shift the goalposts.



Translation; convient get out clause to avoid having to deal with the realities of the republican campaign, you only support the nice terrorists. I'll say one thing about some of the more extremist republicans on this site, they've the courage to argue the realities, you give your arguments handy get out clauses to avoid dealing with the reality of your position and the people you're defending.



No but theres a world of difference. between d-day and the republican campaign. I give you a clue, it has to you with you guys bombing a memorial service for d-day veterans, but wait don't tell me thats one of those "counter productive" terrorist acts. I'm almost curious to know what a "productive" terrorist act is.

And again the difference between d-day and a terrorist campaign, diplomacy had tried and failed to reach an agreement. Deciding to join a terrorist murder campaign, is not the act of a final resort to violence.



I've already dealt with the above. Now why don't you try and address the point



Instead of the rebuttal of the day "what about WW2"



You'll just happily unquestionable support it without quering the motives, ethics, politics, or country of birth of the person commiting the violence.



What do you have the history channel on is this history day.

Lets just take a moment to compare the iraq resistance for a moment.

The french government in exile (thats a government, as in elected) urged frenchmen to form the resistance.

They targeted the foreign soldiers in their country.

The Iraqi insurgents have no mandate from the people.

They include foreigners.

They target Iraqi civilians.

Do you see the difference?



general rule of thumb, I don't assume people want me to blow stuff up. It's not really a rule more a guideline, but it has served me well for most of my life.

Just assuming the people of NI want you to start killing maiming and torturing people for the sake of their freedom, does that seem like the actions of someone who feels that violence should only be used a last resort



The IRA were attacking civilian targets in the uk in the 70s. And it doesn't change the logic. Engaging in a campaign of terrorism aganist people who have never even been in NI never mind, oppressed the nationalist minority, is not the behaviour of people who favour violence only a last resort.

very funny accuse every else of going OT while constantly jumping OT yourself

btw I dont have any fundraising capabilities in the US or any other country

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

Now if you want to continue to discuss whether or not the IRA or Iraqi insurgents have the right to have done or to do what they are doing, please open another thread and I will gladly go there,it's not for discussion here.

By the way, that applies to mycroft aswell.

On reflection, this thread has run its course.
We've had people that agreed, people that disagreed, and even people that went away
An interesting discussion none the less

Closed