A picture says so much !

Boston

i dont know, on whioch one of us is more opjective id have to say its me, i know palestinians arnt staints, there not in that line of business. but i dont pretend blindly to denie everything.

yes they murder and kill " weman and children" but that is the way of the world. you corner and animal, and mistreat it, you deserve to be bite.

That seems pretty fair- given the 5 failed ceasefires you mentioned before? If they cant hold a ceasefire for 7 days then how can they hold one for years to come once an agreement is signed?

preconditions to peace, are never a good idea. we learnt that after ww1

Typedef

Negotiation. That cannot occur until both sides want it. Sadly at this time the palestinians are bombing women and children and the Israelis simply do not trust the palestinians even slightly. Its a sad state of affairs.

Sand try to be a little more objective here will you, realise that both sides are human beings not demons and that both should be given equal esteem ok? Seriously how can your skewed view of the world allow for any kind of vindication of colonization? You say "Palestinians bomb women and children", Israel a state that is flouting the entire UN bar the USA asassinates arbitrarily someone it labels "terrorist", no trial, summary execution. Do you happen to remember when this happened here ? Tell me, given the ambugity of wether or not the innocent people killed by Israel are by design or accident, where do you get off accusing the Palestinians of being the only side, to do wrong? How is it Israeli aggression is so excusable, Israeli murder of innocent life so easily explained, but watch your ass if you are a Palestinian? Two-tiered logic and racism perhaps?

About the status quo- hmm thats a pretty broad question- I might ask you is there anything you dont have a problem with in the current status quo? Lets just say any problem I might have with aspects of the status quo are not going to be solved by me strapping some exsplosives to my chest and murdering civillians.

Illogical, Israel asassinates people it "suspects" of terrorism, no actual proof just suspicion, ergo, those people have been convicted of no crime but were executed on suspicion. The horrible thing is that, it is the Israeli army who executes these people, whilst at least the Palestinian authority may claim that it is militants within Palestine that are acting without the vindication of the "state".

Hey I noticed you didn't rebuff my point on UN observers being present in the Middle East if Israel has nothing to hide, if as you say all the aggression is on the Palestinian side, then the UN would bear witness to this so why does Israel hide behind the USA? Presumably if Israel is being wronged so much it would welcome some international support, which would be forthcoming if as you seem to think the Palestinians originate all the violence.

No its you trying to misinterpret my words- and I havent called them "muslim mud people"- have I?

It's not the phrase but the attitude and lack of objectivity that seems to endemnify the mindset, know what I'm saying?

Cos youd only look even more stupid- mind you its the classic Judean Peoples Front debating tactic so knock yourself out.

hmm I feel kind of sorry for you Sand, either you can't rebuff my arguments or you're trolling (if you trolling, then there are I dunno limits as to what is kool to troll about know what I'm saying) either way you whinge and moan and call me stupid etc,etc..... yawn, but hey if it makes you feel better. YOU ARE A RACIST.

Kindly stop insinuating I'm mad, stop insinuating I can't read (I went to DCU and studied psychology when I was 14 ok?) and grow up a little bit when you are responding to a post. If your position is so untenable that you must attack me and not my issues (much like Sharon labeling Arafat 'irrelevant' and a 'terrorist') then maybe you should examine the basis of that position. Just an opinion.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
Political requirement, therefore, the threat is not real, but preceived yes? So if the threat to Israel does not exist or is more a matter of being "seen" to be helping Israel, why must the USA support the occupation, annexation and colonizing of Palestinian land at the expence of the Palestinian people and contrary to inumerate UN resolutions regarding the enitre conflict?

Typedef, I am constantly amazed by your "logic". It is as if you begin reciting the alphabet with A, then proceed directly to the last letter, 9.

JustHalf

Congratulations Typedef. You went to CTYI (as did I, for Computer Applications). It doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to be replying to the post at hand.

By the way, it is a sign of intellectual weakness to call someone a racist for saying that the Palestinians support the bombings, while at the same time making similar comments about Israelis.

Also, just because you are a nuclear power does not mean you are going to use them (in fact, you probably won't use them), so it is irrelevant to the argument.

And with tell me, Typedef, how many times has Israel been invaded since it's founding 53 years ago?

Boston, you need preconditions to peace. The other option is an unconditional surrender.

Sand

Typefef

I give both sides equal esteem Type. I dont even mention colonialism. The palestinians terrorists are bombing women and children. Israel is targeting terrorists. As for the issue of Israel of being the only side to do wrong I dont know whether to laugh or cry- We seem to be nearer on this issue than you care to admit- My view is that both sides are equally to blame for the violence - The Israelis mightnt be right in extending settlements (in fact its stupid but how and ever) but that does not give the palestinians the right to murder women and children .

I might even side with the palestinians as you obviously do but my complete and total opposition to terrorism prevents that. Nobody deserves terrorism and terrorism is not exscusable. If the IRA are wrong (and they are) then Hamas and the equivalent are wrong (and they are). Why do I belive the Israelis might "get off"? They do not deliberately go out to kill women and children- there is no gain in that for them. There is none for the palestinians either (it actually alienates support that they may gain from those who oppose terrorism like myself) but they still bomb resteraunts and shops. There is no racism in my stance much as you would love to think there is. I do not support terrorism full stop, regardless of race , colour or creed. Please understand that. Demonstrate your ability to read here.

The UN is unrealistic- How can anyone take seriously an organisation that claims to uphold human rights but at the same time just stood aside whilst the deathsquads came for the people of Srebinica (Something I find sickening- wonder how that figures into your delusion that i have something against Muslims.) How then can it be taken seriously to judge whose right or wrong in the middle east when it was guilty of one of the most sickening acts of hypocrisy and cowardice in modern history?

Im just going to ignore your next paragraph because its pure drivel.

Kindly stop insinuating I'm mad, stop insinuating I can't read (I went to DCU and studied psychology when I was 14 ok?) and grow up a little bit when you are responding to a post. If your position is so untenable that you must attack me and not my issues (much like Sharon labeling Arafat 'irrelevant' and a 'terrorist') then maybe you should examine the basis of that position. Just an opinion.

Im not insinuatiing youre mad, your views often appear to be however- thats my opinion, disregard it at your leisure. Prove you can by not making up stuff I didnt say and repeating stuff Ive already countered. My opinion of DCU is lowered. My opinon of Psychology students is unchanged. Actually scratch that thing about proving that you can read, you obviously cant cos Ive already said why the Israelis view Arafat as irrelevant. Ill value your opinion on that as much as I value your opinion on most subjects:)

Okay this thread has gone off topic again- perhaps not so much given it was about a cartoon that laughably portrayed Palestine as a sleeping maiden. How and ever Typedef/Boston if you wish to discuss the middle east and how to solve it in 10 easy steps then open a new thread and argue it to your hearts content-Im sure youll find a lot in common. Remember however that much of that ground has been gone over in the Israel vs Palestine thread and a lot of it in this thread. I do get tired of repeating myself- dont you?

Typedef

Originally posted by JustHalf
Typedef, I am constantly amazed by your "logic". It is as if you begin reciting the alphabet with A, then proceed directly to the last letter, 9.

JustHalf, it gladdens me inumerately that you are entertained, um but, last time I checked 9 was not the last letter of the alphabet, therefore the USA should stop it's prosaic blank cheque policy towards support of Israel and both Israel and the United States should comply with the very basics of UN requirements vis-a-vis a Land for Peace deal with the Palestinians.

By the way, it is a sign of intellectual weakness to call someone a racist for saying that the Palestinians support the bombings, while at the same time making similar comments about Israelis.

Umm either I am misreading this scentence or you have missed my point. I say that because of the lack of international observers(at least) that the Israeli imposition of occupation and the "supposed" "casaulties of war" as a result of that occupation are questionably accidental and therefore may well be delibrate. No doubt in some cases the Israeli caused "casaulties of war" are delibrately killed(assuming Israelis follow the same pattern as most other humans throughout recorded history), and therefore no one side is so righteous in it's campaign against the other to be able say, "Palestinians bomb women and children, Israelis do not".

Clearly human rights abuses are commited by both sides and if one examines the facts further it "should" become evident that the only side with upwards of 66 UN resolutions calling for a monumental sift in said side's way of conducting itself is the Israeli side.

Also just half the number of times Israel has been invaded is irrelevant to the issue of Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Jerusalem. The UN has set out quite clearly that Jersualem should be a city that does not belong to Jew or Muslim, Semite or Arab, the UN also requires Israel to give back the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the UN also requires the end of settlement of all terrortories Israel occupied by force.

Most of this is a matter of fact, it is the interpretation that people seem to be fighting and killing over.

http://www.likud.nl/extr60.html
In fact over fourty countries within the UN make just these kind of requirements of Israel, but more importantly the other fourty countries do not require the Palestinians to jump through hoops in order to reach a negotiating table, but somehow Israel has managed to filibuster compliance with international requisites for fifty years. I said somehow when I meant to say "with American support".

While the world's attention was diverted last week to the Balkans, the Palestinians presented their demand - and were backed by more than 40 countries - at a session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Only Israel and the United States said no.

The call is for reaffirming General Assembly Resolution 181, dated November 29, 1947, which divided the land west of the Jordan into two states - one Jewish, one Arab - to replace the British mandate.
Since it was adopted, a lot of blood has been spilled, beginning when the Arabs rejected the partition and went to war with Israel in 1948 - and lost.

After that, Israel regarded Resolution 181 as dead. As David Ben-Gurion, founder of the Jewish state, said:
"They started the war and they will pay for it."

So for Israel, this terrible suppression of the Palestinians is about revenge and petty self interest, revanche,revanche,revanche.

Typedef

Okay this thread has gone off topic again- perhaps not so much given it was about a cartoon that laughably portrayed Palestine as a sleeping maiden.

Good point
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/950000/images/_952600_ramiap300.jpg

Sand

Ive seen it. Have you seen this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1320000/1320589.stm

Hobbes

Makes a mention at the end that the Israelis are on stolen land. What's your point?

Fails to mention about the crimes caused by settlers on the palistines.

Here's a few for you.

http://my3.myonehost.com/News/2001/12/2001120611.php3

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html

Sand

http://my3.myonehost.com/News/2001/12/2001120611.php3

The malaysian PM says the Israelis are terrorists- Well Id guess hed know given hes got his own terrorist groups to deal with. Other than that, whats your point?

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html

The US gives aid to Israel. And? BTW you do realise that while the figures are most likely accurate, though they do use some assumptions, the actual bias of the writer and most likely the editor, and thus the publication is decidely anti Israel.

Now to prove Ive got a search engine too and can use it to search for articles containing the words "Israel", "Terrorist" and "Children" too

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/terrorism.html

Not important for the actual opinion of the author- which is pro-Israeli, I quote it for the picture of the Israeli child on April 4th.

http://info.jpost.com/C001/Supplements/Intifada/

Thats a link from the above site- Worth a look too.

http://www.yashanet.com/news/suicide.htm

And theres another.

Only took me a minute to find a nice long list of sites, I just took those as a sample- and thats using only one search engine. So by all means go ahead and quote some more links to "prove" the Israelis are the side doing all the wrong in this. All it will prove is that youve got a search engine. Newsflash- So do I.

The original purpose of this thread was a discussion over whether the cartoon that portrayed Palestine as a defenceless maiden was accurate. It is clear it is not.

Boston

5 straight questions sand's, yes or no answer, no BS and ill answer five of yours in the same fashion

1) Do you feel the palestinians have a case to heard for there own sovern state, one which isreal will repeat the borders off, and goveremnt off.

2)Do you think, that the palestinians could achieve this aim, without killing innocent "weman and children"

3)Do you think that isrealis courant tactics with relation to palestin will result in peace.

4)Do you believe that there will only be peace when both sides are safe with in their own borders and confident in their security.

5)Do you believe the isrealis have the right to assinate arafat

Sand

1) Do you feel the palestinians have a case to heard for there own sovern state, one which isreal will repeat (respect?) the borders off, and goveremnt off

Yes.

2)Do you think, that the palestinians could achieve this aim, without killing innocent "weman and children"

Yes.

3)Do you think that isrealis courant tactics with relation to palestin (Palestinian terrorists?) will result in peace.

Yes.

4)Do you believe that there will only be peace when both sides are safe with in their own borders and confident in their security.

Yes.

5)Do you believe the isrealis have the right to assinate arafat.

No.

1)Do you believe that terrorism is justifiable?

2)Do you believe that there can be any exscuse for it?

3)Do you recognise a difference between milatary action (which by nature involves targets of milatary value) and terrorism (which by nature involves targets chosen to cause the greatest terror)

4)Do you believe the ills of the Arab world, including the palestinians, are best solved by US and the West in general taking terrorists demands as a guideline for their policies in the middle east?

5)Assuming the Palestinian terrorists ceased their attacks on Israeli civillians, do you believe Israel would cease their targeting of terrorists in Palestine and engage in negotiation?

Boston

1) depends, Terrorism, as an act soly to and purely to terrorise people, then no i dont believe in it

2)several, in the right situation allmost anyone could be a terrorist

3)i Judge things by results, so no, i dont see a difference

4)questions to abiguious, and cant be answered yes or no

5)Engage, but do what is nessecary for peace, no.

Id apreciate you use terms never time that are alittle less argumentative, i kept in nice and simple for you, if your going to talk about terrorism, name groups, if your going to talk about arabs, name which ones.

Sand

Hmm your first three answers confirm what I assumed your views on terrorism were. Theres probably not much point in us discussing the morals of terrorism any further.

Question 4 is pretty clear to me- either you think Bin Laden and his ilk have demands that can form the guidelines for the wests policies with regard to the middle east- how simple does it have to be?

Question 5 Israel has shown it can negotiate agreements with enemies who are prepared to uphold them- Such as its agreements with Egypt (which got Sadat killed shortly afterwards) and Jordan.

BTW you couldnt keep to Yes or no answers- Even with you demanding I do so, which I did - (despite the ambiguity contained in your question 3 and 5)- and you claiming you would you still insisted on qualifying your answers, unwilling to get off the fence unless you had to.

if your going to talk about terrorism, name groups, if your going to talk about arabs, name which ones.

Why does it make a difference if a woman coming home from work is targeted by an IRA sniper or a ETA one? By a Hammas Sniper or Islamic Jihad one? Which one tells a sad story and which one doesnt? Which one has more stories to tell about injustices that happened in the past, but are continued on to justify the murder of this woman and you and other apologists for terrorism lap it up so you can believe their heroes or something?

I thought you said you judged by the results- So who cares which particular terrorist group did it- theyre all terrorists and the woman is just as dead. Perhaps the only difference is this- The JPF are NIMBYs- If it happens in Belfast its evil, but if it happens in Tel Aviv then its okay, its exscusable and justifiable. They exscuse the terrorism, because of the misery- ignoring the fact that terrorism only cause MORE misery, both to the victims and to the terrorists when the victims retaliate. They completely disregard the fact that negotiation is the only win-win solution.

It strikes me that you dont have a priniciple underlying your views- Youve seen plenty of pictures like the one posted at the start of this thread and youve bought into the Palestinian propaganda (and thats what it is) that theyre the wronged ones, the ones to whom this evil is being down by a "cruel and demonic power" whilst theyre fighting the brave fight with sticks and stones- shades of Star Wars eh? You consider the "defenceless maiden" picture to be fairly accurate? Its not. Its just more palestinian propaganda, and nauseatingly poor propaganda at that.

Ah whats the point- You believe the palestinians are justified to get a sovereign state, so do I. You believe their tactics of terrorism are justifiable and exscusable- I dont. I for one wont be saying terrorism is okay and this debate has got a bit too- stalled- for any meeting of the minds. I think you accept the portrayal of palestine in that picture is a bit rich- even if you wont admit it, so lets just drop it

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
[B
Ah whats the point- You believe the palestinians are justified to get a sovereign state, so do I. You believe their tactics of terrorism are justifiable and exscusable- I dont. [/B]

Sand, who exactly gave the Israelis the sceptre of illucidation and moral fortitude which allows Israel to arbitrarily decide who it may and may not asassinate? What is the difference between Israel asassinating a person it "suspects" of terrorism or even bombing the "suspected" HQ of some "terrorist" and killing people in the process it "allegedly" was not targetting, and a member of a paramilitary Palestinian group killing some innocent people with a bomb being targeted at the Israeli army of occupation in Palestine? Answer nothing.

What is the difference between when Israel targets Palestinian civilians (as it is pretty clear Israel has done so in the past) and when a member of a paramilitary Palestinian group does the same? Answer, when Israel does it the USA seems to miss it, the media in the west misses too it would seem and when Palestinians do it the USA recalls envoys and gives Israel billions of dollars to "defend itself from Islamic(Islam means peace) terrorists" and the media is filled full of the evils of Palestinian "terrorism". This is just a form of geo-political religious supremecy, except it is being espoused by "the world's only superpower", the same superpower that brought the world the KKK, Confederatism and the same power that has protected Israel from over 66 United Nations resolutions stretching back over fifty years.

You may cast aspersions on the United Nations Sand, but it is the only mechanism of it's kind of scope in place and it is preferable to the Dictatorial style that Washington the home of "freedom" seems prone to in it's foreign policy pontifications.

Sand

and a member of a paramilitary Palestinian group killing some innocent people with a bomb being targeted at the Israeli army of occupation in Palestine?

Lets see if me and my search engine can whistle up some typical Palestinian milatary objectives (discounting accidents of course- you know the ones where they blow themselves up by accident without being in a bus or a resteraunt filled with people)


http://www.ou.org/news/yaelhyd.htm

Yeah I guess the Palestinians missed the IDF forces there.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/07/17/LatestNews/LatestNews.30609.html

A bus stop eh? Hmm taking that out (and the peopole queing for it) will really cripple the IDF.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/02/23/News/News.21922.html

I guess those lads just couldnt find an IDF guy, never there when you need them eh?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/arabterrordeath.html

They probably mistook it for a troop carrier. Its an easy mistake.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/jerattack11.4.html

Hmm , funny how they didnt learn from the first time they tried it?


BTW im getting bored of being sarcastic now. Is my point made or do you continue to spout rubbish such as the Palestininians acting like any milatary force in targeting objectives of milatary value? Maybe you can enlighten me to the milatary value of the above targets. They werent accidents were they? All of them?

If they werent accidents then maybe you can justify it for me - Palestinians live in refugee camps, sounds like a good reason to me to blow yourself up on a bus full of people. Or the US supports Israel, theres another good reason. Thats why those people were targeted then? Perhaps a child prodigy can see something I cant.

Cos Im sure your right- Palestine is a defenceless maiden, those people werent killed by Palestinian "freedom fighters"- They were killed by the Israeli-US oppression of the Palestinian people- Thats what it comes down to, to admit anything else would be to admit that the Palestinians are terrorists, not "terrorists" and far from defenceless.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
If it happens in Belfast its evil, but if it happens in Tel Aviv then its okay, its exscusable and justifiable. They exscuse the terrorism, because of the misery- ignoring the fact that terrorism only cause MORE misery, both to the victims and to the terrorists when the victims retaliate. They completely disregard the fact that negotiation is the only win-win solution.

Except in places like afghanistan where it's ok to bomb first and talk later.

If you want to talk about terrorism in ireland, look up your school history book and see how this state was actually formed. Then look up Northern Ireland's history since the 1960's and explain to us how catholics were to achieve basic civil rights when every attempt at peaceful negotiation was ignored or criminalised. Under circumstances like those, it was inevitable that certain people thought the only means left available was an armed one. "Terrorism" did work in northern ireland. For far too long, the institutionalized state terrorism worked for the bigoted loyalist elite who controlled the place and had the forces of "law and order" at their disposal, and it worked for Sinn Fein/IRA who are now in government with all their prisoners out of jail. Watchtowers are coming down and troop levels are nothing like the 20,000 they were at the height of the conflict. They may not have achieved their primary objective - a united ireland - but they've got far more than they had 10 years ago, (nothing more than civil equality) and they know a united ireland will happen within the next 15 years anyway.

Ah whats the point- You believe the palestinians are justified to get a sovereign state, so do I.

A state that doesn't even have control of its own water supply ain't much of a state.

You believe their tactics of terrorism are justifiable and exscusable- I dont.

What happened to the end justifying the means as you pointed out in another thread?

Let's follow the "end justifies the means" logic and ask that since loyalist groups are still killing catholics at random and sometimes protestants "by mistake", would it be wise to send bulldozers and helicopter gunships into east belfast to "smoke 'em out" and "bring 'em to justice" as Emperor Dubya put it?

This is the thing with right wingers, they tend to contradict virtually everything they say. So in the end, words are meaningless and reason becomes futile.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
So by all means go ahead and quote some more links to "prove" the Israelis are the side doing all the wrong in this. All it will prove is that youve got a search engine. Newsflash- So do I.

Well prehaps I should clear something up. I know both sides are at fault. What's annoying is people seeming to think the Israelis are the innocent parties in all this.

Boston

Question 4 is pretty clear to me- either you think Bin Laden and his ilk have demands that can form the guidelines for the wests policies with regard to the middle east- how simple does it have to be?

4)Do you believe the ills of the Arab world, including the palestinians, are best solved by US and the West in general taking terrorists demands as a guideline for their policies in the middle east?

You didnt mention bin laden in any shape, way or form in that question, that why i could not have answered it, i say yes, then bang you accuse we of supporting sept11, your no very fair when you try to trick people into a cornor.

Why does it make a difference if a woman coming home from work is targeted by an IRA sniper or a ETA one? By a Hammas Sniper or Islamic Jihad one? Which one tells a sad story and which one doesnt? Which one has more stories to tell about injustices that happened in the past, but are continued on to justify the murder of this woman and you and other apologists for terrorism lap it up so you can believe their heroes or something?

groups do make a differece, i see huge differences between the old IRB, the todays IRA, The Real IRA, and then the groups such as the NLA, To me, if the group have the majority support of the people they are fighting for then they cant be terrorist, this is why bin laden is one and why groups like hamas (imho) arn't

BTW i havent been brain washed by media, i know perfectly well the history of this conflict, and the sides. If what im reading cant be propaganda maybe thats how you can support isreal, by being its all bull****.

BTW those agreements with other countries dont mean a damn, they have never up held up with the palestinians

Biffa Bacon

Then look up Northern Ireland's history since the 1960's and explain to us how catholics were to achieve basic civil rights when every attempt at peaceful negotiation was ignored or criminalised.

Catholics did have basic civil rights. The civil rights movement was concerned with ending discrimination in certain areas. The IRA's campaign had nothing to do with this.

Under circumstances like those, it was inevitable that certain people thought the only means left available was an armed one.

That doesn't make it morally justifiable.

"Terrorism" did work in northern ireland.

No it didn't.

it worked for Sinn Fein/IRA who are now in government with all their prisoners out of jail...Watchtowers are coming down and troop levels are nothing like the 20,000 they were at the height of the conflict.

No, that was achieved by ending terrorism. The IRA achieved absolutely nothing. Zilch.

Boston

you have to admitte, at the height of the civil rights movement in the north, catholics were still being fired from the dock lands.

it was a situation, not unlike the blacks in the south of the us, only difference is the catholics allso took up arms,

you cant say peacefull negoiations is 100% what brought about peace, it took 20 years of war to get the english to the table, they totaly ignored northern ireland for the most part untill someone started to bomb up the english mainland,

i know allot of you morally right people dont like to face this, but theres a time for war and a time for peace, all things are not equall, and sometimes you can achieve things with the barrell of a gun in someone face and sometimes you can achieve things talking at a table, but dont believe anything can be achieved without bought, history has thought us that

Biffa Bacon

it was a situation, not unlike the blacks in the south of the us, only difference is the catholics allso took up arms,

And there was no segregation.

you cant say peacefull negoiations is 100% what brought about peace

The peace process came about because the IRA realised that their campaign wasn't working, and couldn't work. This campaign had nothing to do with ending discrimination in the North.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Catholics did have basic civil rights. The civil rights movement was concerned with ending discrimination in certain areas. The IRA's campaign had nothing to do with this.

What country where you looking at in the 60's? Couldn't of been Northern Ireland where Catholics had the basic rights of housing, emplyment, voting rights and their fair share of government power taken away from them? Or maybe you missed the bit in the late 60's where entire Catholic neighborhoods were being burned out by protestant mobs supported by auxilliary police forces, while the regular police ignored
the problem.

(The British Army where first sent in to protect the Catholics)

And there was no segregation.

Again, where are you getting your history from?

The peace process came about because the IRA realised that their campaign wasn't working, and couldn't work. This campaign had nothing to do with ending discrimination in the North.

Most of the IRA support came around the time of Internment, back when innocent people where jailed and beaten.

As for ending their campaign? The writing was on the cards anyway. It's a very different northern Ireland then it was 40-50 years ago and the IRA certainly wouldn't of gotten the support now that it did then.

Boston is partly correct. The British all but ignored Northern Ireland, it was only when the IRA started hurting the UK financially that it started to do something about it.

It would be silly to say that the IRA had absolutly no effect on what happened in NI, it would be equally silly to say they are the only reason for the end of violence. (which hasn't really ended).

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes

Couldn't of been Northern Ireland where Catholics had the basic rights of housing, emplyment, voting rights and their fair share of government power taken away from them?

No they didn't. Which isn't to say there wasn't discrimination in terms of housing lists, gerrymandering etc. but to say that Catholics had their basic rights taken away from them is a gross distortion.

Also, there was certainly no segregation in terms of separate amenities for Catholics and Protestants, Catholics having to give up their seats for Protestants etc. as there was for blacks in the US.

Hobbes

Catholics had their basic rights taken away from them is a gross distortion.

Prehaps you should read up more. I recommand CAIN.

...Emergency legislation was introduced on a permanent basis; a police force and police reserve was established which was almost exclusively Protestant; local government electoral boundaries were openly gerrymandered, a stratagem also used by nationalists when they were able to do so; and a system of economic discrimination was introduced against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. This minority formed about one third of the population for most of the twentieth century, and currently represents around 40 per cent.

A number of Westminster-led social changes after the Second World War, including the introduction of free secondary education for all, led during the 1950s to the emergence of a Catholic middle class. It was their growing dissatisfaction that led to the civil rights campaign of the 1960s.

Civil Rights and After: 1969

By the 1950s there were growing signs that some Catholics were prepared to accept equality within Northern Ireland rather than espouse the more traditional aim of securing a united Ireland. In 1967 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was formed to demand liberal reforms, including the removal of discrimination in the allocation of jobs and houses, permanent emergency legislation and electoral abuses. The campaign was modelled on the civil rights campaign in the United States, involving protests, marches, sit-ins and the use of the media to publicise minority grievances. The local administration was unable to handle the growing civil disorder, and in 1969 the British government sent in troops to enforce order. Initially welcomed by the Catholic population, they soon provided stimulus for the revival of the republican movement...

Also, there was certainly no segregation in terms of separate amenities for Catholics and Protestants, Catholics having to give up their seats for Protestants etc. as there was for blacks in the US

Heh heh, yes Catholics and Protestants could sit down beside one another and enjoy a pint of the black stuff. :rolleyes: .

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes

...Emergency legislation was introduced on a permanent basis; a police force and police reserve was established which was almost exclusively Protestant; local government electoral boundaries were openly gerrymandered, a stratagem also used by nationalists when they were able to do so; and a system of economic discrimination was introduced against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. This minority formed about one third of the population for most of the twentieth century, and currently represents around 40 per cent.

A number of Westminster-led social changes after the Second World War, including the introduction of free secondary education for all, led during the 1950s to the emergence of a Catholic middle class. It was their growing dissatisfaction that led to the civil rights campaign of the 1960s.

Civil Rights and After: 1969

By the 1950s there were growing signs that some Catholics were prepared to accept equality within Northern Ireland rather than espouse the more traditional aim of securing a united Ireland. In 1967 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was formed to demand liberal reforms, including the removal of discrimination in the allocation of jobs and houses, permanent emergency legislation and electoral abuses. The campaign was modelled on the civil rights campaign in the United States, involving protests, marches, sit-ins and the use of the media to publicise minority grievances. The local administration was unable to handle the growing civil disorder, and in 1969 the British government sent in troops to enforce order. Initially welcomed by the Catholic population, they soon provided stimulus for the revival of the republican movement...

I see nothing in there about Catholics having their basic rights taken away. Discrimination yes, but not the wholesale denial of basic civil rights.

Heh heh, yes Catholics and Protestants could sit down beside one another and enjoy a pint of the black stuff. :rolleyes:

There was no legal impediment preventing them from doing so, as there was for blacks in the southern US.

Sand

You didnt mention bin laden in any shape, way or form in that question, that why i could not have answered it, i say yes, then bang you accuse we of supporting sept11, your no very fair when you try to trick people into a cornor.

Bin Laden and his ilk. I know its not popular among the JPF to call him a terrorist, but thats what he is. Do you believe his *views*, not his actions, and the *views* of other terrorists form a suitable framework for the US and the West to base its policy with regard to the middle east? How simple does it have to be for you?

To me, if the group have the majority support of the people they are fighting for then they cant be terrorist, this is why bin laden is one and why groups like hamas (imho) arn't

No it only makes them popular or unpopular terrorists. They are terrorists regardless because they carry out terrorism. And Bin Laden does have support http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/18/194004

I was going to get into the Northern Ireland thing but Biffa Bacon has things well in hand. Mind you its not extremely hard to defeat such weak arguements as have been offered by Boston and Hobbes. You guys sound like you walked off Sinn Fein. Any improvements in NI have been brought about by negotiation and political action such as the Civil Rights movement which *embarrassed* the British into reforming NI. IRA violence has only made such negotiation so much harder- witness the whole disarmament issue and the deep seated bitterness evident on both sides.

tools

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

There was no legal impediment preventing them from doing so, as there was for blacks in the southern US.

About the nicest thing that could be said about the northern ireland statelet was that it was not quite as bad as south africa or alabama. Theoretically a catholic could walk into a bar on the shankill and have a pint but he'd be going home via the hospital.

So was the whole civil rights thing was a lot of fuss over nothing? Should the catholics have just accepted their lot? Since police, (in addition to beating up and killing activists) stood by and allowed mobs to burn people out of their homes, was it any surprise to anyone that the IRA would be the ones called in to protect catholic areas?

Eamonn McCann explains how gerrymandering worked in Derry here.

Biffa sounds like one of those people who still thinks internment and torture are the ways to uphold "law and order."

Boston

so when yo usay terrorist, you could be talking about 50,000 members of a hundread groups, you said arabs and there ills, and do i support them, Arafat and bin laden, have different ills, and different aims.

BTW sure bin laden has support, but its only a tiny fraction of the arab world, to say he has any right to a majoority support is insane, he says he did it for afgans, if that were true would they have be so happy to see americans riding their country of bin ladens organization. he says he did it for palestinians, how many of the hijacers were palistianians ?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by tools

About the nicest thing that could be said about the northern ireland statelet was that it was not quite as bad as south africa or alabama. Theoretically a catholic could walk into a bar on the shankill and have a pint but he'd be going home via the hospital.

I'm sure that would quite probably still happen today, as it would if a Protestant was to walk into a bar on the Falls Road. It's still not legally-enforced segregation.

So was the whole civil rights thing was a lot of fuss over nothing?

No. But the IRA's campaign had nothing to do with civil rights.

Should the catholics have just accepted their lot?

No.

Since police, (in addition to beating up and killing activists) stood by and allowed mobs to burn people out of their homes, was it any surprise to anyone that the IRA would be the ones called in to protect catholic areas?

No. But there was no need for them after the British Army was called in to restore order. The subsequent 25-year campaign of the IRA thus had nothing to do with civil rights or protecting the Catholic population of the North.

Biffa sounds like one of those people who still thinks internment and torture are the ways to uphold "law and order."

How did you reach that conclusion?