A picture says so much !

Sand

LOL- The IRA called in to protect catholic areas?- The IRA have killed more Catholics than the British Army.

Biffa Bacon is doing well but at the end of the day Biffa these people have already made up their minds- dont confuse them with facts. Boston for example does not recognise any difference between the D-Day landings and the WTC attacks. He judges by results. So your wasting your time by asking them to recognise the IRAs terrorist campaign to be evil and counter productive.

Biffa sounds like one of those people who still thinks internment and torture are the ways to uphold "law and order." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/origins/images/ocr6_t2.jpg

Hmm is that one of the Catholic victims of the IRA with their "community policing". Im sure you can justify that too.

you said arabs and there ills, and do i support them,

Boston so you belive the US should withdraw from the middle east, abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the terrorists, encourage the foundation of a pan Islamic state, and pay each arab $30000 that their owed by the West? Cos that pretty much what these Arab terrorists, who you support, want. If Im second guessing your opinion its because you cant answer a simple Yes or No question.

Boston

LOL- The IRA called in to protect catholic areas?- The IRA have killed more Catholics than the British Army.

yea, damn those peace loving english, they didnt want to murder catholics, they were forced to by the obtainance of the ira, not being happy with being second class people, the british should really be praised fpr there effords to civilize the northern catholics. :rolleyes:

now that i think about it, is there any situation you yourself would take up arms against,?

BTW you know what i find funny, unlike other groups, i have never and will never support the ira, i know to much about what actually went on there to be stupid enough to take sides, yet, when arguing with you sands, i soulds like a badge wearing, full member

Typedef

Boston for example does not recognise any difference between the D-Day landings and the WTC attacks. He judges by results.

Actually Sand you're the one who judges by results, you have stated that "the end justafies the means", so you believe that if the end is vauntable or attainable(you seem to equate the two) that violence is justafiable, ergo by your logic a terrorist ceases to be a terrorist when the "terrorist" achieves the "terrorist's" aims, hence results.

So your wasting your time by asking them to recognise the IRAs terrorist campaign to be evil and counter productive.

Also by you results based logic for qualifying and endemnafying violence the "terrorism" of the IRA is open to interpretation, if you were a civil rights activist then by your results based logic, the IRA were totally justafied in their violence (you have yourself used the American example of support of the USSR to best Nazism as an example of results justafying any and all transgression), however if you had a strong political belief in a 32 county Republic of Ireland then by the same logic you are espousing the IRA would be "terrorists". Anyway.

Boston so you belive the US should withdraw from the middle east, abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the terrorists

Eh, Sand, here's a newsflash, the Israelis are the terrorists in this equation pure and simple, now your friends the US and Israel may disagree with the other 187 countries that participate in the UN but if one views the situation from any kind of an objective view, it must become clear that the US is acting as an Imperialist and dictatorial power in this matter. If the US were really a democracy then it would respect the overwhelming majority of some 189 member countries of the UN and enforce the resolutions calling for a land for peace deal with the Palestinians, a resolution that Israel and the US have arbitrarily disregarded for the last fifty years. The fact is Sand no matter how may times you call the repressed people of Palestine terrorists, the fact is you still won't be right, now I know the US is the light of the world, far be it for me to suggest otherwise, but at which point did the USA decided that the only opinion that counts is the USA's and never mind the 187 other countries that don't support Israel in the UN, what are all those countries supporters of terrorism too? Dictatorship is what this is, Dictatorship by the very people who exponenciate themselves as the supreme champions of "democracy", no wonder the US is so ready to support repressive Military Dictators(like in Pakistan now and Iraq in the pas) to espouse it's own pedantic self-interests, the Dictators remind them of themselves.

encourage the foundation of a pan Islamic state, and pay each arab $30000

Em I hate to burst your bubble I really do, but the IRA wanted a thirty two county Republic for ages, but mystically the IRA managed to come to an accord with the Protestants in the North and the British Government, how do you think that happened? People for years said that all the IRA wanted as a 32 county Republic and wouldn't settle for anything less etc,etc, but that was just an excuse not to deal with the issues, just like what you posted above. I think you might find that if a just Palestinian state that didn't for example give 20 times the rights to water access to 60,000 colonists(who's very presence is an affront to UN mandate) than it does to some 3 million Palestinians and does not try to annex 20% of Palestine to Israel and Semitise Jerusalem, further I think you might find if the West stopped making excuse after excuse to keep sanctions in place in Iraq(to the detrement of the Iraqi poor who are dying by the millions as a result of said sanctions), that the so-called "terrorists" and their cause would quite quickly evaporate.

that their owed by the West? Cos that pretty much what these Arab terrorists, who you support, want.

The fact that some of the "terrorists" are Arab is totally irrelevant, also for your information there are quite a few members of al-Queda who are not from Arabic countries(remember the big noises made in the media about "foreign fighters"), so I do think that you might want to lay off on comments like the above, lest people think you are a racist.

Sand

Type again proving he cant read. Had this "discussion" already and you lost it then. For your benefit Ill repeat. The end justifies the means. Terrorism has achieved no end. Hence no means can be justified. This is pretty simple logic, even for a Psychology student. Perhaps you feel Omagh was effective or achieved something- thats fine. Youre wrong but it would kill you to admit it.

Eh, Sand, here's a newsflash, the Israelis are the terrorists in this equation pure and simple,

No comment to make on those examples of Palestinian "milatary" action?

And if you think the IRA was part of the solution in NI youre in la la land- they and the terrorist scum like them are part of the problem.

so I do think that you might want to lay off on comments like the above, lest people think you are a racist.

Hmm again just displaying your shocking lack of literacy - Notice how Boston mentioned Arabs in particular? Also I despise Irish terrorists as well, does that make me racist against Irish people? All you have is rhetoric and dogma and when that fails call him a racist and hope you can shame him into keeping quiet? Pathetic.

now that i think about it, is there any situation you yourself would take up arms against,?

Oh Yes. But when you say take up arms I take it you mean would I join a terrorist group and carry out atrocities like Omagh? No. I leave that for old romantics like you and Type.

unlike other groups, i have never and will never support the ira, i know to much about what actually went on there to be stupid enough to take sides

Then maybe you should read up a bit more on Israel so youre not stupid enough to take sides there. Another Judean Peoples Front NIMBY.

Typedef

That's right Sand, don't rebuff any points, instead rant on about the Judean People's Front and call anyone who doesn't agree with you and your imperalist American mates a terrorist(are you related to George Bush by any chance?)... yawn.

Oh and even though you managed to miss my point about the USA and Israel being outnumbered in the UN by nearly 187 votes to 2 and still the UN mandate gets vetoed by the US I will rebuff your palestinian military action point.

For what it's worth Palestinian terrorism is as wrong as Israeli terrorism. Israeli occupation, annexation and supression of Palestine is wrong too in case you missed that the other fify thousand times I posted it, American blank cheque support of Israeli despotism in the Middle East is one of the world major gripes with the US (just in case you thought all those "terrorists" hated Big-Macs and "freedom"), but I guess this just doesn't factor into your narrow view of who may use military action and who may not.

If we assume that killing al-Queda members will just make martyrs of said dead people then we may also assume that military action will never quell anti-American "terrorism" and therefore the current means of US foreign policy towards terrorism ie violence is not justifyable.

The US should have tried negotiation before war, even Winston Churchill said "Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War", but no, the benovalent American Superpower said "there will be no negotiation period", guess George Bush knows better that Winston Churchill when it comes to foreign policy, especially as he had never even left the USA before becoming President. hmm there's a picture huh? Dubya with his pointy sheet perched on his head and the trigger for the nukes resting under his bucket of fried chicken huh? hahaha.

Hobbes

Not going to argue with you Biffa It's much of the same thing.

Saying that people have rights is very different from people having to fight for the supposed rights.

Sand

Wow, Type admits Palestinian terrorism is wrong. I never thought I would hear you say that.

Far as Im concerned though I rebuffed all your points (You already know what I think about the UN moral authority so they can take as many votes as they want).

BTW anyone can use milatary action. Unlike terrorist apologists i draw a distinction between milatary action (D-Day landings for example) and terrorism (Any one of those links I provided earlier as an example).

The US did try negotiation before the war. Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden for trial- hence they brought about the fall of their regime.

hmm there's a picture huh? Dubya
with his pointy sheet perched on his head and the trigger for the nukes resting
under his bucket of fried chicken huh? hahaha.

Simply betrays your personal hatred of the man, clouding your views. Seeing as he has 88% support of the US, do you believe theyre all doing that?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You already know what I think about the UN moral authority so they can take as many votes as they want

As a matter of interest....given that you (personally) feel the UN have no moral or judicial weight internationally, what does that leave us with?

No international body to try and mediate between nations. It boils down to "we say we're right, so you're wrong" comign from both nations.

Once you get to that point, any allegations of rightness or wrongness are completely pointless. In short, you are advocating rule by force....whoever has the most guns gets to make the rules, and enforce them by force of arms if necessary.

Or, if I'm mistaken, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the world can operate on an international level without the auspices of a group like the UN to help avoid another World War?

BTW anyone can use milatary action. Unlike terrorist apologists i draw a distinction between milatary action (D-Day landings for example) and terrorism (Any one of those links I provided earlier as an example).

Ah - so military actions are good, terrorist activities are bad?

Then Hitler's invasion of Poland was OK? And the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan? Oh - and the North vs South in Vietnam too. These were all military actions....so they're fine, yes?

The US did try negotiation before the war. Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden for trial- hence they brought about the fall of their regime.

The US did not try negotiation. The US issued a set of demands, and invaded when these demands were not met. This is not negotiation.

jc

Boston

Typedef, i wasnt going to be pushed into arguing with his messed up black and whie image of the world. sept11 was an attack by a nut case, not bent on freeing the people of palestin, but uniting the whole arab whole under his strict islamic rule, he is a terrorist,

Now you say sands, i see not difference between d day and WTC, i see several, I said i judge by results, d day was about freeing europe from nazi rule, i see no difference from that and a hamas attack. ones called a military action, the other a terrorist attack

Allot of americans see no difference between pearl harbor and WTC, and i can see how the pair could be seen in the same light, yet one was a military action and the other a terrorist attack, WHY

The British fire bombing of Dresden, a military act, yea few terrorist attack have ever taken so many innocent lifes.
and when you look at arabs praising bin laden, remember, the english have statues of bomber harest in london.

This is what i mean when i say i dont see any difference between terrorist and military attack, just because someone labels them.
i didnt say all military actions were terrorist, or all terrorist actions were military. Alas i fear this is beyond you perceptions, as in challeanges you black and white few otf the world, which can only be resulted in looking at the grey in the middle.

The British fire bombing of Dresden, a military act, yea few terrorist attack have ever taken so many innocent lifes.

tools

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

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.

No it's merely institutionalized sectarianism which is just as barbaric imo.

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

Hmm let's see if we can halt this revisionism.

In the mid-60's the IRA abandoned military operations and chose politics, adopting a Marxist agenda (fashionable at the time) that intended to unite working class protestants and catholics. However in 1966, loyalists revamped the Ulster Volunteer Force and embarked on a sectarian campaign against Catholics.

In 1967 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was set up and organised street demonstrations to lobby for civil rights. The Stormont government branded the movement a front for the IRA and banned its marches. In October 1968 the RUC used heavy-handed tactics to disperse a Civil Rights Association march in Londonderry and in January 1969 a People's Democracy march was attacked.

Tensions between Derry Catholics and the RUC were high in the summer of 1969. The previous month Sammy Devenney had died from injuries he received when RUC officers battered him in his own home. As the 12 August approached there was an expectation that the march would trigger unprecedented violence.

Sectarian clashes occurred as the Apprentice Boys marched past the perimeter of the Catholic Bogside. The RUC intervened and, assisted by a Protestant mob, charged at the nationalists forcing them into William Street. Within hours rioting had escalated into what local priest Fr Mulvey described as a "community in revolt". The police were stoned and petrol bombed as they made their way in riot gear into the Bogside. After two days and nights of continuous rioting the police were exhausted.

Riots erupted in Belfast after the Civil Rights Association called on Catholics to take pressure off the Bogside by stretching police resources. Five Catholics and one Protestant were killed on 14 August. The following day troops were deployed in Belfast to contain the violence but too few in number to have any effect. That night a Protestant mob burnt almost every Catholic house in Bombay Street. Thousands of catholics fled over the border in fear of their lives.

At an IRA convention in December 1969 the Belfast Brigade argued that the IRA had lost credibility because it failed to protect Catholics from sectarian attacks. They favoured a return to an armed strategy. But the convention voted in favour of politics and the Northern Brigade walked out and set up the Provisional Army Council.

That's how the IRA came into the equation and we got 25 years of you know what, through bigotry, stupidity and a totally partisan brutal police force.

If anyone has any ideas about how catholics could have been effectively protected from the police and loyalist mobs (egged on by Ian Paisley), I'd like to hear them. The Irish army was too weak to be of any use, there were too few british troops deployed and besides they were there to maintain the status quo.

Try looking at it this way, if mobs were burning houses in your area while the police stood by and some lads came round with guns and told you they'd defend your street, would you tell them to f**k off? I don't think so.

Should the catholics have just accepted their lot? No.

What then? You people are great at condemnation but you have no answers. What was going to happen? Mobs and UVF squads backed by the police would continue doing their "ethnic cleansing" bit. I don't like the term but that's what it was. That's what Ian Paisley called for :
After inciting loyalists to burn Catholic families out of their homes, the Rev. Paisley explained the problem to the press: His exact words were "Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners; and the massive discrimination in employment and shortage of houses for Catholics were simply because they breed like "rabbits" and multiply like "vermin".

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.

The thing is the british army did not restore order and they were definitely not on the catholic "side". The subsequent 25 year campaign came about because the IRA came to the conclusion that the NI state was one in which the catholic minority could expect no semblance of justice or equality. If the bigots who ran NI (Paisley, Orange order et al) had accepted that catholics were entitled to fair treatment regarding housing voting rights and job opportunities, the IRA would not have figured.

---

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?

Well what's your opinion on internment? Was it effective or did it bolster IRA recruitment and prolong the problem?

Sand

Boston, you believe terrorists are heroes. Thats great. Im sure Bin Laden is another hero of yours.

Nice history lesson tools, BUT, you believe that because the catholics were being oppressed in some way, they had a moral carte blanche to leave bombs in pubs, in rubbish bins on busy main streets, and torture and murder thousands of people- You completely reject the possibility that reform was possible by political action, despite the fact thats just what happened in the US (Someone used Alabalma as a comparison).

Bonkey the UN is not the moral authority you and Type might belive it to be. From Srebinica to Rwanda it has consistently failed to deliver. Lets take a look at the membership of the human rights council- makes interesting reading.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

Well the US isnt there, thats good cause we know what evil bastards they are. Happily for human rights we have China- Im sure theyre real champions of justice, Nigeria as well (Theyre the guys the left hates because of the whole Shell Oil thing arent they? )- Got Sudan as well, a known haven of human rights. Indonesia as well, Sure that East Timor thing is all rubbish. Saudia Arabia as well- another authority on human rights. The US doesnt cut the grade for the UN though. This is just one council and a few examples (I knew Sudan was on the council but I was actually shocked by the overall makeup of the Council), and dsiplays the complete idiocy of the UN, Sudan a better commentator on Human Rights than the US? Maybe in JPF land. Just displays the overall level of intelligence emanating from the UN.

Bonkey even you would admit the world (Its nations) has operated without the UN and currently operates practically in spite of the UN. The Geneva Conventions for example predates the UN by about 100 years. Mediation did not begin with the UN, from the time of the Church , neutrals have mediated and will continue to mediate- Much as the Bush/Blair convention is mediating between India and Pakistan- Not the UN.

About the milatary actions Bonkey. Everything from Hitlers invasion of Poland to D day were milatary operations with milatary objectives. Civillian casualties were not the objective. In a terrorist operation, civillian casualties are the objective- its pre-meditated murder of civillians who have nothing to do with any politics that might inspire the terrorist. Its not an accident, someone caught in crossfire- Its pre-meditated murder where the one and only objective is civillian casualties.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by tools

No it's merely institutionalized sectarianism which is just as barbaric imo.

Not in my opinion, as such segregation did not exist throughout society. Legaly-enforced segregation is also intrinsically more oppressive. Note also that the sectarianism in this example cuts both ways.

Hmm let's see if we can halt this revisionism.

So why didn't you end your post right there?

What then? You people are great at condemnation but you have no answers.

If the Catholic population were not being effectively protected by the police or Army then they had every right to organise their own self-defence. However, the IRA's campaign did not constitute part of this defence.

The subsequent 25 year campaign came about because the IRA came to the conclusion that the NI state was one in which the catholic minority could expect no semblance of justice or equality.

Now this is revisionism. Why then was civil rights no longer an issue for the nationalist population of the North as it was in the 60's?

Well what's your opinion on internment? Was it effective or did it bolster IRA recruitment and prolong the problem?

The internment that was carried out in the early 70's was clearly ineffective. However, I don't believe that internment is wrong per se in the face of subversion. If the right people are known and can be put away and if the media can be properly controlled, then internment is probably the best way to deal with subversives.

Boston

Originally posted by Sand
Boston, you believe terrorists are heroes. Thats great. Im sure Bin Laden is another hero of yours.

<edited>, weres a moderator when you need one to edit his <edited>

My job as moderator is to edit insults, which you delivered, not arguments which you happen to disagree with. Keep a civbil tongue in your head please.

i cant read your lies anymore, were did i say i think anybody is a hero, in fact were did i say hero at all.

I think one group has the right to defend theyselfs against occupation, and then you accuse we of thinking bin laden is my hero, are you mentaly distrobed or something, ive never seen logic like your before in my life. you like one so called "terrorist" freedom fighter, you like every nut case in the world. some people have accused typedef of drawing conclusions based on little evidence, but this just takes the biscut

O and BTW catholics werent being "oppressed in some way" they were being murdered in their homes by the people meant to protect them,

Hobbes

Bold Text Originally posted by Sand

Boston, you believe terrorists are heroes. Thats great. Im sure Bin Laden is another hero of yours.


But some terrorists are? After all Nelson Mandala was a terrorist.



Nice history lesson tools, BUT,...

Certainly not. However you seem to be neglecting the part where the other side was doing the exact same thing. Is goverment sponsered terrorism ok? Because that's what you are saying.

A lot of the civil rights marches was because people were denied a political voice (despite Biffa saying it was written in law they were allowed).

Lets take a look at the membership of the human rights council- makes interesting reading.

Yes it does. Prehaps you should look in more detail why the US wasn't in the Human rights counsel.

- US had poor voting when it came to land mines and AID's drugs to other countries.

- The US was against international criminal court.

- The US had over the passed few years jumped all over other countries human rights violations while ignoring rulings of violations of it's own country.

- The US didn't really bother it's ass. Bush dragged his feet and didn't appoint anyone to the UN at that time. Also countries like Saudi Arabia got 1 vote when they didn't even run for the position. It was pointed out that if the US had bothered they would of easily picked up those votes.

As for the other questionable countries being in it. The posts are created by geographic location as well as other criteria, which is why sadly places like Sudan can walk into the position.

But to claim that somehow the US has perfect human rights record? Far from it and if the US had joined the UNHRC it wouldn't of suddendly made it all right. After all they have been a member since it's conception and how are world human rights?

Happily for human rights we have China- Im sure theyre real champions of justice

That's funny Bush just recently terminated the Jackson-Vanik law, which now means China are your friends!

Or I guess you missed the bit where Bush spoke publically saying he welcomed China into the WTO. I guess when there's money to be made we can overlook a few human rights violations huh?

Saudia Arabia as well- another authority on human rights.

As I pointed out. They didn't even run for the position.

The US doesnt cut the grade for the UN though.

I don't think it's that at all. The US basically ignores anything questioned about it's country. It feels it is the world ruler, just for some reason the rest of the world haven't copped onto that fact yet.


Just displays the overall level of intelligence emanating from the UN.

Just remember the US is part of the UN too. Rubber and glue.

Sand

Idiot, weres a moderator when you need one to edit his lying filth

There Boston calm yourself. You have nothing but sympathy for terrorists- Except for the IRA cos you admit you actually know whats going on there so youre not stupid enough to take sides, which implies you dont know much about other terrorist groups because you are stupid enough to take sides elsewhere.

And why are you so upset, I mentioned Bin Laden. Sure you said yourself you see no difference between milatary action and terrorism- So what Bin Laden did on 9/11 was a milatary operation by your reasoning.

I think one group has the right to defend theyselfs against occupation, and then you accuse we of thinking bin laden is my hero, are you mentaly distrobed or something, ive never seen logic like your before in my life

Whats so different between 9/11 and Hammas sending a suicide bomber to murder a schoolbus of children? They both show the same murderously evil methodology of the perpetrators? Oh you believe one is justified in murdering children and the other isnt. Why? They both want to liberate Palestine? Why do you support Hammas but not Bin Laden.

After all Nelson Mandala was a terrorist.

Really? I wasnt aware that he masterminded a campaign of murder against civillians? Got any links to back that up? Or was it simply a name he was called?

Certainly not. However you seem to be neglecting the part where the other side was doing the exact same thing. Is goverment sponsered terrorism ok? Because that's what you are saying.

No. No terrorism is acceptable- my position is pretty clear on this despite the efforts of people to wilfully misinterpret. What I said was the opression did not make it acceptable. Just because the government sponsored terrorism is prevalent it does not mean you can justify blowing up women and children with bombs left in rubbish bins on busy streets. There is no exscuse for terrorism. What did the deaths of anybody in the Birmingham bomb achieve for Catholics in NI? Nothing. In fact as a result of it innocent people were jailed for a crime they didnt commit. Thats how counter-productive terrorism is, before we even get into the bitterness it causes and the reprisals that follow from it. Well never know how successful the Palestinians may have been if they had pursued diplomatic means to achieve their desires- all we know is the complete and utter failure of their policy of terrorism. Course hate is easy, and compromise is hard.

http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/Webcat-93.htm

Check that link- You can use that site to check the members of the commissons record on human rights. The US has an entire section to itself- a lot of it related to calls for the US to demand better human rights abroad. Other states mostly deal with poor human rights domestically.

Im glad you recognise the foolishness of a commisson containing some of the worst human right offenders being a moral authority on human rights. And thats just one commisson. Given the importance of the issue (human rights) to the UN its an extremely poor advertisement for the UN wouldnt you agree?

Boston

northern irelan is different, the situation has changed from a time i may or may not have been side with them, ive allways felt in the 70s the ira were a bad lot, but the lessor of two huge evils, now i see little difference between the ira groups and the loyalist ones, sometime i wonder how the ira ever went to the peace table.

but that all besides the point, i explained several times, in this thread alone why bin laden, is a terrorist leader and why imho hams are not, it seems to me you lack the creative though to access you own personal opionions in anyway, if bush calls someone a terrorist they are a terrorist. end of story.

The aim of groups play a huge part in weather or no i view them as terrorist, hamas's aims are to free the palestinian people, and insure they are never ruled again, bin ladens, aim, as ive said before is to establish a united arab middle est under strick islamic rule, he didnt bomb america for the dieing palestinians as he later claimed, in not so many words, but for power. he is in my mind a terrorist, be its clear ive a totaly different definition of terrorist to you.

i noticed you didnt comment, on my ww2 comparisions, they are a flaw in your logic

if poeple like you had your way, we would still be under british rule, sending out armies every so often to be blown to bites by english guns.

Sand

LOL

I’m actually beginning to understand- People like Boston and Typedef use "terrorist" cos they don’t like the idea of people being labelled terrorists when they’re not.

However they do not understand what terrorism *is*.They think its simply a label and not a methodology. They have no concept of terrorism beyond it being something the US calls its enemies. Boston for example cannot differentiate between the D Day landings and the WTC attack except for the fact he knows the D Days landings are viewed widely as being "good" and the WTC attacks being widely viewed as being "bad".

He does not see D Day as a military operation and the WTC as a terrorist attack, merely "good" and "bad". That’s probably where the whole "group by group" thing comes with him. He doesn’t recognise that terrorist groups are terrorists because they commit terrorism (which most sane people would use as a guide to determine who are terrorists and who aren’t) but rather if they’re unpopular (i.e. IRA) or popular (Hammas in Israel) despite the fact they’re doing exactly the same thing and using the same reasoning for it and inflicting the same misery. Same thing with Bin Laden- He’s furious when I mention him because his "group by group" indicator tells him Bin Laden is "bad" despite the fact he’s doing exactly the same thing as Hammas who are "good".

The only weakness to that thesis is the fact that Boston refuses to condemn terrorism outright as unjustifiable or inexcusable. This is another sign of his inability to understand what terrorism *is*. Thanks to the propaganda of groups like the IRA he has it confused with guerrilla warfare or a rebellion- hence his question when discussing terrorism if I would be willing to take up arms against anything- another sign of confusing terrorism with military action.


As for Dresden? An act of terrorism- Im sure it was dressed up with some milatary objective of little note (to be seen to supporting the Russians in the East from what I can make out), but it was simply revenge by the British for attacks on London. Dresden had little of military value, and because of that fact had been used by the Germans as a destination for refugees from other bombed cities- that and the fact that it was relatively avoided by bombers until *that* attack.- Feeding into the same cycle of violence that Hammas and Israel are currently locked into.

gandalf

This thread has run its course and is now been closed. Nothing new is been said just Sand vs the Rest.

Gandalf.