News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Queen's Diamond Jubilee

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, June 04, 2012, 04:21:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

En_Route

Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival.  Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security.  In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen.  The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution.  The Constitution is a document, not a human.  I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.  


The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
You're Irish right?  ;)


Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
No. Just a wind up  ;D


And a successful one at that.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:31:21 PM

You're Irish right?  ;)


Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
[/quote]
No. Just a wind up  ;D
[/quote]
And a successful one at that.
[/quote]

The English vs. Irish thing interests me.  Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland?  Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK?  And what about Scotland and Wales?  Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England?  Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.

Tank

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM

The English vs. Irish thing interests me.  Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland?  Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK?  And what about Scotland and Wales?  Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England?  Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

En_Route

Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM

The English vs. Irish thing interests me.  Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland?  Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK?  And what about Scotland and Wales?  Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England?  Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!


The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni  population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM

The English vs. Irish thing interests me.  Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland?  Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK?  And what about Scotland and Wales?  Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England?  Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!


The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni  population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.

It's interesting to get an insiders' perspective on this. Thanks for that :)
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Tank

Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM

The English vs. Irish thing interests me.  Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland?  Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK?  And what about Scotland and Wales?  Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England?  Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!


The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni  population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.
Did they get what they wanted? No. QED they were/are morons.

They may have appeared to be have been very astute politically aware operators but in practice they simply were not. They lost. They did not achieve their objective of a united Ireland and IMO reduced the possibility of it happening and in the process killed, maimed, disfigured and injured thousands of people. The IRA were fundamentally a terrorist organisation pure and simple and ALL terrorists are ultimately morons as any 'victory' they achieve can only be pyrrhic in nature. It's just a shame the British government didn't officially instigate a 'shoot to kill' policy because IRA scum deserved nothing better IMO. Once you start actively targeting civilians to propagate political ends you lose the right to protection from the law as such. Killing avowed/actual terrorists comes under the heading of self defence. 

Nothing in the Irish/NI problem is simple. It's similar to the issues in the Middle East. But whatever long term solutions do come about they will only come about through peaceful means. The IRA was never a peaceful organisation.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

En_Route

If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a  sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those  sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I  agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Tank

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a  sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those  sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I  agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.


If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

En_Route

Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a  sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those  sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I  agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.





You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your  unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect.  Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Ali

This is all really interesting.

One thing that I am not sure of when it comes to the IRA/Northern Ireland.  I understand that historically, the British sent Protestants to Ireland to take it from the Catholics.  I think my own family on my mom's side was involved in this, as they come from Scotland by way of Ireland and are Protestant.  Interestingly enough my mom is all about "Irish Pride" and totally would not accept that I suspect her family was on the wrong side of history if I tried to explain it to her.   :D Anyway, so Protestant Scots "settle" (if you want to call it that) Ireland, but then get kicked out of everywhere except NI.  Protestants turn Catholics into second class citizens.  The IRA fights to throw the British (sort of, the Scottish?  Don't Scots kind of kind hate England too?) out of NI.  Have I got all that right?

Here's the part I don't understand.  Whoever their ancestors were, aren't all Northern Ireland citizens now Irish?  Just like, yeah, my mom is all "Irish Pride" but if Ireland and the US went to war, she would support the US first.  Probably.  So now that their families have lived in NI for however many generations, aren't you guys all Irish?  That's what I don't get about the fighting - like are Catholics still oppressed, and if not, does that mean you're fighting over something that can't be changed (who your ancestors were?)

Sorry, I know I sound like a dumb American.  That's because I am.

En_Route

Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 09:35:46 PM
This is all really interesting.

One thing that I am not sure of when it comes to the IRA/Northern Ireland.  I understand that historically, the British sent Protestants to Ireland to take it from the Catholics.  I think my own family on my mom's side was involved in this, as they come from Scotland by way of Ireland and are Protestant.  Interestingly enough my mom is all about "Irish Pride" and totally would not accept that I suspect her family was on the wrong side of history if I tried to explain it to her.   :D Anyway, so Protestant Scots "settle" (if you want to call it that) Ireland, but then get kicked out of everywhere except NI.  Protestants turn Catholics into second class citizens.  The IRA fights to throw the British (sort of, the Scottish?  Don't Scots kind of kind hate England too?) out of NI.  Have I got all that right?

Here's the part I don't understand.  Whoever their ancestors were, aren't all Northern Ireland citizens now Irish?  Just like, yeah, my mom is all "Irish Pride" but if Ireland and the US went to war, she would support the US first.  Probably.  So now that their families have lived in NI for however many generations, aren't you guys all Irish?  That's what I don't get about the fighting - like are Catholics still oppressed, and if not, does that mean you're fighting over something that can't be changed (who your ancestors were?)

Sorry, I know I sound like a dumb American.  That's because I am.

Northern Ireland (NI) is part of the UK.Typically, the descendants of the Scottish Protestant settlers will hold British passports and will have a very strong allegiance to Crown and country (GB). The descendants of the native Catholic Irish will typically hold Irish passports and identify with the Republic.  So eg gifted  NI protestant footballers will play for NI while gifted Catholic footballers will usually play for the Republic. The two communities don't mix. My children have no friends or even acquaintances from the Unionist Community.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Tank

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a  sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those  sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I  agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.





You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your  unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect.  Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

En_Route

Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a  sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those  sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I  agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.





You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your  unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect.  Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.

An odd reaction from a moderator of what is supposed to be a discussion forum, where it might be expected people would be encouraged to voice their opinions, rather than being sworn at for doing so?  
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Ali

Harsh Tank! I think it's fair to admit that ER probably has a more nuanced view of the history his own country!

So are Unionists the Protestants? Like you wouldn't be my friend if my family hadn't moved to the US and gotten all muddled up with other cultures? :)

En_Route

Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 10:17:34 PM
Harsh Tank! I think it's fair to admit that ER probably has a more nuanced view of the history his own country!

So are Unionists the Protestants? Like you wouldn't be my friend if my family hadn't moved to the US and gotten all muddled up with other cultures? :)

As you might imagine, I don't buy into any of that stuff.My two best friends here are from a unionist background.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).