Queen's Diamond Jubilee

[Tank]

If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......

Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

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?  

I have no interest in discussing this issue with you any more. Is that plain enough for you?

[En_Route]

If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......

Generally yes. But it's a question of degree

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?  

I have no interest in discussing this issue with you any more. Is that plain enough for you?

It's certainly plain enough that your pettiness comfortably exceeds your capacity to debate. I think you've made rather a sorry exhibition of yourself, having plainly lost the argument, by resorting to verbal aggression. Ironic when these are the very kind of tactics you would denounce when employed by theists.

[Crow]

I have to agree with En_Route that was a bit unnecessary Tank. I'm not getting drawn into the English-Irish bullshit though.

[Firebird]

I think this discussion needs to end now. It's already become far too personal and aggressive.

[En_Route]

I think this discussion needs to end now. It's already become far too personal and aggressive.

Well it didn't turn out to be much of a discussion, but I would say that it has ended .

[Recusant]

I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.

[En_Route]

I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.

Well,  if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is  equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting  exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

[Crow]

The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.

In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.

[En_Route]

The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.

In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.

Personally, I have no sympathy for their either their ends (Irish unity)  or the means  employed (not least their resort to indiscriminate killing). Of course this was a dirty war, and it has now been disclosed that several senior members of the IRA hierarchy were in fact double-agents working for British Intelligence,so things are never totally black-and-white.

[Ali]

The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.

In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.

I found that interesting too (how we define terrorism.) I was thinking that probably the colonists that wanted to remain part of Great Britain during the American Revolution probably thought that the Revolutionaries were terrorists (assuming they had a concept for terrorism back then). But they won, so at least in the US, they are considered heroes. Which also makes me wonder: when they teach about the American Revolutionary War in GB (I assume they do, since it's part of your history too) how are the Revolutionaries portrayed?

[McQ]

I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.

Well,  if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is  equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting  exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.

[En_Route]

I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.

Well,  if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is  equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting  exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.

I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.

[Ali]

Can we stop this pissing contest so that I can get an answer to my question. *Gives you all my best wide eyed Mom-Stare*

Seriously curious - how is the American Revolutionary war portrayed in the UK.  I'm picturing something along the lines of

Chapter 1: Leading Up To The War

For the record, we were totally going to break up with that buncha cunts first.  But France told them that we were kind of seeing Australia (although "seeing" is kind of a euphamism for "throwing it in them", amiright?) so they were all "Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah something about the Creator yada yada yada we want to mispell color and humor yakity yakity Sincerely, John Hancock."  Haha, "Hancock."  That's what she said.

[McQ]

I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.

Well,  if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is  equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the  blind prejudices and lack of intellectual  rigour of theists while exhibiting  exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.

As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.

I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.

And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.

[Crow]

Can we stop this pissing contest so that I can get an answer to my question. *Gives you all my best wide eyed Mom-Stare*

Seriously curious - how is the American Revolutionary war portrayed in the UK.  I'm picturing something along the lines of

Chapter 1: Leading Up To The War

For the record, we were totally going to break up with that buncha cunts first.  But France told them that we were kind of seeing Australia (although "seeing" is kind of a euphamism for "throwing it in them", amiright?) so they were all "Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah something about the Creator yada yada yada we want to mispell color and humor yakity yakity Sincerely, John Hancock."  Haha, "Hancock."  That's what she said.

Its not really covered, well I didn't do history past what I had to as it was ridiculously boring, everything I know about it really came from when I became interested, what was covered in greater depth whilst I was at school was the Atlantic slave trade. Otherwise its along the lines of Britain had an empire, we had colonies in the Americas, got into a brawl with France that lasted a good while thanks to George Washington, after the war was won the land it was over was given back to the natives, the colonies didn't like that, the colonies wanted representation in parliament and the Tories (or was it the Whigs, I cant remember) said "nah blud", because the war cost loadsa money the government introduced a tax which really pissed everyone off, some shit happened, there was lots of different wars, lost to what would then become the USA but beat all the rest. People are generally not fused about it.