- This topic has 81 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from ACR1 on 9:07 pm on July 9, 2005[br]
How would you define "tacit", "substantial" and "Irish people"?
By reference to the dictionary.
(Edited by guskennedy at 1:19 am on July 10, 2005)
Sorry about last post, was totally drunk!! Sorry gus and Arndale.
I left brum city centre before, the police closed it down. with bomb scares.
Quote: from guskennedy on 1:18 am on July 10, 2005[br][
By reference to the dictionary.
I’ve got a dictionary too, Gus. I suppose you have evidence that you wouldn’t mind sharing with us that would stand your statement up?
My issue Ian, is that I find Gus’s assumption hugely offensive. It’s only an "assumption" as he offers absolutely no evidence to back up his claim.
Your surprise that someone could take issue with what he has written leads me to believe that the view Gus expresses is seen as not too far wide of the mark in Britain – that is sad.
If Gus had written that the London bombings would not have been possible without substantial and tacit support from the Muslim community in Britain, I reckon there would be plenty on here ready to argue otherwise but it seems that it’s assumed if you are Irish then if you are not a republican supporter then at least you are a republican sympathiser.
The IRA campaign was kept going through a cobination of intimidation, money from misguided Irish-Americans and in the eighties, Margaret Thatcher (the best recruiting officer the provos ever had) and Colonel Ghaddafi.
In the republic, while there has always been a tiny number who would support a tradition of physical force republicanism, the actions of the IRA have always been viewed with absolute abhorence by the vast majority of the population.
As far as a united Ireland goes, ask most Irish people would they like one and the answer would be "yes" but equally offer them an option which gauranteed that the two communities in Northern could live together peacefully and a similar number would support that option.
The other thing to say is that the "United Ireland" issue is just not on the agenda in the south. It’s not debated and there would be numerous other issues that people would see as having far more relevance to their lives.<br>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why did they happen….iraq ?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
interesting couple of articles in the latest edition of TIME:
Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe….
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 92,00.html
<br>….Why That’s Ridiculous
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 84,00.html
<br>In the same edition ÂÂÂ
3 Lessons From London
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 66,00.html
seems to make a first point of call jihadists with UK passports – at least as far as where US intelligence (if not perhaps as overtly the diplomats) would look.
not to say they’re right, of course, but it did bring to mind a comment from an ex-flying squad commander turned pundit in the pressure of immediately responding in the aftermath, to the effect of:
"the reason this hasn’t happened in the UK before is (a) our security is so good and (b) there are so many extremist groups operating out of the UK that they don’t want to foul their own doorstep".
that second point really stuck in the mind.
best regards
wit
"Judging by what you say, however, though many would like to see an united Ireland, just as many would simply like to two the two kept separate but living in harmony"
I’m not quite saying that. The vast majority of Irish people (as shown by a 95% vote in favour of the Good Friday Agreement) want the solution that results in the peaceful co-existence of both communities in Northern Ireland – whatever that may be. And they are equally not prepared to support violent means to achieve that aim.
Interesting parallels in the first article Wit posted between George Bush/al-Qaeda and Margaret Thatcher/IRA.
At the start of the eighties the IRA were close to defeat. They lacked arms, money and new recruits. Thatcher’s complete mishandling of the political prisoners issue (which led to the hunger strikes) provided no end of new recruits, made Sinn Fein a political force, and along with Ghadafi’s semtex and weaponary, extended the conflict for another ten years.
We don’t learn.<br>
The one problem is now though the teroorists and their actions have taken place. capitulating to terrorism would mean more and more popping up and making demands. The Iraq war has happened, likewise the terrorists indonesian, turkish NY madrid and now London. We now need a way of resolving the current situation, in a senario that capitulation is not an option.
Anyone got any thoughts or ideas on this?
The terrorist expert Jason Burke maintains (and I’m writing from memory here, so I hope that I’m not doing him a disservice) that all terrorist bodies go through a life cycle, of which the splintering process Al-Queda is currently experiencing is the bloodiest. Eventually the terrorists’ own heartland gets so sickened that it cuts off support and the thing slowly dies away. He seemed to suggest that this could take another ten or fifteen years and that there’s not a lot we can do about it in the meantime.
I haven’t really got an alternative to suggest. However, the idea of cutting off support—tacit support and spiritual support as much as financial and operational support—is an important one. If I were a Moslem and outraged about the events of last week in London I like to think that I would, hopefully with many of my fellow Moslems, march the streets and protest very obviously and openly about the situation.
It seems to me that the level of condemnation from other Moslems, although by no means negligible, sometimes stops short of what it could be. This could be an opportunity for Moslems to be seen as the answer to the problem and not the problem itself.
HMMM.
They were british born, they were suicide bombers no one can argue in their support IMO, no matter what their grievance. Nor can action done by anyone justify their actions. If they had chosen to attck blair (grasshopper dreams :o :biggrin: :cool: ), but sorry innocent people no way. The word mis-guided or cause or any such rubbish falls on deaf ears here, they were cold blooded murderers end of story.
Speaking to "pretty" reliable sources the bomb warning in birmingham on saturday was maybe dirty or chemical. It also was not a hoax, the police felt the threat was very real, the controlled stuff on the bus was a side issue.
I can’t understand why the people are "shocked" that the bombers were British.
Richard Wright, the attempted shoe bomber was british too and, if successful, he would have been a suicide bomber too.
they were cold blooded murderers end of story.
So, you’re trying to suggest they weren’t part of a larger organisation that is pursuing an objective that goes beyond killing people in London??
That’s like saying a pilot who drops a bomb on Iraq is a cold blooded killer, end of story.
Talking of Iraq, when Blair talked about a "perverted and poisonous misrepresentation" of Islam, was I the only one who’s thoughts turned to his own "perverted and poisonous misrepresentation" of Christianity, where one can claim to be a devoted christian one minute and authorise the bombing of civilians (whether in Iraq or Belgade or Afghanistan) the next?
Steve
the simple man on the street (let’s call him "Stevedvg" for arguments sake),
Ha ha ha :biggrin: :biggrin:
grasshopper,<br>No problems mate.
Our views are different, so be it in civilised society.
stevedg "the simple man in the street" my first thought was of the scotsman in full regailia with a yasmask!!!:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: sorry steve but just had to share that thought!
Maybe I am simple. There’s a couple of things I just don’t get.
my first thought was of the scotsman in full regailia with a yasmask!!!
What’s a "scotsman in full regalia" and what’s a yasmask?
Without this information, I’ve no idea what the image in your head is.
Sorry
Steve
well i lived in Oban for 17 years and having three scottish children the normal full scottish regalia is………….. . Yasmak or variant spelling available on multiple internet sources.
Grassy.<br>That was my point exactly from the other side of the coin!!
I may look like jesus mate, but I aint holier than thou.
Talk by all means mate, you will be disapointed. There is no negotiation with these people and to offer them something is to show weakness to which their reaction is contempt. I have been negotiating with Asian people for the 15 years from all walks of life and from many countries mate. You either win or they s**t
on you. trust me I know.If you do not think we live in a civilised society, then do something.
I do not see anymore benefit in discussion from me on this subject. nothing here has changed my mind nor will my discussion change others ie impasse has been reched.
normal full scottish regalia is………….. . Yasmak
Still no idea what it is. Maybe it’s an Oban thing.
I tried google but all I discovered is that there’s a Yasmak hotel in Istanbul.
Steve
stevedvg
try
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9077856
<br>best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 5:59 am on July 15, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.