Jump to content

Martin McGuiness to meet the Queen


PauloBarnesi

Recommended Posts

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Interesting though this. As said, means the whole NI is slowly but surely being resolved. I mean you wouldn't have seen this how many years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

No.

All terrorists are terrorists. Terrorism is a methodology, it is more than simply a label to put on an enemy. Someone fighting for things we might agree with, feel are right, feel are just and proper, who chooses to use fear to bring about those ends, is a terrorist. It just so happens we rather like his cause.

One mans terrorist, is every mans terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

No.

All terrorists are terrorists. Terrorism is a methodology, it is more than simply a label to put on an enemy. Someone fighting for things we might agree with, feel are right, feel are just and proper, who chooses to use fear to bring about those ends, is a terrorist. It just so happens we rather like his cause.

One mans terrorist, is every mans terrorist.

:) Semantics, semantics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really a question of semantics. What I said was correct. The phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is largely a sop to feelings of unease at decrying one thing we dislike, while accepting it when we like it's cause.

Both are terrorists at the end of the day, precisely because both chose to use fear to bring about their aims. As said, it's a methodology, and thats all there is to it. Choose to use that methodolgy, you're a terrorist.

No semantics about it, beyond the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So an occupying force being attacked by the natives is terrorism? But the natives won't see it like that will they, they're fighting fire with fire to get what they view as theirs back. To one side it will be the liberators, to the other "terrorists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So an occupying force being attacked by the natives is terrorism? But the natives won't see it like that will they, they're fighting fire with fire to get what they view as theirs back. To one side it will be the liberators, to the other "terrorists".

Hence why I said semantics. You two are practically debating about which definition of "terrorism" to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Bit like the legend of Robin Hood. To the rich he's a menace, he robs and kills them takes their money, is a thief. But he uses it to feed the poor. So to them he's a hero. Et cetera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So an occupying force being attacked by the natives is terrorism? But the natives won't see it like that will they, they're fighting fire with fire to get what they view as theirs back. To one side it will be the liberators, to the other "terrorists".

Perhaps, perhaps not. A lot depends on the nature of the attack. If the intention is, to not go into particular detail, use fear to repell occupiers (perhaps through great brutality, lets say), then yes. If the intent is 'break' the occupiers, to make occupation no longer feasible for instance (for arguments sake, simply managing to wage battle to such a degree that it becomes too costly to continue to occupy those lands), and I would argue also that there was not an (from the perspective of the natives) unintentional element of fear added to the equation by those actions by the natives, then no - the natives simply fought back to encourage the enemy to make a logical decision - 'This is too difficult/it isn't worth it/we are unable to continue', rather than send a message through fear to repel invaders.

Its irrelevant how one side sees it or not. That isn't the point. Terrorism isn't just a label. It's a methodology, a process, a tactic.

Perhaps I might agree with the natives fight. If they chose to run around bombing targets, military or not, to scare compliance into their adversaries, they're still terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still feel a little uneasy about seeing our head of state shake hands with a murderer. Forgive me for that momentary lapse.
He's a member of your Parliament, and it's an attempt to prevent future murders.

746c4_111219072306-asma-al-assad-14-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest, who heads up The Real IRA or whatever they're now called ?
I'm sure the people around the border know, but it's not very public information. McKevitt (Omagh bomber) was basically court-martialed in the Republic for membership and imprisoned about ten years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still feel a little uneasy about seeing our head of state shake hands with a murderer. Forgive me for that momentary lapse.
He's a member of your Parliament, and it's an attempt to prevent future murders.

746c4_111219072306-asma-al-assad-14-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Not my parliament matey. Certainly not one I would ever choose. However, I'm unlikely to go out and murder innocent civilians over it because, well, I'm not that much of a word removed.

And I don't understand the point you're trying to prove with the picture? That several wrongs make a right? I'm sure I mentioned my dislike for the monarchy a few pages back and that I feel the Queen herself is simply a puppet.

And did I read correctly? Martin McGuiness compared to Robin **** Hood? McGuiness blew up the rich that much is true, but he also blew up the poor, the elderly, the young. Anyone basically, for land. Or revenge. Or whatever, who gives a ****. What in the name of sweet christ did the people of Manchester, Birmingham and London have to do with his cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my parliament matey. Certainly not one I would ever choose. However, I'm unlikely to go out and murder innocent civilians over it because, well, I'm not that much of a word removed.
If you live in North London, I don't think you understand my point.

And I don't understand the point you're trying to prove with the picture? That several wrongs make a right?
I'm contrasting the two pictures. Assad is a ruthless butcher and has no intention of stopping. McGuinness has at least put the gun down. If Lizzie shaking hands with Martin makes you feel unwell, the harsh political realities of far more evil people in the world will have you wanting to call an ambulance.

McGuiness blew up the rich that much is true, but he also blew up the poor, the elderly, the young. Anyone basically, for land. Or revenge. Or whatever, who gives a ****.
I'm not justifying McGuinness but if you don't even understand what he was fighting for, then I'm not surprised you're not keeping up with the times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the name of sweet christ did the people of Manchester, Birmingham and London have to do with his cause?

really?

Do you really really not understand the whole Ireland problem to the point where you don't know what the mainland England could possibly have to do with someone's attempt to drive what they would consider 'murdering English invaders' out of Ireland?

There really is no point in trying to get the last word, that way lies madness and perpetual revenge for revenge for revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In principle, I support(ed) Irish republicanism. But I would have been more willing to consider the Provos as freedom fighters if they had restricted themselves to attacking the RUC and the British army, i.e. those with the capacity to shoot back. Placing bombs in shops and pubs to kill random civilians, including women and children, put them beyond all sympathy from me (that goes for the loyalist paramilitaries too, BTW). Psychopaths and criminals masquerading as tinpot heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest, who heads up The Real IRA or whatever they're now called ?
I'm sure the people around the border know, but it's not very public information. McKevitt (Omagh bomber) was basically court-martialed in the Republic for membership and imprisoned about ten years ago.

Married to Bobby Sands sister according to wiki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my parliament matey. Certainly not one I would ever choose. However, I'm unlikely to go out and murder innocent civilians over it because, well, I'm not that much of a word removed.
If you live in North London, I don't think you understand my point.

And I don't understand the point you're trying to prove with the picture? That several wrongs make a right?
I'm contrasting the two pictures. Assad is a ruthless butcher and has no intention of stopping. McGuinness has at least put the gun down. If Lizzie shaking hands with Martin makes you feel unwell, the harsh political realities of far more evil people in the world will have you wanting to call an ambulance.

McGuiness blew up the rich that much is true, but he also blew up the poor, the elderly, the young. Anyone basically, for land. Or revenge. Or whatever, who gives a ****.
I'm not justifying McGuinness but if you don't even understand what he was fighting for, then I'm not surprised you're not keeping up with the times.

I was born and raised in Birmingham. My parents lost friends in the pub bombings. I was 13 years old and heavily in to "the world" in 1996 and my flatmate has a picture of Bobby Sands on the wall. I understand very well the disgraceful actions of the British imperialists over the years and I understand very well what he was fighting for.

But thanks for, erm, well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â