They certainly can not ... and that video wasnt posted as pointscoring. These are innocent children just as the 2 above were. It just highlights what a so called "army" did and that they werent untarnished in the whole mess up there. There were atrocities on both sides but like gaza you dave and some others cant see how the slaughter of children drags more people into conflict , brothers, sisters, cousins , friends etc. Grow up hating that which took their loved one away and sign up to vow revenge.
Interesting conclusion there Hash. Now go and look at the actions Tim Parry's parents have taken since their child was assassinated. Then think back to the title that the IRA gave themselves - the call themselves an 'army' and have similar command structures to any national army but somehow it appears that the side you favour are given far more leeway!
Not given any leeway by me. Ive stated before the british soldiers and repubicans who died were fair game to each other, they were playing war. Anyone else killed or seriously wounded is a tragedy. That goes for both sides.
Sorry mate but your stated opinion is, to my mind wrong. The British Army were not at war, they were trying to deal with a terrorist organisation that they were ill-trained and ill- equipped to deal with. If war had been declared then they would not have had to fight with one arm tied behind their backs and would have smashed the IRA and the Provisionals relatively quickly.
It was a war in everything but name dave. The only reason it wasnt declared is because N.I. is part of the U.K. cant exactly declare war on yourself. Surely if they were fighting terrorists it would be a police matter not a military one. It was a police matter on the mainland.
With hindsight, it should have been a police matter in NI. The ONLY reason I'm even interested in discussing NI is the similarity between it and Gaza. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. As with NI however, no resolution will be found until both sides try and understand each other and see how they can cooperate. It's not easy and it's not a guarantee of success but its a lot better than what they've got now. But there was a big difference between what was happening on the mainland and in NI. If the mainland campaign had escalated then it would have become a military matter.
Yeah dave British soldiers stopping an Irish band on the border at a fake check point in Newry, trying to plant a bomb on their bus, they made a bollocks of the fuse and blew theselves up and the other soldiers fired on the band killing and injuring them, 2 Biritish soldiers got life for that in the 70s, and were released in 1988. That is just one incidence of Birtish army terrorism. Just one atrocity carried out by the British in Ireland. Irish famine? famine my arse. wtf are you on about fighting terrorism, they invade a country oocupy it and when there is resistence to the racist occupation you call it terrorism. You sir are not even worth arguing with because you are completely delusional and know f** ALL about history lad No wonder you try to justify another racist occupation
As my father used to say, had he, a member of Bomber Command, gone into occupied territory without his uniform and dog-tags on active service and been caught by the enemy he would have had no rights and been summarily executed. If the IRA were an 'army' (or the UDF, UVA, ILA, etc) they would have had an elected government behind them that was responsible for their actions. A no time did the legitimate Irish government ever explicitly back the actions of the IRA (though tacitly....).
So if there was a natural disaster such as, say, a refinery explosion and military firefighters were involved (as they would do according national emergency plans) it would be a 'war'? You forget that the Army were originally called in to Ulster at the behest of the Catholic community because they'd - understandably - lost all faith in the NI police force.
You mention loyalist terrorist organisations in your post donga, but they weren't seen as or treated as terrorists by the RUC/British army, in fact they were armed by the British and were in collusion with the security forces and received information on catholic/nationalist targets. The loyalists paramilitaries carried out a bombing campaign in ROI and murdered innocents on both sides of the border. Just balancing things out mate.
Indeed he did and its a credit to the man himself for the way he carried on. Put yourself in the place of those in N.I. looking at their kids being shot by british soldiers decades before the kids in England got killed. So you're discriminated against in all aspects of life, housing, jobs, where you can travel then you see young kids being targeted by an occupying army. Its a perfect storm for IRA recruitment. A former british army general admitted many years ago that some british army activity led to the huge increase 8n republican membership. Be that the IRA or the INLA. Just as in gaza people will see no choice but to fight back. The difference is Israel are trying to wipe out the kids who will grow up and remember these atrocities.
At least he knew it was occupied territory. Would those military fire fighters be looking down rifles and machine guns indiscriminately stopping women and children as they vo about their business ?
Go on. For someone who derides everyone else's learning of history, be it at degree level as my own, your 'Reading Every Conspiracy Theory On The Net' not-so-condensed approach is sometimes entertaining, if rarely illuminating. Give me a starter on how crop failures around the globe @ 1815 were the fault of the wicked British, whereas most other nations put that down to a mega-volcano eruption in Indonesia. If, however, you're referring to the British laissez-faire reaction to it, then at least be consistent and cite the equally dreadful dealing of the situation towards its people on the island of Britain too, and indeed the reaction of all powers around the world to this global famine. Or do you blame them for the Potato Bight of the 1840's too? No-one sensible defends the (in)actions of remote and arrogant British governments to poverty and famine within these islands in the 19th century, and nor, before you kick off, do I endorse the continual British presence in Ireland for the last 800 years. But, and despite Hash's blithe assertion that UK citizens in Ulster are actually Irish or belong back on the mainland, despite their descendants being there for 500 years - give the US back to the Native Americans and send the Irish Americans back to Eire now that it's free, is the logical conclusion to that then - if you want to trade atrocities over the millennia don't forget that Cromwell only went in there in the first place in response to massacres of Protestants in the north. So the situation is what it is now, and very possibly Ulster will democratically 'return' to Eire in the lifetime of my daughter, if not mine. It won't wash away 800 years of history, but we should be able to have a better future if we don't live in the past. Other countries that neighbour each other, such as China/Japan/Korea, Germany/Poland/Russia, Greece/Turkey/Italy have as bad or worse histories than us and have to get on with it. In summary though, Dave's analogy of Gaza and Ni @ '70's is valid; and I made the point myself that if Britain's response had been as disproportionate as Israel's they would have -rightly- been crucified by the international community. And that's the point Hash and Sis, if you really think, despite the handful of atrocities quoted by SIS, that the British army's reaction was even remotely similar to that of the IDF then you're being hysterical.
When is genocide permissible? Israeli Yochanan Gordon I don't care that he apologised in his fake way for obvious reasons, and his blog was taken down, this is the kind of reasoning in zionism. This from a Jew on The Times Of Israel of all things. http://www.ibtimes.com/when-genocid...s-israel-yochanan-gordons-post-sparks-1646490 A quote from the less than human creature and a reflection of Israeli policy. This is what is f**ing happneing and he is asking is it permissible. No it's not you sick f**k Zionist scumbag
your talking bollocks and you know it. So you sir are equally not worth talking to. See it my way or the highway - typical of your type.
Israel-Gaza conflict: Revealed - Britain’s 'role' in arming Israel http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-britains-role-in-arming-israel-9643902.html
Biggest flaw in your argument Hash, the British Army were deployed in their own territory. They were/are, not an occupying force on another states territory.
Lie fest [video=youtube;jqBTtXKKT_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jqBTtXKKT_8[/video]
