PDA

View Full Version : Spainish Terriost Attack



Pages : [1] 2

Footie_Fan
11/03/2004, 1:01 PM
My sympathy to all in the disgusting, cowardly attack on the Madrid train system this morning. Latest reports are that 173 are dead and many more seriously injured. May they Rest In Peace.

Éanna
11/03/2004, 2:05 PM
Absolutely awful. I've been in that station more than I've been in Heuston, and have friends living just around the corner. Sick, cowardly scum whoever did this. RIP

SÓC
11/03/2004, 2:10 PM
Originally posted by Éanna
Absolutely awful. I've been in that station more than I've been in Heuston, and have friends living just around the corner. Sick, cowardly scum whoever did this. RIP

Agreed. Scum.

Friend of mine was in the station last night and decided to go home rather than clubbing and an early train home.

Batasuana (sp?) are claiming it was Arabs and not ETA.

Éanna
11/03/2004, 2:30 PM
Originally posted by SÓC
Batasuana (sp?) are claiming it was Arabs and not ETA.
Batasuna, yeah they are. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if they were right, for a number of reasons.
1. Spain is the only EU country apart from Britain that stood with Bush in his plans for world domination.
2. ETA normally give a warning before their bombs in order to maximise effect and minimise casualties.
3. ETA have tended to attack what they term political or military targets (i.e. police, army and government/ anti-independence politicians) rather than civilian targets. And when they have attacked civilian targets it has been tourist centres such as airports, in order to cause economic damage by scaring tourists away.
4. Batasuna were very quick to issue the denial, and while ETA never claims responsibility, they don't usually deny it either.

the 12 th man
11/03/2004, 2:41 PM
wouldnt rule out eta just yet.if you remember back to xmas eve
two eta members were arrested trying to place a bomb on a train bound from sans sebastian to madrid.
the police searched the train on route and found another 50 lb bomb on board.the police reckon they foiled a serious incident at the time.
when arrested the two eta members told authorities of other bombs planted for explosion.

r. i. p. the victims

Éanna
11/03/2004, 2:58 PM
No, I definitely wouldn't rule them out, I'm just saying that the points I made above conflict with ETA's normal way of doing things. Also, this is likely to strengthen the PP conservative government which is the last thing ETA will want- they'd have a much better chance of reaching some kind of deal with the socialists.

Other thing that has been raised is the possibility that we're seeing a split within ETA, kind of like when the "Real IRA" set up out of the PIRA. There are certainly elemnts within ETA who think they haven't been active enough, and Batasuna has been working very hard to keep them under some kind of control, and maybe they've decided to break with mainstream ETA and do their own murderous thing.

Very hard to say at this stage. Spnaish govt has organised a mass protest for 7 P.M. tomorrow in Madrid against terrorism, which is IMO only going to succeed in winding the people who did this up even more.

Éanna
11/03/2004, 3:20 PM
Originally posted by Conor74
One thing the appalling attacks in Turkey and now Spain show that perhaps Bush's 'War on Terrorism' has failed, not just because Bin Laden and the infamous WMD's have never been found, but it seems that remarkably international terrorism is worse than at any time before, including the 70s.
Just discussing that in a politics tutorial yesterday, and there were a few americans in the class, saying how it was a fight to protect the liberal democracy. I asked them if they thought fundamentalism was a bad thing. they said yes. So I suggested that this war on terror is not a clash of civilisations or any such thing, but liberal fundamentalists fighting Islamic fundamentalists. i think they're still scratching their heads .

Troy.McClure
11/03/2004, 4:39 PM
Was in Atocha this day last year and still thanking my lucky stars that my trip wasnt 1 year later/ the bomb 1 year earlier. You really have to wonder about the people who carry out something like this & what goes through their minds.

Éanna
11/03/2004, 6:10 PM
Yeah, just struck me awhile ago that the other 2 stations are on the commuter line to Alcala de Henares, where I was living when I was in Spain- I used that exact line nearly every time I went into Madrid. :eek:

liam88
11/03/2004, 8:18 PM
Whoever did this are cowardly scum. They will never acheive any ends by murdering innocent people including children and brave emergancy services.
RIP the victims,
God Bless them all.
Bring the scum to justice and show them that they'll never win!

Colm
11/03/2004, 8:46 PM
Cowardly terrorist murdering scum.

Just watching Sky News there and they're reporting that a "suspect van has been found on the outskirts of Madrid containing explosive detonators and Arab tape recordings". ETA are also denying that they had any involvement at the moment. If they were responsible surely they'd want people knowing so as to get their "message" across? Looks like it's pointing towards Arab terrorists at the moment.
Regardless of who's responsible it's a disgraceful and quite scary turn of events.

TommyT
12/03/2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Colm
Cowardly terrorist murdering scum.



On a day like today that's harsh on the Spanish government. I find their attempts to blame the Basques sickening.

liamon
12/03/2004, 9:56 AM
If this attack is from an Islamic group, then isn't it just further proof that you can't fight a war against terrorists? Name a country that has managed to defeat a well organised, committed guerrilla army and I’ll name 10 that failed. Best case scenario, years of svage attacks followed by a negotiated truce. Further US military action will only increase Arab public anger, leading to further reprisals against US sites and those of it’s allies.

If the USA wants peace, then the only option is to sit down with the leaders of the Arab world and listen to their concerns. Primarily, this will involve a major re-think on the US support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. If the US dropped it’s support for such actions tomorrow then a lot of the anger exhibited towards Americans by Islamic groups would dissipate. It would take time, but I think it’s possible.

Perhaps a new head of state in Washington could initiate such a programme and lead the way forward?

Éanna
12/03/2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by liamon
If this attack is from an Islamic group, then isn't it just further proof that you can't fight a war against terrorists? Name a country that has managed to defeat a well organised, committed guerrilla army and I’ll name 10 that failed. Best case scenario, years of svage attacks followed by a negotiated truce. Further US military action will only increase Arab public anger, leading to further reprisals against US sites and those of it’s allies.

If the USA wants peace, then the only option is to sit down with the leaders of the Arab world and listen to their concerns. Primarily, this will involve a major re-think on the US support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. If the US dropped it’s support for such actions tomorrow then a lot of the anger exhibited towards Americans by Islamic groups would dissipate. It would take time, but I think it’s possible.

Perhaps a new head of state in Washington could initiate such a programme and lead the way forward?
Very well said. The signs all point to the so-called "Al-Qaeda" network now, and the EU and the US have to have a very serious think about foreign policy before this becomes a regular occurrence.

Ref
12/03/2004, 2:13 PM
apparently the attacks yesterday were exactly 911 days after the Sept 11th attacks in the US.

the supposed claim of responsibility by the group linked to Al-Qaeda said that an attack on America was 90% ready

From CNN.com: "we will alert all Muslims around the world that an attack from the Wind of Black Death is imminent. It is currently in the final stages, 90 percent complete, God willing soon."

the CNN story (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/12/spain.blasts.alqaeda/index.html)

scary stuff.

oh and the Spanish police found and defused a 14th bomb.

10 detonated, 4 defused.

i'll post a link when i find it again.

brendy_éire
12/03/2004, 3:07 PM
Originally posted by Ref
apparently the attacks yesterday were exactly 911 days after the Sept 11th attacks in the US.

Don't too much of it. I think most Islamic extremists are above that type of thing.

IMO, Spain is reaping what it has sown. They have paid the price (or at least part of it) for their support of the US over Iraq. The Spanish had to coming to them. Very unfair however to target civilians. Spanish public opinon was anti-war overall. If people have a problem with Spain invading Iraq it should have, if attacks were to be used at all, taken up with the Spanish government. While I have the upmost sympathy for the people involved, I have none whatsoever for Aznar's government, and hope they get hammered in the coming elections.

To quote Lisa Simpson:
"You can't create a monster, then whine when it stomps on a few buildings."

Ref
12/03/2004, 3:12 PM
very interesting article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3501364.stm)

basically it's who could have done it, ETA or Al Qaeda.

liamon
12/03/2004, 4:47 PM
Originally posted by brendy_éire

IMO, Spain is reaping what it has sown. .... The Spanish had to coming to them.

Hmmm, that's one of the most sympathetic posts I've ever seen on here. :rolleyes:

Éanna
13/03/2004, 1:00 AM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
IMO, Spain is reaping what it has sown.
If you had said the Spanish people are reaping what their government has sown, I'd agree with you.

brendy_éire
13/03/2004, 1:19 PM
Originally posted by Éanna
If you had said the Spanish people are reaping what their government has sown, I'd agree with you.

Yes, that is what I meant. Althought most of the Spanish public was anti-war, when a government invades another country it claims to do so with a mandate from the electorate. Ye can under why many Iraqis may blame the Spanish people for invading their country. After all, the Spanish electorate chose a right-wing government.

Condex
13/03/2004, 8:26 PM
Totally disagree with most of the posters in this thread

You've got to go and bring the fight to this lot wherever they hide. Islamic fundamentalism is biggest threat to world peace today.

brendy_éire
13/03/2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Condex
You've got to go and bring the fight to this lot wherever they hide. Islamic fundamentalism is biggest threat to world peace today.

Aye, you culchies all share a common ignorance. :rolleyes: Islamic fundementalism is a far inferior threat to world peace compared to the yanks. The yanks have killed over 10,000 civilians in Iraq so far. That's in less than a year. Islamic fundementalists have killed, what, a few thousand in the past 10 years?
You can't defeat a guerilla army. The only way to stop them is to tackle the causes of their anger.

patsh
14/03/2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Condex
Totally disagree with most of the posters in this thread

You've got to go and bring the fight to this lot wherever they hide. Islamic fundamentalism is biggest threat to world peace today.
Would you consider extreme Protestant fundamentalism in the US is a threat?
How about Jewish fundamentalists?
Russian Orthodox fundamentalists?
How about massive stockpiles of all sorts of deadly weapons?
Oil pipelines in authoritarian states in the former USSR?

What is world peace?
I suspect you mean the 1st world, because there is no peace in the 2nd or 3rd worlds.

Are you "bringing the fight to this lot" ?
Or are you happy to let the poor black thrash from the ghettos of America and Britain continue to be cannon fodder for their leaders campaign to put even more millions of dollars in their buddies pockets?

Small groups of determined unelected, even some elected, extremists can indeed wreak havoc as they seek to impose their views on the rest of us. We need to beware of all of these groups, no matter what religion, country or philosophy they claim to espouse.

Condex
14/03/2004, 5:20 PM
How many of his own people did Saddam Hussein regime kill or in wars that he started, millions.

What happens when you don't intervene Ruanda, Zimbabwe.
What happens when you do intervene East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq (we'll see)

Its just a matter of time till terrorist organisations get there hands
on nuclear weapons, then its not going to be much fun living in London or working in the Docklands.

Éanna
14/03/2004, 6:07 PM
Condex, you're spouting the kind of rubbish I'd expect to hear from the US administration.

In reply to your questions-
Why did Saddam get in a position to do what he did- because America helped him.
And as for Rwanda, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq. Why are all these countries (And many others) in the mess they're in? Because of colonial powers like Britain, Portugal (in East Timor at least), and in the modern era, the USA interfering in other countries and it is they who are responsible for the terrorism we're facing. If the USA had not interfered in the middle east, particularly Israel, they wouldn't be the hate figure they are; if the UK had not decide to try and run Africa as their won personal treasure chest, that continent would not be in the mess its in. We can't change the past, we can't accept terroists killing people, but we MUST try and understand WHY this is happening. There's no point locking up or arresting people for these things and doing nothing more- people have to look at the causes of this problem, and they are a lot closer to home than Bush, Aznar or Balir want us to believe. The biggest danger to world peace is that psychopath Bush and his attempts to run the world

liam88
14/03/2004, 8:01 PM
I've got to say I see both sides of the story here. I am against the colonisation Britain and the lieks practiced in the past but I also see the Islamic terrorists as a big attack on world peace.
I'm not saying the terrorists are a threat to world peace because they are fighting Capitalism, I'm saying it's the WAY they are doing it.
On Thursday they didn't target any political targets-they targeted trains packed full of commuters, school children and that 7 month old baby (probably a lot of lucky babies to who survived). If the trains hadn't been late and all the bombs went off the death toll would have been even worse.
They set up bombs to go off when the emergancy services arrived.
OK-so, if you guys are right in saying that Bush, Blair etc. started all this then ok-but Bush and Blair wern't among the victims.
Whatever reasons behind the attacks-the people who died had nothing to do with it.
We're fighting a bunch of w**kers.

Condex
14/03/2004, 8:56 PM
Its blame the Yanks for everything.

Western democarcies give you a right to have an opinion, in London free speech allows some lunatic to preech hate outside mosque, try to be a practicing Christian in any Muslim country.

I know which country I'd rather live in.

brendy_éire
14/03/2004, 9:37 PM
Originally posted by liam88
We're fighting a bunch of w**kers.

They believe the same thing. And on that, I don't believe that 'we' are fighting anyone. The whole 'war on terror' (an expression I despise), is being blown out of all proportion. The problem is nowhere near as big as it is made out to be by the leaders of western nations, it's merely an attempt to win votes from a scared electorate. (for example those colour-coded US 'Terror Alert' warnings and Blair sending tanks into airports (what, are the tanks going to shoot at anyone looking to hijack a plane?)) You can't fight these people, you can only solve the problems that cause them to what they do. By calling them 'terrorists' and 'evil' they are only incited further. For the same token, by describing the west as 'good' or as 'the free world' makes it out as if we are somehow better than these people. IMO, if anyone is 'evil' here, it's the US and its allies. I don't see any Muslim countries invading North America or Europe. I don't see firms from Muslim countries forcing westerners to work for them for peanuts or forcing countries to sign totally unfair trade agreements.

Islamic fundementalists aren't fighting capitalism, per say. They are fighting against the colonisation of their countries. The US is the primary colonial power of the world at the present time (both through military and economic means), and by attacking the US they are attackings its capitalist 'values'. But to say that they are attacking the US because it's capitalist would be wrong. These people are by no means seeking a socialist revolution.


Originally posted by Condex
Western democarcies give you a right to have an opinion, in London free speech allows some lunatic to preech hate outside mosque

Do they? Incitement to hatred laws take care of that.

BTW, I think it's disgraceful (though expected) how the Spanish government insisted that ETA was responsible for the Madrid attacks. They've done nothing but lie in order to win votes for their (idioitic) hard-line stance with ETA. Let's hope the Spanish people see through the lies of their government.

liam88
14/03/2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
IMO, if anyone is 'evil' here, it's the US and its allies. I don't see any Muslim countries invading North America or Europe. I don't see firms from Muslim countries forcing westerners to work for them for peanuts or forcing countries to sign totally unfair trade agreements.

I know that you are complied to disagree with my every opinion Brendy (Derry City rock! ;) ) but they are killing innocent people.
I never said the USA and Britain and whoever else wern't killing the innocent-they are, but anybody who dilabratley targets civilian packed trains with the intention to kill and maim Innocent men women and children (including babies) they are scum.
Sorry no two ways about it.
Anyone who tries to dilibratley murder the innocent are scum

brendy_éire
14/03/2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by liam88
Anyone who tries to dilibratley murder the innocent are scum

Those responsible for the attacks in Madrid are wrong. But realise that they are only reacting to what the US and others have done to over the years. I don't see the need to call them derogatory terms like 'scum'. Yes, they are wrong, but can you not understand how and why they are driven to do what they do? It could happen to any of us if we experienced what they have. If any is 'scum', it's the agressors, the US and its allies. The fundementalists (I refuse to call them terrorists) are only attempting to give as good as they get. Yes, that's wrong, but it's part of human nature.


Originally posted by Conor74
On the other hand, I don't see American dictators ruthlessly suppressing students marching for basic human rights on a yearly basis.

No, they do it in more covert, subtle ways.


Originally posted by Conor74
It was hardly fair that the wealth generated by Iraq funded the private lives of Hussein and his family.

And it's hardly fair that the wealth generated by Iraq now funds the private lives Bush and his corporate cronies (Rice, Cheney, et al).


Originally posted by Conor74
to pretend that all Muslim countries live in some fantastic utopia of free trade and fairness for all is wide of the mark too.

I never said that. They're crap countries to live in, ruled by many immoral people.


Originally posted by Conor74
As for 'working for peanuts', did you ever compare the wages in the US, the UK, Ireland and other countries, with say North Korea?

It's partly to do with relative prices for goods and services over there. €1 to them might be a month's wages, but it also will buy them more than it would buy us. BTW, where do you think half your stuff was made? Check your trainers, probably a south-east Asian country. Check your mouse, the same. Where was your petrol imported from? It's western firms paying these low wages in the majority of cases.

I don't think that Muslim countries, or indeed those of south-east Asia, are all brilliant. But neither are the countries of the west. While we might have a higher standard of living that doesn't mean we have the right to dictate how other states should be run. We shouldn't invade them for economic reasons. And we shouldn't complain when they fight back.

brendy_éire
14/03/2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Conor74
While I wouldn't put the IRA or other terrorists on pedestals

Slow down here mucker. The IRA are not terrorists. If the Brits still controlled Kerry and were attacking your home you'd be thinking a lot differently.
Agree totally that grievances must be addressed though. They aren't there for no reason.

Beavis
15/03/2004, 2:02 AM
Current shock tactics applied by the fundamentalists will only serve to increase support for radical action against Isalm,widen distrust between Islam and the west and enevitably make policy changes less likely.These methods will not strengthen the voice of Islam but weaken it.

liamon
15/03/2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Conor74

Think Slick Willy would have handled it better than Bush, and think half the world will breath a sigh of relief if Kerry beats Bush in the elections.

Can't agree with that. I'm not a fan of Shrub, but I wouldn't absolve Clinton either. Al-Q prospered under the presidency of Clinton and committed several attacks while he was in power. The 9/11 attacks would have been planned and developed while he was president. He did nothing to reduce the threat. He actively supported Israeli governments while they abused Palestinians and this is the sort of thing that allows groups like Al-Q to recruit impressionable young men under the banner of fighting the injustice of the West.

Having said that, Bush has made some critical errors. The attack by the US lead coalition on Iraq are completely without justification and will only serve to further enhance anti-US hatred and promote further Al-Q recruitment. There was no link between terrorism and Iraq. Invading a country will not reduce terrorism, it will only encourage the Islamic world to engage in bombing campaigns and such.

War will not solve this problem. Dialogue and education are needed to overcome the hatred and fear built up by decades of anti-Western publicity in the Arab world.

PS IMO, the guys who planted the bombs in Madrid are scum. Misguided idealists perhaps, but still scum. As are the IRA and anyone else that carries out bombing campaigns.

Éanna
15/03/2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Condex
Its blame the Yanks for everything.
Its blame the Yanks for everything that they are responsible for. They are hypocritical interfereing murderers. I nearly p!ssed myself laughing last night when I heard that the US had "expressed concern about the legitimacy of the Russian presidential elections" How dare they! They have let an unelected maniac go around bombing anyone he doesn't like for the last 4 years, and they want to lecture others on legitimate elections.

The problem with the USA is- yes it is a better place to live than many Muslim countries, but they are quite happy to keep those countires the way they are, because it means cheap oil and someone to blame if things go wrong. Saddam Hussein has not attacked anyone for over 10 years, but he was a brutal dictator. Contrast that with Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan who is also a dictator, who's country has admitted selling nuclear technology to so-called rogue states, but hasn't even had sanctions imposed because it suits Dubya and his gang of cowboys in Washington.


Originally posted by Condex
try to be a practicing Christian in any Muslim country.

I know which country I'd rather live in.
Thats because you are an ignorant bigot.

Macy
15/03/2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
The IRA are not terrorists.
Eh?

sadloserkid
15/03/2004, 1:45 PM
Originally posted by liam88
Anyone who tries to dilibratley murder the innocent are scum

Have you ever heard of a town called Omagh Liam?

John83
15/03/2004, 3:14 PM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
Slow down here mucker. The IRA are not terrorists. If the Brits still controlled Kerry and were attacking your home you'd be thinking a lot differently.
Agree totally that grievances must be addressed though. They aren't there for no reason.
Woudl anyone outside Kerry mind if they took it back off our hands. ;)

It's easy to go on about the grievances of the {insert name of terrorist group}, justifying their actions, buy you might feel a bit differently if the bus you went to work on was blown up because of the actions of a government you may or may not condone/have voted for.

SÓC
15/03/2004, 3:36 PM
The Provos are terrorists. There is no other way to describe them. Explain how they are not terrorists?

They opperate (note I use the present tense) contracy to laws, conventions and rules of warfare.

brendy_éire
15/03/2004, 5:34 PM
Originally posted by SÓC
The Provos are terrorists. There is no other way to describe them. Explain how they are not terrorists?

They opperate (note I use the present tense) contracy to laws, conventions and rules of warfare.

You're making the accusations, so justify how the IRA are terrorists. And contrary to the laws? So lemme ask ye, are the RUC/PSNI terrorists? Are the British army terrorists? What about MI5? Where the IRA terrorists during the War of Independence? Was it wrong for the IRA to defend Nationalists from the British army and the RUC?

The IRA had made mistakes. They have targetted civilians. That is wrong and they have apologised for it. Which is a lot more than the Brits have ever done.

Colm
15/03/2004, 6:05 PM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
The IRA are not terrorists.


Of course they're not.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I can't believe that you can say that and be totally serious?

SÓC
15/03/2004, 6:09 PM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
You're making the accusations, so justify how the IRA are terrorists. And contrary to the laws? So lemme ask ye, are the RUC/PSNI terrorists? Are the British army terrorists? What about MI5? Where the IRA terrorists during the War of Independence? Was it wrong for the IRA to defend Nationalists from the British army and the RUC?

The IRA had made mistakes. They have targetted civilians. That is wrong and they have apologised for it. Which is a lot more than the Brits have ever done.

You seem to be mixing up the IRA of Collins et al and the Provisional IRA.

The provos opperate contray to the laws of Ireland. The IRA are not an army. What are they?

What ever the PSNI/RUC/MI5 did doesnt change what the IRA are.

They are terrorists. They have bombed civilian targets. Gillford, Birmingham, Manachester, Canary Warf, Warrington, Brighton etc. They say sorry and now they are not terrorist while still beating the shíte out of people in "punishment" beatings.

If they are not terrorist why dont we know who's on their 'Army Council', why havnt they signed the Geneva Convention, why do they hold arms illegally???

from dictionary.com;
terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

liam88
15/03/2004, 7:10 PM
Originally posted by sadloserkid
Have you ever heard of a town called Omagh Liam?

Can I just check what that is meant to be impling?
Of course I remember the Omagh atrocities-and my full condolences to the victims family and friends. I even made a peace poster with the poem that young lad wrote before he died in Omagh.
I have never expressed any pro RIRA views so why did you ask this question?
I don't want to get involved with the IRA discussion so I'm sitting on the fence.
I came on this thread to express my condolences and state my digust at the Spanish bombings.

brendy_éire
15/03/2004, 7:58 PM
Originally posted by Conor74
Umm, not certain of my military defintions, but building bloody big barracks all over the place and sending thousands of troops onto the streets is not usually associated with classic terrorism...

No, you're right. I suppose Bloody Sunday was a legitimate military operation. As were the Dublin and Monaghan bombings (by MI5). And the murders of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. Need I go on?


Originally posted by SÓC
You seem to be mixing up the IRA of Collins et al and the Provisional IRA.

What's the difference exactly?


Originally posted by SÓC
The provos opperate contray to the laws of Ireland.

As did the IRA in the War of Independence.


Originally posted by SÓC
If they are not terrorist why dont we know who's on their 'Army Council', why havnt they signed the Geneva Convention, why do they hold arms illegally???

Aye, there's an idea now. Walk up to UN, ask to sign the Geneva Convention. Publish the names of those on the Army Council. Put in applications for licences to hold weapons. Sure while they're at it they might as well run a TV advertising campaign and hold open days at their training areas.


Originally posted by SÓC
from dictionary.com;
terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Aye, the Brits would never do anything like that.

If you insist on calling the IRA terrorists, then you must also call the British army and the RUC/PSNI terrorists. As well as the soliders of the War of Independence. How quick those in the Free State are to forget those who got them their independence (of sorts) in the first place.

Condex
15/03/2004, 8:46 PM
Éanna posted

Thats because you are an ignorant bigot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its great to be called a ignorant bigot by a self proclaimed
'Scabby student bast@rd'

Typical student think they know everything, think their going to change the world until they soon realise they don't make one bit of difference.

Give me your opionion in in 20 years time when you have lived a bit, by then you'll have got your 9-5 job and house and fallen into line like everyone else.

I've travelled all over the world and have friends who are Hindu, Sikh and Muslim. I don't think they would call me bigot in fact some are comming out to St Patricks night meal I'm organising, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

brendy_éire
15/03/2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Conor74
can you name any army in history that carried out everything in a noble or honourable manner? By your own definition, it would seem that there is no such thing as an army, and it's all just a bunch of terrorists, just some bunches are bigger than others...

You're the one who started calling people terrorists. I find that word is used in a derogatory fashion against any non-state organisation that uses violence, while if a state organisation does exactly the same thing it's all grand. It's so hypocrital.

Anyway, getting back to the topic. Very good to see the Socialists win power. Hopefully it'll be the same story with Bush and Blair in their coming elections. Also welcome news that the new Spanish PM, Zapatero, is insisting on a UN mandate for Iraq or he'll pull Spanish troops out. He's firmly in the anti-war camp, which now leaves Blair more or less alone in Europe, and supports dealing with Al-Qaeda through use of "a new international alliance..based on the authority of the United Nations, not unilateral actions by the US and UK." That's the type of stuff that's needed.

SÓC
16/03/2004, 10:16 AM
[QUOTE]No, you're right. I suppose Bloody Sunday was a legitimate military operation. As were the Dublin and Monaghan bombings (by MI5). And the murders of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. Need I go on?

Yea I regard that as terrorism.

So are the IRA going to allow themselves to be investigated by Human Rights Commissions. Are they going to set up Judicial inquirys into attrocities they have committed?


What's the difference exactly?

Between the Collins and Co and the Provos who style themselves the IRA?My god read up on your history. Here's a few initial ideas;
-Marxism
-Irish Language
-Military Strategy
-Number of Volunteers
-Popular Support




As did the IRA in the War of Independence

How did they if there was no state of Ireland. They opperated contray to the laws of the very people they were fighting against. The PIRA are opperate contray to the laws of Ireland. They betray their fellow Irish men. Kill Gardaí, smuggle, carry out vigo activities, smuggle. How much do they cost the very Ireland that they say they are fighting for every year?

Look up the concept of the time of the blood scarfice.



Aye, there's an idea now. Walk up to UN, ask to sign the Geneva Convention. Publish the names of those on the Army Council. Put in applications for licences to hold weapons. Sure while they're at it they might as well run a TV advertising campaign and hold open days at their training areas.


Well the people the PIRA are fighting their "glorious" war against are doing that, so if they are a legitimate army why dont they?

British soldier leaves the barricks wearing his uniform, gun in hand, clearly marked out as a soldier. PIRA man leaves his house with his gun in his pocket and nobody is any the wiser.

Why oh why do the 'provisional' republician movement just put their head in the sand and point to what the other side have done? I know that there have acts committed by both sides but Im not asking you to recap that. Im asking you about the IRA.

As for your last comment:rolleyes:.

If the provos had stopped their bombing years earlier and complied with the Agreement they signed up to we'd be well on the way to a United Ireland.

Peadar
16/03/2004, 11:08 AM
Religion is the root of all evil!

liamon
16/03/2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by brendy_éire
You're the one who started calling people terrorists. I find that word is used in a derogatory fashion against any non-state organisation that uses violence,

It doesn't matter if people use it in a derogatory fashion or not. Just coz you don't like the tone, you decide to ignore the underlying logic and truth? Not liking the word won't change it. Bigoted people may not like the word, but they're still bigots.

Here's one of many similar definitions of the word terrorism:
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.
The IRA did use violence (bombings, beatings, shootings) as a means to coerce societies (punishment beatings, Protestants) and governments (UK government).

Here's another definition:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

And before you start on about what is or is not unlawful - here's another definition. Unlawful - Not lawful; illegal.
For instance - blowing up other peoples property is unlawful.

And the key bit in that second definition- "for ideological or political reasons". Just because you believe in their goals, it doesn't change what they are. For heavens sake, every terrorist believes he's doing what's right. The Islamic terrorists believe in what they're doing. ETA thinks they're justified in their campaign of blowing up tourists. Yet, that is terrorism.

Maybe the UK government has been involved in terrorism. Maybe the US has. It doesn't matter. Coz none of that will change the fact that the IRA has also taken part in terrorist acts.

By any definition of the word, they are terrorists.

To summarise - They are terrorists.

brendy_éire
16/03/2004, 5:19 PM
Originally posted by SÓC
[QUOTE]So are the IRA going to allow themselves to be investigated by Human Rights Commissions. Are they going to set up Judicial inquirys into attrocities they have committed?

Not by the HRC, naw. Aye, there probably will be a few judicial inquiries if the Unionists get there way.
Besides, the RUC/PSNI have the power to follow up IRA activity. Nationalists have no-one to follow up what the RUC and British have done.


Originally posted by SÓC
[QUOTE]Between the Collins and Co and the Provos who style themselves the IRA?My god read up on your history. Here's a few initial ideas;
-Marxism
-Irish Language
-Military Strategy
-Number of Volunteers
-Popular Support

Marxism? Ye mad?? Connelly, aye. But Collins? Collins wasn't a Marxist. Did he declare a revolution after independence of the south? Did he abolish private property? Did he take all means of production into state ownership?
The IRA support the Irish language where they can, I'm sure.
The IRA have a military strategy - of course they do. They plan what they're going to do and how to do it.
Obviously numbers are going to be smaller with a smaller population.
The reason the last IRA campaign started was because of the demands of the Nationalist community for protection from the RUC and loyalists.


Originally posted by SÓC
[QUOTE]Kill Gardaí, smuggle, carry out vigo activities, smuggle.

I don't agree with killing gardaí or smuggling. As for vigilantism, that's what happens when there's no police force.


Originally posted by SÓC
[QUOTE]British soldier leaves the barricks wearing his uniform, gun in hand, clearly marked out as a soldier. PIRA man leaves his house with his gun in his pocket and nobody is any the wiser.

So you're suggesting that the IRA fight the British army in an open battle? :confused:


Originally posted by SÓC
If the provos had stopped their bombing years earlier and complied with the Agreement they signed up to we'd be well on the way to a United Ireland.

Sunningdale?

Éanna
16/03/2004, 5:56 PM
Originally posted by Condex
Typical student think they know everything, think their going to change the world until they soon realise they don't make one bit of difference.
I'm well aware of what you're saying. I don't believe I can change the world, I'd want to be fairly thick to think that. I do believe however that whether I can change it or not, I have a duty to speak out when I see or hear things I regard as wrong. And I regard america as wrong. You still have not replied to the rest of my post.

I could equally have just accused you of being a typical middle-class right-wing capitalist etc etc for your "easy to blame the yanks" comment. But I didn't. Becuase I like to dig a little depper. Which I did. But I still thought you were an ignorant bigot, so I said it :)