Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Again with the history and the double standards.

If Amnesty wanted to investigate the IRA's human rights abuses to whom do they go? Where are the records of punishment and detention held?

That wouldn't be a complete deflection would it by any chance.

It is a 'historical' case and you don't wish to review the history or context?

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

Maybe, you could tell us all what you think would happen if Adams reveals what he knows here and somebody is arrested and charged and then the next family asks and somebody else gets charged and convicted then the next one asks...I'm all ears on this because it seems to me that what you will have is a whole new generation of families looking for answers.
It is that stark, you make your choice as to the best course to take. I know I have.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That wouldn't be a complete deflection would it by any chance.

It is a 'historical' case and you don't wish to review the history or context?

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

Maybe, you could tell us all what you think would happen if Adams reveals what he knows here and somebody is arrested and charged and then the next family asks and somebody else gets charged and convicted then the next one asks...I'm all ears on this because it seems to me that what you will have is a whole new generation of families looking for answers.
It is that stark, you make your choice as to the best course to take. I know I have.

How convenient for an organisation advocating for a truth commission!

Talk about the 'get out of jail' free card!!

As for Adams revealing what he knows - I've already said that's not going to happen so I don't see the point of discussing hypotheticals - I'm not big on them or counter-factuals, I leave them to the first years

And if you don't believe war is ever right, then you need to widen your reading to encompass some of the work covering "jus bellum iustum" doctrines.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

How convenient for an organisation advocating for a truth commission!

Talk about the 'get out of jail' free card!!

As for Adams revealing what he knows - I've already said that's not going to happen so I don't see the point of discussing hypotheticals - I'm not big on them or counter-factuals, I leave them to the first years

Well then, you must agree with the OP that this course, where politicians involve themselves in a known cul de sac of high moral grandstanding is a complete waste of everyone's time.
What is the imperative for failed politics? Try something else.
What is the stated goal of politicians here? Oh yeh, to bring closure for all families affected by the conflict. Marks out of ten for that?

And if you don't believe war is ever right, then you need to widen your reading to encompass some of the work covering "jus bellum iustum" doctrines.

So all conflicts/war must follow theological and intellectual principles. Who knew!

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, you must agree with the OP that this course, where politicians involve themselves in a known cul de sac of high moral grandstanding is a complete waste of everyone's time.
What is the imperative for failed politics? Try something else.
What is the stated goal of politicians here? Oh yeh, to bring closure for all families affected by the conflict. Marks out of ten for that?



So all conflicts/war must follow theological and intellectual principles. Who knew!

Agree with the OP? I thought you were the OP!

The imperative and goal of politics is the acquisition and retention of power for its own sake - has been since we first organised as communities and societies. You don't believe all that nonsense that all politicians spout about 'service'??

Machiavelli had it about right....

".....the purpose of political power is to maintain itself and to extend itself. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the people. It has nothing to do with principles or ideology or right and wrong.

The welfare of the people, principles, ideology, right and wrong: these are related to the means to the end, but the goal is power."

And you're confusing jus in bello (the conduct of war) with what I wrote jus bellum iustum (the moral justification for war) - it's ok it's a subtle difference.

For example, one of the principles espoused under the jus in bello that Adams and the IRA seem to have had a problem with is 'distinction' - no bombing civilians and the like or shooting unarmed prison officers on the street.

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Agree with the OP? I thought you were the OP!

The imperative and goal of politics is the acquisition and retention of power for its own sake - has been since we first organised as communities and societies. You don't believe all that nonsense that all politicians spout about 'service'??

Machiavelli had it about right....



And you're confusing jus in bello (the conduct of war) with what I wrote jus bellum iustum (the moral justification for war) - it's ok it's a subtle difference.

For example, one of the principles espoused under the jus in bello that Adams and the IRA seem to have had a problem with is 'distinction' - no bombing civilians and the like or shooting unarmed prison officers on the street.

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

The 'state' that has no interest in the welfare of it's own people?

...And Justice

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'state' that has no interest in the welfare of it's own people?

The "state" and British state didn't give a fiddlers about the Catholics in the north and they were second class citizens hence the uprising. Most companies including delorean had protestant management and Catholic worker bee's threatening to kill them at any given time. A work colleague worked up there in the 80's. Mad stuff Ted.

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

There are 'rules of war' in existance.
Human rights violations during conflicts, can be prosecuted after the war.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

There are 'rules of war' in existance.
Human rights violations during conflicts, can be prosecuted after the war.

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

...And Justice

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

ISIS don't follow any rules, in fact they make new ways of killing people in the worst possible manner.

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

I'm sorry, but where did I call them terrorists?

The wording was deliberately phrased within the philosophy of war argument.

Plus jus bellum iustum is about the initiation of war, not the conduct or resolution of it.......as I said, subtle but important differences.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

Human rights are not subjective.
The universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the United nations in 1948.

OMD

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Geneva convention covers war rules.

...And Justice

...And Justice wrote: »

ISIS don't follow any rules, in fact they make new ways of killing people in the worst possible manner.

And I don't believe anyone thinks that isis observe human rights?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

Some info here....

Hague Conventions, 1899 & 1907

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sorry, but where did I call them terrorists?

You were claiming war can only be waged by a state. Or are you now withdrawing that claim?

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

Some info here....

Hague Conventions, 1899 & 1907

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[64]

Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages

So IRA is ****ed then

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

You were claiming war can only be waged by a state. Or are you now withdrawing that claim?

Me?

Gosh no......Thomas Acquinas did......hence my use of the adjective 'Acquinian'......

Jawgap wrote: »

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

That's a dangerous road to go down. We should ignore Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot to Kill?

...And Justice

OMD wrote: »

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[64]

Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages

So IRA is ****ed then

The Americans are fcuked so.....

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Human rights are not subjective.
The universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the United nations in 1948.

Was this before or after they let Churchill off a war crimes charge for carpet bombing the sh*t out of Dresden and Cologne?
Forgive me if I seem dismissive of the U.N. which was conceived and has a veto at it's core for the 5 nations that set it up.
it should have been in Derry and Belfast when a sectarian statelet exploded because it was ignored by one of the UNs founding members , funnily enough (not really, tragically enough)

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

Me?

Gosh no......Thomas Acquinas did......hence my use of the adjective 'Acquinian'......

Ah right, so you were just completely randomly chucking around quotes from Aquinas that you now claim you neither endorse nor feel are relevant.
Thanks so much for that. Anything else random to add?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was this before or after they let Churchill off a war crimes charge for carpet bombing the shot out of Dresden and Cologne?
Forgive me if I seem dismissive of the U.N. which was conceived and has a veto at it's core for the 5 nations that set it up.
it should have been in Derry and Belfast when a sectarian statelet exploded because it was ignored by one of the UNs founding members , funnily (not really, tragically enough) enough.

Yeah, everyone bandies that one about......the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) is a better example......even LeMay said he'd have been tried as a war criminal if they'd lost the war.

Victors write the history, which is why SF can't whitewash away crimes like Brian Stack's murder.

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah right, so you were just completely randomly chucking around quotes from Aquinas that you now claim you neither endorse nor feel are relevant.
Thanks so much for that. Anything else random to add?

Pretty much it.....there are different strands to the debate and discussion around the doctrine.....I like Acquinas' views, not because they particularly agree with. One but because of the elegance of the writing and argument.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, everyone bandies that one about......the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) is a better example......even LeMay said he'd have been tried as a war criminal if they'd lost the war.

Victors write the history, which is why SF can't whitewash away crimes like Brian Stack's murder.

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

There's no argument - the victors write the history. 'Twas always thus since even before Thucydides.

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

There's no argument - the victors write the history. 'Twas always thus since even before Thucydides.

Yeah the Yankees have a lot to answer for.

the_syco

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

So, can we call them terrorists when the IRA went on "fund raising" activities in RoI banks and post offices? Or just common criminals?

Jawgap

...And Justice wrote: »

Yeah the Yankees have a lot to answer for.

They certainly do.

Gerry Adams expresses anger after being denied entry to White House

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

The sides are held to different standards though, the state forces are supposed to abide by conventions and rules.

Eg. The British got taken to the ECHR for breaches of human rights in Castlereagh.

IRA courts handed out murder sentences and kneecapped young lads.