SF support for an illegal IRA war in NI Vs their protest at an illegal war in Iraq-is it hypocrisy?

Blub2k4

Rock Climber wrote:

yeah and there are many Sinn Féin supporters who can protest an illegal war in Iraq , yet support and glorify an illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland...

Imagine that!

Or maybe just that they support the rights of the small man when confronted by a state or states acting illegally?
The two are perfectly compatible with each other.

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

The two are perfectly compatible with each other.

Are you trying to say that supporting an illegal war in Northern Ireland and protesting against an illegal war in Iraq is not some form of hypocrisy?
Because I dont see how it couldnt be.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Are you trying to say that supporting an illegal war in Northern Ireland and protesting against an illegal war in Iraq is not some form of hypocrisy?
Because I dont see how it couldnt be.

Read what I said, I dont think it can be much clearer, you're being a little disingenious.
In both cases it is a protest against an occupation, by the British, both view points are compatible.

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

Read what I said, I dont think it can be much clearer, you're being a little disingenious.
In both cases it is a protest against an occupation, by the British, both view points are compatible.

Well I took the post that you were replying to as saying it was hypocrisy-so is it?
And if not, how not?

Rock Climber

Blub2k4 wrote:

Or maybe just that they support the rights of the small man when confronted by a state or states acting illegally?
The two are perfectly compatible with each other.

they protested the war in Iraq saying it was illegal before during and after the war.They were out on the streets saying this.
Yet they do the opposite with the illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland.
Thats hypocrisy.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Well I took the post that you were replying to as saying it was hypocrisy-so is it?
And if not, how not?

I dont think it is hypocritical in any way, you are not reading what I am writing, I already explained why I dont think it to be hypocritical and why I think the viewpoints are compatible.

Me wrote:

Or maybe just that they support the rights of the small man when confronted by a state or states acting illegally?

Me wrote:

In both cases it is a protest against an occupation, by the British, both view points are compatible.

So where is the difficulty with comprehension stemming from?

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

I dont think it is hypocritical in any way, you are not reading what I am writing, I already explained why I dont think it to be hypocritical and why I think the viewpoints are compatible.

The viewpoints are not compatible for one simple reason. These people then go and support the 'opposite side' engaged in the illegal "war" in N.Ireland. They are not giving tacit support & comfort to the opposing side in the Gulf. Nor, I suspect, would they be terribly inclined to do so if the opportunity arose.

Rock Climber

Blub2k4 wrote:

So where is the difficulty with comprehension stemming from?

Do you think that supporting an illegal war in one place and protesting it in another is not hypocrisy?
It is.

Blub2k4

Rock Climber wrote:

they protested the war in Iraq saying it was illegal before during and after the war.They were out on the streets saying this.
Yet they do the opposite with the illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland.
Thats hypocrisy.

Rock Climber wrote:

yeah and there are many Sinn Féin supporters

Rock Climber wrote:

they protested the war in Iraq

I am speaking for myself in this case obviously but attempting to give an answer as to why I can hold what appear to you to be opposing viewpoints(from your point of view) and why I dont find these viewpoints to be imcompatible or hypocritical.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

The viewpoints are not compatible for one simple reason. These people then go and support the 'opposite side' engaged in the illegal "war" in N.Ireland. They are not giving tacit support & comfort to the opposing side in the Gulf. Nor, I suspect, would they be terribly inclined to do so if the opportunity arose.

Personally I have no problem with supporting the insurgency in Iraq, you're making a lot of assumptions about "them". :rolleyes:

Blub2k4

Rock Climber wrote:

Do you think that supporting an illegal war in one place and protesting it in another is not hypocrisy?
It is.

It is down to viewpoints, what is a legal war exactly?
Does state involvement confer legitimacy on a war?
In the framework of my viewpoint as already outlined I dont consider it to be hypocritical.

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

Personally I have no problem with supporting the insurgency in Iraq, you're making a lot of assumptions about "them". :rolleyes:

So .... you would ally yourself with Al Queada then? They are operating amongst the insurgents ....

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

So .... you would ally yourself with Al Queada then? They are operating amongst the insurgents ....

Wow pathetic really.
Al-Qaeida are operating among the insurgents, recently.
I support the Iraqi peoples right to defend their country against an illegal occupation, the fact that Al-Qaeida are part of that insurgency is a secondary issue, their reasons are possibly misguided but the underlying principle of defending Iraq is correct in my opinion.
I do not support Al-qaeida, to be honest I have difficulty even taking the name "al qaeida" seriously and is on a par with attempting to label me as something that fits a neat box that you have that does not really exist.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia and dont have a problem with arabs.

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

I am speaking for myself in this case obviously but attempting to give an answer as to why I can hold what appear to you to be opposing viewpoints(from your point of view) and why I dont find these viewpoints to be imcompatible or hypocritical.

You are avoiding the question.
Sinn Féin officially protested against the illegal war in Iraq, yet officially condone an illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland-how is that not hypocracy on their part? Do you agree that it is?

I'm splitting this off topic sideline into a new thread by the way including this post.

mycroft

Earthman wrote:

You are avoiding the question.
Sinn Féin officially protested against the illegal war in Iraq, yet officially condone an illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland-how is that not hypocracy on their part? Do you agree that it is?

I'm splitting this off topic sideline into a new thread by the way including this post.
(the original thread will close for abut a minute while I do this)

Not to mention SF meekly heading up to meet Bush during the antiwar protests.

bonkey

Blub2k4 wrote:

In both cases it is a protest against an occupation, by the British, both view points are compatible.

Well given that the "occupation" of Ireland by the British predates the discovery of the Americas by Western European nations, I assume you would then concede that the lack of SF condemning that particular occupation is hypocritical?

Indeed, they would appear to support the occupation of the US by Wstern-European emigrants, as they use the country as a base of moral and financial support, rather than exhorting the occupiers to flock off back to where they came from and give the country back to the people who owned it in the first place.

So maybe you're right, and there's no hypocracy in the Iraq / NI comparison because the're both occupations. Kinda highlights an even deeper hypocracy if thats the case, though....wouldn't you agree?

jc

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

You are avoiding the question.
Sinn Féin officially protested against the illegal war in Iraq, yet officially condone an illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland-how is that not hypocracy on their part? Do you agree that it is?

I'm splitting this off topic sideline into a new thread by the way including this post.

As previously mentioned if SF are thinking along the lines of what I mentioned as being my viewpoint then I dont see it as being hypocritical.
If you anyalyse it as you have chosen to then you could come to this conclusion, with this point I agree while disagreeing totally with your basis for reasoning.

Blub2k4

bonkey wrote:

Well given that the "occupation" of Ireland by the British predates the discovery of the Americas by Western European nations, I assume you would then concede that the lack of SF condemning that particular occupation is hypocritical?

Indeed, they would appear to support the occupation of the US by Wstern-European emigrants, as they use the country as a base of moral and financial support, rather than exhorting the occupiers to flock off back to where they came from and give the country back to the people who owned it in the first place.

So maybe you're right, and there's no hypocracy in the Iraq / NI comparison because the're both occupations. Kinda highlights an even deeper hypocracy if thats the case, though....wouldn't you agree?

jc

Is there a large insurgent population in the states fighting a war to have their rights recognised? I think you have constructed a strawman.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is hypocrisy everywhere and on this board as well.

It is hypocritical of people to condemn or protest about one illegal war and then fully support another illegal war which has slaughtered many many more innocent men women and children. Their condemnations and rank hysteria about condemning the former rings very hollow indeed when their support for the latter is taken into account.

Edit:

I have just noticed the split in the thread. I think the title is far too narrow. It can easily be:

People who condemn an illegal war in NI v their support of an illegal war in Iraq - is it hypocrisy?

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

As previously mentioned if SF are thinking along the lines of what I mentioned as being my viewpoint then I dont see it as being hypocritical.
If you anyalyse it as you have chosen to then you could come to this conclusion, with this point I agree while disagreeing totally with your basis for reasoning.

Well if thats their reasoning, why do they object to the invasion as an illegal war? when the IRA campaign that they support was an illegal war.

You seem to be skipping the war and hopping onto the occupation to avoid addressing the issue raised here.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Well if thats their reasoning, why do they object to the invasion as an illegal war? when the IRA campaign that they support was an illegal war.

You seem to be skipping the war and hopping onto the occupation to avoid addressing the issue raised here.

I think you are attempting to bring it down to semantics which is why I am "hopping" to the occupation, you base your argument on "illegal war" I am choosing to see the implications a bit wider.
I dont see it as hypocrisy.
<edit> I suppose what I have neglected to mention is the subjectivity which allows me to call the northern situation a legitimate struggle for freedom as opposed to your slant which is to name it an illegal war, is this distinction not the basis of the problem here in Ireland?

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There is hypocrisy everywhere and on this board as well.

It is hypocritical of people to condemn or protest about one illegal war and then fully support another illegal war which has slaughtered many many more innocent men women and children. Their condemnations and rank hysteria about condemning the former rings very hollow indeed when their support for the latter is taken into account.

Edit:

I have just noticed the split in the thread. I think the title is far too narrow. It can easily be:

People who condemn an illegal war in NI v their support of an illegal war in Iraq - is it hypocrisy?

The death toil in Iraq is higher than NI, and the IRA have an impressive civilan casualties list on their very bloody hands.

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

I think you are attempting to bring it down to semantics which is why I am "hopping" to the occupation, you base your argument on "illegal war" I am choosing to see the implications a bit wider.

And in the process it seems conveniently sidestepping the hypocrisy issue which I questioned on the war.
Thats not what I asked you to do.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is hypocritical of people to condemn or protest about one illegal war and then fully support another illegal war which has slaughtered many many more innocent men women and children. Their condemnations and rank hysteria about condemning the former rings very hollow indeed when their support for the latter is taken into account.

Who on this thread is being a hypocrite?
I've never tacitly supported the Iraq war,I've left my mind open and questioned anything that I thought needed questioning on both sides as far as I can remember, even the illegality of the war it self at all as it was not ever determined as illegal(though in spirit it always was).

So who is being hypocritical in discussing this here specifically?
Sinn Féin on the other hand are firmly in the camp of declaring the Iraq war as illegal, yet they supported a transparently and fully determined illegal war.
Thats definitely hypocrisy.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

And in the process it seems conveniently sidestepping the hypocrisy issue which I questioned on the war.
Thats not what I asked you to do.
Who on this thread is being a hypocrite?
I've never tacitly supported the Iraq war,I've left my mind open and questioned anything that I thought needed questioning on both sides as far as I can remember, even the illegality of the war it self at all as it was not ever determined as illegal(though in spirit it always was).

So who is being hypocritical in discussing this here specifically?
Sinn Féin on the other hand are firmly in the camp of declaring the Iraq war as illegal, yet they supported a transparently and fully determined illegal war.
Thats definitely hypocrisy.

SO exactly how many times do I have to write that I do not think it is hypocritical?

mycroft

Earthman wrote:

So who is being hypocritical in discussing this here specifically?
Sinn Féin on the other hand are firmly in the camp of declaring the Iraq war as illegal, yet they supported a transparently and fully determined illegal war.
Thats definitely hypocrisy.

And lets no forgot roaming up to the North for a photo op with Bush at the height of the protests......

Thats my favourite bit.

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

SO exactly how many times do I have to write that I do not think it is hypocritical?

I'm asking you to explain why,rather than sidestyep into an argument about occupation.
The question was about an illegal war and not an occupation.
SF officially were out protesting the impending illegal war before it even happened,there was no illegal occupation then.
So address the question please or agree to disagree

Drummer

Similarly - the English and Irish governement taking a stance against an illegal war in the Ni, yet supporting and illegal war in Iraq.

Why don't the IRA / Sinn Féin put it to the people of the island. Why not be democratic. Ask the people if we want them to continue fighting on our behalf ?!

We could even have a representative outcome. So if 20% of people want the war to continue, they only carry on with it 20% of the time. Same way we vote for the dail members.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Who on this thread is being a hypocrite?

Ah... I never said this thread. I said this board (boards.ie).

I've never tacitly supported the Iraq war,I've left my mind open and questioned anything that I thought needed questioning on both sides as far as I can remember, even the illegality of the war it self at all as it was not ever determined as illegal(though in spirit it always was).

So who is being hypocritical in discussing this here specifically?
Sinn Féin on the other hand are firmly in the camp of declaring the Iraq war as illegal, yet they supported a transparently and fully determined illegal war.
Thats definitely hypocrisy.

Anybody who disagrees with the war in NI and yet agrees with the war in Iraq is a hypocrite. A non-hypocrite would oppose both wars or support both wars. The Irish government are hypocrites and they are actively helping with the logistics of one war and the facilities could easily have been called legitimate targets if Iraq wanted to strike in the Republic.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ah... I never said this thread. I said this board (boards.ie).

Boards.ie has a policy on the Iraq war???

Anybody who disagrees with the war in NI and yet agrees with the war in Iraq is a hypocrite. A non-hypocrite would oppose both wars or support both wars. The Irish government are hypocrites and they are actively helping with the logistics of one war and the facilities could easily have been called legitimate targets if Iraq wanted to strike in the Republic.

And SF are hyprocrits for condemning the war but photo oping with Bush.

Out of curiousity which war in Iraq, can you be aganist the invasion, and the insurections attacks on civilian targets?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ah... I never said this thread. I said this board (boards.ie).

It's irrelevant here then Dub as we are discussing SF's stance and not anybody elses,unless the hypocrites you have in mind are here discussing the point like we are.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

The question was about an illegal war and not an occupation.
SF officially were out protesting the impending illegal war before it even happened,there was no illegal occupation then.
So address the question please or agree to disagree

It's interesting and very neat how you can disconnect an illegal war from an occupation. So are you saying that campaigning against an illegal war supposed that there would be no illegal occupation following it?
In any case I did already choose to disagree.

Me wrote:

If you anyalyse it as you have chosen to then you could come to this conclusion, with this point I agree while disagreeing totally with your basis for reasoning.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

It's irrelevant here then Dub as we are discussing SF's stance and not anybody elses,unless the hypocrites you have in mind are here discussing the point like we are.

which is why I said this

I think it is very relevant unless you are only going to get true pacifits into this thread. Maybe a screening process is in order then we can see everyones stance on violence

1. Do you support violence as an answer to the NI problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

2. Do you support violence as an answer to the Saddam/Iraq problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

3. Do you support any violence as an answer to any problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

Unless you answer consistantly Yes or consistantly No to those questions, you are a hyprocrite in some shape or form as you are using your judgement and value system to support or oppose one sort of violence and not the other. To me, that is very relevant to a thread like this.

Blub2k4

mycroft wrote:

Out of curiousity which war in Iraq, can you be aganist the invasion, and the insurections attacks on civilian targets?

This phrase is incoherent, can you try again?

bonkey

Blub2k4 wrote:

Is there a large insurgent population in the states fighting a war to have their rights recognised?

No, there's a small mostly-non-insurgent population who;ve mostly accepted that being outnumbered so significantly means that they've lost. Whatever "largeness" they ever had was wiped out by the invaders, and the insurgencies more or less stopped once the natives had insufficient force to do anything other than hasten their own demise as a people through acts which resulted in brutal retributive oppression.

If the native Irish had been slaughtered to a relative and comparable handful of people, rather than simply conquered, I somehow doubt that we'd have any insurgency these days either. There wouldn't be enough of us, and we'd probably be as much of an outnumbered underclass in our own country as the native Americans are in theirs.

I think you have constructed a strawman.

Really? You don't think the fact that the native population of the US was systematically destroyed, dishomed, and subdued more effectively then happened in Ireland has any relevancy to the fact that there's no lasting insurgency?

What you're basically saying is that as long as you wipe out and/or subdue

Interestingly, one follow-on from that particular chestnut of wisdom you've offered is that a significant reason that the occupation of Ireland by the English is problematic is that they didn't kill enough of us off and subdue us sifficiently while conquering the nation.

And from that, one can conclude that your particular line of reasoning, coupled with your Republican support should say that the reason the so-called continued occupation of Ireland isn't acceptable is because we - the Irish people - haven't been oppressed and slaughtered in sufficient quantites to silence us. Because had we been, then - just like the Western Europen conquest of the Americas - there wouldn't be a problem with the English being in Ireland.

SO exactly how many times do I have to write that I do not think it is hypocritical?

I'd imagine until you can offer an explanation as to why its not hypocritical which others see as rational, reasoned and consistent, or until you choose to stop trying.

I'd imagine its something like support for the IRA. Their supporters can say all they like that they think there is nothing wrong in such acts of terrorism, but they're convincing pretty much no-one.

jc

mycroft

Blub2k4 wrote:

This phrase is incoherent, can you try again?

It's grammatical correct.

But for courtesy’s sake;

Are you allowed, using your rules to, being opposed to both the invasion, and the insurrectionist’s indiscriminate attacks on civilian, and Iraqi targets?

It's the oversimplistic approach you take, "that we and those like us are the good guys", and anyone can't view the situation in any other terms than the ones you allow us to.

You still haven't addressed the point I raised however. How could SF be opposed to the war in Iraqi yet scurry up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

which is why I said this

I think it is very relevant unless you are only going to get true pacifits into this thread.

Dub the question arose out of a discussion by certain posters on the other thread regarding the question.
Unless you can show, that those posters who brought it up are also hypocritical in their stance on Iraq it's highly irrelevant as is the hypocritical stance of any other poster on Boards dot ie.
They(the unknowns that you say are hypocritical) are not questioning SF's hypocrisy here and thus they are an irrelevancy to the question or the discussion to the question as is every other hypocrite since the dawn of time unless they are in here questioning someone elses hypocrisy.

mycroft

Is it me or has the word hypocrisy been used so often in this thread that it's lost all meaning?




Blub2k4 v bonkey? Blub, take this friendly hint, you've left the shallow end of the pool, and you're still wearing those floaty arm thingys. You may not want to try to start an argument using logic with this guy, Irish1 is still licking his wounds.

Blub2k4

bonkey wrote:

No, there's a small mostly-non-insurgent population who;ve mostly accepted that being outnumbered so significantly means that they've lost. Whatever "largeness" they ever had was wiped out by the invaders, and the insurgencies more or less stopped once the natives had insufficient force to do anything other than hasten their own demise as a people through acts which resulted in brutal retributive oppression.

This is called "facts on the ground".

Bonkey wrote:

If the native Irish had been slaughtered to a relative and comparable handful of people, rather than simply conquered, I somehow doubt that we'd have any insurgency these days either. There wouldn't be enough of us, and we'd probably be as much of an outnumbered underclass in our own country as the native Americans are in theirs.

Yes your logic holds up to this point.

Bonkey wrote:

Really? You don't think the fact that the native population of the US was systematically destroyed, dishomed, and subdued more effectively then happened in Ireland has any relevancy to the fact that there's no lasting insurgency?

Of course this has a relevancy, where did I say it didn't, if the answer is in your mind, which it must be, then that is your problem.

Bonkey wrote:

What you're basically saying is that as long as you wipe out and/or subdue

Wow you read all that into it? You're extrapolating beyond my statement there Bonkey much as you might be respected for being able to put forward an argument.

Bonkey wrote:

Interestingly, one follow-on from that particular chestnut of wisdom you've offered is that a significant reason that the occupation of Ireland by the English is problematic is that they didn't kill enough of us off and subdue us sifficiently while conquering the nation.

You mean the "chestnut" you again created from thin air?

Bonkey wrote:

And from that, one can conclude that your particular line of reasoning, coupled with your Republican support should say that the reason the so-called continued occupation of Ireland isn't acceptable is because we - the Irish people - haven't been oppressed and slaughtered in sufficient quantites to silence us. Because had we been, then - just like the Western Europen conquest of the Americas - there wouldn't be a problem with the English being in Ireland.

No, there would be not sufficient numbers protesting to register on the public radar. There you go trying to put me in a box. Do you always construct dodgy frameworks within to argue your points , it's no wonder people think you're good at this?

Bonkey wrote:

I'd imagine until you can offer an explanation as to why its not hypocritical which others see as rational, reasoned and consistent, or until you choose to stop trying.

I have offered an explanation, a few times in fact, if you are from a different point of view then so be it.

Bonkey wrote:

I'd imagine its something like support for the IRA. Their supporters can say all they like that they think there is nothing wrong in such acts of terrorism, but they're convincing pretty much no-one.

jc

Well you have proven yourself to have a fertile imagination that's for sure.

My own personal view is that the "occupation" of the USA is wrong and the reason for their bloody present is their "very" bloody past.
This viewpoint becomes nigh on ridiculous with the realities on the ground however.

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

Personally I have no problem with supporting the insurgency in Iraq

I'm sure all the Iraqi civilians that have been killed and maimed by the insurgents would be delighted to hear it.

Blub2k4

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm sure all the Iraqi civilians that have been killed and maimed by the insurgents would be delighted to hear it.

While forgetting the reason that the insurgency exists is that their civilians were being killed and maimed by the illegal war? Who exactly is the hypocrite?
The attack on Iraq came first, it is a war.
I dont accept that there are civilians working in Iraq, only tools of the occupancy, they are all legitimate targets. ( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

While forgetting the reason that the insurgency exists is that their civilians were being killed and maimed by the illegal war?

On what planet, exactly, do you think it matters whether you're killed and maimed by a foreign soldier or a domestic psychopath?

Blub2k4 wrote:

Who exactly is the hypocrite?

I don't think they're exactly thin on the ground.

Blub2k4 wrote:

The attack on Iraq came first, it is a war.

Again, I'm sure that's a deeply comforting thought for all the innocent Iraqis being killed and maimed.

Blub2k4 wrote:

I dont accept that there are civilians working in Iraq, only tools of the occupancy, they are all legitimate targets. ( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

I only mentioned Iraqis. The straw men are out in force today.

Blub2k4

mycroft wrote:

Are you allowed, using your rules to, being opposed to both the invasion, and the insurrectionist’s indiscriminate attacks on civilian, and Iraqi targets?

It must be me, but your sentence construction hurts my eyes.
In any case I'll answer what I think is your question.
I am against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I believe in the right of ANY oppressed people to rise up and fight the oppressor. Indiscriminate attacks happen on both sides, it's called the reality of war, and in essence I abhor violence, but there is a point where you must fight for your rights.

Mycroft wrote:

It's the oversimplistic approach you take, "that we and those like us are the good guys", and anyone can't view the situation in any other terms than the ones you allow us to.

Free speech, I dont control peoples opinions here.

mycroft wrote:

You still haven't addressed the point I raised however. How could SF be opposed to the war in Iraqi yet scurry up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush?

It's called politics, unfortunately you need Bush and people like them on your side rather than against you, no matter how much you dislike them, priniciples must sometimes take a second place to political reality as painful as this may seem.

Drummer

I agree - i feel that only for the IRA has conncections with other Guerilla Armies/Terroists, around the world, that we would have been legit targets. That and possibly because we have been in the same downtrodden boat as the Iraqis/Muslims. In addition, would it be worth their while targetting a piddly little nation like ours, other than maybe destroying Shannon and other strategic bases.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ah... I never said this thread. I said this board (boards.ie).




Anybody who disagrees with the war in NI and yet agrees with the war in Iraq is a hypocrite. A non-hypocrite would oppose both wars or support both wars. The Irish government are hypocrites and they are actively helping with the logistics of one war and the facilities could easily have been called legitimate targets if Iraq wanted to strike in the Republic.

Blub2k4

oscarBravo wrote:

On what planet, exactly, do you think it matters whether you're killed and maimed by a foreign soldier or a domestic psychopath? I don't think they're exactly thin on the ground. Again, I'm sure that's a deeply comforting thought for all the innocent Iraqis being killed and maimed. I only mentioned Iraqis. The straw men are out in force today.

Hey, if it were up to me we'd all live on a commune hugging one another and there'd be no war. :P
Let me know when human nature has changed enough to allow this dream, until then we live on this planet.

What would your solution be to war?

Re: Iraqis being killed, who started it exactly and in the face of such wrongs what do you suggest they do?

<edit> I did go back and edit to acknowledge my last points relative irrelavancy, therby hopefully stopping the claim of a strawman, but work away.

me wrote:

( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

Kingsize

the problem really is that The IRA( & many other organisations like them) consider themseves , freedom fighters which is exactly what Bush thinks he is too ( operation iraqi freedom killed as many civilians if not more than the Ira's "resistance" movement)
If we all agree that insurgency is illegal presumably then, jewish resistance in germany in the late 30's 40's to the nazi (elected) government was rightfully crushed by Hitler who was only acting to protect Germany's best interests.???

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

I am against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I believe in the right of ANY oppressed people to rise up and fight the oppressor.

Yes I can see where your stance is.
But what of SF,why do they oppose one illegal war and support another?
You've not yet addressed the hypocrisy of that.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Yes I can see where your stance is.
But what of SF,why do they oppose one illegal war and support another?
You've not yet addressed the hypocrisy of that.

OK, the point is that you are defining what I see in the North as bein an "illegal war" whereas I would define it as a legitimate insurgency.
On this point we differ and as a result we must agree to disagree.

<edit>ooops I must assume that SF take a similar view, with them being a lot more hardline than I would be, I cant answer for SF only surmise why I think it is not hypocritical.

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

Wow pathetic really.
Al-Qaeida are operating among the insurgents, recently.
I support the Iraqi peoples right to defend their country against an illegal occupation, the fact that Al-Qaeida are part of that insurgency is a secondary issue, their reasons are possibly misguided but the underlying principle of defending Iraq is correct in my opinion.
I do not support Al-qaeida, to be honest I have difficulty even taking the name "al qaeida" seriously and is on a par with attempting to label me as something that fits a neat box that you have that does not really exist.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia and dont have a problem with arabs.

My point was that issuing a blanket "yes I would support the insurgency" whilst sitting n'thousand miles away is a bit disengenious, since my question to you was to point out that the situation is a little less black or white than you're making it out to be and that to try and equate the situation in Iraq with N.ireland is taking the piss to put it mildly.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

My point was that issuing a blanket "yes I would support the insurgency" whilst sitting n'thousand miles away is a bit disengenious, since my question to you was to point out that the situation is a little less black or white than you're making it out to be and that to try and equate the situation in Iraq with N.ireland is taking the piss to put it mildly.

The foreign militants (let's not use Al-qaeida unless you're reading from a homeland security pamphlet) are there to defend their Islamic brothers as they see it, this is nobel in it's own way. The reality is that the Wahhabi concept of the "Shaheen" leads to methods which are pretty repugnant, but effective in fighting an occupier. At least they have a morally thought out standpoint that extends beyond "kick their ass, take their gas".

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

Hey, if it were up to me we'd all live on a commune hugging one another and there'd be no war. :P
Let me know when human nature has changed enough to allow this dream, until then we live on this planet.

So, as long as someone else is killing innocent civilians, it's ok to kill innocent civilians? Not on my planet.

Blub2k4 wrote:

What would your solution be to war?

I don't have a simple solution, but I don't see what killing innocent civilians achieves.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Re: Iraqis being killed, who started it exactly

"He started it" is logic that most of us grow out of in primary school.

Blub2k4 wrote:

...and in the face of such wrongs what do you suggest they do?

I don't have a simple solution, but I don't see what killing innocent civilians achieves.

Blub2k4 wrote:

<edit> I did go back and edit to acknowledge my last points relative irrelavancy, therby hopefully stopping the claim of a strawman, but work away.

It was a straw man. The fact that you acknowledged it to be such doesn't change that fact.

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

The foreign militants... are there to defend their Islamic brothers as they see it, this is nobel in it's own way.

I fail to see the nobility in killing innocent civilians.

Blub2k4 wrote:

The reality is that the Wahhabi concept of the "Shaheen" leads to methods which are pretty repugnant, but effective in fighting an occupier.

Again, I'm sure that's deeply comforting to any Iraqi mother who's had her child blown up.

Blub2k4 wrote:

At least they have a morally thought out standpoint that extends beyond "kick their ass, take their gas".

Morally thought out? They have a strange concept of morality.