blanch152 wrote: » The terrorism apologists just don’t see it that way. We get the nonsense of people not having a choice.
Truthvader wrote: » 3000 people did not "have to die...tragically". In most cases someone made a choice to kill them. Indeed in many cases cruel thugs made a choice to just kill any passing random person. Premeditated murder is not a "tragedy". "It was all wrong" . A stupid invasion or peacekeeping fantasy would have just added to and expanded the "all"
maccored wrote: » what would your choice be if you had been there blanch152? Count yourself lucky its a question you'll never need to answer
blanch152 wrote: » You don't have to have been there to see that many others like John Hume, Seamus Mallon and many many others took a different path. I have spoken to many who tell me the same. It is only the terrorism apologists who peddle the lie that there was no choice. They can also be identified by their refusal to condemn outright the IRA without having to deflect to the all violence is bad theme.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The high moral ground now being climbed onto. Truth, countries have descended into conflict/war forever and will again. That is reality. More often than not, that is preventable if those responsible behave with responsibility. The politics of condemnation never work. The conflict/war here happened and there are reasons why it happened. There were 'choices' made before men and women had to make the choice to kill. But your knowledge of that is flaky to say the least as we have seen. Making sure those choices are never allowed to be made again is part, or a lot of, what the GFA was about.
Truthvader wrote: » Only "the high moral ground" only in the minds of Sinn Fein /IRA or other criminals. Normal decent behaviour for every one else
Truthvader wrote: » Well for my part I already know 100% that I would not choose to plant a bomb in a crowded pub, shoot someone who was no threat to me going about their business or hold a frightened teenager down while his legs were broken
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well there is enough commentary on people who live in the luxury of peace. I think most realists would say that they don't know how they would react under an oppressive regime and escalating brutality from the govenment that was supposed to democatic and impartial. The weight of evidence, the huge weight actually, is that Irish people reacted the exact same way as any oppressed people anywhere. Of course there were also those who stood idly by and those who climbed up onto moral high ground. Takes all sorts I suppose. I never lose sight of the fact that there but for the grace of luck go I. I prefer to work to make sure I am never in a place of little or no choice.
Hamsterchops wrote: » You're obviously not talking about the Northern Ireland troubles, are you? Because if you are, you are totally screwing with reality and the fact that a small minority (within a minority) chose the path of violence and murder! Most Irish people North & South did not embark on a murderous mission to bomb and kill at will, most Irish people North & South did not feel the need to take up the gun, just the minority (within a minority), Republican & Loyalist alike.
Coillte_Bhoy wrote: » Im no Provo sympathiser but Most Irish people in the South, nah lets call it, all Irish people in the south didnt find themselves trapped in a sectarian state with their very exitance threatened by paramilitaries' and so called sate security forces
Hamsterchops wrote: » Most Irish people in NI did not take to killing people, neither did they agree with planting bombs on buses and in pubs. As I said, it was a minority (within a minority) who decided to commit terrorism.
smurgen wrote: » You support the murder of catholics. You are a terrorist apologist.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The weight of evidence, the huge weight actually, is that Irish people reacted the exact same way as any oppressed people anywhere.
blanch152 wrote: » Nobody is saying that you are a Provo sympathiser, but the terrorist apologists claim that all Irish people had no choice and supported the Provos.
Odhinn wrote: » There was no choice.
blanch152 wrote: » Because the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and others took another path, away from the violence that the terrorism apologists support, we know that it is a lie that there was no choice. Factually, there was a choice, taken by men of peace.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And Hume and Mallon had NO choice but to follow the path they chose. What is the point you are making? That we are all the same? That we all react in the same way to whatever life throws at us? Is this some fantasy world you guys live up on the high moral ground?
Hamsterchops wrote: » Not really a fantasy world to condemn Terrorism. I'm not 100% sure about you Francie, as you claim not to support terrorism, but yet you seem to have a soft spot for the men of violence, you're a bit fluffy as to whether you support the Provos & their atrocities, or not :cool: Pro IRA, or not?
blanch152 wrote: » Because the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and others took another path, away from the violence ...............
Odhinn wrote: » And what did they get out of it or acheive? SFA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As to my 'support'. I think it was all wrong from the start and I hold the treachery and criminality of the British gov. ultimately responsible for what happened here. All of the players were wrong to use violence...all of them in equal measure.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Peace on the island and the warm and fuzzy feeling.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Peace on the island and the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from not blowing up children, protecting rapists, and murdering people based on their religion.
Hamsterchops wrote: » And yet the security forces had to use force to stop the men of violence. They hadan no choice but to fight the men of violence. The (PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF) etc had to be faced up to, and thank God the army did, otherwise things would have been a whole lot worse.
FrancieBrady wrote: » For themselves maybe, but sadly the vast majority of their people didn't see it that way and rewarded those that achieved something for them. Hume and Mallon failed politically to bring any change on their own.
