Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, Paramilitaries, Insurgents, Rebels, Extemists, Guerilla

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 04:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

Sad.

It is sad but fortunately we can move on from it. Greater capital investment should be put into education, especially in working class areas. Teach these kids what the paramilitaries did and give them the chance to escape the cycle of poverty their parents never had.

The IRA and other violent groups stem from poor education, income inequality and a sense of frustration. Tackle these key issues and you kill the organisations in the long run.

Ooooo. Threats.

It's not a threat but you wouldn't say those things in public you certainly shouldn't say them here. Never assume you're anonymous on the internet.

Nodin · 07-12-2013 04:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is sad but (...............) long run.

No, it's sad that after all these years working class people are still being sneered down at as thick hate filled goons who can be set to whatever task some evil manipulator puts them to. Much like an old Sanders novel, the natives are too thick to have been made active by a genuine grievance - they're put up to it by some villain, and once he's strung up and a few examples made, peace will resume.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

It's not a threat but you wouldn't say those things in public you certainly
shouldn't say them here. Never assume you're anonymous on the internet.

He's repeating a well known fact.

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 04:44PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, it's sad that after all these years working class people are still being sneered down at as thick hate filled goons who can be set to whatever task some evil manipulator puts them to. Much like an old Sanders novel, the natives are too thick to have been made active by a genuine grievance - they're put up to it by some villain, and once he's strung up and a few examples made, peace will resume.

It's a fact the majority of IRA members came from working class backgrounds. Middle class better educated Catholics were part of the system, they had little need to fight against it. The disenfranchised working classes were less well educated and more easily swayed to hatred by republican rhetoric.

Nodin wrote: »

He's repeating a well known fact.

I don't really want to discuss this with you because it's none of your business but here's what he wrote:

"I spent ten years as a Republican activist. I've met numerous people who were at some stage involved in the IRA; whether that be people who were in jail in the 2000s or people who were involved in the Border Campaign in the 1950s."

Nodin · 07-12-2013 04:51PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's a fact the majority of IRA members came from working class backgrounds. Middle class better educated Catholics were part of the system, they had little need to fight against it. The disenfranchised working classes were less well educated and more easily swayed to hatred by republican rhetoric. ."

Yes, Colonel. Some chief getting above his station. Nip down, shoot a few of the buggers and a quick hanging and we'll be back in time for a few gins at the club, eh? what?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't really want to discuss this with you because it's none of your
business but here's what he wrote:

That's not what you quoted, however. I'd suggest its perhaps none of your business what he chooses to reveal.

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 04:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, Colonel. Some chief getting above his station. Nip down, shoot a few of the buggers and a quick hanging and we'll be back in time for a few gins at the club, eh? what?

Facetious and uncouth.

Nodin wrote: »

That's not what you quoted, however. I'd suggest its perhaps none of your business what he chooses to reveal.

As I've said I don't think there's any need for you and I to discuss it.

Nodin · 07-12-2013 05:10PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Facetious and uncouth.

.

An accurate summation of your attitude. Snobbery with a pseudo intellectual veneer is not a pretty thing. And there are those similarities with the paternalistic colonial attitude, redolent of the whole 'white man's burden' thing.

bodhrandude · 07-12-2013 05:12PM

This was banned by the BBC in 1973.

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 05:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

An accurate summation of your attitude. Snobbery with a pseudo intellectual veneer is not a pretty thing. And there are those similarities with the paternalistic colonial attitude, redolent of the whole 'white man's burden' thing.

Pseudo intellectual? The one thing I'm not is an intellectual.

As for the whole colonial "poor old me" inferiority complex get over yourself. Take off your simplistic green tainted glasses and recognise the little guy can be as big a dick, if not bigger than the big guy.

Nodin · 07-12-2013 05:20PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Pseudo intellectual? The one thing I'm not is an intellectual. As for the whole colonial "poor old me" inferiority complex get over yourself. Take off your simplistic green tainted glasses and recognise the little guy can be as big a dick, if not bigger than the big guy.

I'm afraid the one with the restricted view certainly isn't me.

KyussBishop · 07-12-2013 06:19PM

Worth noting this previous quote, from another thread, with Iwasfrozen:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...I'm a true supporter of the status quo. I'm happy with my position and lot in life and I recognise radical shifts in economic/social and political norms have nearly always been to the detriment of humanity in the past.
...

So, worth being aware that this is the template to which Iwasfrozen shapes arguments - it's not about the merit of the arguments at hand, it's about fitting them (and framing the debate) to follow this template, which is close to soapboxing (and you can spend a long time debating, before realizing this - as I did

).

That template, pretty much amounts to an ultra-conservative authoritarian view (which is how I interpret that quote).

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 06:28PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Worth nothing this previous quote, from another thread, with Iwasfrozen:

So, worth being aware that this is the template to which Iwasfrozen shapes arguments - it's not about the merit of the arguments at hand, it's about fitting them (and framing the debate) to follow this template, which is close to soapboxing (and you can spend a long time debating, before realizing this - as I did ).

That template, pretty much amounts to an ultra-conservative authoritarian view (which is how I interpret that quote).

Certainty. We have to be very weary of any great social change. When I come across a new theory or idea I'm automatically sceptical. I have to extensively read or talk about any movement before I could claim to be a supporter. Unless I do that I'm against the movement. Too often people who are frustrated jump on an ideological bandwagon.

To add context to the quote above it was taken from a discussion where KyussBishop supported the setting up of a public bank to tackle his perceived problem of wealth distribution. An extreme and barely thought out institution which has the possibility of being very dangerous to our society.

KyussBishop · 07-12-2013 06:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Certainty. We have to be very weary of any great social change. When I come across a new theory or idea I'm automatically sceptical. I have to extensively read or talk about any movement before I could claim to be a supporter. Unless I do that I'm against the movement. Too often people who are frustrated jump on an ideological bandwagon.

To add context to the quote above it was taken from a discussion where KyussBishop supported the setting up of a public bank to tackle his perceived problem of wealth distribution. An extreme and barely thought out institution which has the possibility of being very dangerous to our society.

Except that's not what you replied to at all, you were replying to me posting a set of articles, which had nothing to do with a public bank, which presented no specific policy ideas at all (which were arguing generally, that people who gain extreme power through wealth, should not be allowed gain undemocratic power over society).

Your quote stands on its own, without needing any context; to sum it up even further:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

...radical shifts in economic/social and political norms have nearly always been to the detriment of humanity in the past.

That's pretty unambiguous, and doesn't need any added context.

Iwasfrozen · 07-12-2013 06:52PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except that's not what you replied to at all, you were replying to me posting a set of articles, which had nothing to do with a public bank, which presented no specific policy ideas at all (which were arguing generally, that people who gain extreme power through wealth, should not be allowed gain undemocratic power over society).

Your quote stands on its own, without needing any context; to sum it up even further:

That's pretty unambiguous, and doesn't need any added context.

Ha, I think I know what context my quote was written in better than you do. Our conversation was on your solution to a perceived problem in wealth distribution. Single posts on a forum should no more be taken out of context than single sentences in a conversation.

Also now that we've dealt with the context of my post let's deal with the context of yours. What's with dragging up a post from a conversation we had weeks ago? I'm honoured you find me so fascinating but frankly it's a little creepy.

KyussBishop · 07-12-2013 07:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ha, I think I know what context my quote was written in better than you do. Our conversation was on your solution to a perceived problem in wealth distribution. Single posts on a forum should no more be taken out of context than single sentences in a conversation.

Also now that we've dealt with the context of my post let's deal with the context of yours. What's with dragging up a post from a conversation we had weeks ago? I'm honoured you find me so fascinating but frankly it's a little creepy.

No it wasn't, nothing we argued in that set of quotes was about solutions, it was about a set of articles I posted, pointing out that 'maybe' it's a bad idea to let power gained through excessive wealth, erode democracy (which is a position you seemed to be downplaying - fitting perfectly your later statement about supporting the 'status quo').

I'll let others judge the post as it stands (which the point of highlighting, was to show others the set of predefined conclusions you argue with); they can easily look back through the thread if they want better context:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not asserting anything to happen, I'm a true supporter of the status quo. I'm happy with my position and lot in life and I recognise radical shifts in economic/social and political norms have nearly always been to the detriment of humanity in the past.

Real change when it happened happened from the ground up because previous technological advancements had made the old system impractical. What follows is a natural adaptation of society. Things go wrong when we try to impose the ideas of a philosopher or theorist because we like how they sound. Marx is a case in point.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2013 07:45PM

There is no moral dimension, only a useful irregular verb, as Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister explained “I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerilla, he is a terrorist”.

Oakboy · 07-12-2013 08:10PM

Can we stop talking about the IRA? They are like way too mainstream, can we talk about ETA instead just to change it up a little?

Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, Paramilitaries, Insurgents, Rebels, Extemists, Guerilla

Comments