Reply to: Do you share JC's values?

[MicrosoftBob]

I wasn't talking about war, I was referring to acts outside that. the was no declaration of war in NI, but both the IRA and the British Army committed crimes the went far beyond those of peace-keeping. I'm no IRA-lover, my Dad's uncle was murdered/legitimately-targetted* by them.

You could argue the British had no right to be in Ireland anyway, there is no line to be painted here, times have changed, bombing people doesn't work anymore, just creates bigger problems, i.e. migrants, organised terrorism etc, all more effective weapons now.

*delete according to what side you're on.

,

The British Army didn't kill enough of them, if they had used a proper shoot to kill policy rather than jailing them there would have been less terrorists

[EternalOptimist]

my cat Oreo declared war on the local Siamese. He's not a country. He's a ****, but he's not a country

[darmstadt]

Apparently Boris Johnson shares JC's values only he doesn't get the press blathering on about it nor anyone taking his comments out of context:

“British soldiers are not taught to murder unarmed people in the act of surrendering. Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.”

[meridian]

Of course it was war. Only the British had their hands tied because they could not fight on the same indiscriminate terms as the IRA. Trouble with people like you is everything has to "fit" into categories laid out in simple terms that idiots can understand. guerilla war, cyber war and terrorism are not defined by arms or borders and boundaries. Blaming everything on British expansionism is just the excuse that thugs in the IRA need to hear from the useful idiots of this world.

You're deliberately ignoring what stek was saying, that it is questionable whether the British should have been there anyway. Not just in 1998 for the Good Friday agreement, or in 1972 in Derry, but stretching right back to the civil war in the 1920's, the promise of Home Rule made during WW1 and conveniently forgotten once 1916 happened, and before.

There's a long history there from Black & Tans up to SAS covert ops, so don't be trying to make out that it's all one-sided and that anyone had their hands tied, and that the British were white as snow.

[DodgyAgent]

Just saying it wasn't war, don't only countries declare war? But how would that work in a Civil war? No idea. No doubt the IRA saw it as a Civil war but on who's behalf?

Yes the Army was there to protect the NI protestants, the majority, but not the majority in Ireland as whole. Yet another British expansionist mess.

Personally I'd have operated some sort of dual control for the six-counties, I think we all knew full well that EU border harmony would prevail anyway and large make the conflict redundant, which is largely what's happened. Proof for me that coming together in a non-porno way can resolve serious issues, not every time or in every case, but better than fighting.

I know I'm a dreamer and an idealist, but I like the way I am. I'm fecking John Candy in Planes, Trains and automobiles.......

Of course it was war. Only the British had their hands tied because they could not fight on the same indiscriminate terms as the IRA. Trouble with people like you is everything has to "fit" into categories laid out in simple terms that idiots can understand. guerilla war, cyber war and terrorism are not defined by arms or borders and boundaries. Blaming everything on British expansionism is just the excuse that thugs in the IRA need to hear from the useful idiots of this world.

[stek]

If it was not war what was it? In fact the IRA had effectively declared war ion Britain whereby they saw any target civilian, animal, royal family as a legitimate target -"those bastard British army horses lets kill them too". The British were in Northern Ireland by popular request to keep the peace. The British army may have committed some atrocious "acts of war" and they are still being held to account. Quite how you think the British should have conducted themselves should be interesting to hear. I am sure your Dad's Uncle would be thrilled to hear that his snivelling leftie of a descendant equated the activities of the British army with those of the IRA.

Just saying it wasn't war, don't only countries declare war? But how would that work in a Civil war? No idea. No doubt the IRA saw it as a Civil war but on who's behalf?

Yes the Army was there to protect the NI protestants, the majority, but not the majority in Ireland as whole. Yet another British expansionist mess.

Personally I'd have operated some sort of dual control for the six-counties, I think we all knew full well that EU border harmony would prevail anyway and large make the conflict redundant, which is largely what's happened. Proof for me that coming together in a non-porno way can resolve serious issues, not every time or in every case, but better than fighting.

I know I'm a dreamer and an idealist, but I like the way I am. I'm fecking John Candy in Planes, Trains and automobiles.......

[DodgyAgent]

Sounds like something DA would say...

[DodgyAgent]

I wasn't talking about war, I was referring to acts outside that. the was no declaration of war in NI, but both the IRA and the British Army committed crimes the went far beyond those of peace-keeping. I'm no IRA-lover, my Dad's uncle was murdered/legitimately-targetted* by them.

You could argue the British had no right to be in Ireland anyway, there is no line to be painted here, times have changed, bombing people doesn't work anymore, just creates bigger problems, i.e. migrants, organised terrorism etc, all more effective weapons now.

*delete according to what side you're on.

If it was not war what was it? In fact the IRA had effectively declared war ion Britain whereby they saw any target civilian, animal, royal family as a legitimate target -"those bastard British army horses lets kill them too". The British were in Northern Ireland by popular request to keep the peace. The British army may have committed some atrocious "acts of war" and they are still being held to account. Quite how you think the British should have conducted themselves should be interesting to hear. I am sure your Dad's Uncle would be thrilled to hear that his snivelling leftie of a descendant equated the activities of the British army with those of the IRA.

[d000hg]

Rock'n'dole is hate-filled?

Sounds like something DA would say...

[stek]

Good so now we understand. Presumably then the same applies to WW2 after all we declared war on germany and we killed lots of Germans (including citizens). The UK had no just cause to fight the IRA just as it had no just cause to kill German soldiers or bomb German cities?

I wasn't talking about war, I was referring to acts outside that. the was no declaration of war in NI, but both the IRA and the British Army committed crimes the went far beyond those of peace-keeping. I'm no IRA-lover, my Dad's uncle was murdered/legitimately-targetted* by them.

You could argue the British had no right to be in Ireland anyway, there is no line to be painted here, times have changed, bombing people doesn't work anymore, just creates bigger problems, i.e. migrants, organised terrorism etc, all more effective weapons now.

*delete according to what side you're on.

[vetran]

Good so now we understand. Presumably then the same applies to WW2 after all we declared war on germany and we killed lots of Germans (including citizens). The UK had no just cause to fight the IRA just as it had no just cause to kill German soldiers or bomb German cities?

you are starting to understand now.

lets plant leafy avenues so the attackers can march through London in the shade.

[DodgyAgent]

In a way yes, both sides have got away with murder - literally......

Good so now we understand. Presumably then the same applies to WW2 after all we declared war on germany and we killed lots of Germans (including citizens). The UK had no just cause to fight the IRA just as it had no just cause to kill German soldiers or bomb German cities?

[Jog On]

So equally culpable are they?

No of course not, the IRA are the evil terrorist enemy and the army are the valiant defenders of freedom, truth, justice and all that's good.

Which is why Corbyn's stance on supporting dialogue with people like this as opposed to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki approach is both reprehensible and abhorrent.

Therefore he is not fit to hold office, is not to be trusted anywhere near any military intelligence and can never be taken seriously by the electorate.

Which means this is all just a flash in the pan 'phase' the plebs are going through with their support and this whole dreadful business will be over soon.

So let's all just forget this repugnant little man and celebrate over a game of soggy biscuit shall we?

[LondonManc]

That's true but most people don't do the former - other than the merest token, and the latter isn't what he seems to be suggesting.

In fact your ugly hate-filled turn of phrase supports my argument - that sentiment that the poor and unemployed are to be attacked is contrary to the idea that people care about each other. They'd rather find a reason why caring is not appropriate.

Rock'n'dole is hate-filled?

You really are a drama queen.

I've seen a friend struggle on benefits due to a bad leg break making him unable to work. He's struggled for a couple of years and is slowly getting back up and running with a 20hour+flexible extra hours contract but would love a proper 35 hour a week contract.

On the other side of the coin, I know someone who takes the mickey and hasn't done a days work since he was 16. Plays the system, has better stuff than the friend mentioned above and I genuinely empathise with my friend because I remember being on a low wage initially and struggling, wondering why you're bothering when others are getting everything handed to them.

So, no, it's not hate-filled at all. Now toddle off and form a quango.

[stek]

So equally culpable are they?

In a way yes, both sides have got away with murder - literally......