|What's A Terrorist - Just a Muslim / Catholic Thing?!?||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 25, 2002 8:40 AM
I hear this word getting thrown around more and more and have found it convenient that none of our politicians are able to come up with a definition of a terrorist. Also, right or wrong, it appears to be a problem solely associated with Muslims and Catholics. Please read on...
According to the state department there are a lot of terrorist groups. Most of them are Muslim with one or two Catholic. Now I find this strange - no protestants, let's consider a few cases studies.
Northern Ireland. In northern Ireland about 30 Catholic Churches have been fire bombed in the last two years by Protestants. Protestants literally throw hand grenades at four year old girls because they are walking to school in their neighborhood. These groups are labeled paramilitaries and not terrorists. They practice no warning car bombs, assassinations, murders, and have a saying - "any Catholic will do." Why is it that they are not terrorists? Catholics who bombed targets (nearly always forewarned) were quickly labelled terrorists.
How about Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress. Back during Apartheid they were both considered terrorists for trying to end discrimination. I wonder why?
Ghandi - this goes back a little further, but Churchill called Ghandi the bandit in the blanket. Wasn't Ghandi non violent? Hmmmmmm.
Moving on to Israel - I guess we had to get there sometime in this thread. During the English occupation of Palestine, around the end of WWII, men like Rabin and Begin were in a "group" called the Irgun. The British labelled them as outlaws. The Irgun practiced no warning car bombs and assassinations. In fact one of there bombings accounted for more dead than any one of those attributed to Catholics in the North of Ireland. Margaret Thatcher would later go on to refer to Rabin as a Father of Peace shortly before Camp David. GET THIS - while in the Irgun, Rabin's code name was Mikael (spelling?) - the Yiddish form of Michael. You see, Rabin took on the name honoring Michael Collins whom he studied and admired. Michael Collins of Ireland, remember him?
How about African Americans? In the 60's they took up arms and are quickly labelled terrorists. They were brutally and totally supressed by the government. Now wait a second, the Klan has been around for how many years? They bomb black churches, torch black businesses, murder black children, hang, maim, torture, and literally drag black men to their death - is this terrorism??? NO - IT's JUST THE GOOD OLD BOYS... Something is very wrong here my friends.
Can anyone name a protestant terrorist group? Probably not, they are usually called militias, paramilitaries, Klans, or whatever. Sounds more like we are playing with semantics than anything else. I wonder why.
A few weeks ago I saw a bit on the news about a Jewish group who attacked a Palestinian school playground with hand grenades. Did CNN call them terrorists? No - paramilitaries.
Think about ourselves as Americans. Did we fight the British the way war was fought - nope. We fought to win. We had structures for civilians who would spring in to action in "a minute." For rewriting the rules of engagement we were labelled "rebels." The modern sense of the old fashioned word rebel is terrorist. The word terrorist only comes in to use around the early 1980's. If our nationalism had taken place today, the British would witout doubt label us terrorists - would we care? Isn't being a rebel in America a good thing?
So what's a terrorist?
Jun 25, 2002 8:50 AM
|He came to mind, thinking he was Protestant, but I see he was Catholic.
Is your point that we selectively apply the label? No doubt about it. It is becoming more trendy, though, and look for any similar activity to be label "terrorism" now.
|The "Lone Bomber"||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 25, 2002 9:05 AM
|I remember when that bombing happened they really tried hard to quell all fears that it had anything to do with international terrorists. They even dropped the ball on John Doe #2.
Now there's an "obvious" Al Quaeda connection and guess who they already have in custody - John Doe #2!
All along we were told these two acted alone, even though they are part of a "militia." True, they named him an "American Terrorist" on plenty of book covers but what was his terrorist orgainization?
As for his being Catholic or Protestant I am not sure - don't have a credible source.
Jun 25, 2002 9:23 AM
Jun 25, 2002 7:23 PM
|I have noticed on the news that whenever it is possible to trace an individual back to a Catholic Church or the Muslim faith, that information will be explicitly stated.
However, you never hear of Protestants fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics being likewise named. Why is that? Apparently, when it comes to acts of violence purportrated by Protestants - all whites are assimilated.
I encourage you to watch the news and keep a score card. Suppose you are dealing with a molestion case wrt a member of the cloth. If the person in Catholic, they will name the church. When the offender is Protestant they will simply state "a priest" or "pastor" was accused. You will never hear the term Protestant mentioned. That's just plain old bias in humble opinion. Honestly, try it. Next time you hear such a report and they fail to specifically mention a church, I can almost guarantee it comes back Protestant.
Think about it. How many hundreds of movies in recent years have solely depicted the Catholic Church as an evil organization? When was the last time you heard that the Catholic Church was the most charitable organization on Earth? How many archdiocese in the USA have Catholic Charities second only to the state itself for social work? No, the Jewish church, the Protestant Church, nor the Muslims surpass the Catholic Church when it comes to acts of charity.
Why are people like McVeigh (who was probably in a Catholic Church a few times in his life and definitely did not take it seriously) specifically mentioned as Catholics? I am not trying to be an alarmist. However, when you only get one side of the story, I have to question who the story teller is.
Jun 25, 2002 10:45 AM
|You can't be a terrorist if your group is in power. The whole point of terrorism is to topple your group so they can gain power, or at least force change. Terrorism is supposed to be the last resort tactics of a minority group that thinks it cannot make itself heard.
Protestants are in power, Catholics are not.
Jews are in power, Palestinians are not.
Reasonably sane people are in power, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
By the way, in Northern Ireland, there are protestant organizations that counter the IRA. The biggest is probably the Ulster Defense Force (UDF), but there's also Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defense Association.
|I'd say that's correct,||TJeanloz|
Jun 25, 2002 11:04 AM
|The home team cannot be terrorists. Opressors certainly, but not terrorists.|
|I would disagree||Starliner|
Jun 25, 2002 11:54 AM
|Regimes have historically used terrorist tactics in order to maintain power when they feel threatened by a rebel movement. Central America comes to mind; Haiti maybe. Idi Amin. I think the "terrorist" definition has more to do with tactics rather than who is or is not in power. Otherwise, you'll end up calling one a terrorist and another not a terrorist, even though both utilize the same dreadful tactics.|
Jun 25, 2002 12:13 PM
|It's really just a word, nothing more. The question is, does perpetrating an event that causes terror make one a terrorist?|
|yes and no||Starliner|
Jun 25, 2002 3:31 PM
|i does perpetuating and event that causes terror make one a terrorist?
That in my view is an ingredient of what makes a terrorist, but other factors must be considered as well, such as, motivation and mindset of the person/group; whether there was pre-meditation; whether or not the act is repeated time and again; magnitude of the act; type of association with the victim(s); etc.
I would not call a disgruntled man who terrorizes his ex-wife a terrorist. The magnitude of the act is limited to her, and he knows his victim intimately.
I would not call the guy who climbed atop the tower at the University of Texas and picked off innocent people a terrorist. It was a close-ended act, with no apparent motivation.
I would call the person/persons who plot and kill doctors who perform abortions terrorist(s). There is pre-meditation; motive; no intimate association with the victim(s); and the act is open-ended (it will be repeated in the future).
I would call Ted Kajzinski a terrorist for the same reasons.
|Then It's All Just A Big Game...||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 25, 2002 7:29 PM
|Although I agree with much of what you said, your comments indicate that it's all just a game of semantics by those that are in control.
As for the UDF, UVF, UDA, et al they are not labelled as terrorists - why not? What is it that they do differently in order to receive special treatment? What is it about their tactics or politics? How does one become a paramilitary vs a terrorist? Is it just a religious thing?
Jun 26, 2002 6:30 AM
|The IRA claims to be a paramilitary organization. They consider themselves soldiers and they target enemy soldiers. They do not target "civilians." Their definition of "enemy soldier" is quite broad, however. The British Army obviously qualifies, as do all the Ulster paramilitary organizations and often the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulatory--the local police). And like the Mafia, they also target their own people sometimes. And if the bomb supposed to kill SAS troopers in a pub kills a few people who happen to be walking by, well, that's war.
It's all bullsh!t. Pick a side, any side. There are no innocents. Just like in Israel today, these people hate each other, the enjoy killing each other, and many don't really want it to stop. They can call it whatever they want, but we all know better.
Religion is only the long forgotten original issue.
|In which case....||muncher|
Jun 26, 2002 8:34 AM
|How do you explain the 38 wholly innocent civilians (including babies and children) killed in Omagh High Street? Or those killed in the Harrods and Bishopsgate Bombings? Or in Hyde park? Or at the Enniskillin fun run?Or the Conservative Party convention in Brighton? I could go on.
That's pure terrorisim - no "military" connection - just the attempted use of fear - terror - to change the political status quo.
|don't ask me||mr_spin|
Jun 26, 2002 9:22 AM
|I was just trying to explain how the IRA sees itself, even if the rest of the world knows what they really are.|
|BBC: British Government Colludes With Terrorists||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 26, 2002 11:49 AM
|Being Clear Again - Civilian Casualties = wrong.
The Catholics of the North did not elect anyone to bomb, kill, or act on their behalf. However, the British Government is elected freely by the UK and thus acts on their behalf and at least their tacit approval.
ACCORDING TO THE BBC: The British Government has given information to Protestant Terrorists solely for the Purpose of having civil rights lawyer Finucane and others murdered. Agents of the British Government drove terrorists by the house of the lawyer and guaranteed them an escape route. How can anyone respect a government like that?
By the way, how many people were killed in Dublin when Protestants bombed the city? The MO of the bombers was much more advanced than any of the technologies used by Protestants at the time - ie collusion by the "Special Branch."
Not only that, but there is plenty of information to show the British Government trained and supplied terrorists.
Simply put - the British state has sanctioned Protestant Terrorists. The Government in the North prior to 98 was not "of" the people, it was not "by" the people, and it was definitely not "for" the people. Why then should it govern?
|That BBC report||muncher|
Jun 27, 2002 12:18 AM
|was screen on a documentary here last Sunday evening. The level of inaccuracy and media "hype/drama" would have been hilarious, had it not been so worrying that it was allowed on national t.v.
I'd like to see your evidence that the British government "trained and supplied terrorists"?
Undoubtedly, as in every barrel, there are a few bad apples in any government organisation. However, if anyone believes that tosh that the BBC put out as "fact" - they must be naieve to the point of stupidity.
Ever had that feeling when you are watching the reporting of an event that you were actually involved with, and you wonder wheather you are reading/watching about the same event? It's a good one to remember at all levels. Regrettably, in this country today more and more journalism is strongly slanted towards entertainment, rather than information.
Care to suggest a better way to govern the people of NI, the majority of who, still voted for British government rule? Interesting observation coming from a nation with the Bush election behind them...
|I have not heard any denials from the British Government||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 27, 2002 8:50 AM
|You only believe what you have been conditioned to believe. Is the BBC reliable or not? If they are then what can I say about your comments. If they are not, then suggest a source.
If the level of innaccuracy was so great, perhaps, you would be so kind to name a few points. So far the British Government has not denied the allegations. Now why do you suppose that is? It's because the cannot. The truth sometimes hurts.
If you are not willing to believe evidence put forth by British Broadcasting then who will you believe? The collusion between British Gov't officials and Loyalists is well documented throughout the history of the troubles. Now even your the BBC is coming forward. I am sure you would question Nationalist sources in addition to the BBC. Who's left? Perhaps, I'll get some figures from the UDP.
Your final paragraph is simply wrong. If the people of NI voted for British Government rule please advise where and when. Are you saying that the PSA of 98 was to continue rule from London? I was under the belief that they entered in to a power sharing gov't in NI seperate from London.
As for governing them, here's a wild idea. Stop loyalists from trying to suckle off of the mainland for the rest of time. Tell them you have to get off of your a$$ before you get on your feet. Next, form a government "of" the people, "by" the people, and "for" the people - one that doesn't have people crying I'm going quit if you don't play nice. Finally, get a constitution and treat everyone equally.
As for your comment wrt Bush:
How old is your gov't? Formed in the 20th century, correct? Come back and talk to me when your gov't is a couple of hundred years old. The US is one of the younger countries on Earth but WE have the longest running form of government on Earth - and WE don't collude with Terrorists.
As for the elections, that's what happens when the error in vote gathering exceeds the margin of victory. In the end the law was followed and justice prevailed - even if it took a bit. Even so, I would prefer it this way than the British. BTW - at least in the US even the President can be charge with a crime. UNLIKE your queen, literally above the law!
|You are certifiable. Utterly lost it. nm||muncher|
Jun 27, 2002 8:58 AM
|From Simple Minds Come Simple Ideas||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 27, 2002 2:16 PM
Is that all you have? Just fill out the topic field so everyone will think you have something to say? Throw out an accusation of trolling. If it makes you feel better so be it - FIDO.
However, as most people do when they disagree but cannot substantiate they back off and get rude or nasty. Go ahead and look through my post. Take point for point and show me where I am wrong. You are amazing. I am using facts and figures supplied by your media and gov't and you dislike it.
Actually, you know what guv, I have dealt with people like you many many times and know better. Don't bother responding. Don't bother replying to any more of my posts and I will extend to you the same courtesy.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
|We've got it!||muncher|
Jun 28, 2002 1:13 AM
|There are 4 folk reading your posts around this screen, and we are LOFAO. We reckon you are a writer for sit coms, floating ideas for a show around. (Actually 3 - one just reckons you are a "mentalist"). I'm going with the "script idea test" theory - it's way too funny to be true.
Keep it up - you're gonna be rich my man!
(Actually, I'm not convinced that you not writing this from your cubicle in Pizza Hut either).
Jun 28, 2002 1:15 PM
|So your conclusion is that you and your friends are making fun of me. Hmmmmm. That's interesting. I take it that you were the cool kids in secondary school who mocked others whenever they said something you did not like but could not refute.
I am used to dealing with people who get frustrated by not being able to provide substantial contradictory evidence such as yourself.
As for this post, I am done with it unless you want to take issue and address any point I have made. In any case, if at the very least I cause a smile on your face or make your co-worker's day go by just a bit faster than please laugh at my expense. It's quite alright.
Finally, if you ever have time in life to sit down and do some honest research of your own I encourage you to read up on the Special Powers Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act, SuperGrass System, and the Diplock Courts. See who was tried in them.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...
Peace, Love, Best Wishes. Throw on a Ministry of Sound Annual and have a ducky day!
|ANOTHER Last Post???||muncher|
Jul 1, 2002 12:50 AM
|You've had more of those than the British Army - ironic really!
We are not "making fun" - you are just hilarious - genius characterisation - reminds us a bit of "Citizen Smith" we decided (though that wasn't a great success)- only more topical.
We've decided that this "final final final post" element of your postings is to make the programme run and run - everyone knows you don't make serious money till the second series...
Ministry of Sound? Is that another evil mind control extension of the British government? Stealing our brains through out ears to make us massacre the Irish? Sounds dangerous to me*.
.*You can use that idea if you like.
Meanwhile, we are going to tune into the telly to see if we can see some more English folk pig-sticking ethnic minorities in the swamps on the comedy channel, before we flick onto the satellite to see the American shows demonstrating how much the latinos and mexicans have been pushed to the top of the wage earning averages.
BTW - Olaf wants to know if you have thought of a name for the series yet - if not, we'll brainstorm and see what we can come up with?
|Get Back to Work and Stop Trolling - Final Post||SpinN|
Jul 1, 2002 10:48 AM
With all due respect your now officially trolling. Get back to work! Is this really all you do during the day?
As for the final post, what's the problem? We at this board post final threads all the time - per thread not topic.
Stick a fork in this one lads - its done.
Despite the rants of jose he did end on a high note. You might wanna do the same.
|ROTFLAMO - LOL :-)||VeloGal|
Jul 1, 2002 12:42 PM
I was just waiting for someone to say this!
Must be raining wherever he is.
|Raining - really?||muncher|
Jul 2, 2002 7:33 AM
|You must have very slow keyboards or very busy break-free jobs if you can't fit a couple of lines of typing in during a 10 hour day....
It rarely stops raining in Northern Ireland though.
|Now THAT'S a troll if ever there was one....||muncher|
Jul 2, 2002 12:49 AM
|High note? I assume you are taking about drug use there....|
|Not Religion At All||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 26, 2002 12:11 PM
|It may appear from an outsider's viewpoint that the "Troubles" and based in religion. However, that's not the case. Review the beginnings of the Civil Rights marches in the 60's in NI and you will find that Protestants and Catholics marched together.
Religion is the cover story which manipulates the masses into an "It's us against them mentality." No different than what Al Quaeda is attempting to do with Islam. A couple of crazies hell bent on destruction are just a minority. Throw in a dash of religion and watch it brew.
The problem is soci - economic - political. Those in power prior to 98 - Protestants want to keep power and can only do so by keeping out the Catholics.
Until NI has a fully functioning government that is freely elected - of the people, by the people, and for the people there will never be peace.
Keep any ethnic group down - make them the overwhelming majority when it comes to being poor and you will have terrorism. Whether this is NI, America, or the west bank. The formula is simple.
As for your comment "these people hate each other" I think you grossly and inncorrectly state the issue. Most Protestants in the NI are very good and reasonable people. Most Catholics in the NI are very good and reasonable people. It only takes a few crazies - claiming to speak for the people to screw everything up. Don't blame everyone for the actions of a few.
As for "there are no innocents" I would claim that the four year old girl I saw on television simply wanting to walk to school was innocent. What did she do to deserve a hand grenade being thrown at her?
As for the definition of an enemy soldier I agree it's too broad. I know of a case where a meter reader was murdered because they were said to be working for the state - there's no excuse for that.
As for not wanting it to stop - you cannot be serious. Nearly 100% of Catholics voted for the Peace Plan and overall 75% of the NI.
Your last paragraph appears too lump all of society together due to the actions of a few, non elected crazies. I think you are wrong.
Jun 25, 2002 10:57 AM
|FARC in Columbia, they're communists and labeled terrorists.
What about Abu Sayef in the Phillipines, are they muslims or do they have some other political/religious agenda going? And don't forget the ETA, Basque separatists in Spain, they might be catholics but so are most of the people they're targeting since there movement is an ethnic/nationality thing not religious. And I'm sure if the Klan was still active in any kind of significant way they would get the terrorist label.
I have no doubt if the American revolution was taking place today the rebels would be called terrorists, just like the Russians label the Chechynian's terrorists, but both would/are mis-use of the term. To get called a terrorist group should mean you employ certain tactics which certainly groups like the IRA employ(ed).
|What about...||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 25, 2002 11:27 AM
|I thought the sine qua non of terrorists was that they purposely target civilian noncombatants.|
|Yes, that's it but...||Wayne|
Jun 25, 2002 11:49 AM
|that's not going to stop governments from labeling groups that oppose them terrorists even if they don't target civilians.|
|According to the US State Department||bikedodger|
Jun 25, 2002 11:33 AM
|The US State Department uses the following definition of terrorist activity taken from Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
"(ii)TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED--As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:"
"(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)."
"(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained."
"(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States code) or upon the liberty of such a person."
"(IV) An assassination."
"(V) The use on any--"
"(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device," or
"(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property."
"(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."
"(iii) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in the Act, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means to commit, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, an act of terrorist activity or an act which the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support to any individual, organization, or government in conducting a terrorist activity at any time, including any of the following acts:"
"(I) The preparation or planning of a terrorist activity."
"(II) the gathering of information on potential targets for terrorist activity."
"(III) The providing of any type of material support, including a safe house, transportation, communication, funds, false identification, weapons, explosives, or training, to any individual the actor knows or has reason to believe has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity."
"(IV) The soliciting of funds or other things of value for terrorist activity of for any terrorist organization."
"(V) The solicitation of any individual for membership in a terrorist organization, terrorist government, or to engage in a terrorist activity."
|Then that would make....||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 25, 2002 3:23 PM
|the CIA a terrorist organization, according to certain of the above-stated provisions. Also the government of the U.S. when and if they choose to ignore U.N. resolutions? Ditto, Israel? As well as a host of other governments who carry out military actions out of self-interest, while flaunting either U.N. resolutions or "rules of war"?
And how about U.S. proxies, such as El Salvadorean military forces and Contra rebels which were funded illegally by the Reagan administration in open defiance of an act of Congress?
|of course it would, but||weiwentg|
Jun 25, 2002 6:25 PM
|you forget that those in power cannot be terrorists. to add to your list of examples, the US once supported Saddam ... and he did, at the time, use chemical weapons against his own people. and the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, and Agent Orange - a chemical weapon - in Vietnam. and the US still supports Israel, which by strict definition also engages in terrorism. but of course, you never hear calls for the leaders of Israel or the US to be indicted - in fact, this is probably one factor in US opposition to the International Criminal Court. US and Israeli leaders would be 'frivolously' prosecuted, as they say. prosecuting terrorists is common sense, prosecuting terrorists who hold power is 'frivolous'.|
|of course it would, but||BikeViking|
Jun 26, 2002 8:06 AM
|The moral chasm between suicide bombers who kill civilians and Israli soldiers who accidently kill civilians while in urban combat is vast. How anyone can say they are equal is insane. The Israelis have not purposefully gone on a bent to kill civilians, hoaxes abounded (Jenin).
Everyone loves to hate the Israelis except the US.
|You need better info.||muncher|
Jun 26, 2002 8:29 AM
|I have a friend/ex collegue who is in Jenin currently, as part of the NATO observation force. He has absolutely no doubt that the Iraelis have deliberatly targetted civilians, or at least have been so reckless in their actions in situations where civilian fatalities are enevitable as to amount to the same thing, and he stated so on television here in the UK a couple of weeks ago. He referred specifically to the close quarter shelling of occupied civilian homes by Israeli tanks (the press were of course prohibited from entering Jenin at that time).
Whether such actions are justified is a whole different issue, but no one on the ground there is in any doubt about the Israeli actions, just as they are in no dobut about the Palestinian bombings. There may or may not be hoaxes, but the reality is as above.
|My point was...||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 26, 2002 8:58 AM
|That the U.S. State Dept. definition of terrorism is awfully broad, and by that definition the U.S. itself or its proxies have at times been guilty of terrorism, as have a whole host of other nations. By the same token, I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between Israel's actions and those of Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc. I believe that what Israel is doing is what any militarily powerful nation would do to defend itself in similar circumstances. I also believe that the actions of Islamic Fundamentalist groups are indefensible by ANY standard and that these groups and a significant majority of middle eastern people do not want peace with Israel, but are singlemindedly devoted to the destruction of Israel. Which is why Arafat has jettisoned every meaningful peace initiative by the Americans and/or other Arab states.
However, many of the above-mentioned posts do illustrate the fact that "terrorism" has become a propaganda word applied mainly to the less powerful parties in political/military disputes.
|You need better info.||BikeViking|
Jun 27, 2002 9:26 AM
|Urban combat is a nasty horrible business. I don't claim to be an expert, but one just has to read aobut the carnage in places like Stalingrad, Hue and Groznyy to know this. That being said, any army fighting in these conditions has to take definitive "measures" when they are under (rifle, machinegun, RPG) fire or they will get slaughtered. These measures include tank main gun fire to suppress enemy fire that may come from any of thousands of locations. I would not be so quick to judge those until I had been in their boots.
Also, where are the bodies? Shatilla was easily proven, but, other than your anecdotal evidence, there has been no evidence of Israeli atrocities yet.
Let's go find the pieces of those Israeli children blown all over a street, slaughtered by those murderous ba$tards and talk to me about terrorists.
|The "What" Never Happened||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 26, 2002 1:05 PM
You sound like those people who say the holocaust never happened. Thank God for cameras. Too bad they weren't allowed in to Jenin...
Recent events make me wonder how much we have learned. People like that idiot on MSN with the red beret say - drive the Palestinians in to the sea. That kind of sounds like ethnic cleansing.
If nothing happened in Jenin why the news black out? Also, why do Israelis shoot at the press, Red Cross, and UN? Was that an "accident" too? A few weeks ago a member of the UN was shot in the back while in a vehicle (clearly marked). What's the message here?
In the long run, what do you think the "incident" at Jenin will do? If it's a war on terror fine - purge the terrorists. But when you start blowing up streets, water mains, electrical plants, and other utilities one has to wonder what the purpose is.
I truly sadden the loss of Yitzhak Rabin. Having "walked the walk" I believe he was one of the only people who could have seen through the mideast conflicts. What we are seeing now is in no small part a result of his assassination.
|The "What" Never Happened||weiwentg|
Jun 26, 2002 10:11 PM
|additionally, Israel's assasinations of Hamas members - often conducted with Hellfire guided missiles - often don't just kill their targets. they usually cause collateral damage as well. 'collateral damage' has the implication of unfortunate, but not unacceptable casualties. civilian casualties. in truth, children and other non-combatants are killed. that's not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.
further, as I've posted before, Israel's policies are designed to cause the economic strangulation of Palestine. they restrict Palestinian movement. they harass them at checkpoints. they institute 24-hour curfews. on the surface, their actions are understandable. but when you look deeper into it, how are the Palestinians going to get to work? and by preventing them from earning a living, the Israelis fuel hatred against themselves.
what Jose says is right: you do, unfortunately, sound a bit like the 'Holocaust never happened crowd'. in similar fashion, terrorism by rich and powerful states (the US and Israel) is never labeled as such. it's passed off as self-defense, something any sane nation would do. what the Palestinians are doing is terribly wrong by our standards, but it is not totally wrong by the laws of Islam. Muslims are allowed and compelled by religious to fight against occupying powers. on the other hand, what we in the 'civilized' world are doing is wrong by our own supposed standards. this is what George Orwell calls 'doublethink'. whatever we do is right, we can justify it. but whatever they do is wrong.
therefore, we can call for Arafat's removal without calling for Sharon's removal. therefore we can condemn terrorism on one hand and ignore Israeli war crimes on the other. therefore, when Iraq invades Kuwait, it is a crime against humanity, while when we kill tens of thousands of Iraqis to secure our oil supply, it is just. therefore, we can promote democracy, but not when it produces Islamic or socialist governments.
we would do well to heed Jesus' advice: remove the plank in your eye, before you remove the speck from your brother's eye.
|The "What" Never Happened||BikeViking|
Jun 27, 2002 9:48 AM
|Nice try, but I do believe the Holocaust happened. That's part of the reason why the Israeli's are taking such a hard line on defense issues...Never again...
Where is this vast flood of evidence regarding atrocities? The palestinians have a lot to gain by casting Israeli military action in a bad light. I won't be duped by possible palestinian propaganda.
YOur incidences listed above are de rigeur for a combat zone. A lot of things happen whe you have nervous troops under fire from an unseen enemy. The best anyone can expect is an army to minize such happenings. Sh!t happens
The US did the same thing in Allied Force, attacking the infrastructure and trying to bring about change from the people. Eventually they will get tired of suffering under AND supporting these homicide bombers.
The palestininans have a great opportunity to have the US help them...they just need to stop killing Israelis
|Northern Ireland||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jun 25, 2002 11:46 AM
|While I may be wrong on this, I don't recall any children being injured by hand grenades during the recent dispute at the Holy Cross school in North Belfast where some locals decided to object quite forcibly to kids passing through their area on their way to school. It is true that lots of unsavoury incidents in N. Ireland have been attributed to 'paramilitaries' rather than 'terrorists', but I think you will find that this is on both sides of the conflict. Paramilitaries aligned to the Catholic/Nationalist side have certainly not been quiet during recent confrontations.
Since the Good Friday agreement of '98, violence on both sides has decreased dramatically. Things are by no means perfect now, but since they are nowhere near the levels from ten years ago, maybe it is worth differentiating between the work of paramilitaries and terrorists. While not always the case, political and sectarian violence now tends to be less organised and on a smaller scale than that orchestrated previously by the 'terrorist' groups. I don't know how they were perceived in the US, but Protestant/Loyalist paramilitary groups, (UDA, UDF, UVF... I could go on.), were definitely referred to as terrorists in the UK & Ireland.
Stating that Catholic groups, (presumably the IRA), "nearly always forewarned" their bombing attacks, is at best complete crap and an insult to the memory of their many innocent victims. The IRA were the most active of all the terrorist groups during the height of the troubles and while it unfortunately may have taken some of their actions to force the British government and Unionists to accept some realities, one should never forget that they killed and maimed many during nearly 25 years of violence.
I had no idea that Yitzak Rabin took on a name honouring Michael Collins. Perhaps a few Israeli & Palestinian politicians today might do well to study the conflict and resolution, of the albeit simpler and less violent, conflict in Northern Ireland.
You have a good point about Nelson Mandela being previously being called a terrorist. He is now respected worldwide as the father of a nation, and the man who brought a mainly peaceful transition from apartheid to democratic rule. Was he ever really a terrorist? If Palestinian extremists limited their attacks to the Israeli Defence Force, would they then be referred to as freedom fighters? Maybe we should all be less hasty to badge those fighting against whatever occupying forces they resist, and instead look at why they resist.
|Hear hear. (nm)||muncher|
Jun 26, 2002 12:57 AM
|Tacit Approval For Throwing Bombs?||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 26, 2002 12:42 PM
|Fr Ted Crilly,
Thank you very much for prying yourself away from your busy filming schedule at the BBC. Your work in continuing anti -Irish stereoypes, drunkness, and stupidity is a true credit to your moral character.
Your first line is revolting. Your tacit approval of throwing bombs at children and then saying no-one was injured is mind boggling - what can I say?
As for the "complete crap" you mentioned I was working with figures supplied by the BBC for a documentary. Although, I did fail to distinguish between military and non combatant targets. "THEIR" data shows that the overwhelming majority of bombings not targeted directly to military sources were informed either to the press or to the gov't for the purpose of evacuation. According to them more than 1000 bombings occurred in Derry without the loss of a single life. That's a record better than what we saw with the smartest bombs in the Gulf.
Protestant militias publicly proclaim that "any taig will do." Yet they are not considered Terrorists. That's plain wrong.
Recently, the BBC reported that the British Gov't supplied terrorists with the necessary tools and information it took to murder civil rights lawyer Finucane. Not too long ago the news was alive with a few idiots who tried to mail a six shooter from Flordia to NI. Which story is more important - the actions of a few red neck crazies or the actions of a democratic government?
|"Tacit approval?" I think not.||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jun 26, 2002 2:53 PM
|I stated that I did not think that any children had been injured by grenade attacks at the Holy Cross school dispute in North Belfast. From this how do you come to the conclusion that I was in some way approving of such attacks? Dragging into the dispute, and attacking five year old kids in any way is repugnant, and can no way be part of any legitimate struggle no matter what the grievance is.
In reply to some of your points in another message above, I will state again that the UDF, UVF, UDA, and other loyalist groups were labelled as terrorists just like the IRA. I don't know where you got this idea that loyalist groups were somehow classed differently than catholic/nationalist groups, but I assure you that that was not the case. It is true that some Protestant militias publicly proclaim that "any taig will do", but the actions of the IRA over the years have shown that the loyalists have no stranglehold on sectarian murders of innocents.
It appears highly likely that there was some collusion between some members of the security services in Northern Ireland and the loyalists who killed Pat Finucane, (and probably others). Even though these persons worked for the British government, is it not a bit disingenuous to suggest that their work was the work and wishes of the British government? I am no fan of Maggie Thatcher and British government policy in Northern Ireland in the '70's and '80's, but I seriously doubt if they knew all that was happening on the ground. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the government of any country is responsible for all the actions of all it's employees. There will always be those who use their power to follow their own agenda.
You may be working on figures "supplied by the BBC for a documentary", but anyone who indicates that the IRA almost always warned their victims of bombings is still talking absolute crap. It's true that the IRA did often, (especially in the latter years of the troubles), give warnings when it was their intention to just cause destruction and chaos, but there are many examples when innocents were caught up in their no-warning attacks. Read any history on the troubles in Northern Ireland and you will come to learn this.
Finally, from your line "Your work in continuing anti -Irish stereoypes, drunkness, and stupidity is a true credit to your moral character", are you seriously suggesting that the TV show "Fr Ted" is in some way a British plot to portray the Irish people as drunken, stupid fools? I may have got you wrong on this point - I hope so.
|Apathetic Approval Sound Better?||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 26, 2002 3:58 PM
|WRT Paragraph 1
I stated moral outrage towards attacking four year old girls with hand grenades. You reply without saying it was wrong "While I may be wrong on this, I don't recall any children being injured by hand grenades" as if this somehow lessens the event. Take your pick "tacit" or "apathetic" - whichever you decide your statement goes towards undermining the issue stated. Sounds like an excuse.
WRT Paragraph 2.
You are just plain wrong. Have you been reading the newspapers and watching televsion for the last 30 years? I cannot see how given your conclusion. Albeit, there has been some changes in diction since 98. For the three decades prior, Catholic groups were ALWAYS labelled terrorists whereas Protestants were NOT. Don't take my word for it - search the archives of BBC, ITN, Reuters or whomever and you will see that overwhelmngly the semantics favor Protestants. Catholics are killed, Protestants murdered. Granted, since 98 there has been a change to more fair diction. Not trying to be condescending, but if your knowledge is based on this unique narrow time frame I can understand the source of your confusion.
WRT Paragraph 3
Sounds like the lone gunmen theory - the gov't will disavow all knowledge... If your organization does not know what its members are up to then they should cease operations immediately - that's why we have a chain of command. Are you suggesting that the British government is not responsible for the actions of its agents - then who is? BTW - we're not talking about a few wayward tax collecters but the Special Branch and MI5 - a little different. Until the British Government comes out and admits there was collusion and deals with the agents involved they are covering up and protecting terrorist sympathizers. If it was a few rogues than just say so. Why don't they? Why won't they?
WRT Paragraph 4
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. I use figures supplied by the BBC - you disagree. BTW - their figures came from the British Gov't. If I were to get figures from Nationalists I doubt you would agree with that source. What can I say - where would you suggest I get my figures if not from the British Gov't and/or media?
WRT Paragraph 5
A "plot" no. It's just the same old story. The British see nothing wrong with continuing stereotypes which they created for the Irish - drunken, ignorant, human chimpanzees. I think it is so engrained in the British culture and psyche that the people sadly do not see it as racist. Do you not see a Conflict of Interest in a Protestant owned broadcasting company creating a show displaying the historically negative stereotypical views of a culture with which they have been at war with for nearly a millenium? SORRY - but the racist views in English media is well documented throughout CENTURIES.
|Load of old tosh...||muncher|
Jun 27, 2002 12:26 AM
|Funny. Father Ted, was written by an Irishman, was played by Irish actors/actresses and was orginally made for, and screened on, Irish T.V.
I think they are more than capable of deciding what is and isn't "racist English media", without your "help".
|Munch on this||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 27, 2002 8:19 AM
|My final thought(s) on this matter:
The show puts forth stereotypes based in racist views present in the British media for hundreds of years. If you fail to acknowledge this - you're in denial. How many hundreds of references would you like? The treatment of the Irish in popular British culture has absolutely no match in its American counterpart. This sort of low level racism (since they're both white) would never fly in America if you tried to make a show based on stereotypes of blacks, jews, hispanics...
Again, you probably are so used to seeing Irish people depcited as simple, ignorant, drunks that you do not see this as racism - to you it's probably true.
I am sure the BBC could find a cast of desperate blacks to make a show chock full of negative stereotypes. Would you support that as well? What about a show on jews...
Thankfully, the American media, devoid of morality as it is chooses not to do so. In America we have a thing called free speech - guaranteed by the constitution. YOU DO NOT have this in the UK. You may say what the gov't allows. Thus, your gov't tacitly approves this racsim - and probably subsidises it. Before you get off on a rant - there's plenty of groups in the NI that have been censored and/or denied the right to free speech because the British gov't does not like what they have to say. I am well versed in the draconian measures the UK has put forth wrt PTA, SPA, et al. Don't try to run that Magna Carta crap by me.
IF what you say is true about the cast, that still does not alleviate the stereotypes therein. Just because the cast is willing to denigrate themselves does not make it okay.
I have many books which illustrate and reference hundred's of racist cartoons and commentaries from the British media. The overwhelming majority of data disagrees with your conclusions. Again, its part of British culture at this point. Remember Benny Hill?
Jun 27, 2002 8:36 AM
|Congratulations - you are either trolling like a true pro, or plain mad (no one could be that stupid/ignorant)- it's got to be the former.
Classic "Trollman" stuff - I take my hat off to you.
(BTW - about the only people under 40 who remember Benny Hill are Americans - I believe it was bought for huge dosh, and the proceeds have been funding the BBC's most appauling "Ealing" comedies ever since!)
|very funny - LOL - nm||MJ|
Jun 27, 2002 9:08 AM
|Munch on this||OutWest|
Jun 27, 2002 5:03 PM
|"The treatment of the Irish in popular British culture has absolutely no match in its American counterpart. This sort of low level racism (since they're both white) would never fly in America"
- Perhaps you should keep an ear open to how Mexicans and Canadians are generally referred to by the American entertainment industry.
- I didn't realize the British Government was only formed in the 20th Century, what was there before?
Jun 27, 2002 8:13 PM
|The British Isles have existed for some time and have been governed throughout by various forms of government. However, the system of gov't which the US currently uses today is the longest running gov't in the world. No other country in the world today has a system of government that has existed longer in its current form. - That's my statement, I stand by it, and would appreciate any feedback from anyone doubting it.
The current system in Britain definitely does not outdate the US. I will have to check on exact dates. However, I believe the modern form of the system now have in place dates back to the early 1900's. I could be wrong - I will double check. I am not trying to be picky either with respect to the recent whole House of Lords thing. I'll have to check on the exact transfer of power undergone by the Royal Family during the late 19th and 20th century.
As for Mexicans and Canadians you are absolutely correct and need not tell me. I should have phrased the comment better. I was trying to show that US mainstream media (and not the entertainment industry) does not use racial stereotypes as does the British. I am sorry to say that I have a multitude of articles from British newspapers depicting the Irish as human chimpanzees - the caricature based on demonizing the Fenians centuries earlier. It's no longer acceptable behaviour in the US - I wish the same were true elsewhere. Again, I stand corrected.
What can I say? When doing research I obtained hundreds of newspapers and articles throughout centuries of British media. The depiction of the Irish as human chimpanzees is an image I can readily make available on-line - the articles come from: 1798, 1869, 1881, 1970, and 1982. They are a small sample of the racist imagery I found.
This human chimpanzee idea took on a life of its own when Darwin swayed opinion towards evolution. The Irish were not considered to be as evolved as the Anglo-Teutons and were depicted as chimps - maybe a bit above.
This racism was backed by science (see a related picture in a posting in another thread entitled Scientific Racism below) when physician John Beddoe invented the "scale of niggresence" and was able to scientifically show (with the use of facial measurements and skin tone observations) that the Irish/Celts were not white but were actually Iberians - believed to have been African. Still though the Celts were not given as low a status as Asians, Jews, or Blacks.
When I see the same imagery used for centuries I have to wonder if people even see it as racism.
There's definite indications that their media is getting better over the last decade. But c'mon, we're talking centuries of racism here. Perhaps, the cartoonist does not know where there inspiration came from. Perhaps, they should check.
|Apathetic Approval Sound Better?||RST|
Jun 27, 2002 4:32 AM
|Just a few points from a Roman Catholic of English/Irish descent.
I don't think anyone on this board has given tacit approval to what has rencently happened at schools in NI. Tacit approval of bombings by stating that warnings were given should not be given.
The British media refer to both Loyalist and Republican terrorists as terrorists. Futhermore, mainstream British society has equal contempt for the terrorist activites of Republican and Loyalist groups.
The IRA have targetted civilians. Warrington 1993, 2 boys aged 3 and 12 killed, 56 injured. Canary Wharf 1996, 2 killed. Enniskillen 1987, 11 killed, 63 injured. No warning was given in Enniskillen, I don't know about the others.
Anyone in the security services involved in the alleged collusion with loyalist murders should be dealt with. I'm sure this will happen if the allegations can be substantiated. Certain other unsolved crimes commmitted by terrorist groups during the troubles are not being investigated for the sake of the broader peace process.
The British, in general, do not hold negative stereotypes about the irish. Father Ted was just funny. Father Jack is just Father Jack. Basil Fawlty is just Basil Fawlty. Homer Simpson is just Homer Simpson. Reading anymore into these characters about the Irish, English or Americans is mad.
|To: jose_Tex_mex||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jun 27, 2002 9:13 AM
You ask "Have you been reading the newspapers and watching televsion for the last 30 years?" Not only have I been reading the papers and watching the TV, I have also been living in Northern Ireland for 28 of my 30 years in this world, so I would like to think that I have a little more insight into the many issues of this conflict than most others who view it from afar. I've no idea where you're from, or what connection or interest you have to the troubles in Northern Ireland, but I doubt from your comments that you have witnessed much of the troubles first hand. Maybe this misinformation you write comes from years of being fed propaganda by Irish American groups sympathetic to the nationalist cause, or perhaps from the occasional 30 second news items on CNN, but having grown up in Northern Ireland, I can assure you that the issues that you touch on are far complex than you indicate, and that loyalist/Protestant terrorists were, (with a very few exceptional instances), not treated differently than the IRA and other catholic terrorists. If you want to go on with this point, I could bring up the issue of senior cabinet ministers from the Irish government who helped the IRA obtain weapons. They were many wrongs on both sides.
I don't know why you read my comments on the Holy Cross school dispute they way that you did, but I think I am in total agreement with you on this. Because I said that no one was injured, this was in no way meant to indicate any support in any way for those who were attacking children. Attacking kids in any way, whether they are injured or not, is wrong. I agree with you on this.
We could argue all day about what level of collusion there was between the security services and loyalist terrorist in the Pat Finucane murder. Let's hope the impending public inquiry will answer this question.
I happen to think that the BBC is an excellent news service, (certainly better than CNN & MSNBC), and I view their news website almost every day. This however does not mean that I believe everything they tell me without question. As stated above, 28 years of being exposed first hand to the troubles in Northern Ireland tells me that the IRA did not usually give advance warning of their bombings.
As muncher has already stated, Fr Ted, wasn't made for the BBC and was a hugely popular program in Ireland. Have you ever asked any Irish people how they felt about the programs? I'm proud to be Irish, and I found the shows hilarious. I didn't find it in the slightest way racist, and an it didn't offend me or my country. I don't know if it's a quality reserved only for the Irish, but we have an ability to laugh at ourselves. Maybe I have got this totally wrong, and the Brits have pulled the wool over our eyes and are telling the world through Fr Ted that we, the Irish people, are bumbling, incompetent, drunken fools. Or perhaps, from your viewpoint, (I suspect thousands of miles away), you are viewing the world through green tinted glasses.
|that's the difference||MJ|
Jun 27, 2002 9:20 AM
|between someone who has read something and thinks they've got the answers vs someone who understands a problem in some depth
don't worry though - Jose is a troll and will surely go away soon enough - I think the name just appeared in the past week or so
his tirades are rather amusing...
|that's the difference||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 27, 2002 2:52 PM
|Been here for months - search the archives.
Since you are in to labelling. Please advise why you are labelling me a troll. Otherwise if you have some constructive input...
|that's the difference||MJ|
Jun 28, 2002 12:37 AM
|you're troll because you make wild accusations/claims - insist it's true - yet have a comical lack of understanding of most of the issues you have commented on
there's enough accurate information in your post to hook a few people - but upon further analysis it's clear you don't actually have a clue about what you're blathering on about - you also keep insisting your understanding is superior to those who have a more comprehensive understanding of British History, Irish History, Northern Ireland, UK and Irish politics and European race relations - you exhibit profound oversights of US shortcomings in similar areas - but mostly you used Benny Hill as an example to support your assertions - the number of factual and interpretive errors in your posts can only be construed as someone who is intentionally misleading or is deeply ignorant
therefore I'll assume the best about you - your posts are very funny - keep up the good work - tell us about your wife and your job at Pizza Hut now - then post a picture of the happy couple (www.mingers.com)
|that's the difference||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 28, 2002 7:58 AM
|WRT Paragraph 1
1) Demonstrate 1 accusation which was untrue.
WRT Paragraph 2
2) Where did I insist my knowledge was superior?
3) Demonstrate the "profound oversights of US shortcomings" I show.
4) Show one "factual and interpretive errors."
I have run into many persons such as yourself on this board who when they dislike the message, blame and label the messenger.
You have now made accusations. I would like you to back them up. Please respond to the four points to let us know where I went wrong.
Otherwise, this is my final post. I do not redress postings where accusations are without base.
Best of Luck and I apologize if I offended you.
|that's the difference||MJ|
Jun 28, 2002 8:23 AM
|what's funny is that I could cut aand paste almost any of your erroneous posts - you'll probably ask me to come up with a better argument for you now - or explain how these points somehow meet the criteria - well in short - everything I've cut and pasted here from your post is wrong
I like your message(s) - it's funny - you're a good troll
1.untrue accusation(s)& 4 factual and interpretive errors
"The treatment of the Irish in popular British culture has absolutely no match in its American counterpart. This sort of low level racism (since they're both white) would never fly in America if you tried to make a show based on stereotypes of blacks, jews, hispanics... Again, you probably are so used to seeing Irish people depcited as simple, ignorant, drunks that you do not see this as racism - to you it's probably true. I am sure the BBC could find a cast of desperate blacks to make a show chock full of negative stereotypes. Would you support that as well? What about a show on jews..."
3. oversights & 4 factual and interpretive errors
"Thankfully, the American media, devoid of morality as it is chooses not to do so. In America we have a thing called free speech - guaranteed by the constitution. YOU DO NOT have this in the UK. You may say what the gov't allows. Thus, your gov't tacitly approves this racsim - and probably subsidises it. Before you get off on a rant - there's plenty of groups in the NI that have been censored and/or denied the right to free speech because the British gov't does not like what they have to say. I am well versed in the draconian measures the UK has put forth wrt PTA, SPA, et al. Don't try to run that Magna Carta crap by me."
2. superior information (and Benny Hill)
I have many books which illustrate and reference hundred's of racist cartoons and commentaries from the British media. The overwhelming majority of data disagrees with your conclusions. Again, its part of British culture at this point. Remember Benny Hill?
Jun 28, 2002 1:07 PM
|With all due respect MJ,
I do not know what to say. In America when someone brings an accusation against you they have to back it up. I think this post has gone on long enough and on wild tangents. It is my intention to end it here if this discussion continues on as a he said - she said.
Here's an example of the way I like to work. I read over your points and I think #3 is the one least likely to get mired down in semantics or misinterpretations.
Here are my statements:
1) Americans have a constitution which guarantees them free speech and the right of assembly.
2) The UK does not have a constitution.
3) The magna carta does not guarantee such rights.
4) The UK government has selectively denied groups the right to free speech and gathering.
Now you have read through these points (Thank You) and have more than likely agreed with all except #4. Now I will provide the sources by which I have come to this conclusion.
I am referencing a British Publisher called London Against Racism. They cite laws passed by the British called the Prevention of Terrorism Act and later the Special Powers Act. I greatly encourage you to do a google search, research these topics, and come to a conclusion on your own. BTW - The SPA was rushed through parliament in 42 hours...
The above source states:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been extensively used to harass Irish people living in Britain and deter them from political activity. The PTA allows for people to be detained without charge for up to seven days, and for the home secretary to exclude people, including UK citizens born in NI, from Britain without trial or charge.
The PTA was first passed in 1974, and then replaced by a new act in 1976, which in turn replaced by another in 1984. The latest PTA covers all political activity - even internationally.
Between November 1974 and 26 March 1984, 5802 people were detained in Britain under the PTA. 5083 of those arrested were released without charge. A further 274 were excluded from Britain. Only 7.6% of those detained were charge with any offence (2 out of 3 of those charged were charged with offences other than that of the PTA) and only 5.7% were found guilty of any offence. Conclusion: 94.3% of those detained were innocent. Who were those detained - 99% Catholic.
A quick sampling of their powers:
1) Arrest without warrant or charge.
2) Detain for up to a week without lawyer or charge.
3) The police and army can search anyone or anywhere wihtout a warrant
4) The Gov't may also cease any property.
5) Declare any organization illegal. Membership in such an org carried a ten year prison sentence.
6) Deportation - citizens may be refused entry into mainland UK or face unlimited fines or 5 years in Jail. Persons have no right to know the evidence, accuser, or case against them. They have no right to appeal.
Hence if you have a newspaper or radio station they can seize your property. If you have a group they can declare your gathering illegal. Again, no evidence required.
Again, if you do not believe what I have to say review the PTA, SPA, Diplock Courts, and the SuperGrass System.
Best of Luck
Jul 1, 2002 4:59 AM
|are you seriously relying on the Magna Carta as a source?
and just because there's a London based publisher willing to say something doesn't mean they have a clue - read the latest (or any) Socialist Worker newspaper for evidence that one guy working in his garden shed does not equal reliable 'journalism'
is the PTA bad? maybe. are car bombings bad? most people think so.
1. above is true - similar rights are enshrined in English public law
2. above is true - a constitution is not needed in the UK as civil rights are guaranteed by other means
3. above - you can't be serious
4. above is true - as have all governments
your sats are all twenty years old - you should read less and travel more - stop going to those Irish bars where the pass a bucket for the cause
your interpretation of the PTA is inaccurate or based upon the reality/experience of most people in the UK, whatever their ethnic background or affiliation
all states reserve the right to apply power - see recent treatment of terrorist suspects in the US 1-6 above all apply there
I find it difficult to believe that you're so upset about the past injustices to Irish people in the UK - but I'm more surprised that your viewpoint (which you maintain as an accurate respresentation of current issues) is well and truly out dated and out of touch with modern reality - it's like saying all white people from Georgia/Alabama are racist because of slavery and the 1960's civil rights movement
beleive less of what you read that's out of date - travel more and fidn out for yourself
|last Final Post of all time never to be spoken about again - nm||MJ|
Jul 1, 2002 5:04 AM
Jun 27, 2002 2:49 PM
|Best of Luck in the Future Padre,
This post has obviously touched off a nerve and is going away on a tangent.
Slan agus abhaille.
|Re: Last Post||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jun 27, 2002 3:59 PM
|Too many people are willing to only look at the conflict from within the bounds of their own opinions, and so many people chose to ignore so many facts and opinions and only choose those that fit in with their ideas and beliefs. This only helps to fuel the hatred that still exists in Northern Ireland today for some people. I'm sure that this is the same for any conflict around the world, and this misinformation is certainly not limited to those thousands of miles away. Some of our own local politicians are guilty of it everyday, so it is no wonder that others further afield fail to grasp the full story. I try, to the best of my ability, to be fair and honest and view both side's opinions every time an issue of conflict arises.
Maybe your comments have touched a nerve in me, but when the conflict is on your doorstep and you grow up with it everyday of your life, you can't help but get annoyed when others try and further their own cause by being selective with the truth.
|Hey, Mr "tex mex"||drillerkiller|
Jun 28, 2002 7:39 AM
|I don't think I have ever seen a set of posts as dumb as yours here - you sure are some special kinda freak. What are you doin here - waiting for the wasps in your head to quiten down a little?
You need some serious head medicare...
|TROLL - did you actually re-register just to say this???????||jose_Tex_mex|
Jun 28, 2002 8:11 AM
I cannot find a single posting from you anywhere. Please tell me that you did not go throught the entire registration process just to post your special message - were you afraid you would tarnish your otherwise pristine profile?
Was driller killer some Anti-Texan name you insightfully thought up one the spot? Did you name your new identity solely with me in mind?
Or, may I assume that this was your first posting and that it happened to come at my expense.
As for Trolls, I tend to call people who just throw down statements without backing them up such. If you care to respond in a constructive manner please advise where the problem is. Take one point and prove your point. I doubt you will, I doubt you can.
Otherwise, this is my last post. Hope to see drillerkiller in the future, but I doubt it.
With all due respect, as for medicare - you had better start breaking the Prozac in half.
Best of Luck and I apologize for offending you.