TERRORISM SEEMS TO PAY OFF!

#1
Having seen on tv this evening a former ira commander who has without doubt much blood on his hands being treated as some kind of peace giving messiah certainly makes one think that perhaps terrorism does pay off, of course one is pleased that peace has arrived in the province but the fact people who engaged in anarchy and murder are now seen as heroes, makes one think ,nothing new of course i know ,but a tad unsettling all the same to my way of thinking
 
#2
Yep, it stinks, but the alternative is they carry on as they did and that was far worse
 
#3
I suppose what You have to look at is, did His murdering ways get Him what He wanted - a united Ireland. I would suggest He got the opposite, Eire changing Her constitution relinquishing all claim to the North.

He's still a murdering terrorist scumbag though
 
#4
dingerr said:
Yep, it stinks, but the alternative is they carry on as they did and that was far worse
Seconded

I'd never vote for the murdering scum, though!
 
#5
I was in the Canal Zone. The Nasser terrorists forced us out.
I was in Malaya. CT terrs did not get exactly what they wanted but they got us out of Malaya which was 75% result.
I was in Libya. Gaddaffi got us out
I was in Cyprus. EOKA got what they wanted until Johnny Turk kicked off but that was nothing to do with us.
I was amongst the last in Bahrain. FLOSY or FANY had already got us out of Aden
BAOR and Belgium, we did not have any terrs
I was in NI. We know what happened there.
Seems either I am a Jonah or terrorist-type forces do get most of what they want in the long run. Whilst they do not achieve 100% support from inhabitants, they seem to lead the population towards a realisation that things could be better on their own 2 feet so they certainly are a catalyst.
 
#6
If you don't talk to your enemy, then who do you make peace with? You could try to kill them all, but I can't think of a time when that's worked, either.
 
#7
angular said:
If you don't talk to your enemy, then who do you make peace with? You could try to kill them all, but I can't think of a time when that's worked, either.
I don't know, Rome didn't get an Empire by talking to it's enemies, it got one by killing them in large numbers.
 
#8
The_Cad said:
angular said:
If you don't talk to your enemy, then who do you make peace with? You could try to kill them all, but I can't think of a time when that's worked, either.
I don't know, Rome didn't get an Empire by talking to it's enemies, it got one by killing them in large numbers.
Exactly, none of the Barbarians spoke Latin, so dialogue wasn't going to get them very far was it?

Unfortunately the only way to placate the terrorists and set up the NI assembly was to give them power. I resent seeing cnuts like McGuiness and Adams in positions of power, but if it helps NI reach a state of normality then it can't be all that bad...

The British government does not negotiate with terrorists.
 
#10
spiffy said:
It was a disgusting sight, seeing blair fawn over IRA terrorist c*nts.
Seeing Bliar is a disgusting sight at the best of times.

As I'm not a great student of Irish/Ulster history, could someone explain (NoWah) what the various parties have got now that they didn't have in (say) 1967?
Didn't they have devolved Government then?
 
#11
Bat_Crab said:
The_Cad said:
angular said:
If you don't talk to your enemy, then who do you make peace with? You could try to kill them all, but I can't think of a time when that's worked, either.
Amongst responses was
The British government does not negotiate with terrorists.
No it does not. It offers them status, facilities and money to transform themselves into politicians and then negotiates with politicians. Not always just politicians - some get to be Ministers - e.g. for Education etc.
 
#12
Recent precedent was certainly set by Mandela. Politicians do seem to work in a different world to the rest of us and they are well supported by the media.
 
#13
Bit annoyed that John Major seemed to be left out; after all he really kick started the process with the Downing St Declaration.
How people's minds forget when it conveniently suits them......
 
#14
'It was a disgusting sight, seeing blair fawn over IRA terrorist c*nts. '

What do you expect from that tosser? Pi$$es me off that he makes out it was all his own doing, and that we should be greatful for what he has achieved. Blokes an ar$ehole, but then again, he's a politician.....
 
#15
Still feeling faintly nauseous from last night's news. MM was lift on sight and a thoroughly unpleasant bit of work when I did my first NI tour. GA no better.
I think that terrorism has paid off for them - and many like them. No doubt the history books will now have to be amended to read 'freedom fighters'.
RIP far too many soldiers, RUC and poor bloody civilians, some of them friends or colleagues, who just happened to get in the way, all now forgotten by the politicians in the name of a so-called 'peace process'.
Bitter? Yes, I rather think I am.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#16
The fact of the matter is that terrorism is usually a continuation of politics by other means. Repellent as it is, it is an expression of an unsolved political problem. Off the top of my head, it's hard to think of a situation where 'terrorists' per se have ever achieved everything they wanted; equally, it's hard to think of a situation in which the security forces have achieved complete victory. Ultimately, they all require a political solution of some sort, and that almost inevitably means that you have to deal with the people who directed the terrorism. Dreadful as PIRAs crimes were, they weren't solely responsible for the circumstances which led them to commit them and created a base of support for them amongst people who would otherwise have led normal lives. For all the terrible things they have done, at least Adams, McGuinness, Kelly, Murphy and all had the cojones to bring their campaign to a halt, keep discipline in the RA and get it largely disarmed, and they deserve a certain amount of credit for that.
 
#17
I have to admit seeing MM sworn in as 2nd in charge seemed like a smack in the face but then again it was inevitable that at some point a "peace" had to be made with the IRA if Ireland was ever going to be free of terrorism. History will judge him very harshly if from his now elevated position he fucks up I am just hoping this is the begining of the end of the IRA.
 
#18
cpunk said:
The fact of the matter is that terrorism is usually a continuation of politics by other means. Repellent as it is, it is an expression of an unsolved political problem. Off the top of my head, it's hard to think of a situation where 'terrorists' per se have ever achieved everything they wanted; equally, it's hard to think of a situation in which the security forces have achieved complete victory. Ultimately, they all require a political solution of some sort, and that almost inevitably means that you have to deal with the people who directed the terrorism. Dreadful as PIRAs crimes were, they weren't solely responsible for the circumstances which led them to commit them and created a base of support for them amongst people who would otherwise have led normal lives. For all the terrible things they have done, at least Adams, McGuinness, Kelly, Murphy and all had the cojones to bring their campaign to a halt, keep discipline in the RA and get it largely disarmed, and they deserve a certain amount of credit for that.
My bold.

1. No, cpunk, terrorism is the imposition of politics by violent means.

2. Bollocks. They have cynically used the threat of resuming violence to ensure that the 'peace process' has been steered in the direction that they wanted it to go.

No credit is deserved. These people (and, let's be fair, their counterparts on the Protestant side) remain terrorists. They have a long way to go before they can be hailed as saviours of the nation a la Mandela.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#19
Bambi said:
1. No, cpunk, terrorism is the imposition of politics by violent means.
We could argue the toss over this ad nauseam. I don't actually think you're disagreeing with me: PIRA's terrorism was an attempt to achieve a political end. As you will recognise, my characterisation of terrorism was a simple paraphrase of Clausewitz's remarks about war as a continuation of diplomacy but no less valid, IMHO.

Bambi said:
2. balls. They have cynically used the threat of resuming violence to ensure that the 'peace process' has been steered in the direction that they wanted it to go.

No credit is deserved. These people (and, let's be fair, their counterparts on the Protestant side) remain terrorists. They have a long way to go before they can be hailed as saviours of the nation a la Mandela.
What they have achieved is far less than their 'war aims' and doesn't seem to me to represent any kind of victory. Certainly, they have played all the cards available to them during the negotiations; nevertheless, they did not resort to violence and they did largely disarm the IRA. I didn't suggest they were 'saviours of the nation', I merely offered the opinion that they should be given credit for what they have actually done.

I must admit that I find these 'who is the most indignant that Gerry Adams isn't doing life?' p1ssing contests a bit pathetic. History suggests that terrorist situations generally get resolved by political means, and this is what has happened here. And a good thing too.
 
#20
EX_STAB said:
spiffy said:
It was a disgusting sight, seeing blair fawn over IRA terrorist c*nts.
Seeing Bliar is a disgusting sight at the best of times.

As I'm not a great student of Irish/Ulster history, could someone explain (NoWah) what the various parties have got now that they didn't have in (say) 1967?Didn't they have devolved Government then?
Bliar as a "Prime Minister"
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top