Northern Ireland and Near East
-
Yes, they are as bad as the IRA. I'm from Northern Ireland and am very aware of the both sides...
-
Brian Lyttle wrote: I'm from Northern Ireland and am very aware of the both sides... Do you think there's a chance peace process succeeds ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Probably not. 95% of people in Northern Ireland are at peace. It's just a few on both sides who cause trouble. The people who are supposedly 'making peace' are not concerned about anyone other than themselves. The Irish Republic is interested in having possession of Northern Ireland. Any country would try and nab it's neighbours land if it thinks it has an opportunity to. Compare with the Spain/Morocco situation...
-
People are being *very* naive if they believe any of that about the IRA...
Brian Lyttle wrote: People are being *very* naive if they believe any of that about the IRA... I don't agree with you there. The IRA haven't performed any attacks for a long time now. Groups going in the guise of the IRA have. The socaclled "Real IRA" and "Provisional IRA" are still doing what they can to mess everything up but these are simple offshoots and not the actual IRA. Don't get me wrong. I in no way agree with any form of terroist activity but to date the IRA are the only group to actually begin disarming and fully agree with the peace process.. Lets just all hope they stick too it.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
Probably not. 95% of people in Northern Ireland are at peace. It's just a few on both sides who cause trouble. The people who are supposedly 'making peace' are not concerned about anyone other than themselves. The Irish Republic is interested in having possession of Northern Ireland. Any country would try and nab it's neighbours land if it thinks it has an opportunity to. Compare with the Spain/Morocco situation...
Brian Lyttle wrote: The Irish Republic is interested in having possession of Northern Ireland. Any country would try and nab it's neighbours land if it thinks it has an opportunity to. lol... no offence but the English "nabed" [as you so nicely put it] the land a few hundred years ago. The Irish Government don't necessarily want it back. They just want a united Ireland. Different thing. Anyway. I'm not going to turn this into a flame war. Chris wouldn't like it.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
::cough:: ::cough:: I don't believe in Santa Claus ... Believing IRA it's the same that believing in your worst enemy ... Since when terrorists are meant to be believed ???? The author is trully a blind optimist ... Cheers, Joao Vaz The loved ones never really leave us , they are always alive on our hearts and minds.
Joao Vaz wrote: Believing IRA it's the same that believing in your worst enemy ... So the only way the conflict can be resolved is by the annihilation of the enemy. After all , if you cannot believe him you can never make peace with him. Joao Vaz wrote: Since when terrorists are meant to be believed ???? Terrorist are not human? As in not able to see the error of their ways and changing them ? Joao Vaz wrote: The author is trully a blind optimist ... Quite possibly. However, the apology is a small step in the right direction and if they follow it up with deeds it could bring an end to violence. Likewise Palestinians and Isrealis will have to kill each other or learn to live with/near each other.
-
It has taken the IRA 30 years to apologise. Let us hope it does not take the Israelis and Palestinians so long This is stupid. IRA can only be compared with the palestinian radicals. As far as i know, the israelis have no active terrorist group. I have doubts on that article. rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: As far as i know, the israelis have no active terrorist group They're called the Israelli army. They may not go under the name of terrorists but as we speak they are occupying towns and enforcing curfews with guns and tanks. The effect is the same. They will drum hatred into the occupied territories and then as soon as people find a way too, they will strike back. This is not an attempt to justify the actions of the Pallistinians or the Israellis. It is a simple truth. www.TonysOpensource.pwp.BlueYonder.co.uk
-
Joao Vaz wrote: Believing IRA it's the same that believing in your worst enemy ... So the only way the conflict can be resolved is by the annihilation of the enemy. After all , if you cannot believe him you can never make peace with him. Joao Vaz wrote: Since when terrorists are meant to be believed ???? Terrorist are not human? As in not able to see the error of their ways and changing them ? Joao Vaz wrote: The author is trully a blind optimist ... Quite possibly. However, the apology is a small step in the right direction and if they follow it up with deeds it could bring an end to violence. Likewise Palestinians and Isrealis will have to kill each other or learn to live with/near each other.
William De Prêtre wrote: So the only way the conflict can be resolved is by the annihilation of the enemy. After all , if you cannot believe him you can never make peace with him. Hey, no need to be so drastic :-) William De Prêtre wrote: As in not able to see the error of their ways and changing them ? They are humans , but believing in blood killers ... William De Prêtre wrote: Quite possibly. However, the apology is a small step in the right direction and if they follow it up with deeds it could bring an end to violence. Quite true, quite true. :-) William De Prêtre wrote: Likewise Palestinians and Isrealis will have to kill each other or learn to live with/near each other. Unfortunately is a much worser case than Northen Ireland :-( Cheers, Joao Vaz The loved ones never really leave us , they are always alive on our hearts and minds.
-
In order for peace to be achieved, the Palestinian leaders will have to want peace (like the IRA*). Arafat never has wanted peace and he never will. He must go. * if you believe it
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: He must go. How is it possible to ask for democratic elections and at the same time say that one candidate must not be elected ? Isn't it a paradox ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Bogdan Rechi wrote: As far as i know, the israelis have no active terrorist group They're called the Israelli army. They may not go under the name of terrorists but as we speak they are occupying towns and enforcing curfews with guns and tanks. The effect is the same. They will drum hatred into the occupied territories and then as soon as people find a way too, they will strike back. This is not an attempt to justify the actions of the Pallistinians or the Israellis. It is a simple truth. www.TonysOpensource.pwp.BlueYonder.co.uk
-
...they are occupying towns and enforcing curfews with guns and tanks These are defencing measures. You cannot stay and do nothing when your mothers and children are blowed up in markets and buses. rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: You cannot stay and do nothing when your mothers and children are blowed up in markets and buses You're right. But is blowing other children and mothers really a solution ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Bogdan Rechi wrote: You cannot stay and do nothing when your mothers and children are blowed up in markets and buses You're right. But is blowing other children and mothers really a solution ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
No way! The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan. These are usual facts of war. There's no high-scale military operation not to involve some collateral civil casualties and acts of revenge. The difference is made by the goals: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. rechi
-
No way! The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan. These are usual facts of war. There's no high-scale military operation not to involve some collateral civil casualties and acts of revenge. The difference is made by the goals: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan And in Ireland and to a certain extent in Vietnam, War or Military repression against a civilian population is always an untenable position and always leads to the kind of activities that the occupations are trying to prevent. Bogdan Rechi wrote: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. Strangely enough the arabs consider the military occupation of their lands an act of terrorism. Anthony www.TonysOpensource.pwp.BlueYonder.co.uk
-
Bogdan Rechi wrote: The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan And in Ireland and to a certain extent in Vietnam, War or Military repression against a civilian population is always an untenable position and always leads to the kind of activities that the occupations are trying to prevent. Bogdan Rechi wrote: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. Strangely enough the arabs consider the military occupation of their lands an act of terrorism. Anthony www.TonysOpensource.pwp.BlueYonder.co.uk
The occupation was just a status-quo since Rabin era; it was about to be solved by peace talks. Unfortunately, the palestinians were "sensitive" enough to consider Sharon's visit to "Al Axa" mosque's square as a terrorist act, when everybody else saw it as no more then aggressive diplomacy. In my opinion, they have to improve their diplomatic skills in the future and also to remove Arafat who controls nothing in his territories. rechi
-
The occupation was just a status-quo since Rabin era; it was about to be solved by peace talks. Unfortunately, the palestinians were "sensitive" enough to consider Sharon's visit to "Al Axa" mosque's square as a terrorist act, when everybody else saw it as no more then aggressive diplomacy. In my opinion, they have to improve their diplomatic skills in the future and also to remove Arafat who controls nothing in his territories. rechi
And here lies the crux of the problem. I just quoted everything you said in that and argued with it. If I'd posted it you would have replied and it would have gone on with no one going anywhere. so I'm simply going to refer back to what I've been saying all along. The military occupation of civillian areas is an untenable position that will breed hatred and fear and reprisals in whatever manor that civillian population can achieve. And I'm sorry but this is a personal opinion and nothing to do with the above and I know you didn't invent it so it's not meant as a personal insult but the term "Aggressive Diplomacy" has to be one othe biggest misnomer's I have ever heard. Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
And here lies the crux of the problem. I just quoted everything you said in that and argued with it. If I'd posted it you would have replied and it would have gone on with no one going anywhere. so I'm simply going to refer back to what I've been saying all along. The military occupation of civillian areas is an untenable position that will breed hatred and fear and reprisals in whatever manor that civillian population can achieve. And I'm sorry but this is a personal opinion and nothing to do with the above and I know you didn't invent it so it's not meant as a personal insult but the term "Aggressive Diplomacy" has to be one othe biggest misnomer's I have ever heard. Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
This is the last one. No more comment on the Near East situation. About the "agressive diplomacy". I really use to explore every valence of the words i'm talking. "Diplomacy" is not about gently whispering in the partner's ear. Sometimes you have to show yourself as "Assertive, bold, and energetic" - check www.dictionary.com - during some negociations period, for example. rechi
-
No way! The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan. These are usual facts of war. There's no high-scale military operation not to involve some collateral civil casualties and acts of revenge. The difference is made by the goals: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan. Yep, and it's a war crime as well, as defined by the Geneva convention of 1949. Bogdan Rechi wrote: These are usual facts of war. There's no high-scale military operation not to involve some collateral civil casualties and acts of revenge This is not an acceptable argument, or it would justify also the horrors nazis have made during WWII. Bogdan Rechi wrote: The difference is made by the goals: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. This definition is subjective, as the word "terrorist" is. With the same example of WWII, nazis called resistants "terrorists". Were they right to kill them ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: He must go. How is it possible to ask for democratic elections and at the same time say that one candidate must not be elected ? Isn't it a paradox ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Should we have kept Hitler around so he could be elected in post-ww2 germany?
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Bogdan Rechi wrote: The same kind of incidents took place during the american anti-taliban war in Afghanistan. Yep, and it's a war crime as well, as defined by the Geneva convention of 1949. Bogdan Rechi wrote: These are usual facts of war. There's no high-scale military operation not to involve some collateral civil casualties and acts of revenge This is not an acceptable argument, or it would justify also the horrors nazis have made during WWII. Bogdan Rechi wrote: The difference is made by the goals: terrorism from the arabs and anti-terrorism from israelis. This definition is subjective, as the word "terrorist" is. With the same example of WWII, nazis called resistants "terrorists". Were they right to kill them ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
We cannot judge the situation strictly by the international legislation. This is simply not efficient. Do you think you can bring Israel or US to justice, in some court room? And, supposing you can achieve such task, do you have any idea about how long it could take? What about the real situation in the field, during the trial? People are not machines, they make mistakes. It's common sense to accept it, even when you talking about bloody incidents. ...horrors nazis have made... Always blame the loosers... Everybody committed horrors during WW2. Take the russians, for example, who killed almost all the polish officers and took revenge in every late western offensive. And you remember Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill all together in the same picture, aren't you? This definition is subjective... The palestinian radicals have deliberately killed innocents for months. Also the ordinary civilians carry great respect for the so-called "marthyrs". This is terrorism. Israel responded by military force, as every attacked state has the right to do. This is anti-terrorism. Were they right to kill them ? Yes, they were right. Have you been in the army? If so, you should already know that when you carry a gun, you should also be prepared to renounce to your life. Otherwise you could become - no offense - pathetic. rechi
-
We cannot judge the situation strictly by the international legislation. This is simply not efficient. Do you think you can bring Israel or US to justice, in some court room? And, supposing you can achieve such task, do you have any idea about how long it could take? What about the real situation in the field, during the trial? People are not machines, they make mistakes. It's common sense to accept it, even when you talking about bloody incidents. ...horrors nazis have made... Always blame the loosers... Everybody committed horrors during WW2. Take the russians, for example, who killed almost all the polish officers and took revenge in every late western offensive. And you remember Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill all together in the same picture, aren't you? This definition is subjective... The palestinian radicals have deliberately killed innocents for months. Also the ordinary civilians carry great respect for the so-called "marthyrs". This is terrorism. Israel responded by military force, as every attacked state has the right to do. This is anti-terrorism. Were they right to kill them ? Yes, they were right. Have you been in the army? If so, you should already know that when you carry a gun, you should also be prepared to renounce to your life. Otherwise you could become - no offense - pathetic. rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: It's common sense to accept it, even when you talking about bloody incidents. Sorry, I disagree. What you're saying is that every trial against war criminal is unfair, from Nürnberg to The Hague, because, "you know, it was war, so it's not my fault if I killed, tortured and raped children women and elders, it was just an incident !" Bogdan Rechi wrote: And you remember Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill all together in the same picture, aren't you? Oh no, I don't. Stalin should have been trialed for Katyn, but also for the deportation of Germans of the Volga, Cossacks and other folks, for the gulags, and a lot of others war crimes and crimes against humanity. (IMHO it was a shame USSR was a prosecutor in Nürnberg) We could also have some questions about the role of the English Bomber Command and USAF in the destruction of german cities, and the death of hundred thousands of civilians. Bogdan Rechi wrote: The palestinian radicals have deliberately killed innocents for months. Also the ordinary civilians carry great respect for the so-called "marthyrs". Replace "palestianian radicals" by "tsahal" and "marthyrs" by "antiterrorist soldiers" and you have the official speech of palestinians. Don't you see rejecting all the faults on the others it a dead end, for both side ? Bogdan Rechi wrote: Yes, they were right. So they were right to do this ? :wtf: ! What you wrote is an apology for war crimes. In France it would be an offence and you could be trialed for this. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Should we have kept Hitler around so he could be elected in post-ww2 germany?
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"If he had survived, he would have been judged during Nürnberg trial, and (probably) condemned. Generally, in democraty, condemned people loose their civil rights, as to vote and to be elected (at least in my country). So he could not have been re-elected ;P I don't believe GW Bush or A. Sharon are the judicial power, aren't they ? If they think Arafat is a war criminal, a solution could have been to use the new International Court. Oops, I forgot USA didn't recognize it :rolleyes: We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)