Bomb in Damascus
Bomb in Damascus
Jester;780556 wrote: Oh excuse me, I did not read the 'tone' of the message. I wasn't aware that a 'tone' indicated that the CIA is involved, can you demonstrate that the CIA was involved?I always had the quaint notion that these operations were kept quiet about for twenty years or so, before they finally got acknowledged. Would you think that's fair comment, with regard to actual CIA operations? And that consequently "can you demonstrate that the CIA was involved" can easily be answered "no" without making the suggestion either more or less likely?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bomb in Damascus
Jester;780558 wrote: Link the full article please.
I found it - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml
- you might like to comment on the content rather than howl at the site it was published on, the points made are entirely reasonable.
The original Shock and Awe proposal is:
Ullman, Harlan K. and Wade, James P. Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance. National Defense University, 1996
and you can read it here. To quote from their proposal:In real Blitzkreig [sic], Shock and Awe were not achieved through the massive application of firepower across a broad front nor through the delivery of massive levels of force. Instead, the intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale. ... The lesson for future adversaries about the Blitzkreig example and the United States is that they will face in us an opponent able to employ technically superior forces with brilliance, speed, and vast leverage in achieving Shock and Awe through the precise application of force.which you interpret, if I remember correctly, as "nothing but restraint".
I found it - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml
- you might like to comment on the content rather than howl at the site it was published on, the points made are entirely reasonable.
The original Shock and Awe proposal is:
Ullman, Harlan K. and Wade, James P. Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance. National Defense University, 1996
and you can read it here. To quote from their proposal:In real Blitzkreig [sic], Shock and Awe were not achieved through the massive application of firepower across a broad front nor through the delivery of massive levels of force. Instead, the intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale. ... The lesson for future adversaries about the Blitzkreig example and the United States is that they will face in us an opponent able to employ technically superior forces with brilliance, speed, and vast leverage in achieving Shock and Awe through the precise application of force.which you interpret, if I remember correctly, as "nothing but restraint".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bomb in Damascus
You seem immune to logic, Jester. I didn't ask for any detail of any CIA operation, I asked whether you agreed that CIA killings didn't get publicised for years after they happen (and the CIA's hands-off built-in deniability on that sort of project has an effect on their putting a hand up after the event too). "if Uniformed US military had done the op" is completely irrelevant because nobody's even had it cross their mind that they did.
"There is no current evidence one way or the other, it all supposition" ignores the weight of precedent.
"There is no current evidence one way or the other, it all supposition" ignores the weight of precedent.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bomb in Damascus
Jester;780603 wrote: Precedent?
Ah I see, if you think that the CIA has done some bombings 'like' this in prior history then of course it MUST be CIA linked? Is that it?
What I have on my desk is a copy of Bob Woodward's "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981 - 1987" which is admittedly a very old book. It does document in undeniable terms William Casey's personal responsibility for the attempted car bomb assassination of Sheikh Fadlallah in Beirut in 1985 which killed 80 bystanders and injured another 200, at a time when the Presidential prohibition of assassinations still apparently stood (which isn't the case any longer). Nobody has said "MUST be CIA linked", you're twisting words. What you have to realize is that the CIA bastards we're discussing have lost every ounce of respect in the outside world and simply don't deserve any benefit of the doubt these days since they implement the policies of war criminals. I'd argue that there's never been a time when they weren't happy to kill but that's just me.
Ah I see, if you think that the CIA has done some bombings 'like' this in prior history then of course it MUST be CIA linked? Is that it?
What I have on my desk is a copy of Bob Woodward's "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981 - 1987" which is admittedly a very old book. It does document in undeniable terms William Casey's personal responsibility for the attempted car bomb assassination of Sheikh Fadlallah in Beirut in 1985 which killed 80 bystanders and injured another 200, at a time when the Presidential prohibition of assassinations still apparently stood (which isn't the case any longer). Nobody has said "MUST be CIA linked", you're twisting words. What you have to realize is that the CIA bastards we're discussing have lost every ounce of respect in the outside world and simply don't deserve any benefit of the doubt these days since they implement the policies of war criminals. I'd argue that there's never been a time when they weren't happy to kill but that's just me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bomb in Damascus
Jester;780603 wrote: Precedent?
Ah I see, if you think that the CIA has done some bombings 'like' this in prior history then of course it MUST be CIA linked? Is that it?
How about looking at the evidence, how about gathering facts? how about looking at other parties that may have wanted him dead. Oh no, its much easier to blame the CIA by weight of past bombings... Spot how many bombongs similar to this can you find that the CIA released information on?
And you ask me to be logical?
You dont disc out blame based on precedent, you need evidence.
Nive try though, gobel wasn't it? that said say it long enough and it becomes the truth?
Sheer propaganda without evidence.
Isnt that what you have been accusing the Bush administration of? How is it that your willing to employ the same treachurous use of mis-information that you deplore?
It was I, not Spot, who made the original comment.
I do ask you to be logical and not to distort what I said which was that the CIA has, demonstrably and with documentary evidence, been involved in this type of operation in the past - therefore it might be CIA linked.
No suggestion of must.
Obviously with no evidence - by their very nature they tend not to publish any but yes, I will list some of their previous operations when I have more time tonight.
Ah I see, if you think that the CIA has done some bombings 'like' this in prior history then of course it MUST be CIA linked? Is that it?
How about looking at the evidence, how about gathering facts? how about looking at other parties that may have wanted him dead. Oh no, its much easier to blame the CIA by weight of past bombings... Spot how many bombongs similar to this can you find that the CIA released information on?
And you ask me to be logical?
You dont disc out blame based on precedent, you need evidence.
Nive try though, gobel wasn't it? that said say it long enough and it becomes the truth?
Sheer propaganda without evidence.
Isnt that what you have been accusing the Bush administration of? How is it that your willing to employ the same treachurous use of mis-information that you deplore?
It was I, not Spot, who made the original comment.
I do ask you to be logical and not to distort what I said which was that the CIA has, demonstrably and with documentary evidence, been involved in this type of operation in the past - therefore it might be CIA linked.
No suggestion of must.
Obviously with no evidence - by their very nature they tend not to publish any but yes, I will list some of their previous operations when I have more time tonight.
Bomb in Damascus
Bryn Mawr;780547 wrote: Against the wishes of which people - it was the expressed wish of the six counties to continue to be part of the UK - not part of the Republic of Ireland.
The "colonisation" was eight hundred years before the troubles and therefore not a direct cause - not in 1916 and certainly not in the 1970s.
The action of the UK prior to the uprising was criminal but the action of the IRA in trying to force Ulster to leave the UK was equally wrong.
Erm, I hate to break this to you Bryn, but in the General Election of 1918 85% of the population of Ireland (which was one country) voted for indepdence via the Sinn Fein party and its TDs, the response of Britain was to draw a line around the 15 percent who were not happy and called it "Northern Ireland" without consulting anyone. So the idea that the IRA had no right to fight against a state that they saw as being a false one created by an outside imperial colonizer is quite debateable if you ask me. One of the reasons the troubles in 1969 quickly descended into violence was because Irish nationalists soon came to recognize that their constitutional struggle was not going anywhere and Irish Catholics were starting to get shot by reactionary Unionist gunmen. So don't lecture me about the IRA.
Also the troubles had everything to do with colonization, the 15 percent of people on the Island just happened to be the descents of Scots "Planters" who were originally planted by Queen Elizabeth the First in response to the problem of the extremely rebellious Gaelic clans of Ulster (which is the nine counties including Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, Northern Ireland is not Ulster). These people with the complete support and connivance of the British Government went on to create an extrememly repressive and discriminatory regime based on the idea of a Protestant British ascendancy against their Gaelic Irish Catholic neighbours (which was BTW, simply a continuation of British policy in general in Ireland since 1798).
Ireland wasn't just colconized 800 years ago, it was colonized over sucessive waves, originally norman, with the far largest and most comprehensive attempt at creating a series of English and Scottish colonies in Ireland (and ethnically cleansing the native bog Irish coming in Elizabethan times), which is when the great Plantations in Ulster were created.
Of course the most sucessful weapon in getting rid of the natives proved to be hunger and emigration with about one third (or about 3,000,000) of the population of Ireland being starved to death on their own land or driven into exile from their own country between 1847 and 1900, then to add insult to injury the country was divided up in a way that guarenteed that a small minority of Scots planters living in its North Eastern corner would continue their ascendency over the Irish people who were the original inhabitants of this land, and the Irish themselves were blamed for these problems because they are supposedly "violent and warlike", this coming from an English nation that has counquered about one third of the surface of the globe (including our little bit) over its history through war, the same country whose citizens now see fit to constantly lecture the yanks about their far less overt or murderous imperium, and conviently forgetting how much blood they spilled in other people's countries to create their own Glorious Empire so my message is turn down the high moral tone please, we weren't all born yesterday.
The "colonisation" was eight hundred years before the troubles and therefore not a direct cause - not in 1916 and certainly not in the 1970s.
The action of the UK prior to the uprising was criminal but the action of the IRA in trying to force Ulster to leave the UK was equally wrong.
Erm, I hate to break this to you Bryn, but in the General Election of 1918 85% of the population of Ireland (which was one country) voted for indepdence via the Sinn Fein party and its TDs, the response of Britain was to draw a line around the 15 percent who were not happy and called it "Northern Ireland" without consulting anyone. So the idea that the IRA had no right to fight against a state that they saw as being a false one created by an outside imperial colonizer is quite debateable if you ask me. One of the reasons the troubles in 1969 quickly descended into violence was because Irish nationalists soon came to recognize that their constitutional struggle was not going anywhere and Irish Catholics were starting to get shot by reactionary Unionist gunmen. So don't lecture me about the IRA.
Also the troubles had everything to do with colonization, the 15 percent of people on the Island just happened to be the descents of Scots "Planters" who were originally planted by Queen Elizabeth the First in response to the problem of the extremely rebellious Gaelic clans of Ulster (which is the nine counties including Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, Northern Ireland is not Ulster). These people with the complete support and connivance of the British Government went on to create an extrememly repressive and discriminatory regime based on the idea of a Protestant British ascendancy against their Gaelic Irish Catholic neighbours (which was BTW, simply a continuation of British policy in general in Ireland since 1798).
Ireland wasn't just colconized 800 years ago, it was colonized over sucessive waves, originally norman, with the far largest and most comprehensive attempt at creating a series of English and Scottish colonies in Ireland (and ethnically cleansing the native bog Irish coming in Elizabethan times), which is when the great Plantations in Ulster were created.
Of course the most sucessful weapon in getting rid of the natives proved to be hunger and emigration with about one third (or about 3,000,000) of the population of Ireland being starved to death on their own land or driven into exile from their own country between 1847 and 1900, then to add insult to injury the country was divided up in a way that guarenteed that a small minority of Scots planters living in its North Eastern corner would continue their ascendency over the Irish people who were the original inhabitants of this land, and the Irish themselves were blamed for these problems because they are supposedly "violent and warlike", this coming from an English nation that has counquered about one third of the surface of the globe (including our little bit) over its history through war, the same country whose citizens now see fit to constantly lecture the yanks about their far less overt or murderous imperium, and conviently forgetting how much blood they spilled in other people's countries to create their own Glorious Empire so my message is turn down the high moral tone please, we weren't all born yesterday.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Bomb in Damascus
Galbally;780656 wrote: Erm, I hate to break this to you Bryn, but in the General Election of 1918 85% of the population of Ireland (which was one country) voted for indepdence via the Sinn Fein party and its TDs, the response of Britain was to draw a line around the 15 percent who were not happy and called it "Northern Ireland" without consulting anyone. So the idea that the IRA had no right to fight against a state that they saw as being a false one created by an outside imperial colonizer is quite debateable if you ask me. One of the reasons the troubles in 1969 quickly descended into violence was because Irish nationalists soon came to recognize that their constitutional struggle was not going anywhere and Irish Catholics were starting to get shot by reactionary Unionist gunmen. So don't lecture me about the IRA.
Also the troubles had everything to do with colonization, the 15 percent of people on the Island just happened to be the descents of Scots "Planters" who were originally planted by Queen Elizabeth the First in response to the problem of the extremely rebellious Gaelic clans of Ulster (which is the nine counties including Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, Northern Ireland is not Ulster). These people with the complete support and connivance of the British Government went on to create an extrememly repressive and discriminatory regime based on the idea of a Protestant British ascendancy against their Gaelic Irish Catholic neighbours (which was BTW, simply a continuation of British policy in general in Ireland since 1798).
Ireland wasn't just colconized 800 years ago, it was colonized over sucessive waves, originally norman, with the far largest and most comprehensive attempt at creating a series of English and Scottish colonies in Ireland (and ethnically cleansing the native bog Irish coming in Elizabethan times), which is when the great Plantations in Ulster were created.
Of course the most sucessful weapon in getting rid of the natives proved to be hunger and emigration with about one third (or about 3,000,000) of the population of Ireland being starved to death on their own land or driven into exile from their own country between 1847 and 1900, then to add insult to injury the country was divided up in a way that guarenteed that a small minority of Scots planters living in its North Eastern corner would continue their ascendency over the Irish people who were the original inhabitants of this land, and the Irish themselves were blamed for these problems because they are supposedly "violent and warlike", this coming from an English nation that has counquered about one third of the surface of the globe (including our little bit) over its history through war, the same country whose citizens now see fit to constantly lecture the yanks about their far less overt or murderous imperium, and conviently forgetting how much blood they spilled in other people's countries to create their own Glorious Empire so my message is turn down the high moral tone please, we weren't all born yesterday.
Not an attempt to lecture or to take a high moral tone but to put an alternative viewpoint after a long day and an even longer night.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
Also the troubles had everything to do with colonization, the 15 percent of people on the Island just happened to be the descents of Scots "Planters" who were originally planted by Queen Elizabeth the First in response to the problem of the extremely rebellious Gaelic clans of Ulster (which is the nine counties including Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, Northern Ireland is not Ulster). These people with the complete support and connivance of the British Government went on to create an extrememly repressive and discriminatory regime based on the idea of a Protestant British ascendancy against their Gaelic Irish Catholic neighbours (which was BTW, simply a continuation of British policy in general in Ireland since 1798).
Ireland wasn't just colconized 800 years ago, it was colonized over sucessive waves, originally norman, with the far largest and most comprehensive attempt at creating a series of English and Scottish colonies in Ireland (and ethnically cleansing the native bog Irish coming in Elizabethan times), which is when the great Plantations in Ulster were created.
Of course the most sucessful weapon in getting rid of the natives proved to be hunger and emigration with about one third (or about 3,000,000) of the population of Ireland being starved to death on their own land or driven into exile from their own country between 1847 and 1900, then to add insult to injury the country was divided up in a way that guarenteed that a small minority of Scots planters living in its North Eastern corner would continue their ascendency over the Irish people who were the original inhabitants of this land, and the Irish themselves were blamed for these problems because they are supposedly "violent and warlike", this coming from an English nation that has counquered about one third of the surface of the globe (including our little bit) over its history through war, the same country whose citizens now see fit to constantly lecture the yanks about their far less overt or murderous imperium, and conviently forgetting how much blood they spilled in other people's countries to create their own Glorious Empire so my message is turn down the high moral tone please, we weren't all born yesterday.
Not an attempt to lecture or to take a high moral tone but to put an alternative viewpoint after a long day and an even longer night.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
Bomb in Damascus
Bryn Mawr;780637 wrote: It was I, not Spot, who made the original comment.
I do ask you to be logical and not to distort what I said which was that the CIA has, demonstrably and with documentary evidence, been involved in this type of operation in the past - therefore it might be CIA linked.
No suggestion of must.
Obviously with no evidence - by their very nature they tend not to publish any but yes, I will list some of their previous operations when I have more time tonight.
The more time has not materialised with work getting in the way and my train home getting ever closer. I'll respond as soon as I'm able to get back here.
I do ask you to be logical and not to distort what I said which was that the CIA has, demonstrably and with documentary evidence, been involved in this type of operation in the past - therefore it might be CIA linked.
No suggestion of must.
Obviously with no evidence - by their very nature they tend not to publish any but yes, I will list some of their previous operations when I have more time tonight.
The more time has not materialised with work getting in the way and my train home getting ever closer. I'll respond as soon as I'm able to get back here.
Bomb in Damascus
Bryn Mawr;780796 wrote: Not an attempt to lecture or to take a high moral tone but to put an alternative viewpoint after a long day and an even longer night.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
I will answer that Bryn, I appreciate that you are not trying to lecture, neither am I so no offence meant, I just seem to be on a bit of an offensive at the moment across a few threads, I will try not to be too strident in my answers, these political threads always get a bit like this, but then thats politics ain't it.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
I will answer that Bryn, I appreciate that you are not trying to lecture, neither am I so no offence meant, I just seem to be on a bit of an offensive at the moment across a few threads, I will try not to be too strident in my answers, these political threads always get a bit like this, but then thats politics ain't it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Bomb in Damascus
wardah;777237 wrote: Well I'm living in Damascus at the moment, and on Tuesday there was a carbomb that killed a 'top Hizbollah leader' - Imad Mughniyeh. Now, no one welcomes a bomb in the city they live in (much less when it's none too far from where they study), but what really got me annoyed was this comment:
---------------
A spokesman for the US state department, Sean McCormack, described Mughniyeh as a "cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost".
"The world is a better place without this man in it," he added. "One way or another he was brought to justice."
(quoted from BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 242383.stm )
----------------
Did anyone else get really rather peeved by that?
So, the US has declared a 'War on Terror', and is against terrorism in any shape or form... except for... when it's perpetrated against people they don't like?!
That comment is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time! How can you possibly fight 'terrorism' if you then condone it so long as it kills 'the Bad Guys'??
Simple skittles reply...
There is good, there is evil. You decide which is which. You decide which to stand for and stand against.
---------------
A spokesman for the US state department, Sean McCormack, described Mughniyeh as a "cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost".
"The world is a better place without this man in it," he added. "One way or another he was brought to justice."
(quoted from BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 242383.stm )
----------------
Did anyone else get really rather peeved by that?
So, the US has declared a 'War on Terror', and is against terrorism in any shape or form... except for... when it's perpetrated against people they don't like?!
That comment is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time! How can you possibly fight 'terrorism' if you then condone it so long as it kills 'the Bad Guys'??
Simple skittles reply...
There is good, there is evil. You decide which is which. You decide which to stand for and stand against.
Smoke signals ftw!
Bomb in Damascus
Omni_Skittles;780816 wrote: Simple skittles reply...
There is good, there is evil. You decide which is which. You decide which to stand for and stand against.
From the mouths of babes and sucklings.
That's perfectly put Skittles, I'm sure everyone here can sign up to that.
There is good, there is evil. You decide which is which. You decide which to stand for and stand against.
From the mouths of babes and sucklings.
That's perfectly put Skittles, I'm sure everyone here can sign up to that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bomb in Damascus
Bryn Mawr;780796 wrote: Not an attempt to lecture or to take a high moral tone but to put an alternative viewpoint after a long day and an even longer night.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
To answer this question (and I don't mean to offend anyone, I am just giving an Irish perspective on our history). If you have an election such as the General election of 1918, that turns into a plebiscite on independence (which is what it became in Ireland), and then as a result of that, which confirms the desire of 85 percent of the population for complete independence, you decide to not actually allow that, but draw an arbitrary line across a territory to ensure you create an enclave of people who don't want to abide by the result, and will be in the absolute majority you will ensure the political ascendeny of that minority of people in the little bit of territory going against the wishes of vast majority of the people of that country. By what right was that done, other than the defacto rights of physical power?
The parallel would be if say Scotland voted for independence next year, by a majority of 85 percent of the citizens, and the response of the Government in Westminster was to then partition the country dividing off the area where their happened to be a concentration of Unionist sentiment, (lets say for example it was Perthshire and 70 percent of that Shire's population were Unionist), through the direct threat of force against the rest. Do you think that would be an acceptable democratic solution? That's precisely what happened in 1918 and we had to accept it, or else. This partition was a major reason for the civil war, along with the requirement of the British government that even the part of the country they allowed to have some measure of independence, had to swear an oath of loyalty to a British monarchy and government that those people perceived to be their mortal enemy. It presumes the right of the Parliament in London (representing basically the English majority of the UK), to do as it sees fit with the smaller country, and demonstrates why Irish people have always considered the U.K. to really be Greater England, and not a union of Nations considered in any way equal in terms of their nationhood.
I do not condone or act as apologist for Britain's past actions - I'm just as happy to condemn them when necessary as I am anyone else and, as I said, I fully agree that the uprising was justified and the result of Britain's criminal treatment of the Irish over centuries.
I would ask, however, how the creation of Northern Ireland would guarantee the Protestants' ascendency over the Irish people? Not disputing it, just don't understand.
To answer this question (and I don't mean to offend anyone, I am just giving an Irish perspective on our history). If you have an election such as the General election of 1918, that turns into a plebiscite on independence (which is what it became in Ireland), and then as a result of that, which confirms the desire of 85 percent of the population for complete independence, you decide to not actually allow that, but draw an arbitrary line across a territory to ensure you create an enclave of people who don't want to abide by the result, and will be in the absolute majority you will ensure the political ascendeny of that minority of people in the little bit of territory going against the wishes of vast majority of the people of that country. By what right was that done, other than the defacto rights of physical power?
The parallel would be if say Scotland voted for independence next year, by a majority of 85 percent of the citizens, and the response of the Government in Westminster was to then partition the country dividing off the area where their happened to be a concentration of Unionist sentiment, (lets say for example it was Perthshire and 70 percent of that Shire's population were Unionist), through the direct threat of force against the rest. Do you think that would be an acceptable democratic solution? That's precisely what happened in 1918 and we had to accept it, or else. This partition was a major reason for the civil war, along with the requirement of the British government that even the part of the country they allowed to have some measure of independence, had to swear an oath of loyalty to a British monarchy and government that those people perceived to be their mortal enemy. It presumes the right of the Parliament in London (representing basically the English majority of the UK), to do as it sees fit with the smaller country, and demonstrates why Irish people have always considered the U.K. to really be Greater England, and not a union of Nations considered in any way equal in terms of their nationhood.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Bomb in Damascus
Galbally;780961 wrote: To answer this question (and I don't mean to offend anyone, I am just giving an Irish perspective on our history). If you have an election such as the General election of 1918, that turns into a plebiscite on independence (which is what it became in Ireland), and then as a result of that, which confirms the desire of 85 percent of the population for complete independence, you decide to not actually allow that, but draw an arbitrary line across a territory to ensure you create an enclave of people who don't want to abide by the result, and will be in the absolute majority you will ensure the political ascendeny of that minority of people in the little bit of territory going against the wishes of vast majority of the people of that country. By what right was that done, other than the defacto rights of physical power?
Sounds like a near mirror image of how our civil war came about. Some states didn't want to be too absorbed into the collective and wanted their sovreignty -- either back or for the first time. Seems that them cotton pickin' yankees up north were in high cotton, & didn't cotton to King Cotton, ... erm ... leaving.
Sounds like a near mirror image of how our civil war came about. Some states didn't want to be too absorbed into the collective and wanted their sovreignty -- either back or for the first time. Seems that them cotton pickin' yankees up north were in high cotton, & didn't cotton to King Cotton, ... erm ... leaving.
Bomb in Damascus
Accountable;780984 wrote: Sounds like a near mirror image of how our civil war came about. Some states didn't want to be too absorbed into the collective and wanted their sovreignty -- either back or for the first time. Seems that them cotton pickin' yankees up north were in high cotton, & didn't cotton to King Cotton, ... erm ... leaving.
I dunno about that, maybe in some ways it was, but its hard to make direct comparisons of the 4 ethnically distinct ancient nations of the British Isles and the various collections of states in the Union in the 1860s, though in terms of the principal of the right of self determination I suppose you could draw a parallel. I think a closer example would be that of Serbia and the other nations of the former Yugoslavia.
I dunno about that, maybe in some ways it was, but its hard to make direct comparisons of the 4 ethnically distinct ancient nations of the British Isles and the various collections of states in the Union in the 1860s, though in terms of the principal of the right of self determination I suppose you could draw a parallel. I think a closer example would be that of Serbia and the other nations of the former Yugoslavia.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Bomb in Damascus
Galbally;780804 wrote: I will answer that Bryn, I appreciate that you are not trying to lecture, neither am I so no offence meant, I just seem to be on a bit of an offensive at the moment across a few threads, I will try not to be too strident in my answers, these political threads always get a bit like this, but then thats politics ain't it.
Too many threads and too easy to cross wires - especially on a subject this sensitive.
In matters of fact I will always defer to your knowledge but in matters of opinion? After a night on the raz meeting old workmates I might not - whether my ramblings at that point make sense is another matter.
Too many threads and too easy to cross wires - especially on a subject this sensitive.
In matters of fact I will always defer to your knowledge but in matters of opinion? After a night on the raz meeting old workmates I might not - whether my ramblings at that point make sense is another matter.
Bomb in Damascus
Jester;780845 wrote: You might have meant to say that, but you did not say that.
What you said was becasue of the 'tone' of the message the CIA might have been involved, Spot added the rest.
I just want it recorded in your 'might have' suggestion and supposition that it might have been many others as well, with more history of this kind of action.
Any objection to that?
None in the slightest - I was perfectly happy to leave the point open in the first place but was responding to your statement :-
Jester;778730 wrote: Moot point, if he were on US soil ther'd be no need for a car bomb or a single round assasination. We'd arrest him, sentence him and kill him. Either way Im fine with it.
But remember we (the US) did not do this -car bomb-.
and I believe that my could :-
Bryn Mawr;780542 wrote: Can you demonstrate this? From the tone of the message it could easily be yet another CIA backed assassination.
made it clear it was not an accusation of fact. I was just surprised that a US official would be so jubilant about a successful terrorist action.
What you said was becasue of the 'tone' of the message the CIA might have been involved, Spot added the rest.
I just want it recorded in your 'might have' suggestion and supposition that it might have been many others as well, with more history of this kind of action.
Any objection to that?
None in the slightest - I was perfectly happy to leave the point open in the first place but was responding to your statement :-
Jester;778730 wrote: Moot point, if he were on US soil ther'd be no need for a car bomb or a single round assasination. We'd arrest him, sentence him and kill him. Either way Im fine with it.
But remember we (the US) did not do this -car bomb-.
and I believe that my could :-
Bryn Mawr;780542 wrote: Can you demonstrate this? From the tone of the message it could easily be yet another CIA backed assassination.
made it clear it was not an accusation of fact. I was just surprised that a US official would be so jubilant about a successful terrorist action.
Bomb in Damascus
Galbally;780961 wrote: To answer this question (and I don't mean to offend anyone, I am just giving an Irish perspective on our history). If you have an election such as the General election of 1918, that turns into a plebiscite on independence (which is what it became in Ireland), and then as a result of that, which confirms the desire of 85 percent of the population for complete independence, you decide to not actually allow that, but draw an arbitrary line across a territory to ensure you create an enclave of people who don't want to abide by the result, and will be in the absolute majority you will ensure the political ascendeny of that minority of people in the little bit of territory going against the wishes of vast majority of the people of that country. By what right was that done, other than the defacto rights of physical power?
The parallel would be if say Scotland voted for independence next year, by a majority of 85 percent of the citizens, and the response of the Government in Westminster was to then partition the country dividing off the area where their happened to be a concentration of Unionist sentiment, (lets say for example it was Perthshire and 70 percent of that Shire's population were Unionist), through the direct threat of force against the rest. Do you think that would be an acceptable democratic solution? That's precisely what happened in 1918 and we had to accept it, or else. This partition was a major reason for the civil war, along with the requirement of the British government that even the part of the country they allowed to have some measure of independence, had to swear an oath of loyalty to a British monarchy and government that those people perceived to be their mortal enemy. It presumes the right of the Parliament in London (representing basically the English majority of the UK), to do as it sees fit with the smaller country, and demonstrates why Irish people have always considered the U.K. to really be Greater England, and not a union of Nations considered in any way equal in terms of their nationhood.
My misunderstanding - I thought you were suggesting it gave them ascendancy over the Irish people as a whole rather than those in the six counties.
The only justification I can offer is an attempt to protect the protestants from a perceived threat of retribution for their excesses, once they became the minority within a unified Ireland.
The results show this to have been ill advised at best and, I agree, the oath of loyalty was totally out of order.
The parallel would be if say Scotland voted for independence next year, by a majority of 85 percent of the citizens, and the response of the Government in Westminster was to then partition the country dividing off the area where their happened to be a concentration of Unionist sentiment, (lets say for example it was Perthshire and 70 percent of that Shire's population were Unionist), through the direct threat of force against the rest. Do you think that would be an acceptable democratic solution? That's precisely what happened in 1918 and we had to accept it, or else. This partition was a major reason for the civil war, along with the requirement of the British government that even the part of the country they allowed to have some measure of independence, had to swear an oath of loyalty to a British monarchy and government that those people perceived to be their mortal enemy. It presumes the right of the Parliament in London (representing basically the English majority of the UK), to do as it sees fit with the smaller country, and demonstrates why Irish people have always considered the U.K. to really be Greater England, and not a union of Nations considered in any way equal in terms of their nationhood.
My misunderstanding - I thought you were suggesting it gave them ascendancy over the Irish people as a whole rather than those in the six counties.
The only justification I can offer is an attempt to protect the protestants from a perceived threat of retribution for their excesses, once they became the minority within a unified Ireland.
The results show this to have been ill advised at best and, I agree, the oath of loyalty was totally out of order.