?jevind L?ng
TradeSurplus wrote:

TradeSurplus
?jevind L?ng wrote in message ...

?jevind L?ng
[snip]

If I remember correctly, the Bloody Sunday was the shooting of demonstrators, not an attack on a residential area. Of course, I may misremember. And of course the security forces were wrong when they shot

at

the demonstrators.

TradeSurplus
You don't remember correctly.

?jevind L?ng
Bloody Sunday was not British troops firing at demonstrators?

TradeSurplus
Also Bloody Sunday was only one incident. The British Army did not, of course, kill everyone they saw. There are many, many examples of

invasions where the invading army did not "kill everyone they saw". They

?jevind L?ng
are

TradeSurplus
still classified as invasions. Persian invasion of Greece Roman invasion of Gaul Norman invasion of Britain Swedish invasion of Germany Do I really have to go on?

?jevind L?ng
By "the Swedish invasion of Germany", you presumably mean when Sweden, at the request of the Protestant principalities, joined the Thirty Years' War to help them against the Catholic Imperial troops. That was not an

And why do Irish nationalists always go back to ancient history for arguments? Those events have limited relevance when discussing the modern age. They definitely are not comparable to the troops of a state going

a turbulent area to quell the turbulence.

And no, you don't have to go on. The sooner you stop posting about this, the happier I shall be.

TradeSurplus
The British Army invaded nationalist areas, against the will of the populace, and killed some people (Not all. Some). This counts as an

Responding to an attack by shooting at the attacking soldiers does not,

my definition, count as terrorism. It may count as unjust and/or evil

as we agree, that is a separate question. And of course the IRA did undoubtedly do other things which _are_

acts.

?jevind L?ng
You have your own way of interpreting this, I see. Like it or not, the nationalist areas currently belong to the UK. Hence, the British army

"invade" them. They are legally entitled to restre order there. Of course, that does not preclude the possibility that they behave like assholes

and commit ciminal acts, but that is not the same thing.

Your admission that the IRA committed terrorist acts leaves me cold

I was not discussing terrorism with you. I was questoning your claim that British troops "invaded" Catholic areas of Belfast.

TradeSurplus
You say international law does not agree with me. Is there a definition

?jevind L?ng
of

TradeSurplus
terrorism in international law? Would you like to quote it here?

?jevind L?ng
Apparently, the UN and the US believe there is something called

that one is justified in fighting - hence the invasion of Afghanistan.

TradeSurplus
So you don't know what the international law is but you think that it

that all IRA actions were terrorist actions? Why do you think that if you don't know what the law is?

?jevind L?ng
I merely pointed out that apparently the UN and the US think there is something called terrorism which entitles them to act against countries harbouring those responsible for it. You ask *them* for the definition

use.

The fact is that you are confusing this discussion with the one you have with Paul. He is the one you are quibbling with over the proper definition of "terrorism". My definiton of terrorism happens to be that it is the attempt by a minority (such as Irish nationalists in Nothern Ireland) to impose their will on the majority through violent, illegal means, or who

to impose their will on another country using such means.