Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

TradeSurplus
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromTradeSurplus
Date2002-04-19 02:23 (2002-04-19 02:23)
Message-ID<ErJv8.13225$MT6.3899991135@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
Follows?jevind L?ng
Followups?jevind L?ng (14h & 2m) > TradeSurplus
?jevind L?ng wrote in message ...

?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?

It was also an attack on residential areas. You said it was not. It was. Therefore you were incorrect.

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

historical

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
And why do Irish nationalists always go back to ancient history for arguments?

You'd have to ask an Irish nationalist. More modern examples of invasions are German invasion of France Soviet invasion of Afghanistan Iraqi invasion of Kuwait US Invasion of Kuwait and Iraq

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

attack.

Responding to an attack by shooting at the attacking soldiers does not, in my definition, count as terrorism. It may count as unjust and/or evil but, as we agree, that is a separate question. And of course the IRA did undoubtedly do other things which _are_

terrorist

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 can't "invade" them.

OED Invade: enter under arms to control or subdue.

The police can invade a rioting suburb of London. The army can invade a nationalist area of NI.

If you don't like the English language feel free to not use it.

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

of

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 terrorism 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 says 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 they use.

You said that IRA actions were considered terrorist under international law. I asked you to quote the particular law. You have not done so and appear unable to do so.

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".

I thought you were too. During a discussion of the definition of terrorism you said, in response to one of my posts: "However, international law does not agree with you." Since the only proposition I was making was a definition of terrorism I think it was not illogical of me to assume that you were saying that international law does not agree with my definition of terrorism.

Other recent posts I have made on aft include a discussion of the Helcaraxe and a recommendation to a newbie that she check out rabt as well. Was it one of these posts where you think international law does not agree with me?

My definiton of terrorism happens to be that it is the attempt by a minority to impose their will on the majority through violent, illegal means, or who

try

to impose their will on another country using such means. Quarrel with that if you wish; I shan't answer you.

Alright. Now we have a fourth definition of terrorism on this thread. I'm close to losing interest in discussing definitions of terrorism now but maybe when it comes up again (as it inevitably will) we can refer back to this thread as a starting point.

Trade.

Google
?jevind L?ng (14h & 2m) > TradeSurplus