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

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?

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 invasion. 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 into 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.

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.

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. They are legally entitled to restre order there.

Of course, that does not preclude the possibility that they behave like assholes there and commit ciminal acts, but that is not the same thing. Your admission that the IRA committed terrorist acts leaves me cold since I was not discussing terrorism with you.

I was questoning your claim that British troops "invaded" Catholic areas of Belfast.

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?

Apparently, the UN and the US believe there is something called terrorism that one is justified in fighting - hence the invasion of Afghanistan.

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?

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. 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 try to impose their will on another country using such means.

Quarrel with that if you wish; I shan't answer you