Google| Subject | Re: The British Secret Service...[was Re: Republicanism still an offence in Eng |
| From | Michael O'Neill |
| Date | 2002-04-23 20:29 (2002-04-23 19:29) |
| Message-ID | <3CC5A7F6.9161653C@indigo.ie> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | ?jevind L?ng |
?jevind L?ng wrote:
?jevind L?ng
Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
[snip][snip]
Agreed. Also (to tie onto another extremist contention), shooting a policeman or a soldier in the back is, in my book, just as much an act of terrorism as detonating a bomb in a pub or a supermarket or at an open-air concert. What does greenwash mean, by the way?There are no innocent policemen or soldiers where terrorists are concerned. Similarly there are no idealistic but misguided individuals using guerilla tactics to achieve their ends where police and soldiers are concerned. They are natural enemies, mutually regarding each other as evil and expendable. So called innocent civilians are usually in short supply in such arenas of conflict. Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but your post leaves room for doubt that you're seeing things objectively.
Terrorists are people with grievances [real or imagined] who attack a state or its organs using guerrilla methods [because they cannot confront it using conventional means], with whom the state professes it with not negotiate. In reality the state usually does negotiate sooner or later, as the attrition rate of its foot soldiers rises.
States OTOH are organizations composed of many people but run by a few with a narrow definition of what is acceptable and a short fuse when it comes to implementing [usually short-sighted] policy. Most states are run by conservatives [fascist, communist or MOR - it makes little difference] whose main concern is with maintaining their grip on power at all costs - preserving the status quo. They are mostly uniquely unsuited to provide what every state needs - good government.
Individuals with ideals who rebel against state codes of behaviour are a Government's natural enemies. The Government usually refuses to listen to real grievances until matters take to the streets. The British Government had ample warning about apartheid in Northern Ireland, the Miners Strike and Race Riots in Toxteth and elsewhere, but in all cases adopted an intransigent approach until matters deteriorated to a serious degree - at which point they *still* didn't talk to people with real grievances, oh no. Instead, the heavy gang were called in.
Sending in the RUC to physically assault peaceful nationalist marchers in Derry in thirty years ago set the ground rules for the ensuing engagement there. Royalist supporters put down the Miner's Strike in the national interest. Racial tension can only continue to grow in a country where a royal rules, the personification of the term "la diff?rence". Dieu et mon Droit? Sure.
How funny it is therefore to now see royalist sympathizers climbing up to the top of the small and smelly pile made from their own blinkered hypocritical standards and claiming it as their own, thinking it represents the high moral ground.
Nope. Not now. Not ever. Royalist are essentially Apartheid Hypocrites these days. These days they are seen for what they are. Sad.
M.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
