Google| Subject | Re: MSR and Ojay, you're on notice...[was Re: The British Secret Service...[was Re: Republicanism st |
| From | Michael O'Neill |
| Date | 2002-05-01 00:22 (2002-04-30 23:22) |
| Message-ID | <3CCF1925.64A078EA@indigo.ie> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien |
| Follows | John Savard |
| Followups | John Savard (2h & 48m) > Michael O'Neill |
John Savard wrote:
John Savard[snip simplistic and factually incorrect viewpoint]
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:26:34 +0100, Michael O'Neill <onq@indigo.ie> wrote, in part:Michael O'Neill
Secondly, don't assume that violence is always wrong. That kind of comment is best kept in second year civics and religion class. Without violence, none of your much vaunted Royals would have kept power for more than a few years. Arguably that *is* wrong, but violent action is needed sometimes to defend the person, the family and the country. Context.What irks me about your position is that you appear to assume that violence committed by a King or head of state or Government is somehow legitimate in and of itself. It isn't. Ask Henry Kissinger about the innocent civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos. Ask the CIA about San Salvador. Drugs. Dirty money. Dirty hands. They didn't even have the excuse that they were fighting a political regime practising apartheid against their kith and kin, which the fledgling IRA *did*.John Savard
I see the Irish situation rather simply.
Russ has already responded accurately to this post. PLease read his post and reply to it. I can't be arsed responding to someone who doesn't at least check his facts first.
M.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
