Well yesterday the IRA announced there total ceasefire, throw away weapons etc. I turned on the Radio the hear Martin McGuinness talking from Capitol Hill!!!.
Not only was he lecturing the British government on how we had an immediate responsibility to retstart the peace process but that HM government should increase prisoner release.
Do any of my American friends think that it is a tad incongrous that this man (Member of IRA Army council, ex leader of Derry brigade of the IRA) should be allowed to talk in the hallowed surroundings of capitol hill. He was, is and will be a terrorist or is he now a politician? How would I feel if Osama or Zaqawi (sic) were to speak in the House of Commons in ten years time?
I do treally hope the peace process works and perhaps I am just being churlish about this and I freely admit more than a passing interest in the goings on in the Province.
Terrorists on Capitol hill
Terrorists on Capitol hill
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
Terrorists on Capitol hill
How about Nelson Mandela? He too was a terrorist. Likud in Israel started out as a terrorist organisation. The contras in Nicaragua, terrorists or freedom fighters? Terrorist is a relative term. Mind you the present crop of islamic fundamentalists are in a different league or even planet.
Am I being cynical or do you reckon it was the curbing of american funding that got the IRA talking. Will the loyalists lay down their weapons as well? Some of them don't want to stop either.
Am I being cynical or do you reckon it was the curbing of american funding that got the IRA talking. Will the loyalists lay down their weapons as well? Some of them don't want to stop either.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Terrorists on Capitol hill
I don't pretend to understand British politics. Politics in general, for that matter. I do know that American politicians have trouble remembering prior to last election or envisioning beyond the next.
I thought the IRA were considered traitors, were they not? Still, not surprising that a terrorist can empathize with other terrorists. Did you notice if a particular individual invited or sponsored him? That would speak volumes if one could find out.
I agree that terrorist and freedom fighter are synonyms of convenience. Remember Russia vs. Afghanistan.
I thought the IRA were considered traitors, were they not? Still, not surprising that a terrorist can empathize with other terrorists. Did you notice if a particular individual invited or sponsored him? That would speak volumes if one could find out.
I agree that terrorist and freedom fighter are synonyms of convenience. Remember Russia vs. Afghanistan.
Terrorists on Capitol hill
[QUOTE][Am I being cynical or do you reckon it was the curbing of american funding that got the IRA talking. Will the loyalists lay down their weapons as well? Some of them don't want to stop either./QUOTE]
No surely not GMC you old cynic, they may also have been influenced by the recent events in London, I know thyere were rumours of a "Shoot to Kill" policy in NI but it was never as blatant as the recent one on the tube. In addition as you allude to I suspect Ted (hey let me drive) kennedy was feeling a little uncomfortable denouncing terrorism whilst drinking with the boyos.
It does however chuck the ball firmly into the Loyalists court and it will be very interesting to see how they cope, Rev Ian Paisley does not seem to me like he will budge an inch on anything, in the end GMC it is the will of the man/woman in the street that will undermine him.
Another interesting point to watch is whether there are any more punishment shootings, the criminals associated with both sides are not going to give up lucrative rackets, will the IRA inform on them (unlikely) or deal with it in their own inimitable style?
The point about Mandela et al is well made , but why are these muslims in a different league, how are terrorist judged, by numbers killed, method of killing, commitment to the cause?
IMO it is because their aims are not political or territorial, we could remove every westerner from every muslim country and they would still continue until sharia (sic) law was worldwide
No surely not GMC you old cynic, they may also have been influenced by the recent events in London, I know thyere were rumours of a "Shoot to Kill" policy in NI but it was never as blatant as the recent one on the tube. In addition as you allude to I suspect Ted (hey let me drive) kennedy was feeling a little uncomfortable denouncing terrorism whilst drinking with the boyos.
It does however chuck the ball firmly into the Loyalists court and it will be very interesting to see how they cope, Rev Ian Paisley does not seem to me like he will budge an inch on anything, in the end GMC it is the will of the man/woman in the street that will undermine him.
Another interesting point to watch is whether there are any more punishment shootings, the criminals associated with both sides are not going to give up lucrative rackets, will the IRA inform on them (unlikely) or deal with it in their own inimitable style?
The point about Mandela et al is well made , but why are these muslims in a different league, how are terrorist judged, by numbers killed, method of killing, commitment to the cause?
IMO it is because their aims are not political or territorial, we could remove every westerner from every muslim country and they would still continue until sharia (sic) law was worldwide
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"