That was my response to sugarpops post of, paraphrasing here, "why don't we just give them what the want?"

What I read was akin to saying, if a terrorist group is violent enough and attack, maim and kill enough innocent civilians through terrorist activities we should meet the terrorists demands so they'll stop.

Again, that was an ASSUMPTION of what I thought she meant by her post and I was shocked by that so I posted incredulously my question.
Again - it was not a statement of my opinion at all - It was a question asking her if that is what she meant. Got it now?
And I am still awaiting HER response.

Nope - wanna try again? Or are you willing to admit that I never posted my opinion, you made an assumption of it and it was your view of me that was narrow?

See, I didn't have the same reaction to her post at all. Maybe she didn't explain it well enough, but I got the gist of what she was saying, because I don't hold the view of terrorism that you seem to as shown by the definition you chose to give. I like to look beyond that...to the why of it...trying to put myself in the shoes of a terrorist, so to speak. What I think Sugarpop was trying to say, is if these people just has their needs taken care of beforehand, maybe they wouldn't have to revert to terrorism.

Of course, it would be much more difficult for me to take such a broad-minded view if I was a victim of a terrorist act.

????

But you just did...:rolleyes:

See - You are ASSUMING you know what she means - I chose not to do that and instead asked a simple question.

Nope - again - not my opinion, just a question.

LOL. You are funny Classic.

I understood your point Classic, and I'm pretty sure sugarpop will be happy to elaborate too.

I think people need to consider the historical reasons for the problems in Ireland before making too many assumptions though. In the begining, as far as most Irish Catholics (that is, the original Irish people) were concerned, the IRA were the good guys for trying to eject the people they saw as the invaders.

We know that it wasn't even a case of 'settling' or immigrating to Ireland by the British. It was a bunch of lords that decided they wanted to rule the peasants (in a nutshell). It wasn't till later that British and Irish people became more equal in their social status (apart from the British servants that came with the gentry, and in most cases, those British servants were given more status than the Irish ones anyway).

It was colonialism at it's finest really. No wonder the original inhabitants were pissed off.

Your logic is flawed because you placed all acts of terrorism into one group. You said sarcastically "Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?" in response to Sugarpop claiming that Britain should allow Northern Ireland to be independent. By saying the word all you are lumping all terrorist actions into one group and by sarcastically saying "lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want" you obviously go against giving terrorists whatever they want. So by taking that together you seem to be against giving into any terrorist's demands.

My point is that we cannot clump all terrorists actions into one group and each situation should be looked at individually to see what would be the best course of action. In this situation, from what DanaC has suggested, it would not be best to give in to terrorists demands and allow Ireland to be independent but other situations, such as my theoretical civil rights movement, it would be best to give into terrorists demands.

My bubble has not been burst. I am aware of the difference between non-violent and violent movements and the split in the civil rights movement because of these two different philosophies. I was just making an example to show how states should give in to some demands made known by violent actions.

While that is true in many instances that was not my point. My point is that there are situations where demands be given whether the movement is violent or non-violent. If the civil rights movement was violent and the majority of blacks supported that violence, the state should have given blacks just as many rights because the state was wrong in the first place.

Overall, if the oppressor is obviously wrong they should ideally give in to the reasonable demands of the oppressed whether they used violence or non-violence.

Seems applicable here.
 

WIZARD
...(spoken) Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of
things that aren't true. We call it - "history."

(sung) A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist...

I like that sheldon, and you're right. It is applicable here.

Oh yeah, and I don't support terrorism either, but the relatively modern history of the situation in Ireland should help people understand things better.

Very nice, Shel. :)

What kind of gay man would I be if I couldn't apply a musical to everyday life?

A non-musical one?

I've known a couple. It was a tragedy.

Although we get the nasty news here, I don't think I'd be too far out of line if I said that there's been nary a rumble about ongoing issues with The Troubles since the truces were signed. So, can our Brit friends bring us up to speed on what's been going on since then, and why this is coming to a head now?

All this fuss over little ole me. gee whizz! :blush:

I hope I have explained my position sufficiently in the posts following your remark. I didn't answer you directly because the question really seemed rhetorical to me.