Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits
 

This happened on Saturday, but when I tried to post about it yesterday I was so angry I had to delete the post.

I'm still furious and sickened, but I think I can get the news across a little better today. You have probably already heard about it anyway.

On Saturday night, at about 21.30, the soldiers at an Army base in Antrim (Northern Ireland) ordered pizzas from the local Domino's. You know, Domino's Pizza - same sort of pizza you can get in most Western countries. Could be your local Domino's. I guess it was a big order as they sent two cars. Two men - one 19 and one 30 - you know, decent hardworking pizza delivery guys, hoping for a tip, getting through their shift, waiting for the weekend delivered the pizzas. The kinda guy who deliveres your pizza.

Two squaddies came out to collect them. Sapper Mark Quinsey 23 and Cengiz 'Patrick' Azimkar 21. They were both due to be posted to Afghanistan. You know, the dangerous place, where horrid Muslims shoot at you. Chaps like the ex-Forces men who post here.

Two murderous men sat in a car outside the barracks opened fire. They shot and the above named soldiers. Not content with shooting, they went over and fired again at the soldiers on the ground, killing them. Both were unarmed. They seriously wounded another four people in total - including the two pizza delivery men. No, you don't know men like this. They are infected with a cancer of hate and will happily kill anyone, anywhere, any time.

The "Real" IRA have claimed the kill. Filthy murdering bastards. Even Gerry Adams has spoken out against it (albeit in a mealy-mouthed way). I wouldn't piss on him if he was burning to death in front of my eyes. Well, maybe afterwards. But let's face it, if even he - with the blood of so many on his hands - thinks this was A Bad Thing then there's not many who can say otherwise.

Four hardworking men. Three Brits and a Pole. How dare they? How dare they kill my people, in my country? I thought we'd seen the end of this random waste a decade ago. I'm anti-death penalty, and I won't change my opinion on that. But I'd be happy to see them starve themselves to death in a shit smeared cell. Let's see how "Real" their aspirations are then.

Oh, btw, this is the toned down version. Imagine what I was typing yesterday.

I read about this in today's paper. It's so sad. I hate this stuff. Always the innocent suffer...

Wow, SG, I was really shocked to hear that happened. Our thoughts are with you. It really seemed like peace was steady. And it only takes a few extremists like this to mess it up. Hopefully, as wired as you guys are, they will have caught them on the video and can track them down.

We can only hope that the power sharing in the Irish parliament remains strong enough to face this tragedy with a united front and get the arseholes that did it.

I think that will happen. It's in no one's interest to go back to the way things were.

Wow. I thought the IRA didn't do stuff like that anymore. I thought Britain and Ireland had worked everything out.

I'm so sorry SG to hear about this. :(

It wasn't the IRA. It was a splinter group that thinks the IRA has gone soft. They're trying to get the IRA to fire up again and become more 'hands on' instead of political.

Jesus. Just what we need, more radical assholes in the world with guns. Why can't we all just live together? Seriously.

Well we do, it's just that some people have some weird ideas about what the best way to live is.

Sounds like they took some notes from Iraq.

Aye. And people think that "Arabs" and "towel-heads" and Muslims are the only freakazoids out there.

Nope, sorry. White European Christians are quite happy to kill. Kill and kill and maim and kill. They did, and horribly it turns out they still do. A policeman has also been killed now.

I haven't said, but you might know, I am from an Irish family. I am probably closer to my Irish roots than almost any Irish Americans. Certainly I went to church every Sunday, and we - English Catholics - prayed only for the victims - English, Irish or otherwise. Never for the murdering bastards regardless of religion.

I am not anti-Catholic. I'm certainly not anti-American. I am against using Irish heritage as an excuse to fund terrorism. I doubt the Nor-Aid collection tins got much following 9-11. But they did previously. They did. And they helped kill many civilians.

Again, times change. And I hope Ireland has changed. I'm pretty sure it has. But if I have the money, I will take a trip to Ireland and spit on Paddy McGuinness' and Gerry Adam's graves.

I'll dance in Thatcher's too if it's any consolation. Nothing to do with terrorism. I just want to tramp the dirt down.

The other way around: Iraqi terrorists had bomb technology developed by the IRA.

It's a GLOBAL war on terror, and it's not over...

The 'Real IRA', who were almost certainly behind these attacks, are more like criminals than terrorists. They run protection rackets, deal drugs and engage in organized crime. To be honest, political killings like this, from them, are pretty rare. Its more likely been done to assure themselves that they are really real freedom fighters and not criminals, more than for any real political reason.

The attack on the soldiers was the Real IRA. The murdered constable was a different splinter group.

During the troubles, though I always thought them vicious bastards, especially to their own (punishment beatings, disappearances etc), I always had some sympathy with the IRA. Without them fighting their campaigns I doubt the British government would have sat around the table and opted for peace.

But there's a bloody big difference between fighting to free your country from decades of occupation and de facto apartheid, and fighting because you don't like the details of the peace.

Yes, I just checked, the police killing was the Continuity IRA. With the attack on Saturday, and a ton of other stuff I was doing yesterday, I lept to a conclusion before doing the necessary fact-checking.

CIRA are definitely more political than the RIRA. However, they are not without their own problems. A few years ago, several of their imprisoned members had a falling out with the CIRA and split from them, joining other groups or forming splinter organizations. If that has continued, then it could be that they are stepping up their campaign because they are running out of personnel. Terrorists groups are normally more dangerous towards the end of their life cycle. During 2006-7 they seemed to concentrate on cleaning house with their defectors and since then have been more violent than usual.

Also, since Martin McGuiness has labelled the CIRA terrorists as "treasonous", I would not want to be in their shoes right now. The RUC has rules, whereas the PIRA have none. And its not like Sinn Fein aren't really invested in the peace deal already...

Here's what I don't understand about this whole issue. Terrorism is generally a tactic that is used by one people to gain their indpendence from another power/country that is oppressing them. IF the people doing the oppressing would just stop and give them their freedom, then the tactics should stop. I believe that is the problem in Israel/Palestine. And I believe that is al Qaeda's beef with the west.

I don't know what the politics are right now between Britain and Ireland, and what the IRAs continued beef is. But, if it has anything to do with what I said, it seems to me that Ireland should be it's own independent country, with sovereignty and independent government and all that goes along with that. Could you please enlighten me SD? Are they not independent now? I kinda thought all of this was pretty much settled.

Im not SD, but I can elaborate. Essentially, the problem is there is a significant population in Ulster who are still pro-British and pro-Union. These are the Loyalist factions you often hear about. For that reason, it would be difficult to just "give" northern Ireland away. Quite frankly, the Republic of Ireland isn't that interested in having to take on that region of the country either, given the history of violence and economic issues it suffers. Equally, on the other side, you have the republicans, such as the IRA, who want the British out.

At the moment, The Republic of Ireland is free and independent country and has been for nearly a century. Northern Ireland is still under British rule, but there is the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, where much power has been devolved to.

Because the IRA negotiated with the UK, hardline Republicans consider them traitors to the cause, and are looking to reignite the Troubles. So far, the British establishment isn't biting, however.

Perhaps your original premise isn't entirely correct.
According to one definition: So you are in favor of granting the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others?

Thanks Zhuge Liang. I appreciate your response.

Perhaps the Brits and the Republic of Ireland should just allow Northern Ireland to be independent then and let them form their own country and government. I mean, if that's where all the trouble is coming from, and if a majority of the people want independence, just give it to them. Let them see if they can make can make it on their own.

Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?

All I have to say is let's look at the name: Northern Ireland.

As Zhuge has already pointed out, though, the Loyalist community don't want independence, they want to remain a part of the UK. They consider themselves British, subjects of her Majesty.

Add to that the complicated matter of parliamentary politics and it becomes very messy. There's many an English government has been held up during difficult votes by support from Loyalist Irish MPs. Also, up until very recently (like the last couple of years) it was a safe bet to say that any Prime Minister or Party that presided over the handing back of Northern Ireland, would have consigned themselves to the political wilderness in doing so.

How is that contradictory to what I said? And I would add that, who the terrorist is depends on which side you're on. In other words, to some Iraqis, WE are the terrorists, to the Palestinians, the Israeli govt is the terrorist. People don't generally start out using terrorism as a tactic, they generally use it when their voices aren't being heard and they don't have the resources (like an army) the other side has. Terrorism usually is a result of actions others have taken - or an effect of a cause. (cause and effect. Every action has consequences. When people take actions they know are controversial and likely to cause trouble, then can we really be surprised when the shit hits the fan?)

I think, when dealing with these kinds of situations, it is extremely important to try and understand where the other side is coming from, something we rarely do in this country (or something the more powerful rarely do). What is their beef? What is it they really want? What are they after? Why have they resorted to these kinds of drastic actions? Try to put yourself in their place, and see how you would feel. See if there is common ground that can be met by both sides. It really is about power: one side has it, the other one doesn't. If we could get out of these heirarchical, patriarchal social structures of power-over, and move into structures of shared power, or power-with, the world would be a much better place.

I honestly do not believe most people want to live in a state of war. I believe most people want peace. When you have a situation where people have been fighting for SO long, it's easy to demonize one side over the other. Well, maybe the "demons" have resorted to doing abhorent things out of necessity. If we don't try to understand their point of view and what they want, we will never solve the problem of terrorism.

And I have to add, I find it very hypocritical that some people support military wars that create terror for the people in the countries where they fight, no matter how noble they believe their purpose might be, and then demonize the other side for actually fighting back. We kill thousands of innocent people in airstrikes and such, we call them collateral damage. So why is it OK when we do it, but not when others target innocents? We may not be targeting innocents, but we know they are there, and we strike anyway. They are still dead.

Having said all of that, I want it to be understood that I do not condone the actions of terrorists. I do understand why some of them do it. Understanding the psychology of something doesn't mean you believe it is right.

Well put.

I agree it's a very messy prospect, considering the people of Northern Ireland are divided themselves. I honestly don't have the answer. I only think that, until those who oppose it are given a voice at the table and some power to help solve the issue, things will likely continue to get worse.

You really are a socialist, sugah. Thats ok, I'm just sayin.

Thank you Dana. I usually get creamed for my opinions about this issue.

hey classic, I've admitted to being somewhat of a socialist. :D Where you been?

I agree with the principle of some of that. I did just take a look at this document

Its a long read, but worthy if for nothing more than to gain some insight on the thoughts of those who wrote it.

The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles.

It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen...

When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace.

The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door.

These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.

I read somewhere that the most common age of IRA members range from 15 to 18 years old. If that is true, this is an extremely important aspect to be looked into more deeply since the reason for children to be joining the IRA and not adults can mean many different things.

Since Northern Ireland is very divided, I honestly don't think peace is possible unless one side completely takes over the other or they come together under a single value. Especially as of lately, I have been really convinced that peace and true democracy can not exist in a heterogenous population (I can explain this in further if needed) and violence and sometimes terrorism can almost be an inevitable result of decentralized power in a centralized state setup.

Well of course but I feel your logic is flawed. If terrorism is the result of a oppressed population finally putting their voice out to the world it is much different then a group of radicals that are fighting for their own unpopular ideological aims as DanaC suggests. In one situation, it would be benificial for the oppressor state to give up amounts of power while in the second situation, it would not since the the terrorists do not represent the "voice" of the population.

For example, if blacks in the 1950's used violent instead of non-violent protests, is their situation any different? Obviously the tactic would produce different results but the fact that they were oppressed and deserve equal rights does not change.

Each situation has to be looked at differently since the movement behind the acts of terrorism are completely different as well. In this situation, it seems that the IRA does not represent the population and the fact that it is made up of 15-18 years olds really shows the lack of maturity in the movement.

Pierce - How exactly is my logic flawed? Especially since it is a question posed to a previous poster?

@Pierce.... Not to burst your bubble, but there were actually some violent blacks during the Civil Rights Movement era. As well as others who thought groups such as SNCC needed to embrace direct action in the form of violent instead of passive resistance. But yeah you're right the violence of a few does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the non-violent majority and their legitimate concerns.

Whose bubble are you bursting?

Classic, because you are looking at it much too narrowly.

I call Bullshit - I never posted MY position - I posted a definition to counter hers from the DOD (not mine) and then posed a question to her. Where did I ever state my logic?

This is just a question? Doesn't imply your position at all? Are you serious?

I knew you would. BECAUSE YOU TAKE SUCH A NARROW VIEW.

Read the posts in this thread Classic and try to absorb what they are saying...think about them. Nobody is giving terrorism a pass, but they are doing a good job of trying to figure out why it it.

Don't we all?

Yes, essentially, but we dont have to.

ETA: It actually does all boil down to narrowness of view anyway, doesnt it?

I was speaking to Pierce in my post, can't edit to clarify now because the time limit has passed.

Thats all well and good banter, but tell me exactly what my position is then. It shouldn't be too hard for you since I apparently said what it is and its so "narrow." Or just go back in this thread and copy it from there - that'll work too.

Jinx did that already, Classic. And my post tried to.

Which one? Where? You apparently have a preconceived notion of my opinion and then call it narrow. Wanna try again.
Just go ahead and tell me what my opinion is. Please.

Jinx did that already. There was definitely a view point (with 'tude even) suggested in the response she quoted. Its not a big deal Classic, and Pierce already did a really good job of explaining himself.

OOps, was editing while you were posting.

Maybe you should tell us what your did mean by this then before I go any further.

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.