Simon wrote:
> "Declan Murphy" <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:41C7BE5C.6020509@hotmail.com...
> 
>>Simon wrote:
>>
>>>"Declan Murphy" <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:41C6E8B9.2020908@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>>Simon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Declan Murphy" <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:41C63F34.8020309@hotmail.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Simon wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>>It makes no sense to me. I mean, the Americans dropped 2 A bombs on 
>>>>>>>Japan so why couldn't we drop 1 (only 1) on Ireland. It just makes no 
>>>>>>>sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, what I said was stupid.......................but you started it!
>>>>
>>>>Good grief. You sound like a 4 year old.
>>>
>>>And you sound like an apologist for terrorists, I know which I'd prefer.
>>
>>Nowhere in any of my posts have I made any sort of statement of support, 
>>or any apology for the actions of gunmen on either side of the post-1969 
>>"Troubles". Throughout my postings, I have condemned the violence, both by 
>>the paramilitaries and authorities. If this makes me sound like an 
>>apologist for terror, please kindly provide me with a dictionary that 
>>defines apologist better for me than my current OED.
> 
> "Post 1969" tells me everything about your attitude.

You may wish to read a thing called a newspaper, or perhaps even a thing 
called a book. The "Troubles" more or less date from 1969. My "attitude" 
as you call it, is the result of knowing what happened at the beginning 
of the troubles, the background as to why the troubles occurred, and why 
they continued. Ignorance is bliss, but unfortunately knowledge and 
experience are not.

I also condemn all of the violence that occurred between the 
ratification of the treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence 
unpleasantness back in 1921, and the period through to 1969. Does that 
make you feel better?

Naturally I'm not going to condemn any Irish who fought for Ireland in 
the period up to 1921.

> You quote lyrics from a song, a song which (amongst othere songs) Irish 
> terrorists quote and sing in justification for their murderous actions. I'm 
> sure you can understand how that can be offensive.

That the song happens to praise the bravery of a young man in resisting 
torture to the point where he definitely failed the medical exam he was 
due to sit the next day is by the by. Face the facts mate, it can't be 
an Irish song unless its sad and depressing. "For the great Gaels of 
Ireland, Are the men that God made mad. For all their wars and merry, 
And all their songs are sad".

Are you similarly offended by Flower of Scotland or Hen Wlad fy Nhadau? 
Does it bug you that an old English drinking song with a catchy tune 
could become the Star Spangled Banner. Does "And where is that band who 
so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A 
home and a country should leave us no more?, Their blood has wiped out 
their foul footstep's pollution." really get your goat?

To tell the truth it gets mine, but only because the lyrics suck.

But all I did was quote lyrics from a song sung by drunks staggering 
home from the pub, old men crying into their pints, or occasional 
football crowds (the original quote in this thread was made in response 
to sport in case you have forgotten). Its not like I wrote something 
offensive such as "Achtung! Surrender for you Fritz ze Euro 96 
Championship is over" or "Herr We Go", or started rioting in Europe or 
chanting "Nigger" or waving bananas, like the always so polite English 
sometimes feel the need to do.

You won't find many who consider a lament over the death of a young man 
captured and executed in his own city, to be a martial tune - especially 
at a sporting event. In any case the paramilitary lunatics, if they get 
down to the karaoke box much at all, are probably blathering on about 
"my little armalite" or some such shite.

>>>>>In my eyes (and the eyes of all right minded people) the Irish 
>>>>>terrorists are morally bankrupt, this is where you and I differ.
>>>>
>>>>Morality! Strewth. March to Drumcree while you are at it lad. I can't and 
>>>>won't make any claims to be a "right minded person", but I can't see any 
>>>>"morality" left on either side of the two extremes. The situation has 
>>>>long been too complicated to be viewed in such black/white terms except 
>>>>by the most ignorant simpleton or prejudiced fool. If you believe there 
>>>>is a moral difference between the IRA perpetrators of the deaths of the 2 
>>>>young boys in Warrington, and the protestant paramilitaries who burnt to 
>>>>death 3 young catholic boys (aged 8, 9 and 10) in their beds in 
>>>>Ballymoney over the "right-to-march-the-traditional-route", then I guess 
>>>>I'd prefer to differ. For me both acts (and many others) were almost 
>>>>unforgivable - and yet as painful as it is, forgiveness is the only way 
>>>>forward. Granting an amnesty to a man such as Rusty Spence makes my blood 
>>>>boil, but if there is to be a just peace there is no alternative.
>>>>
>>>>And why do you seem to prefer to limit discussions of moral bankruptcy to 
>>>>"terrorists"? Where exactly did the authorities display their moral 
>>>>supremacy in murdering Patrick Finnucane? What exactly, are the moral 
>>>>benefits of state-sponsored assassinations of innocent lives? Where 
>>>>exactly, did the British Justice system benefit from having "not to be 
>>>>seen by the defence" marked on the key file in the innocent Gerry 
>>>>Conlon's case? Where do the civil liberties of ordinary people benefit 
>>>
>>>>from an unchecked police state that would make the designer of EricWorld 
>>>
>>>>blush? People who talk about morality in the context of NI, are usually 
>>>>people who have no idea what they are talking about. Either do a bit of 
>>>>reading, talking and listening, or just go back to the lounge chair and 
>>>>watch match of the day.
>>>>
>>>>If you are incapable of thinking through the likely consequences, the 
>>>>senseless human toll of continued conflict, which lightweight uninformed 
>>>>views dredging up meaningless cliches such as "moral bankruptcy" and 
>>>>suggesting a solution by military force will only encourage, then why 
>>>>bother with a dialogue at all? Perhaps you could think about the dead 
>>>>kids before lumbering to your keyboard with kneejerk claptrap? Or if you 
>>>>are not capable, then as you suggest - we should leave it at that.
>>>
>>>Yes thank you for regurgitating the usual Irish terrorist sympathisers 
>>>dross.
>>
>>There is no sympathy in me for any of the gunmen. Pointing out that 
>>continuation of the conflict is in nobody's interest is hardly "dross". Do 
>>you actually support continuation of the conflict? Would you like the 
>>British government to abandon the talks and attempt to destroy the 
>>nationalists by a military solution?
> 
> The conflict will continue, no matter what the British government do both 
> sides will not stop hating each other.

I don't think so. The descendants of the "Protestant Ascendancy" 
continue to live in the ROI. The worse fighting in the war of 
independence was down in Cork - as far south as you can get without 
getting your feet wet - yet the communities live in harmony. If you 
think such harmony is "dross", feel free to point out any equivalent 
examples of on-going sectarian violence south of the border. The problem 
in the north is purely political, and there is plenty the British and 
Irish governments can do about it if they receive the political support 
at home required.

> As for destroying the nationalists, again you assume that my remarks aren't 
> aimed at all Irish terrorists, why is that?

I'll re-word the question then. Would you like the British government to 
abandon the talks and attempt to destroy the PIRA, UFF, UVF and the 
various splinter groups on each side by a military solution? Should 
Britain send in the troops, exchange rubber bullets for lead and stop 
pussyfooting around as they apparently have been for the last 35 years? 
Does that make it easier to answer the question?

Bullets or ballots Simon? Ordnance or order?

>>>Also you seem to have incorrectly assumed my comments weren't aimed at 
>>>all Irish terrorists.
>>
>>"It makes no sense to me. I mean, the Americans dropped 2 A bombs on Japan 
>>so why couldn't we drop 1 (only 1) on Ireland."
>>
>>Yes, not a lot of aiming there. Quite scatterbrained actually.
> 
> So you took that remark seriously? is that what you're really saying?

I'm afraid that so far in this thread I haven't been able to take much 
you have said seriously. A pity really.

> Perhaps we should just leave it at that, I have my view and you're wrong, 
> and visa versa!

You don't have a view, at least not an informed one. Similarly you are 
not "wrong", simply ignorant. You do not appear to have any knowledge of 
what has happened in the north during the past 30 years & don't appear 
to care about the lives, money and opportunities Britain has lost as a 
result - with the sole exception of those that occurred on the mainland. 
You grieve for the boys at Warrington - as do I. But the concerted 
attempt, mainly by Protestant extremists, to ‘ethnically cleanse’ those 
areas of NI where Catholics appeared likely to form an electoral 
majority through sectarian murders, firebombing of houses and other 
forms of intimidation seems to have never raised either of your 
eyebrows. You are justifiably angry about what happened at Warrington, 
but appear clueless as to why such insanity occurred. It does not bother 
you that the injustices suffered by the Conlon's et al damaged more than 
just their civil rights (and worse), but also yours. It does not bother 
you, that your own government could collude in the murder of innocent 
men such as Patrick Finnucane - because "I'm allright Jack". In other 
words, if policy was made by people such as yourself, or representatives 
acting in accordance with what they though were your views, it would 
simply happen again and again. Hardly something so trifling to just 
"leave it at that".

-- 
Non gratum anus rodentum