transcended.net >> red girl, blue city

Comments:

For one, the IRA/Sinn Fein made a point of not targeting purely civilian targets.
No they did not they targeted what they felt they needed to target. They targeted plenty of civilians. Ever hear of Enniskillian, Guilford, Warrington (i could go) all purely civilian targets with feck all of a warning. The IRA had no problem killing civilians. The reason they didn't was to court their American Finacial backers.

Another glaring difference is the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein never denied the right of Britain to exist.

The IRA deny the unionist a right to exist in the North. In fact the IRA denies the existence of the Irish republic. The IRA claim they are the true government of Ireland. So that point is bogus.

So I really have no clue how you justify saying

That is why it was possible for Gerry Adams to become a statesman and why I do not think it will be possible for Hamas leaders to do the same.

There seems to be a strain in America to deny the evilness of the IRA. Americans critise Spielberg for protraying Palestines as half human yet happly cast Brad Bitt as an IRA terrorist and make him the good guy.

Why is this is it because the IRA are white or because they are christian or because of the Irish American Lobby

# posted by

Simon : 4:39 PM

The IRA had no problem killing civilians. The reason they didn't was to court their American Finacial backers.

Whatever the reason was that they had a problem killing civilians you seem to concede the point that they did at least profess to see a problem with it, which is something Hamas does not admit to. In fact, Hamas says there is no such thing as an innocent Jew. I'm not saying the IRA/Sinn Fein were saints because they were not, they used terror as a tool and that is something I do not agree with.

The IRA deny the unionist a right to exist in the North. In fact the IRA denies the existence of the Irish republic. The IRA claim they are the true government of Ireland. So that point is bogus.

Claiming that they are the true government of Ireland is very different than saying BRITAIN does not have the right to exist. Hamas not only claims that Palestine has a right to exist it claims that Israel does not. So the distinction stands. That is how I can justify what I said and why I still think you are wrong.

I am not an apologist for the IRA, I don't think they were wonderful freedom fighters, I studied Bloody Friday and other atrocities committed by the IRA, but I still do see fundamental and important differences between the IRA and Hamas.

# posted by

the wingless one : 4:47 PM

Claiming that they are the true government of Ireland is very different than saying BRITAIN does not have the right to exist.

They claim unionist can not exist ie NORTHERN IRELAND can not exist. Britian the island was never the issue in the 700 odd years of the conflict.

It was the occupation of Ireland by the British. The IRA see the island of Ireland as beening totally Irish. Hamas see that place as being totally palestinian.

The distinction does not stand.

Whatever the reason was that they had a problem killing civilians you seem to concede the point that they did at least profess to see a problem with it, which is something Hamas does not admit to.
The problem the IRA had is not moral it is was strategic. To hamas killing civilians is also strategic.

# posted by

Simon : 5:10 PM

They claim unionist can not exist ie NORTHERN IRELAND can not exist. Britian the island was never the issue in the 700 odd years of the conflict.

It was the occupation of Ireland by the British. The IRA see the island of Ireland as beening totally Irish. Hamas see that place as being totally palestinian.

Again, you miss the point. The point is that the IRA did not want to go into Protestant England and murder all the Brits and take over. You acknowledge it but you somehow fail to see that THAT in itself is the difference.

# posted by

the wingless one : 7:32 PM

The problem the IRA had is not moral it is was strategic. To hamas killing civilians is also strategic.

Whatever the reason may be, and I suppose you can claim to know beyond a doubt that you know it was merely "strategic," but the fact remains. The fact that Hamas sees killing civilians as "strategic" definitely makes them a menace that the civilized world cannot deal with in any way.

# posted by

the wingless one : 7:35 PM

The point is that the IRA did not want to go into Protestant England and murder all the Brits and take over.

get over this ENGLAND thing. It is the same thing as saying Hamas want to get rid of all the jews in New York. England the state is not the problem Northern Ireland the state is.

It is the NORTHERN IRELAND problem not britain. You have to realise their is a distinction between Northern Ireland and Britain. In fact Northern Ireland is not in Britian. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

The IRA never claimed Britian they claim Northern Ireland.
Hamas never claimed New York they claim Isreal.

The point is the IRA wanted to go into Prodestant Shankil road and murder all the Brits and take over.

# posted by

Simon : 9:24 AM

The IRA never claimed Britian they claim Northern Ireland.
Hamas never claimed New York they claim Isreal.

Clearly you recognize the problem. I'm not sure why you won't acknowledge it. So yeah, I'm pretty much over arguing with a brick wall.

# posted by

the wingless one : 12:08 PM

Just to clarify "the problem" with Hamas IS that they claim Israel. This is the problem that did NOT exist with the IRA (they DID NOT, as you acknowledge, claim Britain). You've spelled it out in your own replies over and over again and yet you continue to babble about how there is no distinction.

Okay. Now I promise I'm really done. Once again, this proves, arguing with a liberal is like banging your head against a wall. Pointless.

# posted by

the wingless one : 12:19 PM

this proves, arguing with a liberal is like banging your head against a wall.
You are the one that is saying one form of terrorist is better then another and you call me a liberal.

Just to clarify "the problem" with Hamas IS that they claim Israel. This is the problem that did NOT exist with the IRA (they DID NOT, as you acknowledge, claim Britain).

Let me spell it out to your liberal mind
Do many in New York support the state of Isreal. Yes
Does Hamas claim New York. No.
Do many in Britain support the state of Northern Ireland. Yes
Do the IRA claim Britian. No
Do Hamas claim that they are the rightful owners of Isreal. Yes
Do the IRA claim that they are the rightful owners of Northern Ireland. Yes

Hence no distinction.

What did you get for that paper. Because you seem to have very poor knowledge of not only the conflict but geography

# posted by

Simon : 1:23 PM




	"Being too charming was never one of my faults." - Kill Me Later Webcam Mine :: about me. wishlist Right-wingers :: RWN. Frank J. DF. Volokh. LGF. Flea. Serenity. Common Sense & Wonder. Neophyite Pundit. BlytheBlog. Red White and Right. RightGuys. The Politburo Diktat. Dave Munger. Chuck. Harry. Michelle Malkin. AHC. DW. Mlah. National Summary. Right Thinking Girl. Fausta. MaxedOutMama. My VRWC. La Shawn Barber. Moxie. Kali. Cassandra. Tony. Conservative Grapevine. The American Princess. Dr. Melissa Clouthier Military :: Kevin. Sgt Pontifex. Chief Wiggles. Eric. Koreahn. Bill Blogs :: Lian. Phil. Dan. Click. Jon. Rijah. Christine. Dave. Opinions Vary. Dave. Carey. Albert. Len. Grace. Thelma. Pia. Bumblebee Dreams. Todd. Babiegoose. Archives May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 Powered by Blogger.		Friday, January 27, 2006 why palestine is not northern ireland During my time at UCLA I wrote a lot of papers. One of them was on the conflict in Northern Ireland. Now that Hamas has apparently won a majority in the Palestinian parliament I've been hearing a lot of references to the fact that Sinn Fein was once a terrorist organization and yet now Gerry Adams is a statesman...but there are important distinctions to be made that I haven't heard anyone talk about. For one, the IRA/Sinn Fein made a point of not targeting purely civilian targets. Sure there were a lot of questionable "soft" targets (such as a government census taker) but for the most part they attempted to strike government targets and leadership. Also, the IRA was known for warning about attacks before they occurred so that oftentimes when bombs did go off in public places, those places had been evacuated and few to no injuries occurred. This is, of course, not to say that the IRA/Sinn Fein didn't kill any innocent civilians in their terrorist attacks, they certainly did, but to point out that quite often their attacks were not meant to take as many lives as possible, but simply to prove that they could if they were not taken seriously. On the other hand, Hamas has shown over and over again that their goal is to kill as many Israelis as possible with every single attack. They are not trying to prove a point, they are trying to murder any Jew they can, no matter how old or young. Another glaring difference is the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein never denied the right of Britain to exist. They fought for their own freedom and not for the total destruction of England. Hamas has made clear that they do not believe Israel has the right to exist and that they will not recognize the Jewish state. That is why it was possible for Gerry Adams to become a statesman and why I do not think it will be possible for Hamas leaders to do the same. If you take a look at the histories of both organization it quickly becomes clear that though they share shallow similarities, the are actually very different in terms of their stated goals and use of terror. wingless was still breathing at 1:58 PM - Comments: For one, the IRA/Sinn Fein made a point of not targeting purely civilian targets. No they did not they targeted what they felt they needed to target. They targeted plenty of civilians. Ever hear of Enniskillian, Guilford, Warrington (i could go) all purely civilian targets with feck all of a warning. The IRA had no problem killing civilians. The reason they didn't was to court their American Finacial backers. Another glaring difference is the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein never denied the right of Britain to exist. The IRA deny the unionist a right to exist in the North. In fact the IRA denies the existence of the Irish republic. The IRA claim they are the true government of Ireland. So that point is bogus. So I really have no clue how you justify saying That is why it was possible for Gerry Adams to become a statesman and why I do not think it will be possible for Hamas leaders to do the same. There seems to be a strain in America to deny the evilness of the IRA. Americans critise Spielberg for protraying Palestines as half human yet happly cast Brad Bitt as an IRA terrorist and make him the good guy. Why is this is it because the IRA are white or because they are christian or because of the Irish American Lobby # posted by Simon : 4:39 PM The IRA had no problem killing civilians. The reason they didn't was to court their American Finacial backers. Whatever the reason was that they had a problem killing civilians you seem to concede the point that they did at least profess to see a problem with it, which is something Hamas does not admit to. In fact, Hamas says there is no such thing as an innocent Jew. I'm not saying the IRA/Sinn Fein were saints because they were not, they used terror as a tool and that is something I do not agree with. The IRA deny the unionist a right to exist in the North. In fact the IRA denies the existence of the Irish republic. The IRA claim they are the true government of Ireland. So that point is bogus. Claiming that they are the true government of Ireland is very different than saying BRITAIN does not have the right to exist. Hamas not only claims that Palestine has a right to exist it claims that Israel does not. So the distinction stands. That is how I can justify what I said and why I still think you are wrong. I am not an apologist for the IRA, I don't think they were wonderful freedom fighters, I studied Bloody Friday and other atrocities committed by the IRA, but I still do see fundamental and important differences between the IRA and Hamas. # posted by the wingless one : 4:47 PM Claiming that they are the true government of Ireland is very different than saying BRITAIN does not have the right to exist. They claim unionist can not exist ie NORTHERN IRELAND can not exist. Britian the island was never the issue in the 700 odd years of the conflict. It was the occupation of Ireland by the British. The IRA see the island of Ireland as beening totally Irish. Hamas see that place as being totally palestinian. The distinction does not stand. Whatever the reason was that they had a problem killing civilians you seem to concede the point that they did at least profess to see a problem with it, which is something Hamas does not admit to. The problem the IRA had is not moral it is was strategic. To hamas killing civilians is also strategic. # posted by Simon : 5:10 PM They claim unionist can not exist ie NORTHERN IRELAND can not exist. Britian the island was never the issue in the 700 odd years of the conflict. It was the occupation of Ireland by the British. The IRA see the island of Ireland as beening totally Irish. Hamas see that place as being totally palestinian. Again, you miss the point. The point is that the IRA did not want to go into Protestant England and murder all the Brits and take over. You acknowledge it but you somehow fail to see that THAT in itself is the difference. # posted by the wingless one : 7:32 PM The problem the IRA had is not moral it is was strategic. To hamas killing civilians is also strategic. Whatever the reason may be, and I suppose you can claim to know beyond a doubt that you know it was merely "strategic," but the fact remains. The fact that Hamas sees killing civilians as "strategic" definitely makes them a menace that the civilized world cannot deal with in any way. # posted by the wingless one : 7:35 PM The point is that the IRA did not want to go into Protestant England and murder all the Brits and take over. get over this ENGLAND thing. It is the same thing as saying Hamas want to get rid of all the jews in New York. England the state is not the problem Northern Ireland the state is. It is the NORTHERN IRELAND problem not britain. You have to realise their is a distinction between Northern Ireland and Britain. In fact Northern Ireland is not in Britian. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. The IRA never claimed Britian they claim Northern Ireland. Hamas never claimed New York they claim Isreal. The point is the IRA wanted to go into Prodestant Shankil road and murder all the Brits and take over. # posted by Simon : 9:24 AM The IRA never claimed Britian they claim Northern Ireland. Hamas never claimed New York they claim Isreal. Clearly you recognize the problem. I'm not sure why you won't acknowledge it. So yeah, I'm pretty much over arguing with a brick wall. # posted by the wingless one : 12:08 PM Just to clarify "the problem" with Hamas IS that they claim Israel. This is the problem that did NOT exist with the IRA (they DID NOT, as you acknowledge, claim Britain). You've spelled it out in your own replies over and over again and yet you continue to babble about how there is no distinction. Okay. Now I promise I'm really done. Once again, this proves, arguing with a liberal is like banging your head against a wall. Pointless. # posted by the wingless one : 12:19 PM this proves, arguing with a liberal is like banging your head against a wall. You are the one that is saying one form of terrorist is better then another and you call me a liberal. Just to clarify "the problem" with Hamas IS that they claim Israel. This is the problem that did NOT exist with the IRA (they DID NOT, as you acknowledge, claim Britain). Let me spell it out to your liberal mind Do many in New York support the state of Isreal. Yes Does Hamas claim New York. No. Do many in Britain support the state of Northern Ireland. Yes Do the IRA claim Britian. No Do Hamas claim that they are the rightful owners of Isreal. Yes Do the IRA claim that they are the rightful owners of Northern Ireland. Yes Hence no distinction. What did you get for that paper. Because you seem to have very poor knowledge of not only the conflict but geography # posted by Simon : 1:23 PM Post a Comment (c) 2001-2006 transcended.net - all rights reserved