Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:07:49 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <27760000.1001282869@lobster.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3BAE42B0.C5B5AA4E@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAGEDNCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> <948140000.1001159802@lobster.originative.co.uk> <3BAD1D06.6E56344F@mindspring.com> <1220300000.1001212050@lobster.originative.co.uk> <3BAE42B0.C5B5AA4E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Sunday, September 23, 2001 13:14:40 -0700 Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote: > Paul Richards wrote: >> I suggest you look into the issues a little more deeply. The US did >> nothing to assist the UK in it's fight against terrorism. It was >> actually Clinton that changed US policy to try and broker peace in the >> province, until that time the US was assisting the IRA, at least to the >> extent that it was allowing it's citizens to support the cause >> financially. > > The IRA is a domestic problem, just as the Oklahoma and Atlanta > Olympic bombings were domestic problems. How do you reach the conclusion that the IRA was a domestic problem? > I noticed that the U.K. did nothing to aid in those cases to > assist the U.S. in its fight against terrorism. > > Either the U.K. has sovereignty over Ireland, in which case > the conflict is internal, or it doesn't, in which case, "the > right side" is a matter of debate. It's clear from that statement that you don't actually know anything about the Irish situation. However, the telling comment above is that '"the right side" is a matter of debate'. So there are good and bad terrorists then? You're justifying the US' support for the IRA because there's a possibility they were on the right side? >> >> Did the UK decide to wage war on innocent countries when faced with >> >> such provocation? >> > >> > You mean like Ireland, for harboring the IRA? That would be a >> > "yes". >> >> That would be no. That's a ludicrous statement to make; the UK never >> waged a war against Ireland. > > Armed British occupation forces? Or, if you prefer, an > internal police action. Again, it's an issue of sovereignty. I can see why you made such a ludicrous statement now. The island to the West of the UK is actually two countries. Part of it is British and part is Irish; more correctly I think the non-british part should be called Eire but everyone tends to call it Ireland. Ireland is a separate sovereign state, there have been no armed British occupation forces since they achieved independence, likewise there have been no internal police actions. There is absolutely no debate over the sovereignty of Eire. The point I was making was that the UK did not declare war on Eire and has never invaded it, not even with a "police action" or a special services style raiding party. Eire certainly harboured IRA terrorists but for the UK to have reacted like the US is doing and declared Eire to be a legitimate target for military action would have been considered an act of war, i.e. the UK would have been considered to be the agressor in declaring war and not the victim since Eire is not the perpetrator of the crimes. The IRA situation is not an internal British matter like the Oklahoma bombing was. It is analogous to the WTC attack in that a terrorist group has been launching attacks on the UK, killing innocent civilians, and where that terrorist group was based in a foreign country. Paul Richards FreeBSD Services Ltd http://www.freebsd-services.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27760000.1001282869>