Smatt

Have just been watching the news, whilst having my dinner. What a load of old tosh, I have just been subjected to.
Blair all big and magnanamous, over the decommissioning of IRA weapons.

Hello!!

Excuse me!!

The reason this has come about, has nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement. The truth is after 9/11 the Irish American's, who had been supporting them, got a smack in the mouth. Suddenly terrorism was reality. Half of the IRA money men, were in the rubble. Then this year, the sisters who bravely stood up to the IRA, dealt the final blow. Who got the invite to the Whitehouse, not Adam's & co. No they found it hard to find a Senator, who was willing to meet them.
The credit for today's decommissioning, goes to Mr Bin Laden.
Strange really, the only scum to have a go at a western government directly, have been stopped by the person who feels that he is at war with all western governments.

Now this is what I call ironic!!!!

Obviously terrorism does work!!!!!

King RA

Totally agree m8.

Dick Cheese

Exactly - it's now no longer acceptable for Americans to fund terrorism or support it, and about time too!

The Zohan

Could not agree more!

<Sits back and waits for PSL and /or Paulr to point out how wrong i am and that BLiar is the best thing to happen to us ever >

Holy Ghost

i hadn't looked at it that way smatt. but it's accurate.

so if terrorism eats itself - which in this case it has - then who/what will stuff up the jihadis?

MJW

Probably Buddhist terrorists setting off a 20-megaton nuke.

Holy Ghost

often said is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. not sure i agree.

i've always looked upon it that a freedom fighter is one who takes up arms against a foreign invader or oppressor and largely targets oppressing forces only and exclusively within their own country - eg pan-european partisan resistance against the *****, afghani mujahideen against the soviets.

whereas a terrorist is one who seeks to institute political change domestically or on foreign soil by any means necessary, up to and including the indescriminate - and sometimes exclusive - targeting of "opposition" non-combatants. in this category, you can easily stick the PIRA, INLA, loyalist paramilitaries, FARC, red brigade, baader meinhof, hamas, the chechen rebels, "al qaeda" etc.

in iraq i think we're perhaps seeing an entirely new strain of fighting - one that fights an invader while simultaneously and indescriminately killing its *own* people (by nationality and/or religion) to achieve a political aim. it appears schizophrenic but in reality, is arguably terrorism in its most pure and ruthless form - natural evolution at work where fundamentalism has removed any last vestige of conscience.

just an observation, any thoughts?

SJ_Skyline

HG - I make very little distinction. Both have chosen to take up arms and kill people.

With reference to your two examples: What is not widely reported was that the resistance movements in WW2 often killed colaborators. What we saw with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was only what was reported in the media which at the time portrayed the Soviet Union as an agressive evil empire (maybe it was but that's not the debate).

With regards to the current situation in Iraq, we are told that many of the attacks are carried out by foreign insurgents. Now is this because it suits the media to tell us this or is it actually the truth? I don't know. What I do know is that people are killing each other and this is wrong.

I think Smatt is almost there with the point he makes but the cynic in me sees a slightly different picture:
Bush is given an excuse to target Iraq by 911. He can't however do this unilaterally and he has seen the problems he had with decisions and the UN security council with Afghanistan. He needs at least one other ally and so he asks Blair to help. Blair replies, well I'ld love to help you but the troops are tied up in Northern Ireland, if you can do something about the flow of gun money into the IRA then I will be able to help you.

IMHO of course

Holy Ghost

good points SJS - but i would draw a technical difference between deliberately and indescriminately shooting an uninvolved non-com and say a foreign soldier who's pitched up on your turf uninvited. with regard to afghanistan in the late 70's/80s, i was thinking more that the fighting was more soldier-to-soldier & combatant-to-combatant rather armed fighter to civilian. which puts the mujahideen (as was) more in the freedom fighter camp than terrorist. that it was the USSR on the receiving end is largely irrelevant in my mind: in the same way i'd agree that the viet cong were more freedom fighter than terrorist - a practical extension of the NVA. plus i'd say that a collaborator (as traditionally defined in say france or yugoslavia 39-45) has switched sides and thereby made themselves a target by a treasonable act of betrayal. it's not as simple as that obviously but you'll know what i mean.

however, your point about bush/blair/ireland is fascinating and has a lot of traction. but i don't think it's necessarily being cynical, just perhaps realistic. politics is the dirtiest business in the world - even between long-standing allies it's a horse-trade - and it's better it's seen that way so that people can ask more of the right questions of the right people.

Flatcapdriver

Nelson Mandela anyone?

As much as people this side of the pond like to blame the seppos for their support via Noraid for the IRA, the truth of the matter is that it was pretty limited in terms of amount and true support which mainly came from the Boston area.

Why the IRA decided to to down the peace route had more to do with ambitions towards political legitimacy from Sinn Fein coupled with a realisation that it was an unwinnable 'war'. As much as Blair would like to claim full credit for the peace process it must be remembered that it was John Major who created the structure and kick started the whole process for much the same reasons as the IRA had.

Certainly, September 11th would have influenced the peace process but it was a combination of events that transpired around the same time rather than one single event which has led to the decommisioning of IRA weapons although it is a rather moot point as to whether that has actually happened.

davegtt

I dont think 911 had much to do with why Iraq was picked on to be honest.

rr_ww

I agree with everything except for the comment about "bravely stood up to the IRA"

Be under no illusions, the IRA had a hand in the guys murder, but he wasnt exactly a innocent guy going about his lawful business...

RedFive

Mujahedeen: freedom fighter.

Taliban: terrorist.

Not really wanting to be funny, but... do you perhaps see the non-existance of a fine line ?

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

I'm sceptical about the recent announcement.

Has anyone seen these weapons being decommissioned apart from father whatshisface and some methodist Rev?

We had an act of decommissioning some years ago from the IRA when the overseeing body couldn't recall what they had saw, where they had saw it, but it definately did happen.... yeah right.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be yet more pandering to the demands of sinn fein / IRA, there may well be a dirty deal being done already; Not quite sure what will be next - Gerry Adams as the Chief Constable of PSNI??? Rumour has it the "intel" about quantities of weapons may have been fudged to match the quantities de-commissioned.

Now that the South Armagh and cross border bunkers have been emptied, it off course gives them somewhere safe to store what remains of the volunteers £26M pension fund, the counterfiet dvd's and replica sportswear.

As for that ****wit Peter Hain (SofS for NI) - I wish they had decommissioned some rounds by firing them in his direction.....

Glad to see not everyone taking in the bull**** being spun by the media and the Government.

TT