The Age of the Ring

Map .  
: Do you think this issue should be discussed?
Yes - 13 (76.5%)
No - 4 (23.5%)
: 15

: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   
: Northern Ireland?  ( 46660 )
0 and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mojo Toner
Legendary
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 287


That user bar making guy, u know, yh, that one...


« #45 : December 13, 2005, 09:00:31 PM »

In my logic however, a Terrorist is someone who kills wrecklessly, without cause, without a legitimate reason and without belief. That my friend, is where an argument about Northern Ireland can get very ugly.

hmm, thy does seem a valid representation of a terrorist. But under tht logik, the onli terrorists are sereal killers. Because (and i believe sum1 already mentioned this) one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. People from either side, see the other side as the terrorists. Therefore, everyone is a terrorist in someones eyes. Which as u say, can make an arguement about N.Ireland v.ugly.

And I also believe u are right about the polls onli takin a small group of ppl into account. But there will never b a full survey of every1, so using statistics in this arguement is completely useless

Taurendil
Gwaith-i-Mírdain
Istari
Mythical
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1906


Eledh o Eryn Lasgalen


« #46 : December 14, 2005, 12:04:36 AM »

A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people and declares his actions. Thus he tries to frighten the society and influence the government, pursuing his own aims or aims of some ideology.

I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith.
Phil
Legendary
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 746


i


« #47 : December 14, 2005, 01:31:25 AM »

Quote
A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people

The British Army...Derry...13 innocent civilians...unarmed civil rights march....

...anyone? :P



Jim
Mythical
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1617


« #48 : December 14, 2005, 01:37:36 AM »

A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people and declares his actions. Thus he tries to frighten the society and influence the government, pursuing his own aims or aims of some ideology.
The British Army in Iraq
The British Army in Northern Ireland
The American Army in Iraq
The American Army in Vietnam
The French Army in Algeria

Want me to go on? The Provisionals fought back with an armed campaign, but they also gave protection to the catholic areas of Northern Ireland from Loyalist and British Army collusion, state murder.

Edge
Noldo
Legendary
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 869


a LOTRUK original


« #49 : December 14, 2005, 04:16:05 AM »

Yep, state murder- the process whereby the British Government worked with[/b] Terrorists in a campeign to fight the IRA and supress the civil rights movement.


What gave it pain though, only made it stronger.


Guys, gals, assorted gents of all ages; go look up the murder of "Pat Finucane" and you'll see it clear as day.




I'm still alive guys.....a bit like GlaDOs only, you know, ACTUALLY alive. :p
Taurendil
Gwaith-i-Mírdain
Istari
Mythical
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1906


Eledh o Eryn Lasgalen


« #50 : December 14, 2005, 08:11:11 PM »

As far as I know, British army in Iraq did not intentionally killed innocent people. Killing is killing of course and guilt lies upon the government. However they did not killed them to frighten the people. They try to purge the world from those who are intolerant to other people, from those who kill innocent people in their countries. To protect the ideals of democracy, freedom.
The situation in N. Ireland is wholly different and is not comparable to that in Iraq. Maybe I’m not rightful to judge it, taking into consideration that I’m not very conversant with the situation in N. Ireland. There could not be any universal decision; there always will be some that are discontent. The actions of IRA are understandable but killing innocent people to achieve their aim, whatever good would it be is not excusable and acceptable.     

I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith.
Jim
Mythical
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1617


« #51 : December 14, 2005, 08:47:21 PM »

They shouldn't be in the country never mind "unintentionally" killing innocent people. What are the ideals of democracy and freedom? Cuz it's certainly not being practised.

The situation in Iraq can be compared to Northern Ireland in that the British army go in under the cover of helping the people, and end up killing them. The IRA gave warnings to almost all of their bombs, The security forces did not always take heed, who is to blame? The IRA for planting the bomb or the security forces not taking heed in their war of propaganda against nationalists and republicans?

Phil
Legendary
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 746


i


« #52 : December 14, 2005, 10:41:50 PM »

The IRA Army Council did not plan ANY bombings that would intentionally kill or maime innocent civillians. All of their attacks were either economic, militarial or political targets. I do accept however that there were rogue elements (very small minority) within the Provisional movement that did not follow the economic, etc, guidelines....who set out to kill innocent people. (La Mons bombing).

Jim's right. The IRA gave a WARNING to the bombs in order to facilitate the safe evacuation of civillians from their targets....plus, a number of years ago, the IRA Army Council APOLOGISED to all civillian casualties and their families over the troubles.

And anyway, the IRA don't exist anymore....so it's fair to say they've come along away and devoted alot to the peace process since 1997.



Taurendil
Gwaith-i-Mírdain
Istari
Mythical
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1906


Eledh o Eryn Lasgalen


« #53 : December 15, 2005, 12:52:36 AM »

So, in your opinion there is absolutely no difference between terrorists and the British Army, is not it? Do you deny the existing of Al Qaeda? If no, then how do you think the UK and US should fight it? Personally I am 100 per cent sure that there’re bases that prepare terrorists, so invasions are unavoidable as well as killing of civilians during them.
I did not name the IRA Army terrorists. I am a pacifist in nature, so I’m averse from all violence be it with warning or not.     

I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith.
Phil
Legendary
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 746


i


« #54 : December 15, 2005, 02:53:33 AM »

Quote
Personally I am 100 per cent sure that there’re bases that prepare terrorists, so invasions are unavoidable as well as killing of civilians during them

There was NO Al Quieda bases in Iraq before the war. If you noticed, the majority of those terroists inside Iraq are Jordanians...



Edge
Noldo
Legendary
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 869


a LOTRUK original


« #55 : December 15, 2005, 04:57:21 AM »

The "insurgents" only appeared in the country after America's conquest.....funny that.  ???



Quote
democracy, freedom

Those people are as free as they want to be- as for us; we're free do do as we're told- you want to smoke Marajuana? NO!! THAT'S NOT RIGHT!! WE SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED!! You want healthy food at all leisure centres? NO!! THAT'S NOT RIGHT, THAT'S RIDICULOUS, HOW WILL BUILDERS AND PLUMBERS GET THEIR LUNCH??!!111 Want to protest against the government? NO!! BAD PEOPLE, GET PUT IN JAIL BAD PEOPLE!!


You are free to do as they tell you.....that's not democracy, that's not freedom- that's a candied dictatorship- sugar coated in the outside, but so very bad for you on the inside.

Democracy is rarely implemented properly, just like all governmental systems.....Monarchy, Republic, Despotism, Democracy......all have flaws, and America seems to think that their Republic is infallable, when infact it's the reason why the world hates America, and why the general populace are devoted to the flag, no matter what.....


Terrorist attacks are caused by a lack of intelligence, or a lack of acting on intelligence on the security services behalf- as far as the attackers themselves, well, they may be coming from a base- but blowing up and conquering a country by installing a puppet government for it's oil and potential economic prosperity isn't the greatest basehunt I've ever seen to be honest.




I'm still alive guys.....a bit like GlaDOs only, you know, ACTUALLY alive. :p
Jim
Mythical
***

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1617


« #56 : December 15, 2005, 06:40:08 PM »

Spot on

Taurendil
Gwaith-i-Mírdain
Istari
Mythical
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 1906


Eledh o Eryn Lasgalen


« #57 : December 15, 2005, 08:14:51 PM »

Actually I didn’t say that bases are only in Iraq. First of all I meant Afghanistan. The invasion in Iraq is a very big mistake, yes. What, in your opinion, is a remedy to stop terrorists’ attacks?     

I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith.
Edge
Noldo
Legendary
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 869


a LOTRUK original


« #58 : December 16, 2005, 12:23:46 AM »

Cutting the bull[CENSORED]t and red tape, and actually getting to the problem.

The fight against Afgahnistan was a direct retaliatory attack that stemmed from America's need to gain revenge and "Kick ass" which they did.....however, Iraq was a personal target for George Bush, and as a result, since he was already on the warpath, he decided to invade based on links his intelligence agency literally created to Saddam and the Sunii muslims, and the promise, the reassurance and the guarantee that Iraq had WMDs.

In reality, not only did it make America potentially more economically well off, but it also gave them a base in the Middle East. Unfortunately for them, it also gave them a tactical disadvantage, in that the skirmishes brought on from the instability of security as a result of the invasion has left the Americans needing the Home Guard to go in as reinforcements- leaving the American homeland relatively weakened. (See: Hurricane Katrina.)


Basically, the way to fight terrorists, is to actively hunt them down, get operatives into the organisations, commit resources into fighting the terrorists in real terms- what you do not do, is take on a small country in a backwash of public political spin, and then decide to move on to the next when you are found out to be unjustified. The main problem is, America's way of fighting "terrorism" is to point a big laser X on an entire country, and then rush in, conquer, sleep with it's resources and leave when they get what they want. (Usually the next morning after a particularly sneaky cigarette.  ;) )


Fight terrorism through exclusive means, not use it as an excuse to do other, unrelated things. Especially not on Taxpayers money.




I'm still alive guys.....a bit like GlaDOs only, you know, ACTUALLY alive. :p
Blaen
Ranger of the North
Mythical
*

Mushrooms 0
Offline Offline

: Male
: 3076



« #59 : December 16, 2005, 01:40:07 AM »

I agree with the comments Jim and Edge made. You would have thought America and the UK would have learnt lessons from the past. The British government has had experience with terrorism in Northern Ireland and still have bloody no idea how to counteract it and America's tactic of rushing in guns blazing won't work in Iraq just as it didn't work in Vietnam.

The situation in Northen Ireland has improved over the years but the issues there have yet to be resolved. Now that the IRA has reportedly given up it's weapons (I say reportedly because I somehow doubt the IRA is going to disappear entirely) the British government really doesn't seem to care about Nothern Ireland. Instead they devote valuable time and resources to a conflict that is unviable.  The British government should concentrate on it's issues at home, the NHS in crisis, the pensions problems and of course the problems in Northern Ireland before it goes and makes war on a country to generate favour with America and gain better access to the Middle-East's oil reserves.

In defining a terrorist it is easy to class any armed forces as terrorists. What we must consider is Bush's definition of a terrorist which is most likely completely different to a dictionary definition. It would probably be something along the lines of "A terrorist is someone who seeks to undermine our western values, flaunt democracy and stop America from gaining access to the resources it needs to make it richer and trash our planet just a little bit more". Sadly, The truth of the matter is a Terrorist is anyone who opposes the western world by fighting back, British and American soldiers cannot be terrorists because "they are fighting the good fight" and there is no such thing as freedom fighters anymore, unless they are sided with the America and the UK that is, only terrorists. Terrorism is used a tool through which the UK and US governments can convince the public to let them do what ever the hell they want.

¬Blaen¬
: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   
:  



This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Law.

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function tportal_version()