|
|
Post by earl on May 29, 2008 15:37:37 GMT
I guess Bilk was correct about fighting fire with fire. The IRA murdered innocent people and so did the British government. As you have said, the murder of innocents cannot be excused.
|
|
|
|
Post by collina on May 29, 2008 20:23:11 GMT
I guess Bilk was correct about fighting fire with fire. The IRA murdered innocent people and so did the British government. As you have said, the murder of innocents cannot be excused. Indeed the history of Ireland is punctuated by many pointless murders. Murder in the name of conquest, followed by murders for religious and ideological advancement and finally the murders of simple convenience perpetrated by the proponents of English centred politics. Whatever side you lie on, you have to admit; we share a sad and pathetic history. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 29, 2008 21:38:05 GMT
I guess Bilk was correct about fighting fire with fire. The IRA murdered innocent people and so did the British government. As you have said, the murder of innocents cannot be excused. Do you honestly think there is a country in the world that you could not say this of? If you do you are very naieve. When you are fighting terrorism it is a very different war than on a battlefield, the terrorists make the rules of war in that situation. If you stick your hand in a fire, expect it to get burned. And if it is proved that the British Goverment was responsible for the death of one innocent person then I will be screaming from the rooftops for those responsible to face the full force of the law. I don't know as yet reading this that they actually set someone up to be killed, or in their inaction someone was killed. It doesn't matter really if anyone is responsible for the death of one innocent person in my view, they he should pay the full price for that. But reading further into this piece it seems the guilty have come together to excuse each other. The victims are told they will just have to learn to live with that. Well to hell with that. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 30, 2008 13:35:05 GMT
Innocent people have their hands nowhere near the fire when they are murdered.
That's pretty much how it will be. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 30, 2008 21:40:05 GMT
Innocent people have their hands nowhere near the fire when they are murdered. That's pretty much how it will be. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach. My reference to hands in fires and getting burned was in connection with terrorists as I think you know. I Have no problem with how the forces of law and order deal with terrorists. And at the end of my post I said that if any "innocent" person suffered because of what the British goverment or forces did, then those responsible should face the full forces of the law of the land. As regards this remark "That's pretty much how it will be. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach." That may be how you see it, but on a personal level, I will fight for the victims on all sides to be given justice in some way. That is something that we cannot allow to be swept under the carpet, if we are to hold onto any self respect as human beings. Again just my view, I won't glibbly accept what you have said here. If something leaves a bad taste in the mouth then it's usually because it's rotten to the core. |
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on May 31, 2008 8:30:04 GMT
I just wonder given the length of the 'troubles' and the various shifts in British policy in managing them. Why do you say Bilk, "if any "innocent" person suffered because of what the British government or forces did, then those responsible should face the full forces of the law of the land."? Surely it is conceivable that at least one innocent suffered or was murdered by state forces. So why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this? Why do you appear willing to turn a 'blind eye' to state violence but other violence is totally unacceptable, surely all violence should be treated the same. And not one section given more legitimacy than another.
|
|
