The Maquis:

[frodoxxx]

The maquis are just like a futuristic version of the scumbags called the IRA.

 

Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a so-called scumbag I.R.A. if the enlightened British goverment had enforced some democratic principals in Northern Ireland instead of letting the Protestant ascendancy get away with there repressive regime for so many years. It is a maxim that even a cowed dog will one day bite an abusive master. The only surprise was it took so long for the inevitable backlash by the Nationalist population

 

TIOCFAIDH A'R LA'

 

Sorry but i wouldnt think twice in shooting a know IRA terrorist and the IRA are scumbags (and thats to put it polite), granted we shouldnt of took Northern Ireland many years ago (way before all of our times), so would you say its right to plant a bomb in the centre of a market town like Omagh which clearly wasnt not aimed at the british forces but the irish people they say they are fighting for?

 

 

British history is full of justifications and excuses, be it the subjugation of a native people for the good of the empire or the suspension of civil rights for the good of the state. It's unfortunate that innocents suffer as a consequence of the struggle for liberty, but in all wars there are casualtys, a fact that the peoples of Dresden and Hamburg will be more than willing to testify to.

But it seems that as long as it's someone else doing the dieing it's acceptable. When the ruling class is caught up in the unplesantness then it becomes an atrocity.

Tell me, were was your sense of outrage when the British Army murdered 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday? A fact admitted by the Saville inquiry. Or when the "shoot to kill policy" was in effect? It seem to me that the old British double standard is alive and well.

Ireland was Britains first colony and like all the others, the only way they will leave it is kicking and screaming as they try to hold on to the vestages of an empire built on the sweat and blood of others

 

[Ulysses]

The maquis are just like a futuristic version of the scumbags called the IRA.

 

Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a so-called scumbag I.R.A. if the enlightened British goverment had enforced some democratic principals in Northern Ireland instead of letting the Protestant ascendancy get away with there repressive regime for so many years. It is a maxim that even a cowed dog will one day bite an abusive master. The only surprise was it took so long for the inevitable backlash by the Nationalist population

 

TIOCFAIDH A'R LA'

 

Sorry but i wouldnt think twice in shooting a know IRA terrorist and the IRA are scumbags (and thats to put it polite), granted we shouldnt of took Northern Ireland many years ago (way before all of our times), so would you say its right to plant a bomb in the centre of a market town like Omagh which clearly wasnt not aimed at the british forces but the irish people they say they are fighting for?

 

 

British history is full of justifications and excuses, be it the subjugation of a native people for the good of the empire or the suspension of civil rights for the good of the state. It's unfortunate that innocents suffer as a consequence of the struggle for liberty, but in all wars there are casualtys, a fact that the peoples of Dresden and Hamburg will be more than willing to testify to.

But it seems that as long as it's someone else doing the dieing it's acceptable. When the ruling class is caught up in the unplesantness then it becomes an atrocity.

Tell me, were was your sense of outrage when the British Army murdered 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday? A fact admitted by the Saville inquiry. Or when the "shoot to kill policy" was in effect? It seem to me that the old British double standard is alive and well.

Ireland was Britains first colony and like all the others, the only way they will leave it is kicking and screaming as they try to hold on to the vestages of an empire built on the sweat and blood of others

 

 

lmao, if you see a possible threat you are going to shot to kill, as long as its a valid target/threat. Sadly the army got it wrong and killed theses people which is not the armies fault, but more the politicians, the army are not a police force end of the day.

 

I remember the outcry about the SAS ambushing some IRA terrorists in gibraltar, and there shot to kill policy. Sorry but they where dead right to carry out this action.

 

Granted in the past us brits have had a darker past, and it was unfortunate that the people in dresden and hamburg had to pay a price but lets not forget that it was the germans that actually started the whole thing off so they are not as innocent, I think the polish jews would agree about that as well as the russians and people during the london blitz, end of the day it was a case of all out war and yes sadly civilians get caught up in this.

 

people can question a morality of a war and how it is conducted but its all well and good us sitting here and critising it but i think you have to be there to fully understand the full reasons and whys.

 

Personally i wished non of it would happen no wars no terrorists etc etc

[elderbear]

People may question how it is conducted but its all well and good us sitting here and critising it but i think you have to be there to fully understand the full reasons and whys.

 

Personally i wished non of it would happen no wars no terrorists etc etc

 

Spoken like a true professional - and I want to say thanks, because while most of us sit in our comfortable and safe environments, you've been on the front line, prepared to lay your life down for our safety. And that gives you a very different perspective than we civilians have. Even if the pols have bad reasons for starting a war, we must never forget to honor the people who choose to put themselves in harms way for their nation, for their people.

 

And so, neomaster, I salute you.

 

Having said that, I realize that citizens of "the other side" have a very different perspective, and just might be saluting Osama and his ilk. I believe that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist - and that the customs of war are institutionalized terrorism - or perhaps terrorism is ad hoc war. Again, it all depends on perspective.

 

Ultimately, we need to find a way to do better. I don't believe there has ever been a war in which one side has said "We are completely wrong, let's enact this evil in warfare." Each side sees itself as just - and is willing to use violence to enforce its "justice."

 

I happen to prefer that the Islamic militants lose. While I don't see my side as "just" or right, I'm not a fan of the others, either. It is my country - right or wrong - but as I see our wrongness, as a citizen I have the responsibility of speaking up, speaking out, and opposing our misbehavior.

 

But when all is said and done, I honor those who pledged (and gave) their lives for our side. Perhaps in doing so, I perpetuate the very warfare I hope will someday end.

 

 

[frodoxxx]

The maquis are just like a futuristic version of the scumbags called the IRA.

 

Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a so-called scumbag I.R.A. if the enlightened British goverment had enforced some democratic principals in Northern Ireland instead of letting the Protestant ascendancy get away with there repressive regime for so many years. It is a maxim that even a cowed dog will one day bite an abusive master. The only surprise was it took so long for the inevitable backlash by the Nationalist population

 

TIOCFAIDH A'R LA'

 

Sorry but i wouldnt think twice in shooting a know IRA terrorist and the IRA are scumbags (and thats to put it polite), granted we shouldnt of took Northern Ireland many years ago (way before all of our times), so would you say its right to plant a bomb in the centre of a market town like Omagh which clearly wasnt not aimed at the british forces but the irish people they say they are fighting for?

 

 

British history is full of justifications and excuses, be it the subjugation of a native people for the good of the empire or the suspension of civil rights for the good of the state. It's unfortunate that innocents suffer as a consequence of the struggle for liberty, but in all wars there are casualtys, a fact that the peoples of Dresden and Hamburg will be more than willing to testify to.

But it seems that as long as it's someone else doing the dieing it's acceptable. When the ruling class is caught up in the unplesantness then it becomes an atrocity.

Tell me, were was your sense of outrage when the British Army murdered 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday? A fact admitted by the Saville inquiry. Or when the "shoot to kill policy" was in effect? It seem to me that the old British double standard is alive and well.

Ireland was Britains first colony and like all the others, the only way they will leave it is kicking and screaming as they try to hold on to the vestages of an empire built on the sweat and blood of others

 

 

lmao, if you see a possible threat you are going to shot to kill, as long as its a valid target/threat. Sadly the army got it wrong and killed theses people which is not the armies fault, but more the politicians, the army are not a police force end of the day.

 

I remember the outcry about the SAS ambushing some IRA terrorists in gibraltar, and there shot to kill policy. Sorry but they where dead right to carry out this action.

 

Granted in the past us brits have had a darker past, and it was unfortunate that the people in dresden and hamburg had to pay a price but lets not forget that it was the germans that actually started the whole thing off so they are not as innocent, I think the polish jews would agree about that as well as the russians and people during the london blitz, end of the day it was a case of all out war and yes sadly civilians get caught up in this.

 

people can question a morality of a war and how it is conducted but its all well and good us sitting here and critising it but i think you have to be there to fully understand the full reasons and whys.

 

Personally i wished non of it would happen no wars no terrorists etc etc

 

 

Actually i was there, and having witnessed first hand the brutality and repression I, like many others, was unwilling to accept the status quo. Unlike our parents our generation found the strength and courage to say no more. Blame us if you must, but know what was reaped were seeds sown by British Imperialism. Seeds which bear fruit in many nations around the world to this day. The sad thing is I see the United States walking the same path today that Britain trod for many years. Lets just hope that a little common sense will some how make its way into the present American administration. If not i fear 9-11 in hindsight may seem like a minor incident

[maverick]

times change.

the british empire has had its day.

 

all hail george bush: Emperor of planet earth :thinking:

[Beawulf]

times change.

the british empire has had its day.

 

all hail george bush: Emperor of planet earth :thinking:

 

Democracy for all!....as long as you vote the way we want :cyclops:

[Beawulf]

I can understand why the US wanted to overthrow the taliban considering what happened. However I dont think they were justified invading Iraq, in the end the only reason was to overthrow Sadam....and werent they responsible for him being in power in the first place

 

except in extreme circumstances I dont think an outside nation has a right to overthrow a government. It is up to the citizens, ultimately if they arent happy they will rise up. There are plenty of examples around the world right now where this is taking place. I realise this is simplifying things a bit. :cyclops:

[elderbear]

I can understand why the US wanted to overthrow the taliban considering what happened. However I dont think they were justified invading Iraq, in the end the only reason was to overthrow Sadam....and werent they responsible for him being in power in the first place

 

except in extreme circumstances I dont think an outside nation has a right to overthrow a government. It is up to the citizens, ultimately if they arent happy they will rise up. There are plenty of examples around the world right now where this is taking place. I realise this is simplifying things a bit. :cyclops:

 

Various sources have made it clear that the Bush Administration had invading Iraq on their agenda from the time they occupied the Whitehouse. Dick Cheney was a signatory to "something-or-other for the New American Century" (or something like that), a think-tankish group that proposed picking a strong 3rd world nation and beating the spunk out of them with a minimally deployed military to cow the rest of the world into submission.

 

It has also been documented that the initial response of a number of high administration officials to 9/11 was to call for an immediate invasion of Iraq ... even though Iraq was not believed to have played a role!

 

How is being the biggest bully in the world different from terrorism, if at all? (except being better armed)

[Beawulf]

shiesh, sounds like a global dictatorship in the making

 

so much for the principles of democracy :(

[waelabdo]

Misguided, but understandable though i voted another thing :)

[daffydk]

I can understand why the US wanted to overthrow the taliban considering what happened. However I dont think they were justified invading Iraq, in the end the only reason was to overthrow Sadam....and werent they responsible for him being in power in the first place

 

except in extreme circumstances I dont think an outside nation has a right to overthrow a government. It is up to the citizens, ultimately if they arent happy they will rise up. There are plenty of examples around the world right now where this is taking place. I realise this is simplifying things a bit. :cyclops:

 

Things arent always as simple. You may have noticed recently in uzbekistan where the dictator massacred the people that were protesting against him.

 

Saddam did the same. when the shia rose against him, he massacred thousands of them. When the kurds rose against him, he used chemical and possibly biological weapons against them. It is well documented.

 

The real reason the bush administration went after saddam was probably wrong, which I suspect was oil. However if I had my way, I would stil have them go after saddam. He had killed millions, squandrered $billions, and bound to kill anyone else that came before him. The only power in the world that could stop him was the US.

[elderbear]

shiesh, sounds like a global dictatorship in the making

 

so much for the principles of democracy :(

 

Actually, so much for the implementation of democracy.

 

Hmmm ... that's not right ... the "people" chose Bush again - so much for democracy ...

 

;)

[NumbahWon]

First I'd say so long as the Maquis target their true enemy, they are not terrorists.... terrorists have a bad habit of attacking people that have absolutely nothing to do with their 'plight'... If they only attack military targets then they earn a better title, when they attack civilian targets for no other reason than to exact fear and terror from a population, they become monsters worse than whatever it is they're fighting to begin with.

 

A sentient being has the right to defend himself, his family and his property with lethal force if need be. In the real world it is and will remain 'kill or be killed', regardless of what you think about violence if you are not prepared to defend yourself you will be just another pathetic victim if/when your time comes. Do you want to be just another pathetic victim? I know I sure don't.

 

Anyone that classifies all combat as terror is living in lala land, I would question their grasp on reality and couldn't help but assume they've lived an incredibly sheltered life - e.g. have never had to be a pathetic victim.

 

To reply to the thread in general:

 

Violence is sometimes required. You can be a pacifist and shun violence, while your captors rape your wife and/or children in front of you, and treat you like dogs - But hey as long as you can say you kept a stiff upper lip and didn't give into the violence right? Defending your home is the same as defending your family/loved ones, anyone that would invade your home is unlikely to care about civility or common respect.

 

Personally, I demand common respect from everyone, even the government, if someone breaks my door down I will shoot first, and I will not care what their jackets or caps says. I respect the rule of law and our founding documents, and if nothing else my own potential for violence will protect me against illegal searches and seizures. The enforcers of our laws are not above the rule of law, and their power is delegated by the people - people like me. I have no fear of death, but I do fear of dying without honour. If anyone ever needs to search my home they'll be respectful and knock on the door and present their warrant, or there will be death that day - yes probably my own as well, but I do not love my life so much as to shrink from death.

 

I truly believe if everyone shared my perspective, the world would be a safer, kinder, more respectful place to live in. It is my goal to spread the philosophy of southern patriots, hehehe.

 

Pure sense of the word 'terrorism' implies that there is some kind of terror trust upon people. That TERROR wether it comes from an individual, a rogue group or an established government/army is Stil Terror. And for the same matter, Terror wether its against civilian or against an army base is stil terror.

 

From reading some of the posts above, it seems some people are saying that causing terror against military installation, like what maquis did not really terrorism. But it is terrorism if it is against civilians.

 

Remember the words "shock and Awe"? well another word for that is Terror!! Terror against Saddam and his loyalist but also Terror against the more than 100,000 iraqis that died.

but to make it look good, we call that collateral damage and we show some Cleaned up images, black and white of missiles hitting some building. And we proudly present it saying look how accurate we are in hitting that building.

 

I guess my point is the same as what Yammichi said, War in general is TERROR. You can justify it anyway you like it. You can justify it by saying we are bringing freedom to a country. You may even be right. You can justify it by saying its fighting for the freedom of the land or whatever else.

 

War is ugly and it should be avoided at all cost..unless it comes to your doorstep and u have to defend yourself.

[NumbahWon]

The simplicity with which you explain the importance of freedom, is as correct and admirable as your hypothetical is colorful.

Good one, I agree wholeheartedly. And I would be there! the lizardheaded V-bastards would eat lead!

NumbahWon

 

I think it is only normal for people to take action if they are being attacked or oppressed.

 

If an alien race were attacking earth and we had no miliatary left would we just give up and be oppressed? no!

 

We would fight.....for our freedom.

[NumbahWon]

Yeah Dresden was a direct response to Coventry being flattened, "War is hell" has often been said, perhaps if the germans had dealt with hitler themselves before Coventry England was completely flattened, the deaths at Dresden wouldn't have been necessary. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing." I propose it is everyone's responsibility to do what is right. Iraqis should've killed Saddam Hussein long ago, perhaps if they had, less civilian lives would've been lost when the coalition destroyed their defense grid and military targets. Perhaps too many people are cowards, and love their lives to the point of dealing with attrocity. Perhaps too many people would rather live in fear and opression than risk their lives.

NumbahWon

 

Yeap was horrible the german city had been bombed and a firestorm was the end cause which caused alot of casulties, BUT hadnt the germans been bombing ours for a good 2 or 3 years. end of the day this was in the days when "pin point accracy" was not there. I say its a dog eat dog world and on that occasion we had bigger teeth.

[NumbahWon]

Well Patton said the goal of war wasn't to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his. courage and intelligence often do not walk hand in hand. Another thing, they still manage to kill a LOT of civilians and children, to be so close to their enemy. In fact, how much courage does it take to get on a bus full of women and children just out of synagogue, and blow them up?... no military target in sight, ... - that is terrorism, and what of the 'god' they die for? god of neurosyphillis?

 

I'd suggest Bill Maher wouldn't have the full scoop if it bit him in the ass, he was an arrogant prick and I'm glad they pulled his contract.

I actually agree with him' date=' it takes a lot more courage to walk right up to and next to an enemy and blow him to pieces than what it takes to blow him to pieces 10000m high in the air.[/quote']

[NumbahWon]

Yes they are all of the above, in any such organization you will have people that Know Their Enemy, and you will have people who are little more than idiots with weapons. Some of them know how to properly exact punishment from their enemies while others will just lash out at anyone remotely resembling their enemies.

 

But on a side note, Ben Franklin said something to the effect that "Those who are willing to give up freedom for happiness deserves neither freedom or happiness."

 

NumbahWon

i didnt vote. they ARE all of the above.

 

a real life situation would be to ask the same question about the IRA.

 

though the motivation is different the effect is the same.

 

what does that make them?

[NumbahWon]

Who's gonna be the next person that everyone hates and loathes? Hillary Clinton perhaps? What would you have done so differently, if you were the occupant of the oval office during 9-11? Criticism of the president is not only easy, it seems to be downright popular nowdays. So let's hear where you would've gone right, instead of where they have gone wrong.

 

NumbahWon

 

Your last paragraph is a sad indictment of the American military under Rumsfield/Bush. Our politicos have encouraged behavior forbidden by Geneva ... and some of our "professionals" have carried that behavior out. :(

[NumbahWon]

Since when does an emperor serve a maximum of 2 4 year terms?

 

Despite all the bullshit rhetoric we are still in a federal republic, and the policies that existed before Bush will exist after bush, and the bicameral legislature that passed the patriot act et al will still exist after Bush.

 

Hope I've made my point.

 

times change.

the british empire has had its day.

 

all hail george bush: Emperor of planet earth :thinking:

[NumbahWon]

Wow, daffydk your reasoning sounds perilously close to being concerned with justice, better keep that rationale in check if you plan on surviving here without a hundred sworn enemies ;-)

 

 

Things arent always as simple. You may have noticed recently in uzbekistan where the dictator massacred the people that were protesting against him.

 

Saddam did the same. when the shia rose against him, he massacred thousands of them. When the kurds rose against him, he used chemical and possibly biological weapons against them. It is well documented.

 

The real reason the bush administration went after saddam was probably wrong, which I suspect was oil. However if I had my way, I would stil have them go after saddam. He had killed millions, squandrered $billions, and bound to kill anyone else that came before him. The only power in the world that could stop him was the US.

;) ;)