Talking to terrorists works! Somebody tell GWB.

[lazarus]

The return of devolved government follows an historic meeting in March between Mr Paisley and Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams, where they agreed to share power.

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said he was confident the parties would make a go of it.

VIP guests at Stormont included US Senator Ted Kennedy, the DUP leader's wife Baroness Paisley and Peggy McGuinness, the deputy first minister's mother.

Also attending is Jeanette Ervine, the widow of Progressive Unionist Party leader David Ervine, who died in January.

The first meeting of the new power-sharing executive is scheduled for later this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6634373.stm

[Woody]

Which side are you calling terrorists? Sinn Fein is a political party. Would you call the Democrats terrorists? Would you consider the Loyalists in Northern Ireland ... terrorists? What about the Progressive Unionist Party ? Which sides qualify as terrorists?

[lazarus]

Martin McGuiness

He joined the Provisional IRA around 1970 at the age of 20, after the Troubles broke out. In November 2003, he confirmed to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry that he had been second-in-command of the Provisional IRA in Derry in 1972, at the time of Bloody Sunday at the age of 21, but he refused to divulge any information about other Provisional IRA members.[2]

A claim was made at the Saville Inquiry that McGuinness was responsible for supplying detonators for nail bombs on Bloody Sunday where 14 civil rights marchers were killed by British soldiers in Derry, Ireland. Paddy Ward claimed he was the leader of the Fianna, the youth wing of the IRA in January 1972. He claimed McGuinness, the second-in-command of the IRA in the city at the time, and another anonymous Provo gave him bomb parts on the morning of 30 January, the date planned for the civil rights march. He said his organisation intended to attack city-centre premises in Derry on the day when civilians were shot dead by British soldiers. In response McGuinness noted the claims were "fantasy", while Gerry O’Hara, a Sinn Féin councillor in Derry stated that he and not Ward was the Fianna leader at the time.[3]

Peter Lilley a British MP, speaking under cover of parliamentary privilege in a Westminster debate on 13 December 2001 recalled that McGuinness while a commandant of the IRA in Derry claimed to have "had a dozen Catholic informers killed".[4]

Gerry Adams

Gerard Adams (Irish Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh[1]; born 6 October 1948) is an Irish Republican politician and abstentionist Westminster Member of Parliament for Belfast West. He is President of Sinn Féin, which became the largest nationalist, republican or pro-Belfast Agreement political party in Northern Ireland in the 2005 UK general election.

Adams is a spokesman for the Irish republican movement or the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), an proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Adams is widely regarded as playing a pivotal role in getting the IRA to give up its "war" against the UK in return for devolved government for Northern Ireland. Senior political, security and media figures, including the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland assert that, from the 1970s until mid-2005, Adams is alleged to have been a member of the IRA's governing army council.[2] He has also been accused of being the IRA commander in Belfast during the 1970s. Adams has denied that he has ever been a member of the IRA.

[lazarus]

Before it was deleted,EDD asked rhetorically: Who fought terorrists for 40 years? Its a good question.

The British government. They came to the conclusion that they couldn't defeat the IRA. There was no military solution. There had to be a political solution. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

[there buster]

Actually, you got it backward

The Brits prevented the terrorists from bringing down the government. That was the military solution. The terrorists only wanted to talk after it became clear they could not prevail.

And so it will be, unless foolish people give in to the terrorists now. But talking to the terrorists after the first few years only produced more violence. That's the lesson of history. Terrorists only listen to reason after they've been militarily defeated.

[lazarus]

And so it will be, unless foolish people give in to the terrorists now. But talking to the terrorists after the first few years only produced more violence. That's the lesson of history. Terrorists only listen to reason after they've been militarily defeated.

The IRA was never militarily defeated. It was the mainland bombings of the late 80's and 90's that forced the UK government to talk.

[there buster]

By this twisted morality, we should negotiate with the Mafia, the Crips, and any other thugs who continue to commit crimes and kill civilians.

The IRA never prevailed. So long as they thought that they might prevail, they refused to talk.

The IRA was not a military organization, it fought no military engagements. But it's object, often proclaimed, was toppling the government. They failed. The only thing approaching success was to let them into the talks.

If we followed your logic, every two-bit thug who had no regard for other human lives would be involved in government. We can't stop murder, so let's let the murderers take over.

Such reasoning is politically inept, and morally repugnant.

[lazarus]

By this twisted morality, we should negotiate with the Mafia, the Crips, and any other thugs who continue to commit crimes and kill civilians.

My comments were a statment of fact not a justification or any indication of agreement.

Quote:

But it's object, often proclaimed, was toppling the government. They failed. The only thing approaching success was to let them into the talks.

The old Northern-Irish parliament is gone!!!! They certainly were not fighting for the toppling of the British government.

Quote:

If we followed your logic, every two-bit thug who had no regard for other human lives would be involved in government. We can't stop murder, so let's let the murderers take over.

Terrorists have long become members of governments or even leaders.......Mandela, Yitshak Shamir.

Quote:

Such reasoning is politically inept, and morally repugnant.

Its a nice line but I had to laugh at that.

In fact, I just remembered, the US military has already had negotiations with insurgents in Iraq. Governments have done it/will always do it. Governments, the US government included support some terrorists. It just depends on whether their goals match up.

Bush probably knows that talking to terrorists is necessary sometimes but he contines to tell all those who listen the opposite. Of course, you believe him!

[lazarus]

By the way, I'm suprised at how quickly and easily you slip into vitriol. If I really wanted to learn from you or agree it makes it so much harder.

I take comfort in the fact that you don't really know me. I hope the people closest to you receive a greater measure of grace.

[there buster]

You're making so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.

Tribal factions in Iraq are not Al Qaeda.

And, despite your instant appeal to victim status, I used no vitriol.

Such reasoning is politically inept and morally repugnant. Those are facts.

Whatever gets rewarded gets repeated. That foolish politicians should do it doesn't make it any less inept and counterproductive.

If rewarding murder is not morally repugnant, then nothing is.

vitriol means: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will invective, vituperation contumely, insult, revilement, vilification, abuse - a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team"

I said nothing about you, your character, nor your motives. I did not insult you or disparage you.

If an artist draws a crooked line, and someone says, "the line is crooked," that is not vitriolic, insulting, or disparaging.

Rather than claiming victimhood and pointing the finger and saying "he's not nice," find a better line of reasoning.

Quote:

I hope the people closest to you receive a greater measure of grace.

If you want to know why young people leave the church, that sort of pious posturing is a prime example. Except they don't point it out. They just shrug and walk away.

[bevin]

Quote:

Such reasoning is politically inept and morally repugnant. Those are facts.

No, those are not facts. Those are your opinions.

"Politically inept" merely means you think it won't work - it is your opinion. In fact a lot of groups such as the Mafia have indeed mutated into governments, and specifically in Northern Ireland - if you brand the IRA as terrorists, then you need to brand the USA revolutionary army the same way and declare George Washington to be a terrorist leader.

Repugnancy is a personal feeling, relative to some individual. Something can be repugnant to you and not to me, and vice versa.

Furthermore, if they were facts (which they are not), there are ways of discussing them that are less likely to cause offense.

/Bevin

[Woody]

Quote:

Rather than claiming victimhood and pointing the finger and saying "he's not nice," find a better line of reasoning.

Pointing fingers and claiming victimhood is too frequent of a problem. I will give you that Ed.

Surely we here can do better. And I include myself.

[Dr. Shane]

If the terrorists are motivated to kill you because you are an infidel, what is there to talk about?

[bevin]

Agreed. But that is a small minority of "terrorists".

If you look at any society - USA, NZ, Saudi Arabi - you find

(a) people who are extremely happy with the status quo

( people who want to change it, but don't want to risk damaging goods/people to do so - because they feel that the changes are either not worth the damage, or won't come about by causing the damage

© people who want to change it, and are prepared to risk damaging goods/people to do so - because they feel that the changes are either worth the damage

(d) people who simply want its destruction - for revenge or because it violates their moral code so badly they feel it should not exist

To create a stable society, the (a) and ( groups must be able to control the © and (d) groups.

The best way to control the © group, if their requirements are reasonable, is to give them enough to turn them into ( group members.

The only way to control the (d) group is by very active policing - and recognizing that being too aggressive about this will move people from ( into © and (d) and thus aggrevate the problem.

Unfortunately GWB and his cronies don't understand this.

/Bevin

[lazarus]

You're making so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.

If must be really difficult for you to deal with so much folly! If you've got the time I'm willing to read what you have to say.

Quote:

And, despite your instant appeal to victim status.

I really don't feel victimised. That in your mind believe me. Or is that code for something else?

Quote:

Such reasoning is politically inept and morally repugnant. Those are facts.

Bravus dealt with that point.

Quote:

If rewarding murder is not morally repugnant, then nothing is.

I agree. Probably, every government rewards murder. Luis Posada Carriles is walking the streets of America, a free man.

Vitriol:

dictionary.com says "something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism"

The way you express your disagreement can have a corrosive effect which makes agreement or understanding harder.

Quote:

If you want to know why young people leave the church, that sort of pious posturing is a prime example. Except they don't point it out. They just shrug and walk away.

Well, thats one point of view.

In my few years in ministry I've discovered a few of the reasons why Young people leave the church.

Sometimes, they often walk away when they experience adults who are unable to express their disagreement without resorting to language that is unhelpful to the discussion.

[bevin]

Careful, EDD is the SDA church's leading expert on dealing with young people

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I think I got credit for some of bevin's good work above.

[lazarus]

Quote:

Bravus dealt with that point.

Sorry Brevin

[there buster]

Quote:

if you brand the IRA as terrorists, then you need to brand the USA revolutionary army the same way and declare George Washington to be a terrorist leader.

The Continental Army did not target civilians, or blow up children, or attempt to terrorize the civilian population. Washington did not kidnap and murder members of the opposition. Had you mentioned Tarleton, there would have been at least the slightest bit of logic to your point.

As to victim, Lazarus, that refers to a role of manipulation described by the Karpmann triangle. I have posted it several times on general forums, along with an explanation. You took the victim role on the triangle when, rather than answer a point, you declare it "vitriol." Essentially a claim of "he was mean to me." Since what I wrote did not involve you, your character, or your motivations, it was not a personal attack. But your reply was an effective way of making an ad hominem argument, thus manipulation.

Just to be safe, "ad hominem" refers to arguments aimed at the person rather than his logic. "He's not nice, so ignore what he says" would be a mild form.

"Politically inept" means that it will not produce the desired results, but will produce the opposite. That has been demonstrated in Gaza, among other places.

"Morally repugnant" is term used in philosophy, notably by the late Mortimer Adler, who taught philosophy at Harvard, among other places. It refers not to a personal opinion but to something which is in direct opposition to a moral principle. I used that term rather than another because it was used in a technical sense.

I apologize for assuming people might be familiar with these terms, some of which--the Karpmann triangle, for instance-- I have posted several times, and others of which are basic to any discussion of such topics. Since I do not have the time to explain each and every term, and others are eager to obfuscate or take offence, I will bow out of this "discussion."

[lazarus]

Quote:

As to victim, Lazarus, that refers to a role of manipulation described by the Karpmann triangle. I have posted it several times on general forums, along with an explanation. You took the victim role on the triangle when, rather than answer a point, you declare it "vitriol." Essentially a claim of "he was mean to me." Since what I wrote did not involve you, your character, or your motivations, it was not a personal attack. But your reply was an effective way of making an ad hominem argument, thus manipulation.

Obviously, you may not have appreciated my answers but I answered your points. I did not ignore your arguments. I responsed to your points and questioned the way you made your points.

Quote:

Just to be safe, "ad hominem" refers to arguments aimed at the person rather than his logic. "He's not nice, so ignore what he says" would be a mild form.

"Politically inept" means that it will not produce the desired results, but will produce the opposite. That has been demonstrated in Gaza, among other places.

"Morally repugnant" is term used in philosophy, notably by the late Mortimer Adler, who taught philosophy at Harvard, among other places. It refers not to a personal opinion but to something which is in direct opposition to a moral principle. I used that term rather than another because it was used in a technical sense.

Thanks for Rescuing me from my ignorance.

Quote:

Since I do not have the time to explain each and every term

I generally look things up that I don't understand, its ok. Just share.

Quote:

...and others are eager to obfuscate or take offence, I will bow out of this "discussion."

You really don't have to take the ball away, we can still play.

[there buster]

Your ball. You started the thread. Enjoy.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The Continental Army did not target civilians, or blow up children, or attempt to terrorize the civilian population. Washington did not kidnap and murder members of the opposition. Had you mentioned Tarleton, there would have been at least the slightest bit of logic to your point.

You must have been teaching that sanitized version of the American history. Civilians, known as "Tories" or "loyalists" were subject to some major targeting by various members of the rebels... And as one who knows wars, as you do, I am sure, civilian causuties are known in EVERY war....even in ours, no matter how much we sanitize it....

Why would a Christian, who seeks truth no matter how dismal, repeat such a sanitized version of American history to children, unless he believe this? Either you believe the lie, Edd, or you seek to undermine your credibility/honesty....There is no inbetween in this matter....

Oh well....I suppose it doesn't matter.....

[bevin]

Or he did not know/realize this

http://www.fortklock.com/loyalistspersecution.htm

Most historians of this war agree there were two types of persecution to which the Loyalists were subjected, oppresive treatment by lawless mobs, and abuses carried out constitutionally by unjust and cruel laws authorized by the Thirteen Colonies. It was at the hands of the mob that the Loyalists first suffered persecution.

The Boston mob broke down the doors with broadaxes, destroyed the furniture, stole the jewels and money, scattered the papers and books, drank the wine in the cellar and dismantled the roof and walls. The families barely escaped with their lives!

On March 5, 1770, the mob of rowdies, knowing well that the British troops had strict orders not to fire on the populace, pelted and insulted a patrol and mocked it with commands of "fire"! In the confusion the patrol did fire and four or five of the mob were killed. A young lawyer named John Adams risked his career to defend the soldiers in court, and they received only a technical punishment.(3)

One of the favourite pastimes of the mob was to tar and feather "obnoxious Tories." The tar was usually heated before the victim was stripped naked. The hissing tar was poured over the victim's head, shoulder, chest and back and feathers were placed over the pine tar. The victim was then paraded about the streets in a cart for all the townspeople to see what happens to supporters of the British government.

Another form of torture inflicted on some of the Tories was to force them to ride the rail. This involved placing the "unhappy victim" upon sharp rails with one leg on each side; each rail was carried upon the shoulders of two tall men, with a man on each side to keep the poor wretch straight and fixed in his seat.

Seth Seeley, a Connecticut farmer, who later fled to New Brunswick was brought before a local committee in 1776 and, as punishment for signing a declaration to support the king's laws was put on a rail carried on men's shoulders through the streets, put into stocks and besmeared with eggs and was robbed of money for the entertainment of the Company.(6)

Some of the other acts of extreme cruelty used on the Tories by the Patriots were hoisting enemies of liberty up a liberty pole with a dead animal on the pole; forcing a Tory to ride an unsaddled horse with his face to the tail of the horse and his coat turned inside out; sitting Tories on lumps of coal; whipping, cropping ears, placing the enemy in the pillory or stockade. The mob could at times be moved by extremely reactionary impulses and cruel acts.

Some of the revolutionary leaders encouraged the sadistics acts of the mobs. In December 1776 the Provincial Congress of New York went so far as to order the Committee of Public Safety to purchase all the pitch and tar necessary for the public's use and safety.

etc etc etc

/Bevin

[there buster]

Sorry, you're wrong. Sloppy reasoning.

It's very sloppy reasoning to mix riots by some civilians against others as targeting by the army. Even sloppier to bring up general civilian casualties. Since you appear to have missed it, the point was made about George Washington. The Continental Army under Washington did not target civilians.

The only official military group that targeted civilians was Tarleton's. And since you have difficulty with distinctions, Tarleton was a Loyalist, serving in the British Cavalry.

If memory serves, incidents occurred under both Burgoyne and Gates in the Hudson campaign, but these were largely instigated by the Indian auxiliaries serving with each command, who were not accustomed to the European notion of "rules of warfare."

The Hessian mercenaries (hired by the British crown) were especially brutal and hated by colonists, and were a major factor in turning wavering New Jersey residents toward favoring the Revolution.

There were relatively few incidents by either side in the south. Nathaniel Greene and Frances Marion frustrated Cornwallis and his troops to the point that they sometimes became excessive, but Cornwallis did his best to restrain the men.

As a matter of fact, Cornwallis, despite his defeat at Yorktown, was one of the better British Generals. Clinton (Henry, not Bill) had promised Cornwallis reinforcements and relief, but he delayed until it was too late. Much of the responsibility for the British defeat belongs to the overall commanders, first Howe, and then Clinton.

So, yes, terrible things happen in wars. Some people get carried away in anger and bloodlust, and some opportunistic civilians take advantage of the chaos.

In the Revolution, when it came to organized military forces, the main offenders happened to be Tarleton and the Hessians. But to blame Washington, on the one side, and Cornwallis, on the other, would be mistaken.

Perhaps the closest thing to modern terrorism in history would be something like the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre, where hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals living in peace were targeted for elimination because of their faith.

But the world of 1700 was a far cry from the world of today. Prisoners of war--if they were not paroled--were kept in terrible conditions. But in the Vaudois wars (Waldensees) in the Alps, neither side kept prisoners. Oh, sometimes they took prisoners for questioning, but often they were summarily executed.

What makes today's terrorism both different and more terrible, is that it weds the religious and social mores of the 7th century with the technology of the 21st.

It's not about 'sanitized' history, Neil. It's about knowing the difference between civilian and military, about paying attention to the details.

[there buster]

Ditto my response to Neil, Bevin. "A mob of rowdies" is not the Continental Army under George Washington.

And, terrible as they are, they pale before homicide bombs and the Twin Towers attacks.