@jpgredsox - did you read my post from earlier? I went through the treason clause of the Constitution sentence by sentence and made arguments for its validity in application to this case.

Also - don't you think being on a most wanted list counts as a warrant for your arrest?

jpgredsox, you have lost all credibility to me.

"Northern Ireland is relatively peaceful due to the Belfast accords and the peace process...although I would still prefer IRA activity..."

So, you allege it's peaceful...

But you'd prefer to have the rebel group more active and have a cessation of that peace and an increase in hostilities.

Surely the allure of the "freedom fighter," the IRA rebels is attractive for you?

Or just the idea of unlimited liberty, manifested in rebellion--what's more free than that?



Your position makes sense now.

And I now wholly dismiss it as either wholly naive or wholly indefensible and in favor of the sort of the sort of violence you ahve, until this point, alleged to decry.

@goldfinger as far as I understand he was on the most wanted list for targeted killings...but not on the most wanted list for arrest

@obi I know, I thought you would get angry at that. I do believe I can defend my position, as I tend to view the British as imperialist occupiers of native Irish soil, who have exploited the irish for centuries and don't even have the decency to give them back their own land, and that the IRA are fighting for a united Ireland where the Irish Catholics in northern ireland arent abused and discriminated against. But it's alright, rising birthrates among Irish Catholics should ensure, at the very least, Northern Ireland is back in Irish hands in the next 25 to 50 years

...HOW is that justified?!

Catholic births=more war=more deaths=OK, since they're..."British imperialist occupiers???"

...

I get the feeling there are A LOT of folks on this site who would be none to pleased that you'd be perfectly fine with the IRA blowing up their countrymen, but abhorred that a conspirator in a bomb plot against the US was shot.

...

Really, I'm at a loss here:

Bomb plotter/Catholic/Protestant Holy War in Ireland=good, but USA/UK attempts to quell those incidents of large-scale violence with small-scale, directed violence=bad?

And for all your protestations that violence is BAD...

You want to inflame a war even worse because of centuries of religoous wars gone by, and, essentially, to try and fix past wrongs by harming the British in the present?

...

Ther's this really great British author I think you'd like...an oldie, but a goodie, he's made something of a name for himself, a bit well-known...

"Blood will have blood."

^His words.

Wise words, I think...

the British massacred the Irish when they took over Ireland in the 1500s...and the Irish have been fighting for FIVE CENTURIES and have still not gained back all the land rightfully theirs. Oliver Cromwell massacred the Irish at Drogheda. You know all the things we hear English settlers (all settlers, really) did to Native Americans? The English LEARNED it in their takeover of Ireland. In military camps for the British, Irish heads would be placed on stakes lining for miles. I oppose imperialism in whatever forms, and the British exemplified all the worst aspects of imperialism as they literally exploited the Irish for everything. I don't support a holy war, or want to encourage it, but if it is necessary, I will not back down from supporting it.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists

Now, since he's dead he's not on here, but this is what he used to be on. All of these people are indicted, and rewards are leading to their capture. We don't just kill people. Once indicted, they can come to court and stake their claim.

All I have to say on the Irish issue is you can't compare past actions (like centuries ago past) to modern rules of law, government, and human rights.

"The English LEARNED it in their takeover of Ireland."

Actually recent scholarship says its the other way around, but why trifle with facts and timelines over a great story, right?

Cromwell's conquest of Ireland was from 1649-1653. I think your timeline is a bit fucked up there, jpgredsox.

how is my timeline fucked up? i said the British brutally took over Ireland and they did. And Cromwell did massacre the Irish at Drogheda, although this was more a pacification effort after the English Civil War, in which the Irish supported the Royalists.

...

I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DID, JPGREDSOX...

THAT STILL DOESN'T JUSTIFY BLOWING THEM UP NOW!

Seriously, to drop the niceties, since you've now officially pissed me off...

What the HELL is going on in that mind of yours where it's OK the blow people up because of past offenses of their people?!

THAT'S THE KIND OF BULLSHIT THAT HAD *MY* PEOPLE PAYING FOR ALLEGEDLY HELPING NAIL ONE FELLOW JEW TO A CROSS--

2,000 YEARS OF PAYING FOR PAST CRIMES IN THE PRESENT! >:(

I don't care if the British unleashed the most awful weapons on the Irish 500 years ago...

That was 500 years ago?

Should the Irish be free?
Maybe--good topic for an other thread.
But do the past crimes of past British soldiers mean its OK to blow up current ones?
NO!!!!!!!!!!



And ANYONE who thinks otherwise is just a bloodthirsty, cruel person in that regard.

I'm sorry.

The past does NOT justify present crimes!

AT ALL!!!

I think that SC was referring to the fact that the initial colonization efforts took place well before the English civil war, though a good deal of the atrocities you mention take place after it. Still, they began before the civil war in which you stated they "learned" it

The english were in Ireland from the 12th century but took control in the 16th, but early control adhered to a policy of trying to civilize the irish. Traditional scholarship suggests that in Ireland the British came to the conclusion that the Irish were impossible to civilize so therefore the Indians in the new world were impossible to do so. But if you look at the timeline the bloody periods of the 17th century, when outright colonization and war were found preferable to civilizing the irish, was the result of failed attempts to civilize Native populations in Virginia not the other way around. This is a new view in scholaship that is gaining considerable weight

What is with the rightwing propensity to extract humanity from history? Past actions have a direct bearing on current conditions. You can't simply ignore history and then say there are new rules now, so let's freeze current distributions of power and declare that any movement to rectify it is unlawful.

"We don't just kill people. Once indicted, they can come to court and stake their claim."

I don't know where you got your information. Awlaki was never indicted in the US, as far as I can tell. He was indicted in Yemen.

@obi----you're goddamn right that when the irish are still not free, they have a right to revolution. they have a right to kill occupying british soldiers

jpg, seeing your command of history in this thread, you might want to check your sources before you condemn anyone to death over your understanding of the past. You are batting below the mendoza line in historical references and analogies.

@jpg - you said the british treatment of Native Americans was learned from their invasion of Ireland and used Cromwell as an example. By the time Cromwell was doing his dead to the Irish, the British colonists had already done a number on the Native Americans. That is where your timeline is fucked up.

@draugnar I was referring to the earlier colonization efforts, Cromwell just to illustrate brutality

too bad the earlier colonization efforts have little to do with the brutal treatment of native americans as you suggest.

You know, I don't understand the stigma against "occupying soldiers"

Japan was occupied by the US. So was Korea, and Germany. Look who 3 of the most successful nations in the world are now - after being fire-bombed and nuked all to hell. Why is occupation inherently a bad thing? I'm not suggesting its right 100% of the time, even 25% of the time. Iraq was not right, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia were not right. But I hate the stigma that it is always wrong.

And Putin, I agree that past actions affect current conditions, but you can't judge past actions based on current ideas, knowledge, and social norms.

And I was just looking at the FBI's most wanted terrorist page, and they all had indictments listed. I assumed that any terrorist on there would have an indictment as well. -1 me for making assumptions

Cromwell killed AT LEAST 15% of the Irish population in his brutal reconquest of ireland in 1649-1653 from the period of Irish rebellion coinciding with the breakout of the English Civil War in 1641. Reliable estimates include 25% and some go all the way up to five-sixths. Needless to say, I am not about to accept garbage which states that what the British did to Irish was in the past---the Irish would not have gained independence had they not rebelled during and after the First World War against the British occupiers. And I am not about to accept garbage which states Northern Ireland is British soil. Northern Ireland was brutally acquired by the British whom created the Ulster Plantations and intentionally populated the area with Protestant colonists to attempt to annex the area. I believe in liberty, and the Irish people did not have it for hundreds of years and the Irish in Northern Ireland still do not have it. There is no ccontradiction between my objecting to the assassination of Al-Awlaki and calling for armed revolution to free Northern Ireland.

There's also a difference between occupying a country after it was defeated in an aggressive war against you and occupying a country as an outright act of aggression yourself. The Irish case is definitely the latter.

But I'd ask South Koreans, what with their half a century of US-instigated division along the 38th parallel, decades of repressive military dictatorship, and continuing extraterritoriality rules if the US "occupation" was as benevolent as you say. Ditto the Germans, who were also artificially divided due to the actions of the western occupiers, and were the likely flash point of a possible WWIII if not for the defensive actions of East Germany. East Germans are still living with the legacy of that division, thanks to the annexation and destruction of the East German economy by West Germany.

There's not one damn bit of difference between US actions in Korea and US actions in Southeast Asia, except that US actions in Korea were much more bloodthirsty and destructive to the Korean people than they were of everybody except the Cambodians. In both Korea and Vietnam we intervened in a civil war, imposed and defended the artificial division lines, opposed unified democratic elections, and waged a bloody war against one side. The difference is in Korea we "succeeded" whereas in Vietnam we failed. In both cases millions died and horrible atrocities were committed.

Actually the Cambodia point is debatable, but the destruction of that society was made possible by US bombs.

It's still reprehensible and rather disgusting that you're alright--even encouraging--blowing up British soldiers, jpgredsox.

You've YET to answer my question, too--

Regardless of waht PAST British soldiers might ahve done...why does 20-year old Johnny Bull, with a large, loving family in London--alliteration is fun--who is serving in Ireland and has never harmed a soul in his life deserve to be blown to bits?

NOT "should Ireland be free?"

That's not the question.

Answer me--since you're OK with what the IRA is doing...

Why is it OK to blow up a 20-year old soldier boy--someone MY age--for crimes committed before his grandparents were even conceived of?



And further, since BEFORE you were Mr. Non-Violence, when it came to our titular Mr. Anwar Al-Awlaki...

Why is violence against the innocent NOW OK?

Because Johnny Bull's a soldier?

Well, he hasn't harmed anyone, and hasn't taken part in the crimes you charge the British with...

So *HE," at least, is INNOCENT...

So why are you OK blowing him to bits and causing massive pain to all his beloved family members?

(Or is it OK for the Brits to feel pain because, hey, they're nasty, evil imperialists, *they* couldn't have feelings about a lost son, right?)

I am not advocating terrorism against innocent civilians with the intent to kill only the civilians. However, those who are members of Protestant militias and the Orange Guard are only helping to ensure Protestant rule of Northern Ireland remains. These men are taking on the risk. Furthermore, anyone living in Northern Ireland certainly knows the risks entailed. you can't expect to live in an occupied territory and not expect to encounter a car bomb once in a while (back in the old days). Furthermore, attacks on military targets can indeed have collateral damage. Civilians should think about that before venturing near a military post or government building.

So Obi is even against military targets as targets? Even soldiers are "innocent"?

No, I think I know the answer. Only soldiers of rich occupier countries are "innocent". Whereas anybody who resists, civilian or military, is a "terrorist".

The distinction jpg is making is clear to anybody who is literate. It's the distinction of self-defense. You have the right, and this right is enshrined by the UN due to the anti-colonial struggles, to fight against foreign occupation. You do not have the right to engage in aggressive war for no reason. The West seems to not be able to comprehend this.

And we're of course all for "freedom fighters" in states we don't like. So please stop the hand wringing about the British, obi. You have 100% behind the terrorism of the Libyan rebels and 100% against the Libyan government's efforts to combat them. Hypocrite.