NationStates Jolt Archive

So aye, that amazingly well-qualified group, the Human Rights Council, containing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Syria amongst other piss poor states reckons we should get rid of the monarchy.

The UN Human Rights Council said the UK must "consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican".

The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka.

It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy,-says-UN.html

Of further interest, and showing why the HRC is an absolute joke, is the statement by Iran that we should more to stop sexual discrimination.

Your thoughts?

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

How about no, now piss off?

But without the monarchy, all Britain has to attract tourists is shit weather and the Scottish!

And how would a codified constitution solve any problems, compared to an uncodified one?

Unless the UNHRC can't tell the difference between 'unwritten' and 'uncodified'...

But without the monarchy, all Britain has to attract tourists is shit weather and the Scottish!
We do our part. :p

I'm no fan of the monarchy, but I'd hardly class their existance as a human rights abuse, it doesn't make a difference to the average person. Regardless of wether we have it or not, or wether we have a written constitution, it's of no concern to any other country or international organisation. And the idea of a bunch of primitive dictatorships lecturing us on human rights is laughable, it highlights just what a joke the UN is.

The United Nations, much like the European Union, can fuck right off and stop pretending it has any prerogative to dictate, or presume to dictate, British affairs. The same applies for Sri Lanka. Frankly they should grow more tea , send it to us as an apology, and set their own house in order.

The United Nations, much like the European Union, can fuck right off and stop pretending it has any prerogative to dictate, or presume to dictate, British affairs. The same applies for Sri Lanka. Frankly they should grow more tea , send it to us as an apology, and set their own house in order.
Hypocritical, much?

And how would a codified constitution solve any problems, compared to an uncodified one?

Unless the UNHRC can't tell the difference between 'unwritten' and 'uncodified'...
It's made up of really pretty crappy states. I have no idea why... any... of Asia or Africa is allowed on the HRC, not to mention why it exists, because most of what it does is criticises Israel, and rates it worse than Sudan for some reason.

I take back an earlier statement in another thread about funny comments.

This from the UNHRC takes the bloomin cake.

Hypocritical, much?

Your point being? I have never, and will never, claim equanimity to be central to my politics. That uninformed, uppity ex-colonials should know their place is a different matter.

It's made up of really pretty crappy states. I have no idea why... any... of Asia or Africa is allowed on the HRC, not to mention why it exists, because most of what it does is criticises Israel, and rates it worse than Sudan for some reason.

I hear there be Jews in Israel. Not so in Sudan.

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

Only sometimes?

Your point being. I have never, and will never, claim equanimity to be central to my politics.
My point being, that even while thumbing through the thesaurus, having a hypocritical position isn't going to get you anywhere. And merely saying, "oh, I've never claimed I was consistent" doesn't excuse.

That uninformed, uppity ex-colonials should know their place is a different matter.
Damned if the brown people tell you what to do, eh Chris?

My point being, that even while thumbing through the thesaurus, having a hypocritical position isn't going to get you anywhere. And merely saying, "oh, I've never claimed I was consistent" doesn't excuse.


Damned if the brown people tell you what to do, eh Chris?

Damned if a country whose only superior asset to ours is a chucking offspinner is telling me what to do? Yes.

Some rather questionable quoting from the Torygraph:

The monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year but even groups representing taxpayers said there was no case for getting rid of it.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "With so many human rights abuses around the world the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world.

"Saudi Arabia and Cuba should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record."
source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy,-says-UN.html)

The quotes from Elliott don't match up with the views assigned to his group.

Overall, I agree with the conclusions of the council (that the monarchy should go and that we should have a bill of rights) but I don't see the former as a human rights issue. Besides, the UN HRC is a sad joke of an institution with about as much credibility as Goebbels.

the monarchy should go
Why?
we should have a bill of rights
We do. Of 1869.

Damned if a country whose only superior asset to ours is a chucking offspinner is telling me what to do? Yes.
Then why not just say that instead of sounding like your from the 1800s?

"Uninformed, uppity ex-colonials"... you're like some caricature of, well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLSNzEorbI)...

Doesnt Saudi Arabia have a monarchy? And, you know, the whole cutting-peoples-hands-off-for-theft thing?

Doesnt Saudi Arabia have a monarchy? And, you know, the whole cutting-peoples-hands-off-for-theft thing?

Ironic isn't it? didn't you notice that Iran claims Sex discrimination in the UK as well?

Your point being? I have never, and will never, claim equanimity to be central to my politics. That uninformed, uppity ex-colonials should know their place is a different matter.

As one of those uppity ex-colonials, I do question the viability of answering hypocrisy with hypocrisy.

As one of those uppity ex-colonials, I do question the viability of answering hypocrisy with hypocrisy.

Because we're bigger than Sri Lanka, and have bigger friends. Simple really.

Because we're bigger than Sri Lanka, and have bigger friends. Simple really.

But Sri Lanka controls your tea supply.

But Sri Lanka controls your tea supply.

Really? Prove it.

Neither Sri Lanka nor UN asked for Abolition of British Monarchy (http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/394/1/)

The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva wishes to contradict several inaccuracies and distortions contained in a report in the London Daily Express, which seems to have been echoed by certain other news organizations, to the effect that Sri Lanka called for the abolition of the British monarchy. There was no such call, not by Sri Lanka and not by the UN Human Rights Council. Indeed the quote cited in the Daily Express does not include such a call. It recommends only that the UK 'consider' the holding of a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican, with a bill of rights. The Daily Express has omitted the reference to a bill of rights.

The entire matter is regarded as subject to the sovereign decision of the British people, and the recommendation is that the UK considers the ascertainment of their wishes by means of a referendum. It contains the further qualifier of 'the desirability or otherwise'.

It is a double distortion to assert that Sri Lanka insisted on the inclusion of the recommendation of the abolition of the monarchy in the UN report, firstly because, as stated above, no such recommendation was made, secondly because the preparation and production of the report is entirely a matter for the group of three randomly chosen states, termed the 'troika' together with the state under review, in this case the UK. Sri Lanka was not a member of the 'troika'.

It was entirely the prerogative of the state under review, the UK , to raise a point of order, or object to the listing of any recommendation it chose to reject, and thereby limit its mention to the summary of proceedings in the narrative portion of the text. The state under review also has the further option of engaging through the troika with any other state which had made recommendations to negotiate their modification.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process and mechanism entail recommendations which are constructively intended. In the UPR process the UK too has made many recommendations about other countries, which those countries have dealt with in different ways.

I figured the story seemed odd...

And how would a codified constitution solve any problems, compared to an uncodified one?

Unless the UNHRC can't tell the difference between 'unwritten' and 'uncodified'...


We do our part. :p

Funnily enough, there's a discussion exactly about that going on in another thread...

Doesnt Saudi Arabia have a monarchy?
A tyrannical and corrupt one by any measure. Far more so than ours.

Why?

We do. Of 1869.

1689 ;)

Neither Sri Lanka nor UN asked for Abolition of British Monarchy (http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/394/1/)



I figured the story seemed odd...

The Daily Express - ah. Makes more sense now.

1689 ;)
Typo :(

Only sometimes?
Yes. Only sometimes.

The Daily Express - ah. Makes more sense now.
Indeed.

And the whole paper can be viewed here: PDF document. (http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session1/GB/A_HRC_8_25_United_Kingdom_E.pdf)

The sections in question are:
17. Sri Lanka expressed its interest in the experience of the United Kingdom in countering terrorism while protecting human rights. Sri Lanka asked about progress in the inquiry instituted in 1998 of the “Bloody Sunday” of 1972; whether prosecutions have been effected, and the reasons for delays. It also asked whether international assistance would be useful in this regard. With reference to a report by the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka asked about incidents of complicity between elements of security forces in the killings of civilians, and if progress had been made in bringing prosecutions of those responsible. Sri Lanka recommended that the United Kingdom consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written Constitution, preferably republican, which includes a bill of rights.

19. To consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican, which includes a bill of rights (Sri Lanka).
That's no. 19 of 28 recommandations.

Ironic isn't it? didn't you notice that Iran claims Sex discrimination in the UK as well?

Where did they do that? Or do you mean India?

Of further interest, and showing why the HRC is an absolute joke, is the statement by Iran that we should more to stop sexual discrimination.

Your thoughts?

You know what's fun? When people make such a statement such as yours: The final piece of evidence that the UNHRC is a joke is that Iran said...

...and you can debunk the claim and show that the article in question is wrong. I always like that.

34. The Islamic Republic of Iran noted the concerns expressed by various human rights mechanisms about a series of human rights violations in the United Kingdom, including with regard to the increasing racial prejudice against ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers and immigrants, the increase in the incidence of domestic violence, including sexual violence against children within families, schools and detention centres. It also noted concerns expressed at the disproportionately high number of “stop and searches” carried out by police against members of ethnic or racial minorities, and the “profiling” in counter-terrorism efforts by the Government officials as well as the abuse of counter-terrorism laws which are perceived to target the Muslim population. It noted concerns at the grave situation of journalists and human rights defenders in Northern Ireland, including cases of death threats, arrests and detention, and cases of attacks on Muslim graves. The Islamic Republic of Iran asked about the concrete measures taken by the United Kingdom to address the said deteriorating human rights situation.

20. India referred to reports about increasing racial prejudice and discrimination against ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers and immigrants, and asked if the United Kingdom considers the introduction of domestic legislation prohibiting discrimination on the ground of colour and nationality as recommended by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). India also referred to reports and allegations of an increase of violence against women and asked whether a recommendation would be acceptable to set up a strategic oversight body, such as a Commission on Violence against Women, to ensure greater coherence and more effective protection for women.

But I know, I know, it's all to easy to mistake Iran and India. I mean, they're practically identical in every way.:rolleyes:


The Telegraph has done poor work on this one. No fact checking an no research of their own. Congrats.

But without the monarchy, all Britain has to attract tourists is shit weather and the Scottish!

Theres the shite watery beer too....Rumour has it they drink some stuff warm....


uninformed, uppity ex-colonials should know their place is a different matter.
!

Ooooo, get her.

Its a bit ironic to go on about "uninformed" when you didn't even bother to check whether or not the article was in any way valid.....

I'm sure they know their place. I'd suggest its you that doesnt know yours.

Where did they do that? Or do you mean India?

Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.

That came from the link.

That came from the link.

The article is wrong.

You know what's fun? When people make such a statement such as yours: The final piece of evidence that the UNHRC is a joke is that Iran said...

...and you can debunk the claim and show that the article in question is wrong. I always like that.
... uhu sorry I took what is usually a fairly decent source of the news at face value when it has turned out to be a bit pish... not really my fault...

Whether or not anyone said the UK should get rid of the monarchy, I think it's fair to acknowledge that such a suggestion could never be realised, since no authority exists that could lawfully depose the monarch of a nation against its wishes.

... uhu sorry I took what is usually a fairly decent source of the news at face value when it has turned out to be a bit pish... not really my fault...
The Telegraph is about as reliable as the Guardian and the Times. All are more thoughtful and careful than tabloids, but they all have a political bias of their own that tends to get reflected in "errors" in their relation of events.

The article is wrong.

I'm not sure why you are being so assertive about this, that PDF does not nescecerally have a complete comprehensive list of every single thing mentioned in the meeting, and the telegraph IS usually a reliable source and they likely used other sources. And its not as if Iran whining about human rights isn't insanely, monstrously ironic anyway.

... uhu sorry I took what is usually a fairly decent source of the news at face value when it has turned out to be a bit pish... not really my fault...

I know, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of quality in this article. I've usually viewed The Telegraph as generally credible.

Regardless: Sorry if I sounded crass! :fluffle: :)

This diserves a 'meh'. Not that I wouldn't say 'no' to an entirely written and codified constitution and bill of rights (The English Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right being a little elderly and impotent), and I'm sure there are probably other countries that we could get goodideas from of how to go about it.

Because we're bigger than Sri Lanka, and have bigger friends. Simple really.

*stretches* Ah yes, calling on us again are we? lol...

Besides, we DO have a Bill of Rights...and guess who's its based off of...Why, The ENGLISH Bill of Rights if i remember correctly, lol...

Stupid UN...They should remember which couple of Countries started their sorry asses...

I know, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of quality in this article. I've usually viewed The Telegraph as generally credible.
It's gone downhill recently, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why you are being so assertive about this, that PDF does not nescecerally have a complete comprehensive list of every single thing mentioned in the meeting, and the telegraph IS usually a reliable source and they likely used other sources. And its not as if Iran whining about human rights isn't insanely, monstrously ironic anyway.

The Syrian bit is there, yet the Iranian bit isn't. And if the Iranian bit isn't there, it would mean that it's not an official part of the report. And then there's no way to determine the validity of the claim - but one thing is for sure: The implication that it was a part of the report is wrong.

Since there's little mention of sexual discrimination at all in the report, I don't see that they would go out of order at the meeting and start "whining" about random things not mentioned in the report - at least, that should have been the focus of the newsstory if true.

And seeing how misreported the rest of the story is, I don't accept it as fact before I see other sources backing up the claim that Iran made that complaint. So far, I haven't seen any able or willing to do so.

there are probably other countries that we could get goodideas from of how to go about it.

Such as?

Such as?
Off the top of my head? Canada, New Zealand and Ireland are all countries with a British constitutional heritage that have adopted a bill of rights of some form after independence.

Off the top of my head? Canada, New Zealand and Ireland are all countries with a British constitutional heritage that have adopted a bill of rights of some form after independence.

Ireland's government is not that great and I wouldn't get pointers from them (sorry Ifrean :p), Canada is still a constitutional monarchy where arguably the queen has more power there than here (though she does not exercise it). Likewise the Queen is head of state in New Zealand and doesn't even have a codified constitution.

Plus the British Monarch is the offical head of state of a fair number of countries who probably wouldn't be happy about the monarch being removed.

Then again the UK has (in a way) a written constitution already, its something called the Magna Carta...

Ireland's government is not that great and I wouldn't get pointers from them (sorry Ifrean :p), Canada is still a constitutional monarchy where arguably the queen has more power there than here (though she does not exercise it). Likewise the Queen is head of state in New Zealand and doesn't even have a codified constitution.

Hey, they got the IRA to stop blowing shit up, they can't be that bad.

Why is everyone getting so affronted about being asked to consider holding a referendum. Hardly sounds the most unreasonable comment.

When Lizzie dies, hold a referendum. Faced with the prospect of King Charles, Britain might come to its senses and get rid of the monarchy.

Then again the UK has (in a way) a written constitution already, its something called the Magna Carta...

Nope.

When Lizzie dies, hold a referendum. Faced with the prospect of King Charles, Britain might come to its senses and get rid of the monarchy.

Charles has done, and could do, rather more good than the incumbent monarch. David Starkey is correct in his assessment that, through the Prince's Trust, and other charitable endeavours, Charles has done much to resurrect private philanthropy of the institutional, organised kind that perished under Atlee and rising taxation.

When Lizzie dies, hold a referendum. Faced with the prospect of King Charles, Britain might come to its senses and get rid of the monarchy. Why do people hate Prince Charles, he has done nothing wrong. And you cannot force the destruction of an important and ancient institution because you don’t like king. Besides, that’s the whole idea of a monarchy, we get no choice, and that is a good thing.

Hey, they got the IRA to stop blowing shit up, they can't be that bad. They took their time in getting the "united Ireland" bit out of the constitution, didn’t they?

Finally, let them criticize all they want; we all no fine well nothing will happen and we can be safe in the knowledge that we are better than them, whatever they say.

Ireland's government is not that great and I wouldn't get pointers from them (sorry Ifrean :p),
They've drafted two constitutions that have codified all the conventions of the westminster system. If the UK were to go down the road of a single codified constitution, much of the content would be drawn from Ireland, as its government is extremely similar to the UK, with the exception of having a figurehead President instead of a Queen.

Canada is still a constitutional monarchy where arguably the queen has more power there than here (though she does not exercise it).
Where are you getting this from? The Queen of Canada has less power than the UK Queen as all her functions are done by the Governor-General instead of the Queen directly and she is bound by a written constitution and bill of rights that can only be amended by the Canadian Parliament.

Likewise the Queen is head of state in New Zealand and doesn't even have a codified constitution.
Their constituton isn't, but they have a bill of rights that can't be amended with a supermajority in Parliament.

Nope.

Agreed. Magna Carta was not conceived as a statement of English political freedoms; it was, and should be considered as, evidence of Baronial power over the crown, and the inability of John I to restrain his nobility.

Indeed, given prevailing political trends towards authoratarian circumscription of civili liberties, a single, cogent constitution, rather than a plethora of tacit, mutable assumptions, might be a good idea.

Indeed, given prevailing political trends towards authoratarian circumscription of civili liberties, a single, cogent constitution, rather than a plethora of tacit, mutable assumptions, might be a good idea.
My only worry would be a constitution drafted, passed and enforced by the government of the day and biased towards themselves and/or their supporters. Perhaps a Royal Commission independent of the government would be a good idea.

Agreed. Magna Carta was not conceived as a statement of English political freedoms; it was, and should be considered as, evidence of Baronial power over the crown, and the inability of John I to restrain his nobility.

There is that. There's also the fact that only three articles from Magna Carta are still in force, and that it most certainly isn't a constitution.

Of course, the 1215 version isn't the one that is in force, the one we have these days, or three articles of it, is a 1297 version.

My only worry would be a constitution drafted, passed and enforced by the government of the day and biased towards themselves and/or their supporters. Perhaps a Royal Commission independent of the government would be a good idea.

True. Very true. I suspect a royal commission would be the best option, since simply deferring to the Lords would allow partisan opinion to be involved, given the number of peers appointed by New Labour, who would be inclined to follow the authoritarian stance it has adopted.

There is that. There's also the fact that only three articles from Magna Carta are still in force, and that it most certainly isn't a constitution.

Of course, the 1215 version isn't the one that is in force, the one we have these days, or three articles of it, is a 1297 version.

Ah, really? That is news. Damn I hate having never had occassion to properly study Plantagenet history.:(

Why do people hate Prince Charles, he has done nothing wrong.

Maybe. I just don't like the monarchy.

Besides, that’s the whole idea of a monarchy, we get no choice, and that is a good thing.


Na. This is the 21st century. Inherited privilege is not more important than democracy.

Na. This is the 21st century. Inherited privilege is not more important than democracy.

Go and fart in somebody else's palace. Frankly, I feel infinitely better disposed towards a slightly arrogant, public school educated extended family who devote the better part of their lives to the service of the nation, then to a political system that empowers the average comprehensive school educated, Big Brother watching Sun reader.

Maybe. I just don't like the monarchy. Why? They do no wrong

Na. This is the 21st century. Inherited privilege is not more important than democracy. For a safe democracy you should have an un-elected body to look after the politicians, to curtail there power. Currently we have the Lords, however with any more reforms they will become useless, then all we have is the Monarchy. I’m not saying the Monarchy should have day to day executive power. But in times of power hungry politicians or a wholly corrupt government? A system has to be in place; who better than the un-elected (didn’t have to win a popularity contest), no allegiance to political parties and undying loyalty to the British people: The Royal Family

Your point being? I have never, and will never, claim equanimity to be central to my politics. That uninformed, uppity ex-colonials should know their place is a different matter.

I hope that you'll never claim intelligence to be central to your politics either.

I agree that its rediculous to have certain countries on the Human Rights Commission, but you should acknowledge the UN does a lot of good. just not so effectively when it comes to international politics. they're better at the Humanitarian aid, and such.

Go and fart in somebody else's palace. Frankly, I feel infinitely better disposed towards a slightly arrogant, public school educated extended family who devote the better part of their lives to the service of the nation, then to a political system that empowers the average comprehensive school educated, Big Brother watching Sun reader.

Your snobbery is so boring.

Why? They do no wrong

They're unbeliviably rich for no justifiable reason. Given the amount of flack "spongers" get, I think it's fair to say they do wrong.

For a safe democracy you should have an un-elected body to look after the politicians, to curtail there power. Currently we have the Lords, however with any more reforms they will become useless, then all we have is the Monarchy. I’m not saying the Monarchy should have day to day executive power. But in times of power hungry politicians or a wholly corrupt government? A system has to be in place; who better than the un-elected (didn’t have to win a popularity contest), no allegiance to political parties and undying loyalty to the British people: The Royal Family

Do you want me to quote the really safe democracies that don't have a Royal Family? And what would the Royal Family do in case of a wholly corrupt government? My guess is they'd go along with them or get abolished.

I agree that its rediculous to have certain countries on the Human Rights Commission, but you should acknowledge the UN does a lot of good. just not so effectively when it comes to international politics. they're better at the Humanitarian aid, and such.

No better than private charities, truth be told, and probably no better funded.

Your snobbery is so boring.





It isn't snobbery, it's the truth. Much like the majority of my political compatriots, I have a supreme disdain for the British electorate. You must concede their cultural tastes, eloquence and disregard for civil liberites is hardly endearing.

So now the UN HRC messes the UK. you didn't believe it when they were messing with just the US did you ?

So now the UN HRC messes the UK. you didn't believe it when they were messing with just the US did you ?

How 'bout reading the thread?

They're unbeliviably rich for no justifiable reason. Given the amount of flack "spongers" get, I think it's fair to say they do wrong.


Much of their wealth comes from private holdings, mainly of large amounts of land.

I'd keep them because tbh although I dislike inherited privilege I'd dislike a presidential system or anything of that nature even more.

Ireland's government is not that great and I wouldn't get pointers from them
Care to expand that into a point?


They took their time in getting the "united Ireland" bit out of the constitution, didn’t they?

Perfectly fine with or without the Articles in question. Hasn't been a war between to the two countries for 90 years now, has there?

They're unbeliviably rich for no justifiable reason. Given the amount of flack "spongers" get, I think it's fair to say they do wrong. That is an argument for all inherited wealth. The royal family, through their estate revenues, give a lot more to the government than they cost. Besides, if I have worked hard for my money I want it to go to my family, be it 20 years from now or 500 years from now. Its my money and I should have overall say on who gets it. Besides, she is our head of state, she is all the people and beliefs and cultures of the country embodies in one person, show some respect.

Do you want me to quote the really safe democracies that don't have a Royal Family? And what would the Royal Family do in case of a wholly corrupt government? My guess is they'd go along with them or get abolished. Well my answer would be no. Where it is possible for the majority elected representatives to all be from the same political background with no opposition then apart from armed rebellion for a military coup what is there to stop the government. In the case of a corrupt government they have the power to remove it, if the government refuse’s to stand down then it could lead to civil war. However I would prefer civil war, fighting for a just cause, then a corrupt government without the best interests of the people at mind.

Perfectly fine with or without the Articles in question. Hasn't been a war between to the two countries for 90 years now, has there? Not properly, but it took them one hell of a long time to stop the IRA when there arms & equipment were running through, and operations were ran from, the 'Free State'.

It isn't snobbery, it's the truth. Much like the majority of my political compatriots, I have a supreme disdain for the British electorate. You must concede their cultural tastes, eloquence and disregard for civil liberites is hardly endearing.

Sure. I just don't have any faith in the monarchy just because they're rich.

Much of their wealth comes from private holdings, mainly of large amounts of land.

I'd like to see that taken away from them.

I'd keep them because tbh although I dislike inherited privilege I'd dislike a presidential system or anything of that nature even more.

I'd like a Presidential system. I have a lot of problems with the Prime Minister also being the leader of a party.

That is an argument for all inherited wealth. The royal family, through their estate revenues, give a lot more to the government than they cost. Besides, if I have worked hard for my money I want it to go to my family, be it 20 years from now or 500 years from now. Its my money and I should have overall say on who gets it.

Except the source for this wealth is more obvious.

Besides, she is our head of state, she is all the people and beliefs and cultures of the country embodies in one person, show some respect.

Maybe you should show some respect for the majority of people who wouldn't agree with that? Maybe all of the people who don't identify with the Church of England? She's the embodiment of inherited privilege and a particular kind of Christian faith based on a guy wanting a divorce.

Well my answer would be no. Where it is possible for the majority elected representatives to all be from the same political background with no opposition then apart from armed rebellion for a military coup what is there to stop the government. In the case of a corrupt government they have the power to remove it, if the government refuse’s to stand down then it could lead to civil war. However I would prefer civil war, fighting for a just cause, then a corrupt government without the best interests of the people at mind.

So who is going to be on the other side of this civil war? I can't see that it's anybody who couldn't act unless the Queen made the token gesture of trying to remove the government. The Queen doesn't have any meaningful power.

Not properly, but it took them one hell of a long time to stop the IRA when there arms & equipment were running through, and operations were ran from, the 'Free State'.

Shows how much you know about the actions and patrols of the Irish Army from the early 70's onwards, but I wouldn't expect you to.

And blame the Irish-Americans for consistently funding them.

I'd like to see that taken away from them.

On what basis?


I'd like a Presidential system. I have a lot of problems with the Prime Minister also being the leader of a party.

Elaborate?


Except the source for this wealth is more obvious.

You're just going to strip all their privately owned wealth?

I'd like a Presidential system.
Why remove an institution of centralised ceremonial power, only to adopt an institution of centralised actual power?

The PM and his office have become more and more like a Presidential position from Thatcher onwards; it's done us no good. We need to decentralise power, not create a position where it can be more easily abused.

On what basis?

That they've abused the British people and stolen from them. We're simply confiscating the profits of a crime.

Elaborate?

There has been almost no discussion over Gordon Brown's competence as Prime Minister in terms of his failings to deliver for the UK (and he has many failings). All the coverage surrounds how he deals with his MPs, how he lost London and local elections and by elections (none of which had his name on the ballot papers). If people want to vote for someone who will serve their local interests, they should get to vote for them without the vote having a double meaning as a vote for Brown. We should vote in an executive.

Edit: Just seen the Chumblywumbly post. I'd advocate more local power. And I think that actually a Presidential system is one way of going about that. Putting back the ability of local people to vote for local politicians on local matters. I think mayors, for example, are a good thing.

That they've abused the British people and stolen from them. We're simply confiscating the profits of a crime.
Abused and stolen from them? When, where, how etc.



There has been almost no discussion over Gordon Brown's competence as Prime Minister in terms of his failings to deliver for the UK (and he has many failings). All the coverage surrounds how he deals with his MPs, how he lost London and local elections and by elections (none of which had his name on the ballot papers). If people want to vote for someone who will serve their local interests, they should get to vote for them without the vote having a double meaning as a vote for Brown. We should vote in an executive.
Which stone are you living under? There's been huge amounts of discussion on his competence.

The UK system is designed to be effective and allow people to give the government a mandate and ability to make change, rather than have the possibility of having the executive and legislative branches opposed to each other. I'd like PR but we don't need an elected executive.

[I'd like to see that taken away from them. But it is theirs, not the states, just like any other private holding. So taking it away would be theft, just like the government taking your house away.

Except the source for this wealth is more obvious. The source is there own private estates, which some members of the royal family personally run. Just like any other landed family, if there power were taken away we couldn’t take there land. And if we did then we would have to take the land everybody else too, and that includes me so you and your commie mates can sod off.

Maybe you should show some respect for the majority of people who wouldn't agree with that? Maybe all of the people who don't identify with the Church of England? She's the embodiment of inherited privilege and a particular kind of Christian faith based on a guy wanting a divorce. The majority of people approve of the monarchy. She represents all people, regardless of faith or creed, that is her definition as a figurehead. As all royalty is, around the world and through time. And the break away with Rome wasn’t just about "a guy wanting a divorce". I would rather the king held the power than the pope anyway. With the inherited privilege comes reasonability, a lot of responsibility, being the monarch isn’t easy despite what people think abut them lying around the house all day.

So who is going to be on the other side of this civil war? I can't see that it's anybody who couldn't act unless the Queen made the token gesture of trying to remove the government. The Queen doesn't have any meaningful power. If the parliament was dodgy, and the people knew this and the queen knew this, then the queen would have the support of the people to carry out her actions. With the support of the people she would use her power which *shock, horror* she does actually have. Dissolving parliament for example

Shows how much you know about the actions and patrols of the Irish Army from the early 70's onwards, but I wouldn't expect you to.

And blame the Irish-Americans for consistently funding them. I knew about the Irish-American thing. And if you mean the actual Irish Army, well there a bit shite aren’t they.

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

SOMETIMES????

lolololololololololololololololololololololol

But it is theirs, not the states, just like any other private holding. So taking it away would be theft, just like the government taking your house away.

And just like the government taking 30% of your salary.

The source is there own private estates, which some members of the royal family personally run. Just like any other landed family, if there power were taken away we couldn’t take there land. And if we did then we would have to take the land everybody else too, and that includes me

That's not great logic.

The majority of people approve of the monarchy. She represents all people, regardless of faith or creed, that is her definition as a figurehead.

She can say she is. I can say I am. It doesn't make it so. If you don't believe in the religion that she is head of, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest she represents you. She's just some woman.

being the monarch isn’t easy despite what people think abut them lying around the house all day.

My objection isn't that it's easy. My objection is that it's wrong.

If the parliament was dodgy, and the people knew this and the queen knew this, then the queen would have the support of the people to carry out her actions. With the support of the people she would use her power which *shock, horror* she does actually have. Dissolving parliament for example

So the answer is that the people could revolt. The people could revolt even without a monarchy to cheer them on.

And just like the government taking 30% of your salary.

That's not great logic.



You want a government to be able to seize any bit of land it likes?

I knew about the Irish-American thing. And if you mean the actual Irish Army, well there a bit shite aren’t they.

As good or as bad as the British Army in stopping paramilitary organisations operating within their respective borders. Infer from that what you will.
But again, I wouldn't exactly expect you to be aware of that.

She can say she is. I can say I am. It doesn't make it so. If you don't believe in the religion that she is head of, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest she represents you. She's just some woman.
That's the thing. She's Just Some Woman. That is exactly what most of our current government theories lack - the "common sense" view, where Some Woman (or Some Guy, or a group of such people) acts as a sanity check on anything the Government tries to pass. Heck, it doesn't even need to be someone educated, or someone fully matured. If a 5 year old kid can spot flaws in your bill, it should be reworked, no matter how "democratic" the system that spawned it.

You want a government to be able to seize any bit of land it likes?

No.

That's the thing. She's Just Some Woman. That is exactly what most of our current government theories lack - the "common sense" view, where Some Woman (or Some Guy, or a group of such people) acts as a sanity check on anything the Government tries to pass. Heck, it doesn't even need to be someone educated, or someone fully matured. If a 5 year old kid can spot flaws in your bill, it should be reworked, no matter how "democratic" the system that spawned it.

There's barely a single bill anywhere in the world that someone on this forum wouldn't object to. They're some guy or some gal. So essentially every bill potentially should be reworked.

SOMETIMES????

lolololololololololololololololololololololol

Educating UN Bashers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552922)

There's barely a single bill anywhere in the world that someone on this forum wouldn't object to. They're some guy or some gal. So essentially every bill potentially should be reworked.
I think there's truth in that. Lawmaking doesn't suit the engineering principle of "making the common case" - if a law isn't universally acceptable among the body politic that is being represented, it makes sense that such a law should be prevented from passing until accord can be reached. This may result in passive governance, but in many ways, that is a good thing, since acting without universal consent creates institutional isolation and only partial representation of the general will of the people.

Why can't the UN just stfu? The monarchy isn't oppressing anyone.

Go and fart in somebody else's palace. Frankly, I feel infinitely better disposed towards a slightly arrogant, public school educated extended family who devote the better part of their lives to the service of the nation, then to a political system that empowers the average comprehensive school educated, Big Brother watching Sun reader.

You know, I can't fathom why you care so much for civil liberties in the discussion on the new terror laws and yet have such disdain for the opinions and rights of the average citizen.

You know, I can't fathom why you care so much for civil liberties in the discussion on the new terror laws and yet have such disdain for the opinions and rights of the average citizen.
That is what Libertarianism is. "I do what I want, fuck you". Yes, Chris is a dick, but he's consistent, and you've gotta give him credit for that.

I'd advocate more local power. And I think that actually a Presidential system is one way of going about that. Putting back the ability of local people to vote for local politicians on local matters.
What's your thinking behind this? A President of the UK wouldn't, I don't think, be a case of local people voting for a local politician.

I think mayors, for example, are a good thing.
I think councils are more of a good thing. :p

For a safe democracy you should have an un-elected body to look after the politicians, to curtail there power. Currently we have the Lords, however with any more reforms they will become useless, then all we have is the Monarchy. I’m not saying the Monarchy should have day to day executive power. But in times of power hungry politicians or a wholly corrupt government? A system has to be in place; who better than the un-elected (didn’t have to win a popularity contest), no allegiance to political parties and undying loyalty to the British people: The Royal Family


Even as an American, I actually agree with this, Our government of the past 8 years, and possibly the Twenty or so before that are good examples of how Power crazed Politicians, can, will and Do get out of hand, and there does need to be something there to curtail that power...

In our Country its supposed to be the Supreme Court, but, over the years its become so politicized its virtually useless, probably not unlike your House of Lords...Ive often thought we might have been better off if Washington had accepted that crown they offered him, lol...

What's your thinking behind this? A President of the UK wouldn't, I don't think, be a case of local people voting for a local politician.

That particular vote for the President wouldn't be a case of local people voting for a local politician. But now that your vote for executive power is unambigious, you'd be able to hold local politicians to account in their roles and be able to hold national politicians to account in their roles. There'd be no need to choose between expressing your dissatisfation with Gordon Brown and voting for the local politician you believe is most capable.

What did the UN expect by putting Iran and Cuba (amongst others) on the HRC?

Seriously its a fricking joke...though then again its to be expected considering that the UN was supposedly set up to stop wars from happening. And how many wars have there been since 1945?

For those who don't know, and for those who have forgotten, Britian did become a Republic for a fair few years under a chap called Cromwell...which didn't end so well due to Britian's infamous attraction of corrupt governments.

Seriously its a fricking joke...though then again its to be expected considering that the UN was supposedly set up to stop wars from happening. And how many wars have there been since 1945?

172 wars fewer than otherwise?

172 wars fewer than otherwise?

Meh, the fact that there have wars involving members of the UN since 1945 pretty much means a major failing on the UN's part. I mean the UN should object to a pointless war (I'm thinking of a couple of recent ones here) and perhaps even boycott and set up a series of trade embreyoes against the country wanting war as a deterrant...shame it won't ever happen... :(

Meh, the fact that there have wars involving members of the UN since 1945 pretty much means a major failing on the UN's part. I mean the UN should object to a pointless war (I'm thinking of a couple of recent ones here) and perhaps even boycott and set up a series of trade embreyoes against the country wanting war as a deterrant...shame it won't ever happen... :(

Trade embargoes, as everyone knows, are the mightiest cobblestone on the road to peace.

Neither Sri Lanka nor UN asked for Abolition of British Monarchy (http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/394/1/)



I figured the story seemed odd...

Sir Humphrey would be proud! That statement essentially sums up to say "I said absolutely nothing of any consequence at all, but could you keep paying my wages please".

this whole story is little more than a plot by a newspaper to ramp up British nationalism (do we even have that?) and thus its own newspaper sales...

but I will be dammed if for a second there I wasn't thinking of hoisting up the Union Jack on every plot of land in the known world subsequently kicking the worlds teeth in like the old days

You know, I can't fathom why you care so much for civil liberties in the discussion on the new terror laws and yet have such disdain for the opinions and rights of the average citizen.

because its proven that the average citizen is shall we say "challenged" in modern sociaty?

That is what Libertarianism is. "I do what I want, fuck you". Yes, Chris is a dick, but he's consistent, and you've gotta give him credit for that.

no because hes British and not so keen on economic suicide :)

Why can't the UN just stfu? The monarchy isn't oppressing anyone.

Except for the queen, maybe, since she doesn't get to vote.

Sure, she appoints the Prime Minister, but it's still not the same as casting a worthless vote against the incumbent in a safe constituency, is it?

I can't say I am looking forward to the reign of Charles III particularly.

I can't say I am looking forward to the reign of Charles III particularly.
He's generally clueless, but there are occasions on which he's come out with some good insight. I think he'd be alright as monarch as long as he can keep himself in check.

I can't say I am looking forward to the reign of Charles III particularly.

he generally keeps his mouth shut and thats what a monarch does

She can say she is. I can say I am. It doesn't make it so. If you don't believe in the religion that she is head of, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest she represents you. She's just some woman.


So the answer is that the people could revolt. The people could revolt even without a monarchy to cheer them on. First of all, as a Monarch she does represent all of her subjects, regardless of the creed, colour or class. That is her job as a figurehead and that is her international status.
Secondly, the people probably wouldn’t revolt and if they did they would be massacred by this dodgy government. The queen has the actual power to stop the government and holds ultimate control over the armed forces; furthermore many soldiers would rather fight for the queen than any politician. The queen also knows how to put things back together after the revolution, something common revolutionaries probably wouldn’t do very well.

Even as an American, I actually agree with this, Our government of the past 8 years, and possibly the Twenty or so before that are good examples of how Power crazed Politicians, can, will and Do get out of hand, and there does need to be something there to curtail that power...

In our Country its supposed to be the Supreme Court, but, over the years its become so politicized its virtually useless, probably not unlike your House of Lords...Ive often thought we might have been better off if Washington had accepted that crown they offered him, lol... Precisely, the Lower House has constantly reformed the Lords to make them more "Democratic", which simply means changing it so it agrees with the things being proposed by the government. These reforms have also changed the lords so the only thing they can do is make the government think about the bill a second time, and on top of that there is a parliament act which gives the commons the power to force it through the lords anyway, it’s a joke.

As good or as bad as the British Army in stopping paramilitary organisations operating within their respective borders. Infer from that what you will.
But again, I wouldn't exactly expect you to be aware of that. Well from what I’m told from members of the British Army who were in N.I, the Irish weren’t all that good.

That particular vote for the President wouldn't be a case of local people voting for a local politician. But now that your vote for executive power is unambigious, you'd be able to hold local politicians to account in their roles and be able to hold national politicians to account in their roles. There'd be no need to choose between expressing your dissatisfation with Gordon Brown and voting for the local politician you believe is most capable.

But it won't. You'd still be voting in a member of the legislative and control of that would be important for a party irrespective of who the executive is, since it would wield power on a national scale. So there'd still be a dual choice between an individual and the values of the party they belong to and are likely to support.

A much better system would be to increase the power of local councils and reduce Westminster's remit to more national issues.

He's generally clueless, but there are occasions on which he's come out with some good insight. I think he'd be alright as monarch as long as he can keep himself in check.

he generally keeps his mouth shut and thats what a monarch does

My concern is that he has been waiting so long he has a detailed plan of what he wants to do. Trouble is when he does open his mouth it is usually to firmly jam a foot in it.

WHat is interesting is that people think the representatives on the HRC actually speak for the whole country. If the Iranian rep speaks, Iran speaks. I have a funny feeling that the Iranian rep was probably put there to get a whiny hippie they couldn't imprison for some reason out of the government's hair.

That's my theory. :p

First of all, as a Monarch she does represent all of her subjects, regardless of the creed, colour or class. That is her job as a figurehead and that is her international status.

so what your saying is she represents not only all things British but also all things Canadian and even all things South African :eek:

don't get me wrong she is the head so to speak but the idea that she is the embodiment of all things British is rather silly considering shes an inbred aristocrat we beat Dianna to death with a lead pipe :p

furthermore many soldiers would rather fight for the queen than any politician.

thats a rather big assumption to make

so what your saying is she represents not only all things British but also all things Canadian and even all things South African :eek:

don't get me wrong she is the head so to speak but the idea that she is the embodiment of all things British is rather silly considering shes an inbred aristocrat we beat Dianna to death with a lead pipe :p



thats a rather big assumption to make Not all things, and not all the things that these people may believe in, but she represents the people themselves. In the same way that if you voted labour in the local elections, but your MP is a conservative, the conservative represents you weather you agree with him or not, like it or not. And is the Queen Head of state of South Africa? Don’t think so

From the soldiers have I have spoke with, witch is quite a few seeing as I’m in the ACF and plan on joining up in a few years. They all say they fight for the Queen, they are all loyal to the Queen, and they all hate the Government. From what I know, it’s the correct assumption.

Your thoughts?The UK is a democracy, so they should simply occasionally vote on the subject. And I doubt the majority of people want to the UK to become a republic. It wouldn't really be the United Kingdom if they did that.

Well from what I’m told from members of the British Army who were in N.I, the Irish weren’t all that good.

You mean its second-hand anecdotes that you're basing your opinions on then.....

From people who I know, trust, and were there, yes. I also believe what they say about the shortcomings of the British Government and Military command; I am more likely to trust someone who has first hand experience and no reason to show the government in a good light. Than the government they who just sing there own praises. And that goes for the Irish and the British

I can't say I am looking forward to the reign of Charles III particularly.
Hopefully he won't fall prey to "give a dog a bad name" syndrome. If he does, Edwards are always pretty wise. And we've got one of those around.

You know, I can't fathom why you care so much for civil liberties in the discussion on the new terror laws and yet have such disdain for the opinions and rights of the average citizen.
... his 'politics' is really just disdain for the stupid, which is fair enough. He's pissed off about the new terror laws because they're unnecessary, and the majority of the population was actually in favour of them.
That is what Libertarianism is. "I do what I want, fuck you". Yes, Chris is a dick, but he's consistent, and you've gotta give him credit for that.
... no, he's not a Libertarian, because he's too smart for that. Libertarians forget that the world exists outside of their tax returns, and that for a society to function properly it needs submission from those at the bottom to those at the top. A tiny state, and the amount of unity in your society is reduced. This is a Bad Thing.

This thread has made me determine that the US needs a monarchy.

But without the monarchy, all Britain has to attract tourists is shit weather and the Scottish!

Ahhh as my wife often says though, 'What does Scotland want with good weather, they have scenery'

Ahhh as my wife often says though, 'What does Scotland want with good weather, they have scenery'

no one goes to Scotland for the scenery they go hoping to find someone in a kilt and listen to that gibberish they call english up there.

no one goes to Scotland for the scenery they go hoping to find someone in a kilt and listen to that gibberish they call english up there.

And the whiskey. Wont somebody please think of the whiskey!

no one goes to Scotland for the scenery they go hoping to find someone in a kilt and listen to that gibberish they call english up there.
Maybe if they're those pretend-Scottish Americans, who are really into Braveheart etc. (although heh, I know several genuine Scots who enjoy that film to see us Sassenach bastards getting killed by Wallace and his mates :p)

Well from what I’m told from members of the British Army who were in N.I, the Irish weren’t all that good.

Yeh.... I hear that feeling is mutual. Must be something to do with collusion or something. Funny that. Annnnnnyway.

And the whiskey. Wont somebody please think of the whiskey!

Whisky without an -e

Whisky without an -e
Quite.

Whisky without an -e

Meh dyslexic, couldn't give a monke-es!:D

Besides we all know the Irish make it better than the Scots!

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

More than just sometimes, I daresay.

(my, I'm defending a monarchy! this will cost me extra kneeling and prayers in front of Lenin's sarcophagus! :D )

Meh dyslexic, couldn't give a monke-es!:D

Besides we all know the Irish make it better than the Scots!

T'is very true. Try getting the Scots to believe it though

T'is very true. Try getting the Scots to believe it though

Meh who cares what they think, they have their own parliment don't they.:eek:

The UN is completely useless.

Apparently because the UNHRC is populated by the most severe violators (and apparently, despite Guantanamo, the US isn't more than a bit player in violating human rights these days), there isn't much interest here in what the UNHRC has to say, other than those days when something comical is heralded.

Yeah, Iran - that bastion of no homosexuals -- that bastion of female freedom -- where every woman is treated far more equally under Sharia law and the benevolent rule of the Iranian mullahs than in any Western nation on Earth...

Between that, and the constant reference to the Hidden Imam, I keep wondering if Ahmadinejad is actually a Phelps family member...

Maybe if they're those pretend-Scottish Americans, who are really into Braveheart etc. (although heh, I know several genuine Scots who enjoy that film to see us Sassenach bastards getting killed by Wallace and his mates :p)

Hey we are not pretend Scots.
Just like the Irish there are more Scots here then in Scotland there for the US gets to name a state Scotland and Scotland must change its name to the land formerly know as Scotland. Or Mini Scotland.

God save the queen

Hey we are not pretend Scots.
Just like the Irish there are more Scots here then in Scotland there for the US gets to name a state Scotland and Scotland must change its name to the land formerly know as Scotland. Or Mini Scotland.
I suspect one's been at the whisky.
(my, I'm defending a monarchy! this will cost me extra kneeling and prayers in front of Lenin's sarcophagus! :p )
Pretty damn funny!

To my British friends from a colonist.

Keep the monarchy, it has been working just fine and dandy with you so far. The way I see it, when the British are ready to get rid of the mornachy, they will in their own way. It is their country, it is up to the British to decide how they will be governed. As for the UN and the human rights council, they can go piss on a 210v outlet.

To my British friends from a colonist.

Keep the monarchy, it has been working just fine and dandy with you so far. The way I see it, when the British are ready to get rid of the mornachy, they will in their own way. It is their country, it is up to the British to decide how they will be governed. As for the UN and the human rights council, they can go piss on a 210v outlet.

I'd say that the UK is a de facto republic, just with the funny incident of having an ereditary head of state, and lots of excellent tea and good manners.
Btw, Charles will make a good King, I think. At the very least, he's patient to the point of stubborness.

I'd say that the UK is a de facto republic, just with the funny incident of having an ereditary head of state, and lots of excellent tea and good manners.
Btw, Charles will make a good King, I think. At the very least, he's patient to the point of stubborness.

Japanese make far better TEA

There's nothing wrong with a monarchy, but OUR monarchy are a bunch of snobs. I think it should just be ceremonial, and they should still have to work.

There's nothing wrong with a monarchy, but OUR monarchy are a bunch of snobs. I think it should just be ceremonial, and they should still have to work.

I see them more as a nice middle class German family.

From the soldiers have I have spoke with, witch is quite a few seeing as I’m in the ACF and plan on joining up in a few years.

never post that your in the military on a public message board ever again ;)

They all say they fight for the Queen, they are all loyal to the Queen, and they all hate the Government. From what I know, it’s the correct assumption.

cut the pomp they do it because their mates are doing it

Hopefully he won't fall prey to "give a dog a bad name" syndrome. If he does, Edwards are always pretty wise. And we've got one of those around.

I would prefer Prince Harry if only for the Naz...google image search Prince Harry O_O

Japanese make far better TEA

*starts race riot*

I see them more as a nice middle class German family.

are there any German that aren't?

Typo :(Try more like 1215.

never post that your in the military on a public message board ever again I’m not in the military, I’m in the ACF. We are funded by the army and most of our instructors are ex-army, and we do army training. But we are a civilian organisation. I do plan on joining up though

cut the pomp they do it because their mates are doing it So because you don’t agree with what they say, they must be saying it for any other reason than what they actually mean.

There's nothing wrong with a monarchy, but OUR monarchy are a bunch of snobs. I think it should just be ceremonial, and they should still have to work. They do work, do some research. Besides, anyone who has ever met the Queen says she is a perfectly nice woman, not an arrogant bastard

I see them more as a nice middle class German family. How come a black family that moved here in the 60's are now considered as British, yet a Family who moved here over 200 yeas ago is still considered German?

... no, he's not a Libertarian, because he's too smart for that. Libertarians forget that the world exists outside of their tax returns, and that for a society to function properly it needs submission from those at the bottom to those at the top. A tiny state, and the amount of unity in your society is reduced. This is a Bad Thing.

He's not a libertarian because he's too smart. He's not a libertarian because it'd reduce the amount of oppressing he wants to do.

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

Is the UN ever usefull?
I say no.

From people who I know, trust, and were there, yes.

The people who landed their helicopters in the middle of GAA games, passed information and weapons to loyalists, participated in the odd bit of civillian shooting,....those people.....

The people who landed their helicopters in the middle of GAA games, passed information and weapons to loyalists, participated in the odd bit of civillian shooting,....those people..... None of the people I know are ex-UDR, who were extremely biased.

my thoughts?

sometimes the UN is completely useless.

Only sometimes?

Libertarians forget that the world exists outside of their tax returns, and that for a society to function properly it needs submission from those at the bottom to those at the top

So submission is good now?

None of the people I know are ex-UDR, who were extremely biased.

I wasn't talking about the UDR....

The people who landed their helicopters in the middle of GAA games, passed information and weapons to loyalists, participated in the odd bit of civillian shooting,....those people.....

I wasn't talking about the UDR.... Fine then, good. I’ll admit that accidents happened, but along as they were getting rid of republicans I don’t really care about there methods. The army were supposed to be neutral but when one side of the people you are fighting actively hates you and what you stand for, kills fellow servicemen and civilians and orchestrates bomb plots on the British mainland, then your going to be biased against them and the Catholics who they say they are fighting for and where all there recruits come from.

Nodina, im guessing your Irish?

Fine then, good. I’ll admit that accidents happened,

Hmmmmm...."Accident" you say.....
Army 'colluded' with loyalist killers
Rogue elements within the police and army in Northern Ireland helped loyalist paramilitaries to murder Catholics in the late 1980s, the UK's most senior police officer has said.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's report into collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries also found that military intelligence in Northern Ireland helped to prolong the Troubles.

Sir John Stevens said informants and agents "were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes".

The latest report, called Stevens Three, found that members of the RUC and Army colluded with the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), to murder Catholics.

Its key findings were:


Actions or omissions by security forces led to deaths of innocent people

Murders of solicitor Pat Finucane and student Adam Lambert could have been prevented.

Collusion in both murders of Pat Finucane and Adam Lambert

Government minister was compromised in House of Commons

Three official inquiries wilfully obstructed and misled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm

Now, how does that fit in with the normal definition of the word "Accident"....

Now, how does that fit in with the normal definition of the word "Accident".... Accident is when they shot Unionists or Protestants, the IRA have only themselves to blame for retaliation against Republican’s or Catholics. Sorry but dead Catholics or Republicans will receive no sympathy from me, same as a British Soldier, UDA member or Protestant will receive no sympathy from a member of the IRA. We were enemies, thats war.

Accident is when they shot Unionists or Protestants, the IRA have only themselves to blame for retaliation against Republican’s or Catholics. Sorry but dead Catholics or Republicans will receive no sympathy from me, same as a British Soldier, UDA member or Protestant will receive no sympathy from a member of the IRA. We were enemies, deal with it.

:rolleyes:

You have a very poor understanding of things. It might be best if you just stop now

:rolleyes:

You have a very poor understanding of things. It might be best if you just stop now Enlighten me

Try more like 1215.

Why on earth would he want to do that? The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, not 1215. We have no law that has been in effect since 1215.

no one goes to Scotland for the scenery they go hoping to find someone in a kilt and listen to that gibberish they call english up there.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm

Enjoy

Walcome til the Scottish Pairlament wabsite

We want tae mak siccar that as mony folk as can is able tae find oot aboot whit the Scottish Pairlament dis and whit wey it warks. We hae producit information anent the Pairlament in a reenge o different leids tae help ye tae find oot mair.

This section o wir wabsite introduces ye til the information that is tae haun on wir wabsite in Scots.

The UN is completely useless.

Apparently because the UNHRC is populated by the most severe violators (and apparently, despite Guantanamo, the US isn't more than a bit player in violating human rights these days), there isn't much interest here in what the UNHRC has to say, other than those days when something comical is heralded.

Yeah, Iran - that bastion of no homosexuals -- that bastion of female freedom -- where every woman is treated far more equally under Sharia law and the benevolent rule of the Iranian mullahs than in any Western nation on Earth...

Between that, and the constant reference to the Hidden Imam, I keep wondering if Ahmadinejad is actually a Phelps family member...

Is the UN ever usefull?
I say no.

Only sometimes?

Educating UN Bashers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552922)

That thread desperately needs to be stickied.

Why on earth would he want to do that? The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, not 1215. We have no law that has been in effect since 1215.

I, to be honest, think it'd be better in 500. England was just a group of seperate kingdoms, well rollin'.

In my opinion the Monarchy are useless, they do naff all to help the country. What i meant by the 500AD bit is that in them days the kings CARED for their community and did the best they could for them, If the Queen sold half of her friggin GOLD CASTLE and gave the money to charity she could help this country LOADS.
For real.

For real.
For real indeed.

Nah, the 500s were shit for all concerned, but especially for the bottom rungs in society.

Accident is when they shot Unionists or Protestants, the IRA have only themselves to blame for retaliation against Republican’s or Catholics. Sorry but dead Catholics or Republicans will receive no sympathy from me, same as a British Soldier, UDA member or Protestant will receive no sympathy from a member of the IRA. We were enemies, thats war.

War yes but we are all humans. I bet 3-1 that you have listened to propaganda and believe every single solitary bit of it.

Accident is when they shot Unionists or Protestants, the IRA have only themselves to blame for retaliation against Republican’s or Catholics. Sorry but dead Catholics or Republicans will receive no sympathy from me, same as a British Soldier, UDA member or Protestant will receive no sympathy from a member of the IRA. We were enemies, thats war.

So in fact you meant 'incidents that happen to people that don't matter' rather than 'accident'.

Does it strike you as a tad ironic that you justify the forces of the state acting in such a partisan sectarian way (despite their protestations otherwise) against an organisation that owed a great deal of its raison d'etre and justification to the partisan, sectarian nature of the Northern Irish State and its governance....

Sorry but dead Catholics will receive no sympathy from me

.....and this is the mind set that is allowed in the British Army today.

Wonderful.

Good luck in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Website
Walcome til the Scottish Pairlament wabsite

We want tae mak siccar that as mony folk as can is able tae find oot aboot whit the Scottish Pairlament dis and whit wey it warks. We hae producit information anent the Pairlament in a reenge o different leids tae help ye tae find oot mair.

This section o wir wabsite introduces ye til the information that is tae haun on wir wabsite in Scots.
Ahh, I see my tax money is well spent. :p

I, to be honest, think it'd be better in 500. England was just a group of seperate kingdoms, well rollin'.
Err no, it was pretty piss poor in those times, what with the lack of flushing toilets, healthcare of any real type, oppression by your landlord, life expectancy of about 35 etc.
In my opinion the Monarchy are useless, they do naff all to help the country.
Aye, well you're flying in the face of facts.

The monarchy brings in millions a year from tourism alone, the DoE stuff is nice, and the Prince's Trust helps quite a lot of people out. Happy days.

And all for 60ish pence per taxpayer? Not bad.
What i meant by the 500AD bit is that in them days the kings CARED for their community and did the best they could for them
I wouldn't pretend that our local kings were any different from the earls of today tbqh. Mainly timewasters, some good, lots of bad.
If the Queen sold half of her friggin GOLD CASTLE and gave the money to charity she could help this country LOADS.
For real.
Aye this exists and is called the National Trust. Walk around rich peoples' houses that didn't want to pay inheritance tax! Woot!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm

Now, how does that fit in with the normal definition of the word "Accident"....
It doesn't but the fact that it was done by "Rogue elements" would suggest that it was hardly standard practice to collude with the UDA/UDF and go and kill off the catholics.

It doesn't but the fact that it was done by "Rogue elements" would suggest that it was hardly standard practice to collude with the UDA/UDF and go and kill off the catholics.

I'd suggest reading that article again, with close attention to the last few paragraphs. We aren't talking about a few yahoos.....

Let's just say that the idea wouldn't cause sharp intakes of breath....
Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.
Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.

It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

And of course there was the whole Dublin-Monaghan bombings thing....The complete lack of co-operation by the Brits, for instance....

.....and this is the mind set that is allowed in the British Army today.

Wonderful.

Good luck in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hopefully hes just a throwback....

War yes but we are all humans. I bet 3-1 that you have listened to propaganda and believe every single solitary bit of it. When they attack us through terrorism they are no longer human

-Original Message Removed-

Sorry, that was reactionary. But seriously, that's an abhorrent attitude. I would not want you representing me on the world stage.

When they attack us through terrorism they are no longer human

Really. Who are/is "us", btw...?

What? I like the queen! Don't get rid of er!

When they attack us through terrorism they are no longer human
I don't know if you noticed, but that rationale hasn't exactly worked in NI during the last couple of centuries...

Err no, it was pretty piss poor in those times, what with the lack of flushing toilets, healthcare of any real type, oppression by your landlord, life expectancy of about 35 etc.
And were YOU there? I was. Me and the King of Lindsey had a right feast.


Aye, well you're flying in the face of facts.

The monarchy brings in millions a year from tourism alone, the DoE stuff is nice, and the Prince's Trust helps quite a lot of people out. Happy days.

And all for 60ish pence per taxpayer? Not bad.

For serious, it doesn't help. Poor people are still poor


I wouldn't pretend that our local kings were any different from the earls of today tbqh. Mainly timewasters, some good, lots of bad.

See first quote.


Aye this exists and is called the National Trust. Walk around rich peoples' houses that didn't want to pay inheritance tax! Woot!
The money only goes towards keeping those nice parks and houses nice.

Well I don’t know about you lot. But I have a deep resentment for anybody who attacks British people or territory, and it is even deeper resentment if those attacks are cowardly and aimed at civilians, such as terrorism. To me a terrorist who attacks Britain is the lowest of the low, to be rooted out and destroyed.

Now I realise that I face a dilemma, those Catholics killed were British citizens and the UDR were terrorists, so by my own rules they are lowest of the low.

However, rules are meant to be broken. And I still stand by my point that the army cooperating with loyalist paramilitaries wasn’t a bad thing, the loyalists wanted the IRA out and I can’t see anything wrong with that. Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. To me, it would be the same as asking Hitler to become an MP just to end the war, not worth it.

Would you prefer it if soldiers were still on the streets of Northern Ireland?

Well I don’t know about you lot. But I have a deep resentment for anybody who attacks British people or territory, and it is even deeper resentment if those attacks are cowardly and aimed at civilians, such as terrorism. To me a terrorist who attacks Britain is the lowest of the low, to be rooted out and destroyed.

Now I realise that I face a dilemma, those Catholics killed were British citizens and the UDR were terrorists, so by my own rules they are lowest of the low.

However, rules are meant to be broken. And I still stand by my point that the army cooperating with loyalist paramilitaries wasn’t a bad thing, the loyalists wanted the IRA out and I can’t see anything wrong with that. Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. To me it’s the same than if, in 1916, the government asked the Kaiser of Germany if he wanted to become King of GB just to end the war, not worth it.

Well I don’t know about you lot. But I have a deep resentment for anybody who attacks British people or territory, and it is even deeper resentment if those attacks are cowardly and aimed at civilians, such as terrorism. To me a terrorist who attacks Britain is the lowest of the low, to be rooted out and destroyed.

Now I realise that I face a dilemma, those Catholics killed were British citizens and the UDR were terrorists, so by my own rules they are lowest of the low.

However, rules are meant to be broken. And I still stand by my point that the army cooperating with loyalist paramilitaries wasn’t a bad thing, the loyalists wanted the IRA out and I can’t see anything wrong with that. Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. To me, it would be the same as asking Hitler to become an MP just to end the war, not worth it.
Fuck 'em.

The Loyalists should be lined up and shot along with the other scum in Northern Ireland. They're as bad as each other and just because one is doing it "for" the UK doesn't make it any better than anything the IRA or its offshoots did. They still killed innocent people, and therefore are pieces of shit.

First there's the rule, then the exception to the rule, then the excepton becomes the rule.

When they attack us through terrorism they are no longer human

How naive can people be. :(

Well I don’t know about you lot. But I have a deep resentment for anybody who attacks British people or territory, and it is even deeper resentment if those attacks are cowardly and aimed at civilians, such as terrorism. To me a terrorist who attacks Britain is the lowest of the low, to be rooted out and destroyed.

Now I realise that I face a dilemma, those Catholics killed were British citizens and the UDR were terrorists, so by my own rules they are lowest of the low.

However, rules are meant to be broken. And I still stand by my point that the army cooperating with loyalist paramilitaries wasn’t a bad thing, the loyalists wanted the IRA out and I can’t see anything wrong with that. Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. To me it’s the same than if, in 1916, the government asked the Kaiser of Germany if he wanted to become King of GB just to end the war, not worth it.

Political thought isn't really your strong suit is it.

Well I don’t know about you lot. But I have a deep resentment for anybody who attacks British people or territory, and it is even deeper resentment if those attacks are cowardly and aimed at civilians, such as terrorism. To me a terrorist who attacks Britain is the lowest of the low, to be rooted out and destroyed.

Now I realise that I face a dilemma, those Catholics killed were British citizens and the UDR were terrorists, so by my own rules they are lowest of the low.

However, rules are meant to be broken. And I still stand by my point that the army cooperating with loyalist paramilitaries wasn’t a bad thing, the loyalists wanted the IRA out and I can’t see anything wrong with that. Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. To me it’s the same than if, in 1916, the government asked the Kaiser of Germany if he wanted to become King of GB just to end the war, not worth it.

Excellent.

First of all, you show yourself to be incapable of impartiality in a sensitive situation and of a "fuck dem Catholics" attitude.

And now you compound that by openly saying you find nothing wrong with co-operating and assisting terrorist organisations - even as a member of the Armed Forces - because you feel sympathetic to their goals.

Your future brothers in arms will be so proud to entrust their lives to you.

even as a member of the Armed Forces.

Oh he's a squaddie, that explains a lot.

Oh he's a squaddie, that explains a lot.
Nah, he's not, he wants to be.

Nah, he's not, he wants to be.

Well he shouldn't have any trouble coming in under the maximum IQ requirement.:)

Oh he's a squaddie, that explains a lot.

Oh he's in the Boy Scouts or whatever the Cadet youth thingy the Army has. I'd love him to share his indepth political views and opinions with some superior officers during his interviews for the Army.

Now we have a situation with Martin McGinnis, an ex-IRA man, in power in Stormont, which I don’t agree with, it seems to be two fingers up to all those Protestants, Unionists and soldiers who fought and gave their lives to try and defend the people of Ulster. .

Cheese with that?

I’ve made my point, and you lot don’t agree. Now that’s ok because I know plenty of people who do, and would hold them in much higher esteem than the bunch of lefties around this place. But for Christ sake, rather than simply berating me for my views and calling me an idiot, why don’t you actually say what you think about the subject.

Fuck 'em.

The Loyalists should be lined up and shot along with the other scum in Northern Ireland. They're as bad as each other and just because one is doing it "for" the UK doesn't make it any better than anything the IRA or its offshoots did. They still killed innocent people, and therefore are pieces of shit.

First there's the rule, then the exception to the rule, then the excepton becomes the rule. This one has the right idea, he is responding to the subject, I don’t agree with him but he's doing the right thing.

Oh he's in the Boy Scouts or whatever the Cadet youth thingy the Army has. I'd love him to share his indepth political views and opinions with some superior officers during his interviews for the Army. Well I have spoken to many officers who were in N.I, seeing as many ex-army bods go on into the ACF after service, and they saw nothing wrong with the army co-operating with the loyalists. Look at it this way; you’re a squaddie in N.I. Every day you have to put with irate catholic mobs attacking you with stones and bricks, but you can’t retaliate properly. You see armed IRA men out during rally’s and parades but you can’t do anything encase of civilian deaths; them same IRA men could be killing you or your mates the next day. There setting of bombs and killing servicemen and civilians, and many of them are getting away. And even if your certain there up to no good you’re not allowed to shoot at them until you have given a warning, giving them a chance to get away. The Loyalist paramilitaries didn’t have these restriction’s they could do what the army wanted to do and simply go out, find them, and kill them, simple as, you must be able to understand the frustration of the soldiers at this time.

you must be able to understand the frustration of the soldiers at this time.

This is no excuse for their actions. Never was and never will be

I’ve made my point, and you lot don’t agree. Now that’s ok because I know plenty of people who do, and would hold them in much higher esteem than the bunch of lefties around this place. But for Christ sake, rather than simply berating me for my views and calling me an idiot, why don’t you actually say what you think about the subject.

This one has the right idea, he is responding to the subject, I don’t agree with him but he's doing the right thing.

Well I have spoken to many officers who were in N.I, seeing as many ex-army bods go on into the ACF after service, and they saw nothing wrong with the army co-operating with the loyalists. Look at it this way; you’re a squaddie in N.I. Every day you have to put with irate catholic mobs attacking you with stones and bricks, but you can’t retaliate properly. You see armed IRA men out during rally’s and parades but you can’t do anything encase of civilian deaths; them same IRA men could be killing you or your mates the next day. There setting of bombs and killing servicemen and civilians, and many of them are getting away. And even if your certain there up to no good you’re not allowed to shoot at them until you have given a warning, giving them a chance to get away. The Loyalist paramilitaries didn’t have these restriction’s they could do what the army wanted to do and simply go out, find them, and kill them, simple as, you must be able to understand the frustration of the soldiers at this time.

So...

Where's the bit where you justify extrajudicial killings and collusion with known terrorist elements?

So...

Where's the bit where you justify extrajudicial killings and collusion with known terrorist elements?

1. They were the enemy, so needed to be taken care of.

2. Army couldn’t do what it wanted to, etc.

3. This was a dirty war; the usual rules of conflict didn’t apply. If they were prepared to use terrorist actions against the people of N.I, they deserve nothing better put back onto themselves.

Renner may I ask where in the UK you come from?

The borders, not far from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Its odd isn’t it, I shouldn’t really care about N.I; but after hearing some of the things the IRA did in the name of the 'Free State', especially after the people of Ulster voted to remain part of the UK, well the rest is history. And I’ve always been very patriotic, which people interpret in different ways

1. They were the enemy, so needed to be taken care of.
That's not how civilian conflict works. Your "enemy" isn't under the same terms of engagement that apply to military conflict - these are dissenters, not soldiers, and you have no right to kill them or even, really, to oppose them. It is the police's job to neutralise civilian conflict, not yours.

2. Army couldn’t do what it wanted to, etc.
Of course. It had no right to.

3. This was a dirty war; the usual rules of conflict didn’t apply. If they were prepared to use terrorist actions against the people of N.I, they deserve nothing better put back onto themselves.
It wasn't a "war" at all. It was a series of criminal actions that your involvement in only further politicised.

1. They were the enemy, so needed to be taken care of.

2. Army couldn’t do what it wanted to, etc.

3. This was a dirty war; the usual rules of conflict didn’t apply. If they were prepared to use terrorist actions against the people of N.I, they deserve nothing better put back onto themselves.

You seem to be working under the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'

One of the problems with your reasoning (and it's only one of many) is that the loyalist paramilitaries weren't hurting only the IRA. They were hurting the entire population of Northern Ireland including their own communities. Punishment beatings, vandalism, racketeering, etc were a part of the 'good' they did for their own.

That's not how civilian conflict works. Your "enemy" isn't under the same terms of engagement that apply to military conflict - these are dissenters, not soldiers, and you have no right to kill them or even, really, to oppose them. It is the police's job to neutralise civilian conflict, not yours.

They proclaimed themselves as soldiers, they declared war on other organisations, they were incredibly heavily armed, they ran bombing campaigns in N.I and mainland Britain, they targeted high profile figures such as lord Mountbatten, last viceroy of India, this is something that has connotations going back hundreds of years. The RUC, the Army, almost all the citizens of N.I and the paramilitary organisations all had sides picked, there was no-one to neutralise the conflict seeing as no-one wanted to kill their own people, just the others.

It wasn't a "war" at all. It was a series of criminal actions that your involvement in only further politicised. The people who were their described it as a war, foreign politicians described it as a war as did members of parliament and members of the security services. Be it a conventional war or not, I would still call it a war

Good documentaries to watch if you can find them on the net, both BBC, "Beyond the Union" and "What happened next: Beyond the Union" One was in the 70's or 80's and the later was on recently on BB4 looking at the characters involved in the first documentary.

1. They were the enemy, so needed to be taken care of.

Who are "they?"

2. Army couldn’t do what it wanted to, etc.

This is of course, a Good Thing.

3. This was a dirty war; the usual rules of conflict didn’t apply. If they were prepared to use terrorist actions against the people of N.I, they deserve nothing better put back onto themselves.

But wait. I thought people who used those tactics weren't human. What does that tell us about the soldiers...

Who are "they?" Republican terrorists

This is of course, a Good Thing. Killing civilians who weren’t participating in actual terrorist attacks, bad thing. Killing terrorists, good thing. Restrictions placed on the army to stop the first thing meant they couldn’t do the second thing to the best of their abilities. Which is why they went too fussed about collaborating the Unionist paramilitaries

But wait. I thought people who used those tactics weren't human. What does that tell us about the soldiers... Read all my posts, again if you have to, and you’ll know what I've said about that.

Republican terrorists

So its ok to just kill them even if they surrender?

Killing civilians who weren’t participating in actual terrorist attacks, bad thing. Killing terrorists, good thing. Restrictions placed on the army to stop the first thing meant they couldn’t do the second thing to the best of their abilities. Which is why they went too fussed about collaborating the Unionist paramilitaries

Read all my posts, again if you have to, and you’ll know what I've said about that.

That you don't have a clue as to how the military actually works?

They proclaimed themselves as soldiers, they declared war on other organisations, they were incredibly heavily armed, they ran bombing campaigns in N.I and mainland Britain, they targeted high profile figures such as lord Mountbatten, last viceroy of India, this is something that has connotations going back hundreds of years. The RUC, the Army, almost all the citizens of N.I and the paramilitary organisations all had sides picked, there was no-one to neutralise the conflict seeing as no-one wanted to kill their own people, just the others.

The people who were their described it as a war, foreign politicians described it as a war as did members of parliament and members of the security services. Be it a conventional war or not, I would still call it a war

Good documentaries to watch if you can find them on the net, both BBC, "Beyond the Union" and "What happened next: Beyond the Union" One was in the 70's or 80's and the later was on recently on BB4 looking at the characters involved in the first documentary.
People saying something is a war does not make it so. A war needs to involve a conflict between two sets of soverign powers, and the IRA was not supported by the Irish state. It was a private organisation with a private agenda that pursued illegal means to achieve their goals - to all intents, purposes and definitions, it was, and is, nothing more than a highly organised and proficient street gang with a notable amount of popular support.

Fighting it is the job of the police, not of the army. Maybe the police needs extra support, maybe it needs to take a more politically neutral position in order to better position itself with the public, maybe it needs the kind of physical training that military go through in order to better function, but either way, the two roles are distinct, and need to be so. I would research that difference carefully, if I were you.

Republican terrorists

History doesn't vindicate you I'm afraid

Killing civilians who weren’t participating in actual terrorist attacks, bad thing. Killing terrorists, good thing. Restrictions placed on the army to stop the first thing meant they couldn’t do the second thing to the best of their abilities. Which is why they went too fussed about collaborating the Unionist paramilitaries

So your answer is "you can't make an omlette without killing people"?

In addition to what Corneliu said. That still isn't a compelling reason to justify extrajudicial killing, colluding with criminal elements, soliciting murder, suspending habeas corpus, denying a fair and free trial.

Read all my posts, again if you have to, and you’ll know what I've said about that.

don't worry I did.

People saying something is a war does not make it so. A war needs to involve a conflict between two sets of soverign powers, and the IRA was not supported by the Irish state. It was a private organisation with a private agenda that pursued illegal means to achieve their goals - to all intents, purposes and definitions, it was, and is, nothing more than a highly organised and proficient street gang with a notable amount of popular support.

Fighting it is the job of the police, not of the army. Maybe the police needs extra support, maybe it needs to take a more politically neutral position in order to better position itself with the public, maybe it needs the kind of physical training that military go through in order to better function, but either way, the two roles are distinct, and need to be so. I would research that difference carefully, if I were you. The IRA was an army, with a rank structure, a high command and a lot of weaponry. Would you call the Taliban a street gang?

So its ok to just kill them even if they surrender?
I never said that, if they surrounded then they have seen the error of their ways and have stopped fighting, they still need to be put in jail but not killed. If they are still fighting then they are trying to kill you, so need to be killed.

That you don't have a clue as to how the military actually works? I know why the army were supposed to be in N.I and how there were supposed to act, I know many of them didn’t act like they were supposed to, and I understand why they did it and would go as far to say I’m glad of the way they acted. As to saying the soldier’s weren’t human for some of the things they did. Would you say the same for the allied bomber command which killed far more German civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British?

The soldiers were fighting and risking their lives to try and end the conflict, end the IRA and make Britain safer for all of us. We were in the right, the people of Ulster democratically voted to remain part of the UK. And yet the IRA still fought for a united Ireland, they were the enemy and the UDR/Army/RUC were simply defending Ulster and retaliating to the IRA atrocities. The Army and the RUC couldn’t retaliate properly because after a few incidents of civilian shootings such as Bloody Sunday, so heavy restrictions were placed on them. So they helped the UDA in their cause, they had no other choice.

Lol, isn't this the body of which 80% of their resolutions are about condemning Israel?

Such a load of crap.

The IRA was an army, with a rank structure, a high command and a lot of weaponry. Would you call the Taliban a street gang?


The British government refused to recognise them as an army - they did characterise them as criminals instead.

I know why the army were supposed to be in N.I and how there were supposed to act, I know many of them didn’t act like they were supposed to, and I understand why they did it and would go as far to say I’m glad of the way they acted.

Which makes you a complete idiot if you are glad of the fact that they broke the law.

As to saying the soldier’s weren’t human for some of the things they did. Would you say the same for the allied bomber command which killed far more German civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British?

Two different time eras with two totally different set of circumstances. One was a total war, the other was an independence movement.

The soldiers were fighting and risking their lives to try and end the conflict, end the IRA and make Britain safer for all of us. We were in the right, the people of Ulster democratically voted to remain part of the UK.

So you were in the right to kill without trials? Now if they were killed in a course of a gun battle, that's one thing. To kill because they wanted to? That's a whole different issue and one I can see that you applaud.

And yet the IRA still fought for a united Ireland, they were the enemy and the UDR/Army/RUC were simply defending Ulster and retaliating to the IRA atrocities.

So attacking government installations is an atrocity? I am not saying that is all they did for history says differently but still...that does not give one a right to kill without trial regardless of the crime.

The Army and the RUC couldn’t retaliate properly because after a few incidents of civilian shootings such as Bloody Sunday, so heavy restrictions were placed on them. So they helped the UDA in their cause, they had no other choice.

Which is illegal.

The borders, not far from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Its odd isn’t it, I shouldn’t really care about N.I; but after hearing some of the things the IRA did in the name of the 'Free State',

The IRA never did anything "in the name of the 'Free State'".


especially after the people of Ulster voted to remain part of the UK,

...yet support for the RA was primarily derived from decades of sectarian based ill-treatment at the hands of the NI statelet......
Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster...If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster...I would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies

The soldiers were fighting and risking their lives to try and end the conflict, end the IRA and make Britain safer for all of us. We were in the right, the people of Ulster democratically voted to remain part of the UK. And yet the IRA still fought for a united Ireland, they were the enemy and the UDR/Army/RUC were simply defending Ulster and retaliating to the IRA atrocities. The Army and the RUC couldn’t retaliate properly because after a few incidents of civilian shootings such as Bloody Sunday, so heavy restrictions were placed on them. So they helped the UDA in their cause, they had no other choice.

You do realise I hope that the army were brought into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic population from being murdered by protestant terror groups?

Which makes you a complete idiot if you are glad of the fact that they broke the law.
You are an idiot to believe that they wouldn’t break the law, when their fellow servicemen and civilians are being killed by the IRA they are going to retaliate. That’s how people work, just because it is the law doesn’t make it right. Besides, the crimes of the IRA outweigh the crimes of the soldiers.

Two different time eras with two totally different set of circumstances. One was a total war, the other was an independence movement. Not independence, simply shifting sides from one state to another. Which the general populace of Ulster didn’t want, the IRA had no right to do what it was doing, are you saying the people of Ulster didn’t have the right to defend themselves.

So you were in the right to kill without trials? Now if they were killed in a course of a gun battle, that's one thing. To kill because they wanted to? That's a whole different issue and one I can see that you applaud. They were prepared to kill indiscriminately, they knew the risks they were taking. For terrorists like the IRA people didn’t want justice, they wanted revenge for all the pain and death they had caused. Which meant they had to die, and they deserved it. The army wasn’t doing the killing either, the UDA was.

Which is illegal. So fuck, the IRA didn’t deserve any better treatment. I’m going to compare them to the Nazis again, as the Germans were leaving Paris many soldiers and officers were killed by French mobs for revenge, this was illegal but was it wrong? Same thing happened in Eastern Europe, the suffering caused by the IRA, while not on as large a scale was just as bad.

You do realise I hope that the army were brought into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic population from being murdered by protestant terror groups?

I doubt he does.

You do realise I hope that the army were brought into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic population from being murdered by protestant terror groups?Yes, that was what were suposed to be there for, but after a few IRA bomb's and Catholic mob's attacking them, the soldiers on the ground soon started to rarther dislike the people they were suposed to be protecting.

Yes, that was what were suposed to be there for, but after a few IRA bomb's and Catholic mob's attacking them, the soldiers on the ground soon started to rarther dislike the people they were suposed to be protecting.

Perhaps that is because some elements in the army thought like you do, and failed to do their duty properly.

You are an idiot to believe that they wouldn’t break the law, when their fellow servicemen and civilians are being killed by the IRA they are going to retaliate. That’s how people work, just because it is the law doesn’t make it right. Besides, the crimes of the IRA outweigh the crimes of the soldiers.

I guess that is why the Military answers to civilian authorities and when they overstep their own regulations, they get punished through military courts and sentenced by the J.A.G. (or whatever the equivalent is)

Not independence, simply shifting sides from one state to another.

They want to join Ireland right? That means they want to be independent of the UK.

Which the general populace of Ulster didn’t want, the IRA had no right to do what it was doing, are you saying the people of Ulster didn’t have the right to defend themselves.

That can go both ways you know. You realize that both sides kill eachother and commit terrorists attacks on each other right? If you do not realize this then I suggest you go back to school.

For terrorists like the IRA people didn’t want justice, they wanted revenge for all the pain and death they had caused.

You know this how? It is not the job of the military to punish criminals.

Which meant they had to die, and they deserved it. The army wasn’t doing the killing either, the UDA was.

Which is illegal in and of itself.

Yes, that was what were suposed to be there for, but after a few IRA bomb's and Catholic mob's attacking them, the soldiers on the ground soon started to rarther dislike the people they were suposed to be protecting.

As opposed to Protestant bombing catholics and Protestant mobs attacking them?

So fuck, the IRA didn’t deserve any better treatment.

Grow up!

I’m going to compare them to the Nazis again, as the Germans were leaving Paris many soldiers and officers were killed by French mobs for revenge, this was illegal but was it wrong?

Yes it was wrong.

Same thing happened in Eastern Europe, the suffering caused by the IRA, while not on as large a scale was just as bad.

But still no reason to extract extrajudical punishment.

The IRA was an army, with a rank structure, a high command and a lot of weaponry. Would you call the Taliban a street gang?
The Taliban was Afghanistan's government, so no. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is very definitely just a criminal group.

Hopefully you'll understand the difference there.

The Taliban was Afghanistan's government, so no. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is very definitely just a criminal group.

Hopefully you'll understand the difference there. My bad, Al Qaeda then. But would you still employ a police force to take out Al Qaeda then?

I guess that is why the Military answers to civilian authorities and when they overstep their own regulations, they get punished through military courts and sentenced by the J.A.G. (or whatever the equivalent is) Many of the civilian authorities were just as involved as the Army, or simply turned a blind eye.

That can go both ways you know. You realize that both sides kill eachother and commit terrorists attacks on each other right? If you do not realize this then I suggest you go back to school. Yes, but the Unionists were defending while the IRA was attacking.

You know this how? It is not the job of the military to punish criminals. Like I have said before, these troubles date back 400 hundred years, people had firm opinions on the opposite sides of the struggle. As one Unionist MP put it "If we don’t kill them, they will kill us. And I know what I would rather happen", he then loads his revolver, on a BBC documentary.

As opposed to Protestant bombing catholics and Protestant mobs attacking them? Protestant Mobs were less frequent, and more often than not they attacked the army when the army stopped those attacking Catholics. Whereas the Catholics would target the army

Grow up! If I met your 9 year old son in the street, asked him what you did and he replied "My Daddies in the Army", the next day an IRA hit man comes to your house, knocks on your door, then fills who ever answers full of bullets. Or perhaps you are a certain SAS sergeant, the IRA hang you upside down by you feet and peel of you skin to try and get information from you; they then shoot you in the head. Or perhaps you are one the many people they bolted to concrete slabs through the knee caps when they didn’t cooperate. These are the people that make most other terrorists look like little girls, and you are telling me to grow up. Open your eyes look at what they did then tell me what you think they deserved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/in_depth/pressure/fla/edge_video.html The 2nd politician, that’s the one I was on about.

Yes, but the Unionists were defending while the IRA was attacking. .

You're absolutely sure on that?



You haven't responded to my last two posts...why?

My bad, Al Qaeda then. But would you still employ a police force to take out Al Qaeda then?
Several, but yes. It has to be a co-ordinated police effort rather than a military strategy. The State, in global terms, is not against people because their ideals don't mesh with ours. We stop them from killing people because murder both works against the general good and harms those who otherwise work for the benefit of others, not because they are our enemies. That's all.

As to saying the soldier’s weren’t human for some of the things they did. Would you say the same for the allied bomber command which killed far more German civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British?

I believe you are the only claiming that tactics can render one inhuman...

the people of Ulster democratically voted to remain part of the UK

Prove it!

Prove it!

It's an opinion poll rather than a vote but all the same ....

Link (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html)

It's an opinion poll rather than a vote but all the same ....

Link (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html)

Heh, I was going to make a fatuous point about Ulster being nine counties and NI not being the whole.

But then I thought "fuck it" I'm going home soon and would rather not push the point, especially not with Renner :)

For some reasons seeing people refer to NI as "Ulster" it deepley grates me. No idea why, I generally chalk it up to baggage from when I was religious.

Heh, I was going to make a fatuous point about Ulster being nine counties and NI not being the whole.

But then I thought "fuck it" I'm going home soon and would rather not push the point, especially not with Renner :)

For some reasons seeing people refer to NI as "Ulster" it deepley grates me. No idea why, I generally chalk it up to baggage from when I was religious.

Ah ok. I was just going with what his intended meaning was. :)

Yea I know not all of Ulster is in N.I, but it’s a common reference and most people know what it means. Same as when Americans say “England” instead of “Britain”, as was common place before thoses uppity scots opened their mouths.

You're absolutely sure on that?



You haven't responded to my last two posts...why?


The IRA never did anything "in the name of the 'Free State'".



...yet support for the RA was primarily derived from decades of sectarian based ill-treatment at the hands of the NI statelet......


Cheese with that?




Yes im sure, N.I was well esablished as one of the Home Nations by then, then the IRA started their campain.

The IRA was fighting for N.I to become part of the Republic, weren’t they?

So... didn’t stop the people voting to remain part of the UK. Do you support the IRA Nodinia? I’m assuming when you say RA you mean IRA and other republican offshoots, usually a term used by supporters.

And I just don’t understand "Cheese with that?"

Yea I know not all of Ulster is in N.I, but it’s a common reference and most people know what it means. Same as when Americans say “England” instead of “Britain”, as was common place before thoses uppity scots opened their mouths.
Y'know, I'm English and proud of it, but it pisses me off when people refer to Britain as "England". This is because it's incorrect. Britain, despite the best wishes of some, isn't entirely made of England, it does have two other constituent countries in it, three if by "Britain" one means the UK. It's not just about "uppity" Scots complaining, it's about people being fairly represented, but primarily because it's just plain bloody wrong.

So... didn’t stop the people voting to remain part of the UK.

Please tell me you're not referring to the 1973 referendum

Y'know, I'm English and proud of it, but it pisses me off when people refer to Britain as "England". This is because it's incorrect. Britain, despite the best wishes of some, isn't entirely made of England, it does have two other constituent countries in it, three if by "Britain" one means the UK. It's not just about "uppity" Scots complaining, it's about people being fairly represented, but primarily because it's just plain bloody wrong. Aye, just saying. That is why people stopped using England to refer to Britain, because the Scots started complaining. Even the peace treaty and declaration of war for the Great War was signed as England, even though they meant Britain.

Aye, just saying. That is why people stopped using England to refer to Britain, because the Scots started complaining. Even the peace treaty and declaration of war for the Great War was signed as England, even though they meant Britain.
Indeed, but times do change, thankfully. It's better now that a lot of things do usually call the UK "Britain", but it'd probably be easier if just "UK" was used as shorthand, what with that being two words.

I wonder why they were just signed as "England"? Possibly because it might have been shorthand for the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland. Or was it always called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

Gah...

I dunno, random thought not really to do with your discussion.

Please tell me you're not referring to the 1973 referendum Well originally the Parliament of N.I decided to remain part of the UK when they could’ve gone to the Free State, being elected representatives I guess that was democratic. The 1973 referendum showed that people wanted the status qo to remain. I know it was boycotted by nationalists but did that mean they didn’t vote, or stopped other people from voting or what?

Well originally the Parliament of N.I decided to remain part of the UK when they could’ve gone to the Free State, being elected representatives I guess that was democratic. The 1973 referendum showed that people wanted the status qo to remain. I know it was boycotted by nationalists but did that mean they didn’t vote, or stopped other people from voting or what?
Presumably it means just the Nationalists stayed at home, rather than blocking other people, otherwise you'd hear more about it, especially from the Loyalists. There'd also have been a hell of a fuss at the time.

Well originally the Parliament of N.I decided to remain part of the UK when they could’ve gone to the Free State, being elected representatives I guess that was democratic. The 1973 referendum showed that people wanted the status qo to remain. I know it was boycotted by nationalists but did that mean they didn’t vote, or stopped other people from voting or what?

Less than 1% of the catholic population voted

Less than 1% of the catholic population voted

Well thats their own bloody fault isnt it, unless we hold another referendum than we can anly go on the results from the first one.

Well thats their own bloody fault isnt it, unless we hold another referendum than we can anly go on the results from the first one.

It does kinda kick your claim that NI overwhelmingly wants to remain part of the UK into the gray area though doesn't it?

It does kinda kick your claim that NI overwhelmingly wants to remain part of the UK into the gray area though doesn't it? I can’t remember saying that, but the Catholics are still a minority in N.I so, however big the margin, I still recon that they want to be part of the UK.

I can’t remember saying that, but the Catholics are still a minority in N.I so, however big the margin, I still recon that they want to be part of the UK.

Don't allow yourself to make the mistake of assuming that all Catholics want to join a united Ireland.

-snip-

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/psychoticmongooses/319047856_dbf1ef3e92_o.jpg

Don't allow yourself to make the mistake of assuming that all Catholics want to join a united Ireland. Yes I know, but Dundee specifically said Catholics. If not all Catholics want a united Ireland then the minority of people that do want it would be smaller, so I’m not complaining.

The IRA was an army, with a rank structure, a high command and a lot of weaponry.
So was the Red Army Faction and the American Mafia, but both groups were successfully tackled by in-depth and largely non-violent criminal investigations.

Same as when Americans say “England” instead of “Britain”, as was common place before thoses uppity scots opened their mouths.
*raises eyebrow*

So what's your plan here, piss off as many people as you can with crude generalisations and obtuse political commentary?

So what's your plan here, piss off as many people as you can with crude generalisations and obtuse political commentary?

....and then go join the Army.

....and then go join the Army.

He'll fit right in. Seriously, if the average squaddie is anything to by, he'll be considered erudite.

So we are all in Agreement the US should ditch the president and put the queen as head of state.

*raises eyebrow*

So what's your plan here, piss off as many people as you can with crude generalisations and obtuse political commentary? cant you take anything in jest? I was actually just repeating what was said on a program on UKTV history about the treaties, couldn’t tell you witch one.

So was the Red Army Faction and the American Mafia, but both groups were successfully tackled by in-depth and largely non-violent criminal investigations. Did they cause as much trouble as the IRA and its split of groups during the troubles? Did they hold military parades in the open public? And in the case of the Mafia, I doubt they were as fanatical or as violent as the IRA. I don’t know about the Red Army Faction, and for that reason I doubt they had the same impact or killed the same amount of people as the IRA.

By the way, im not going to be a squaddie, im going to be an Officer either in the RLC or RRF

cant you take anything in jest? I was actually just repeating what was said on a program on UKTV history about the treaties, couldn’t tell you witch one.
Oh, you were only repeating near-racist doggerel? My mistake.

<shamefully uneducated snip>
Jings Crivens, lad.

Go read a book or something.

Oh, you were only repeating near-racist doggerel? My mistake. Even if it was racist, its not something anybody’s going to care about. I’ve head Scots saying far worse things about the English. And I only live 5 miles from the border. And if you do get offended by being called 'uppity', isn’t that just a wee bit too sensitive.

Jings Crivens, lad.

Go read a book or something. Well you tell me, did those organisations kill as many people as the troubles?

Even if it was racist, its not something anybody’s going to care about. I’ve head Scots saying far worse things about the English. And I only live 5 miles from the border. And if you do get offended by being called 'uppity', isn’t that just a wee bit too sensitive.


"They did it too" is never a good defense but then again it seems to be the basis of your whole argument

"They did it too" is never a good defense but then again it seems to be the basis of your whole argument Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. But come on, the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish have been name calling for a good long time, but most of the time there is nothing behind it. It’s a British tradition, slating one another

Even if it was racist, its not something anybody’s going to care about. I’ve head Scots saying far worse things about the English. And I only live 5 miles from the border. And if you do get offended by being called 'uppity', isn’t that just a wee bit too sensitive.
Your 'logic' leaves something to be desired.

Well you tell me, did those organisations kill as many people as the troubles?
Collectively? Most probably.

Okay, the words "monarchy" and "shocker" should not be anywhere near each other on the internet.

Your 'logic' leaves something to be desired. Why not explain yourself rarther than having ago at me.

Collectively? Most probably. If that is true, which I doubt. The whole nature of the troubles, IE sectarian violence, the long history of oppression and of course the wide spread public assassinations and bombing campaigns. It’s a lot for a police force to deal with, especially one that was as biased as the RUC.

Why not explain yourself rarther than having ago at me.
Pointing a finger and saying, "they did it first!" excuses nothing.

The whole nature of the troubles, IE sectarian violence, the long history of oppression and of course the wide spread public assassinations and bombing campaigns. It’s a lot for a police force to deal with
So is an entrenched criminal organisation with ties to business and large sections of a large minority community in the US, or an underground Marxist terrorist cell, both of which were not averse to public assassination and bombing campaigns.

It's still far preferable, however, to declare one's opponents 'non-human' and starting to adopt the strategies of the groups one opposes.

By the way, im not going to be a squaddie, im going to be an Officer either in the RLC or RRF

The army must be finding it harder to recruit than I thought.

So we are all in Agreement the US should ditch the president and put the queen as head of state.

YES WE ARE.... Actually I think every nation should have a Queen.

In the US there could be a mud wrestling turnament between: Jessica Alba, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Anniston, etc...

WInner will be proclaimed Queen.

It will be much more clean, cheap and interesting that the usual process.

Or why not elect Queens with a contest like American Idol?

Pointing a finger and saying, "they did it first!" excuses nothing.


So is an entrenched criminal organisation with ties to business and large sections of a large minority community in the US, or an underground Marxist terrorist cell, both of which were not averse to public assassination and bombing campaigns.

It's still far preferable, however, to declare one's opponents 'non-human' and starting to adopt the strategies of the groups one opposes.
I don’t care how they are taken care of, along as they are and it doesn’t affect my way of life. I simply do not care how terrorists, be in Al Qaeda, the IRA, or any other terrorist organisation that dares attack the UK, are treated.

If this was a conventional war things would be different, the men on the ground are simply following orders for there country, they may be fanatical but in most cases they are just ordinary people. But to be a terrorist you have to truly believe in what you are doing, and you volunteered to do it. If you go out to kill or maim British citizens you deserve no good treatment, you should be held accountable for your actions. If you get picked up by the government you are lucky, if you’re an exceptionally bad terrorist and you fall into the hands of the local lads down the pub, I don’t think you would fair all that well. Unless its you lot, who seem to think a slap on the wrist and a telling off will suffice.

So aye, that amazingly well-qualified group, the Human Rights Council,

Of further interest, and showing why the HRC is an absolute joke, is the statement by Iran that we should more to stop sexual discrimination.

Your thoughts?

The HRC has been a joke for a long time. The sad true is that many nations use the human rights as a tool for political pressure, bashing and justifying imperialism.

Like the US and UK pretending they are worried about the HR situation in Cuba (if you are so worried... do something with guantanamo), but ignoring the HR situation is some other nations that are their allies... Israel, Saudi Araby, etc.... The US has used this HR to justify the blockade and even some militar interventions...

The tremendous lost of face of the US and UK thanks to their war policies have left them with so little support that they were kicked out of the HRC (that they used in a very immoral way)... and now the nations that are ruling the HRC are slapping back at the US and UK in the same way... Using the HRC to bash nations they dont like.

All this shocker to advise the UK to end their Monarchy seems to me like a diplomatic vendetta.

I remember Fidel Castro joking about asking the Queen of England how to implement a democracy in Cuba some years ago, when the HRC suggested something similar to Cuba... to get rid of communism

I don’t care how they are taken care of, along as they are and it doesn’t affect my way of life. I simply do not care how terrorists, be in Al Qaeda, the IRA, or any other terrorist organisation that dares attack the UK, are treated.

If this was a conventional war things would be different, the men on the ground are simply following orders for there country, they may be fanatical but in most cases they are just ordinary people. But to be a terrorist you have to truly believe in what you are doing, and you volunteered to do it. If you go out to kill or maim British citizens you deserve no good treatment, you should be held accountable for your actions. If you get picked up by the government you are lucky, if you’re an exceptionally bad terrorist and you fall into the hands of the local lads down the pub, I don’t think you would fair all that well. Unless its you lot, who seem to think a slap on the wrist and a telling off will suffice.


HAHAHA...you know nothing an want to be Officer.

Read this... it may enlighten you about the reality of terrorism

http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/archives/the_terrorist_d.phtml

HAHAHA...you know nothing an want to be Officer.

Read this... it may enlighten you about the reality of terrorism

http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/archives/the_terrorist_d.phtml


Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." There is is no internationally agreed legal definition. In one modern definition of terrorism, it is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. They are the people I am talking about

They are the people I am talking about

And those are the people you were only too happy to work with