That's less than the IRA killed in the Omagh bombing. The IRA usually attacked civilian targets instead of military targets, which proves that Gerry Adams and his IRA colleagues were cowards.
It's only terrorism if you have brown skin or a towel on your head
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Try living in a country (any country) that has been marched over by a superior military power and what would you do? Lie down and die? Or, resist in any way you can and attack whatever you can?The IRA usually attacked civilian targets instead of military targets, which proves that Gerry Adams and his IRA colleagues were cowards.
Murdering civilians is not the way to earn the support of the civilian population. The Irish terrorists, Catholic and Protestant, were too stupid to understand this. Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and other great revolutionary leaders always emphasized the need to win the support of the people. The Irish were too stupid to learn that lesson and so fought a long terrorist campaign that ended, except for the occasional murder by the Continuity IRA, with peace terms they could have had a decade earlier. The Catholic and Protestant Irish terrorists finally stopped fighting because they finally realized that the people of Northern Island hated both factions and were fed up with the killing. The public revulsion at the IRA's Omagh bombing (29 dead and 220 wounded, all civilians) did more to bring peace to Northern Ireland than anything the IRA ever did. It is a real travesty that the killers, Catholic and Protestant, are now the rulers. If Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley had any integrity, they would retire from public life and let the civilians run things.Try living in a country (any country) that has been marched over by a superior military power and what would you do? Lie down and die? Or, resist in any way you can and attack whatever you can?
Last edited:
What is your purpose in pointing this out?That's less than the IRA killed in the Omagh bombing. The IRA usually attacked civilian targets instead of military targets, which proves that Gerry Adams and his IRA colleagues were cowards.
Do you think that the fact that the British army killed fewer innocent civilians than the IRA did makes their actions any less criminal? What sort of race to the bottom is that?
I don't think the British are less criminal than the IRA, both committed many unjustifiable killings. I was trying to make the point that the IRA's claim that the British occupation made its murders justifiable is nonsense. There are still some IRA supporters in North America who think that the IRA killers are heroes, and I disagree with that position. They should stop romanticizing terrorists.What is your purpose in pointing this out?
Do you think that the fact that the British army killed fewer innocent civilians than the IRA did makes their actions any less criminal? What sort of race to the bottom is that?
Still waiting Gryfin. We discussed your issue out to the end, now how about a little reciprocity?Gryfin, why do have such a hard time answering questions about crimes committed by Palestinians?
You refuse to answer whether Hamas are terrorists. You refuse to answer whether you support the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinians.
It seems you are desperate to avoid these questions and sweep them under the rug, they must really threaten you in some way. It's not a good thing to be so afraid of the truth.
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzStill waiting Gryfin. We discussed your issue out to the end, now how about a little reciprocity?
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
Usually I only hear children declaring themselves winners. And usually it's only kids that lack self confidence. So, to hear an adult do it is surprising and a little sad.Your #6 is out of context and #7 is false. The rest is true, but none of it makes Haganah terrorists. You've officially lost the debate.
Nonetheless...#6 is completely in context. I don't how it could be out of context. Haganah terrorists shooting fleeing massacre victims?
#7. In fact it's 100% correct. Irgun had been killing civilians for years. According to your definition, that makes them terrorists. Therefore the Haganah operation involved sending terrorists into the village that the Haganah had signed an agreement with promising non-violence. The villagers were massacred in the Haganah operation.
No, we have not discussed the issue to the end. And, knock, knock...this is your thread.Still waiting Gryfin. We discussed your issue out to the end, now how about a little reciprocity?
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
We've discussed it a good long while. Why won't you reciprocate? Why are you terrified of discussing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization?No, we have not discussed the issue to the end. And, knock, knock...this is your thread.
We've discussed it a good long while. Why won't you reciprocate? Why are you terrified of discussing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Still waiting Gryfin. We discussed your issue out to the end, now how about a little reciprocity?
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
Gryfin, why do have such a hard time answering questions about crimes committed by Palestinians?
You refuse to answer whether Hamas are terrorists. You refuse to answer whether you support the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinians.
It seems you are desperate to avoid these questions and sweep them under the rug, they must really threaten you in some way. It's not a good thing to be so afraid of the truth.
This half of the discussion leads me to add my 2 cents, give it up guys. He's not worthy. The other half I don't need to read. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!Is Hamas a terrorist organization Gryfin?
Why are you so uncomfortable discussing that? Is it scary for you? Do you have trouble facing the truth?
Pretty much agree but what if the guy caused more damage and say half the people in the building died ? Make the engineer a muslim/brown guy and I bet they will find 'links' in Afganistan/Pakistan within a day.By publicly posting his manifesto online, he has made a clear political statement, coupled with a destructive act of violence; that certainly fits both the dictionary and common-use definitions of terrorism. Even though he hasn't explicitly called for others to support him, and doesn't appear to have any ideological agenda beyond what he stated in his letter, he still wanted people to know exactly why he did what he did.
This is not the work of a terrorist organization, which uses violence towards an ideological goal; it was an isolated incident committed by an unbalanced individual. This was also true of McVeigh & The Unabomber (among many others) but the term still fits the intention of the action itself. Nonetheless, to say "this was not an act of terrorism" obscures the difference between the two, and reinforces the inherently-racist connotation of the word itself.
