|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
|
RIP and condolences. Opinions can be stated another time and another place, but today, simple condolences is all that is needed.
|
On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
Believe it or not, as a sleeping babe of 3 years old, Wombat had his windows blown in, and front door off its hinges by an IRA bomb, set in the police station over the next street:
'Tuesday 24 March 1992
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb, estimated at 500 pounds, close to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) station in Donegall Pass, Belfast. The bomb caused extensive damage to property in the surrounding area.'
What fucking heros.
|
On April 09 2013 06:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief. And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
|
On April 09 2013 06:15 KwarK wrote:
I didn't try and wipe out the Irish and I don't intend to so stop acting like I did.
Bobby Sands was a criminal. He committed his crimes for political reasons but it was not his politics that led him to be imprisoned, it was his criminality. You can say "I disagree with the Westminster government's policies" as much as you like and try and change them within the law as much as you like and that will not land you in prison. If it does land you in prison (which it won't in the UK but hypothetically) then you become a political prisoner, a prisoner who is being held on account of your political views. This is not what happened in his case.
What happened to him was he was found guilty of engaging in criminal acts which are criminal regardless of the reason for committing them. He then decided to starve himself. He was not denied food, he denied himself food.
The man was a murderer for killing people and a moron for not understanding the definition of a political prisoner. He then became a very hungy moronic murderer before eventually becoming a dead one. I shed no tears.
If I robbed a house and then claimed that I did it because I'm a communist and I don't believe in private property I'd still be a thief, just a thief with political views. If I burned a medical research lab and then claimed I did it because I don't believe in animal testing for research I'd still be an arsonist, just an arsonist with political views. If I murdered civilians and then claimed I did it because I somehow equated it with a nationalistic struggle I'd still be a murderer, just a murderer with the unimaginable arrogance to believe that my ideological beliefs gave me the right to kill another human being.
I'm sorry if I come across smug. That's not my intention. This is just something that really got to me.
I believe they were political prisoners. They were members of an organised army fighting for nationalism. I would say that this nationalism was political.
As in most wars, there are civilian casualties. I'm not at all trying to condone that.
You can continue to think that these people were just common criminals, targeting civilians. I don't see you developing an open mind any time soon.
As for belittling hunger striking, I wouldn't have expected you to stoop that low. Guess I now know what you're like.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if we are to reduce either justified war killings or civil murders away, we are far better off condemning all killings during war. otherwise you'd be justifying war killing of civilians and only genocidal wars are like that.
|
On April 09 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief. And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner. if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target?
or am i reading this wrong?
|
United States43661 Posts
Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
|
On April 09 2013 06:40 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 09 2013 06:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief. And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner. if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself. you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target? or am i reading this wrong?
There is no room for second guesses in war. Do what you can, take what you can-- bring glory to your nation and die honorably.
|
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
|
United States43661 Posts
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote:
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
|
On April 09 2013 06:40 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 09 2013 06:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief. And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner. if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself. you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target? or am i reading this wrong?
i'm not talking about what i think constitutes a crime, i am talking about what i think we think constitute a crime. it would depend on the scenario, being responsible for the death of a civilian does not always make you a criminal.
|
|
|
On April 09 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote:
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group. I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
having a democratically elected government, or any kind of government does not give you a free pass to do as you wish against the electorate (hope i am using this word correctly), or that's my opinion at least. isn't that why amnesty exists in the first place?
|
United States43661 Posts
On April 09 2013 06:48 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:40 turdburgler wrote:On April 09 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 09 2013 06:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 09 2013 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 06:10 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:53 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 05:49 Atom Cannister wrote:On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme. You've ignored almost everything I wrote. I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong. Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting. What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted? England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians. I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote. Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester. My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners. Taken from wikipedia: "According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’." Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were? Just read that quote, then read this: "Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me." Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in. You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want. Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form. Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting. The smugness of your posting is beyond belief. And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner. if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself. you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target? or am i reading this wrong? i'm not talking about what i think constitutes a crime, i am talking about what i think we think constitute a crime. it would depend on the scenario, being responsible for the death of a civilian does not always make you a criminal.
Fortunately in the case in question the guy was found guilty of a crime and was handed a jail sentence. That ought to have been that but he didn't like wearing the uniform and went on a hunger strike. To get it back on topic, Thatcher stated that her opinion, and that of her government, was that he was not a political prisoner and therefore had to wear his uniform. People like to blame her for this but pretty much any conceivable crime can be subsequently argued to be political, she didn't let him die, he starved himself over it.
|
On April 09 2013 06:41 KwarK wrote:
Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
Idiotic or not his actions were politically motivated and he died a martyr to his cause. The fact that his actions killed innocents does not change that they were political.
Denying the political nature of the actions of the IRA by treating them as common criminals only served to widen the division between communities and make a peaceful resolution harder to attain.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 09 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote:
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group. I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
It should also be noted that AI's use of political prisoner is not the same as prisoner of conscious, which seem to be getting lumped together here.
|
United States43661 Posts
On April 09 2013 06:53 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote:
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group. I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron. having a democratically elected government, or any kind of government does not give you a free pass to do as you wish against the electorate (hope i am using this word correctly), or that's my opinion at least. isn't that why amnesty exists in the first place?
Of course it doesn't. It gives you a free pass to do that which is legal. In this case what the government wished to do was imprison a man who had broken the law as a criminal. Oddly enough he didn't contest that he'd broken the law but he contested being forced to wear a prison uniform. That was literally what he died for.
|
On April 09 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote:
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group. I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I tried to reason with you but it's hopeless.
Amnesty International defines him as a political prisoner so I wouldn't call him a moron for thinking that the right thing would happen. Instead he was treated unjustly by your "Majesty's democratically elected government" and now you continue to see things the same way.
You posted this:
"It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me."
According to Amnesty International, you were wrong here. I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong in other ways.
Please, come to things with an open mind.
I won't respond any more because you've offended and disgusted me more than I should have let you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
