Britian must not fall into the trap they did in Northern Ireland.

I understand that the British are on edge and that thier security people are doing everything they can to keep another attack from happening.

Having said that, this is NO excuse for killing an innocent person.

The British are falling into that same trap they fell into in Northern ireland.

During the 30 year war with the IRA, the British took to killing innocnet Irish Catholics out of frustration that they couldn't make headway against the IRA.

The Brits either personally killed innocent Catholics or they hired Loyalist Terrorists to do it for them.
The result was that the IRA grew stronger and eventually managed to bomb and assassinate the Brits into recognizing that Ireland was not thiers to control.

The Brits are now dealing with a non political terror organization in Al Qaida, which although not quite as skilled as the IRA is every bit as ruthless. The difference is that the IRA were more of a legitimate guerilla organization which was willing to use politics in place of violence if the Brits were willing to negotiate.

Al Qaida is a TRUE terrorist organization that has no real political goals...they just want British and Americans and Christians and Jews (and everyone else who doesen't think like they do) dead.

Britian must fight Al Qaida in the same way we have and in the same way Israel has fought hezbollah and Hamas...with lethal force.

However, they must not do what they did in Northern Ireland or what Israel has done many times in Palestine, namely they must no be so overzealous that they kill or harm innocents in order to protect hier country.

"Britian must fight Al Qaida in the same way we have and in the same way Israel has fought hezbollah and Hamas...with lethal force."

Our "lethal force" has only exacerbated the problem, multiplying the terrorist's numbers greatly. Israel has fought Hezbollah and Hamas for years and years and is no farther ahead of the game than when they started. That will be the same with us in Iraq. I don't know the answer to the problem, but the "lethal force" you refer to just doesn't seem to do the trick.

and there is no group that just wants people dead.

And no, lethal force against 'them' won't work.

It's like trying to nail jello to a tree. There is nothing there.

Get out of the ME and let them run their own affairs, and you won't have any more problems.

...but unfortunately as long as this country depends on oil we will be there. Yes it sickens me.

activities?

I would say if the goal was eradication of infidels and Westerners, killing people a handful at a time would be a rather inefficient way of achieving that.

If the goal was to make the US occupation of Iraq and military presence in the Middle East politically too costly at home to sustain, it might very well be attainable.

One big bombing of a Marine base in Lebanon essentially got us out of there during Reagan administration.

You say, "The Brits either personally killed innocent Catholics or they hired Loyalist Terrorists to do it for them.
The result was that the IRA grew stronger and eventually managed to bomb and assassinate the Brits into recognizing that Ireland was not thiers to control."

Ireland is not ours to control and no-one here thinks it is. Ireland is a republic. If you're talking about Northern Ireland then it's part of the UK. The majority of people living there wanted it to stay that way. This is why they're called Loyalists. The IRA were vicious killers who decided that what the majority wanted was of no interest to them and they were going to keep killing until they got what they wanted. They didn't. Recognising this, they have stopped doing it and turned to crime. Drug smuggling, contract killing, things like that. Not a big stretch for people who enjoy killing and who were always criminals.

The "romantic" view of these "brave freedom fighters" is one which is easy to subscribe to when you're sitting in some bar in Boston and singing the old songs, thousands of safe miles away from the destruction caused by bombs and guns partly paid for by Americans sending money for the cause back to The Old Country.

The history of problems in Northern Ireland is one which goes back hundreds of years and British governments have much to be ashamed of in that history. This "war" is, in the end, a religious war. Catholics vs. Protestants. As in all religious conflicts, reason and intelligence play much less part than stupidity and arrogance.

I presume you're in the US, so you'll know what I mean when the Creationist loonies start marching in your cities demanding that gays are locked up in prison camps and that those of you who don't accept the words of their holy book as literal truth should be treated as unpatriotic criminals.

Oh, wait a minute, it's already started, hasn't it? Good luck.

One Ireland, from sod to sky.

The British role in Ireland is one of violence. That doesn't mean that all British people took part in it, or were in favor of it. It does mean the British government has been criminal in its Irish policies, and the British military has been guilty of enforcing the violent "policies" of the government.

There are those who delude themselves into thinking the British have been saviors of the peace in Ireland. They are no different than those who justified the British role in India. You know, helping those lesser people who lack the ability to mimic the British.

It's partially true that there is religious violence in "Northern" Ireland. Yet it is equally true that it is based upon economics. The British policy has always been based more on economics than ethnic or religious hatred, though they capitalized on those, too.

The majority of Irish-Americans, including myself, do send money back to the Old Sod. But it is foolishness to claim that it goes to fund our great uncle, Captain Midnight. Get out of here with that weak shit. We fund programs that bring Irish children together -- Catholic and Protestant alike -- to learn to live together like extended family. Perhaps it is worth reminding you that extended family was the structure of Irish society for thousands of years .... and it was targeted by those who have sought to exploit Ireland financially for hundreds of years.

They probably won't listen. They're as "Irish" as you are "American", after all, and they'd rather remain part of the UK...to suggest otherwise is a wee bit undemocratic, wouldn't you think? They've held referenda on the issue; the Republican side lost. Ought they to be forced against their will? Should they be told to abandon the country of their birth, where their ancestors lived for centuries, because a minority of the population wishes to be out of the UK?

And there IS a reason the IRA was called "Boston's favourite charity".

those things thast you may be applying to me -- forcing them against their will, and telling them to abandon the country of their birth -- have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. Hence, they are not worth responding to. "Should they be told to abandon the country of their birth, where their ancestors lived foe centuries, because a minority of the population wishes to be out of the UK?" is not at issue.

What is at issue, of course, is that within the last century. the British created some imaginary boundries in the area that they considered their historic empire. These boundries, including those in Ireland and the Middle East, were made for one reason: to protect the British's ruling class's financial "investments."

Perhaps you would do well to step out of the British-made frame of "Northern Ireland" reference. The "majority" you speak of is a minority in Ireland. They are afraid that the majority will treat them as harshly as they have treated the Catholics. They need to let go of this paranoid, guilt-induced belief. It is no different than in the US, when southern whites were afraid that blacks would want "revenge." It's merely projecting their own neuroses.

It was because the unionists in Northern Ireland were threatening a civil war if they were made part of the Irish Free State. At the time, partition avoided a lot of bloodshed, even if it was giving in to threats. Consider that the Free State managed to have a civil war anyway, amongst people who almost agreed. If the heavily armed north had been involved, it would have been much worse. It has had a long term legacy of discrimination and violence, unfortunately.

So they did it to bring peace to "Northern" Ireland? Ha-ha-ha. And the financial benefits of imperialist policies was an unintended side-effect? Please do not expect anyone to take that nonsense seriously.

Yes, it would have been very bloody. That doesn't mean that giving in to the threats was to right policy - you could call it appeasement.

of the Free State. This was before the Free State was even considered.

But, that is all water under the bridge IMHO. We need to move forward, peacefully, and find political solutions for political problems. That also applies to the present situation confronting the UK and US.

Shoot to kill orders are just bad policy.

first came into use, and I didn't want to imply they were opposing getting an independent Ulster, rather than a country governed in Dublin. Saying "the Republic" would have been even more historically inaccurate.

Yes, it's not that I was saying the reasoning behind the partition was particularly relevant now, just that it couldn't be put down to just the interests of the British ruling class. Nearly 500,000 signed the unionist declaration.

emotions run high on the 6 counties and a United Ireland.

I would also like to offer you and the UK my heartfelt sympathy for all that has befallen your country over the last couple of weeks. We need to find a way out of this horrible mess.

:shrug: