realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
thats what i am saying dearie....
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay",
as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.
by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!?
finally, my support went for the "ira in general", primarily their goal, and secondarily their use of force to achieve it. Again, read: force, without reading "civilian massacres". as many civilians as has died (over 1500), just as many soldiers have died. to me, it "goes without saying" that one must condemn the civilian losses, but someone are also "doing it right", when they take the fight where it "ought to be", in a battlefield with soldiers.
if you understood me as specifically supporting that specific group, im not even sure who the hell they are, apart from being one of many ira splinter-groups.
i just never added "btw i oppose the targeting of civilians!", cus i find it redundant :]
i guess ill add a lot of stuff around the forum...
"hi how are ya! btw i oppose civilian massacres! i did finish college, squid! ive had two jobs, three if you count half a year at the science museum. i dont smoke weed all day or even every day. i wrote 6 books, working on a 7th. i have plans for the future, believe it or not. when i say i have no friends, i exaggerate, i have a few friends. i dont recieve welfare per se, but disability payments."
/rant...
