Halibut Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The appeasement of the IRA may have worked for Ireland but it also set a dangerous precedent to other terrorist groups. Can you name some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Aren't you supposed to make a note when a poll is public? Although at least we know which way each cat jumps We should never 'give in' but both sides can be flexible and goalposts can be moved slightly to reach a conclusion. It's probably easier when it's for political reasons, like SA and the IRA, where people are capable of listening to reason, rather than religious reasons, where they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 Yes, obviously. If the terrorism is based on a real injustice, it makes sense to examine that and if necessary, make changes. Who in Britain should decide which acts of terrorism are based on a real injustice and then give in to them? ---------- Post added 24-05-2013 at 19:32 ---------- True, but concessions and talks had to made and had beforehand. I think it was Thatcher's government that made a song and a dance about denying having secret talks with the IRA when they actually had. As I said there is nothing wrong with talking to people with opposing views once they have decided that talk is the way forward and not terrorism. ---------- Post added 24-05-2013 at 19:33 ---------- Can you name some? Maybe Muslim terrorists now think we are weak because they think we gave in to the IRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Who in Britain should decide which acts of terrorism are based on a real injustice and then give in to them? The only people with the power to make that kind of decision are the Government, who hopefully take wise counsel from the best sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 If the past is anything to go on sending peace keeping troops into other Countries in order to fight terrorism doesn't seem to have achieved much, especially when the result is further bloodshed with more terrorist groups forming and recruiting more members. As for invading other nations at the request of those so many people suffering who plead with us to help them get rid of ruthless cruel dictators, that doesn't seem to help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 The only people with the power to make that kind of decision are the Government, who hopefully take wise counsel from the best sources. That sounds about right to me, and the elected government should also decide on the policies that best suit British interests and those policies shouldn’t be changed to suit the desires of terrorists. ---------- Post added 24-05-2013 at 19:48 ---------- If the past is anything to go on sending peace keeping troops into other Countries in order to fight terrorism doesn't seem to have achieved much, especially when the result is further bloodshed with more terrorist groups forming and recruiting more members. As for invading other nations at the request of those so many people suffering who plead with us to help them get rid of ruthless cruel dictators, that doesn't seem to help either. We made a difference to the lives of Muslims in Kuwait and Bosnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Zionist terrorists achieved the result they wanted - their own state, which most people now accept as legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 That sounds about right to me, and the elected government should also decide on the policies that best suit British interests and those policies shouldn’t be changed to suit the desires of terrorists.A simple solution to ending terrorism, why hasn't anyone thought of it. ---------- Post added 24-05-2013 at 19:58 ---------- We made a difference to the lives of Muslims in Kuwait and Bosnia. Yes and that isn't acknowledged much lately. We only ever hear about the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 No appeasement, ever. So you opposed the end of Apartheid in South Africa then? Other successful examples of terrorism in history. The American Revolution Francis Marion was the figure head of this type of warfare. If you have ever seen the movie The Patriot, he was the basis for the character Mel Gibson portrayed. According to Amy Crawford of the Smithsonian Magazine, “Though often outnumbered, Marion's militia would continue to use guerilla tactics to surprise enemy regiments, with great success…Marion and his followers played the role of David to the British Goliath." Line formations were still the normal way of combat until WWI, so it is safe to say that Francis Marion was thinking outside the box. The guerrilla type warfare was labeled by the British as unconventional and they tried very hard to capture Marion. This is similar to the war in Iraq where American soldiers are attacked by Iraqi militias with unconventional means and are labeled as terrorists. LINK ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Vietnam (well, it was their country) Take the My Lai Massacre for example: The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. LINK And of course the U.S. also used Agent Orange and Napalm against civilians. ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Now remind me, who were the "terrorists" again? Cos this is getting confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 So you opposed the end of Apartheid in South Africa then? Other successful examples of terrorism in history. The American Revolution LINK ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Vietnam (well, it was their country) Take the My Lai Massacre for example: LINK And of course the U.S. also used Agent Orange and Napalm against civilians. ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Now remind me, who were the "terrorists" again? Cos this is getting confusing. A great post that raises some profoundly important questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.