Morphs Singnature

[Crusader_4]

Wow lets get something straight... originally the IRA were very just in their actions i am talking pre bombing civilians...they were actaully freedom fighters in a good way. ( i am about as strong british you get so i am not saying this as an irish man) however what they evolved into is doing no good dangerous and is borderline if not terrorism. But the IRA roots are good they have just morphed into something that is bad. But it was not always a bad organization.

[Ellenita]

[quote]Bombing civilians is never an acceptable option for anyone, no matter what the cause. [/quote]

Thank you!
This is exactly the point I was trying to make when I asked MorphRC if you justify one act of terrorism, how far do you go? (he didn't answer)

Is there ever a point when the end justifies the means if innocent (civilians) people get killed?

However, to be fair to MorphRC, he has been entirely consistent in his attitude towards British people - in one thread at Phatmass he clearly applauded Nazis for killing British people during WW2 and stated that killing the British was always justified. Of course I'm not impartial over this, I'm British, my grandma was killed by a bomb and it's only by some miracle (which I don't say lightly) that my dad was dug out alive and I even exist today!

Personally I think the violence by [b]both[/b] sides in Northern Ireland has achieved little except hurt, physically, emotionally, mentally, financially, the very communities the paramilitary groups claim to want to protect.

Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party - let the people in the six counties decide and vote them in. Meanwhile those of us on the 'mainland' who are convinced that British policy towards Ireland is entirely wrong and discrimatory will continue to use our voice in putting pressure on the government to seek a peaceful solution to what is an incredibly complex situation.

[Laudate_Dominum]

this is such a provocative thread! ....

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Sep 22 2004, 02:42 PM'] Im not sure whether anyone knows this, but Morphs signature shows a parimilitary group in Northern Ireland who have killed many people and I personally find it offensive, Im not sure if Morph realises his mistake but the IRA are not an association that Christians want to be associated with and I would appreciate it if it could be changed [/quote]
This is a topic for PM's.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[MichaelFilo]

There are several things that must be kept in mind when talking about terrorism outside of the US (since the US has never had to and probably will never have to see major political groups using terrorism as a way of achieving their ends).

The first is, while many people feel it is WRONG to kill innocent people to acheiving a political end, I would like to point out that this is because you put the concerns of the indivisual over the concerns of the many (a very, very American thing to do). Many people lose their lives in war, and there are times for war. You cannot stop a war just because you feel that innocent people shouldn't get killed. At least the Bush administration didn't feel the need to care about the lives of my family who died in the 2nd gulf war, who were nothing more than innocent people. You cannot say a war is wrong if someone loses their life, even in innoncence, or else everyone here would have to be against the war in Iraq which I know is NOT the case.

The second thing, terrorism works. If you want a Catholic nation without British control (and being from a country that was formarly controlled by the Brits, I can understand very well why you WOULDN'T like it), it is perfectly justifiable to kill the Brits and their supporters. Why? There is no other way they will leave any time soon. It took open revolt against hte king of Iraq before we got the Brits and their puppet rulers out, and I am sure there was more than ample killing, slaughtering, bombing, and torturing innocent people. Just because it is a "terrorist" orginization, it may very well be the first step to revolution.

I think it was kind of Morph to change his sig, but in all honesty, just because someone finds something offensive isn't any reason to stop. I was told sharing my views about women and their role in the household, and the natural inequality of the roles of men and women in my English class was offensive, but that hardly is any reason to stop talking.

God bless,

Mikey

Edited September 25, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[cmotherofpirl]

In a war innocent people die, that is a given. But it is one thing to have civilian causalites as a by-product of a military action, it is a horse of a different color to DELIBERATELY target civilians.

The second is NEVER an option in war.

I don't ever recall reading a list of British civilians tortured by American colonists during the Revolutionary War. However, I do recall reading of Irish civilians being tortured by the Brits.

[Noel's angel]

any form of terrorism is wrong, there is Nothing right about it, no matter what the circumstance

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 25 2004, 10:05 AM'] In a war innocent people die, that is a given. But it is one thing to have civilian causalites as a by-product of a military action, it is a horse of a different color to DELIBERATELY target civilians.

The second is NEVER an option in war.

I don't ever recall reading a list of British civilians tortured by American colonists during the Revolutionary War. However, I do recall reading of Irish civilians being tortured by the Brits. [/quote]
In a war innocent people die. Yes I do believe that is one of o teh many "complications" of war, but you make a wrong assesment of the situation. You see up until very recently, wars were never meant to exclude "innocent" people. Heck, it was common to kill off townsfolk and the likes just because they belonged to a certain side. During world war 2 German homes were bombed, French homes were bombed, British homes were bombed. It was not after the laws that passed that put "rules" on war did anyone care to avoid the people of the country they were at war with. Since not even all the nations of the world combined could change the nature of war (a part of human life since the beggining), it becomes quite clear that civilians are just as much targets as anyone else.

So in this case, the 2nd is, in the very essence of war, the primary option in war.

Since you don't recall anything about the colonists, a quick jab at history may shed a little light on this subject.

[quote]"The story of the United Empire Loyalists is an interesting one. During the American Revolution, American troops attempted to capture Canada, though they were not successful, they were able to break their ties to Britain. Despite this, about a third of the American colonists were still loyal to the British crown and were forced to take up arms for their cause. When the war was over, the Loyalists found that their property had been either confiscated or destroyed by the triumphant revolutionists and that many of them were banished under penalty of death. [b]A great number of Loyalists were also tortured and publicly humiliated[/b]. All was not lost though, because when terms of peace were finally drawn up between the two opposing sides, the British government stepped in and demanded that the Loyalists have their property restored. This was deemed to be impossible, so the British government saw fit to provide the Loyalists with new homes, the majority of these being located in the eastern half of the Dominion of Canada."[/quote]

[url="http://collections.ic.gc.ca/wentworth/uel.htm"]Source[/url]

God bless,

Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Sep 25 2004, 10:31 AM'] any form of terrorism is wrong, there is Nothing right about it, no matter what the circumstance [/quote]
Really? Any form of terrorism is wrong? What would you consider "terrorism".

[quote]Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion[/quote]

So what was the Inquisition?

[quote]This regularly began with a months "term of grace", proclaimed by the inquisitor whenever he came to a heresy-ridden district. The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These mere then cited before the judges -- usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities -- and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

    [b]* fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;
    * more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food;
    * visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
    * torture, which will be discussed below.[/b][/quote]

Umm that would be the systematic use of terror as a form of coercion.

Terrorism is not wrong at all, and as a matter of fact, is just as good as any other form of control over a populace. Terrorism can be misused, true, but again the IRA is nothing more than a group (much like a dictator) who is attempting to to coerce the citizens into their beliefs. They chose terrorism, I say good call, the Church did to.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#II"]Source[/url]

God bless,

Mikey

Edited September 26, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[MichaelFilo]

I'd like to address my above post lest there is scandal among the faithful.


I refer to the Catholic Church's Inquisitions as a form of terrorism, and according to Webster, this is true. However only until recently has terrorism gained a negative meaning. Much like the word cult, which was used to refer to the angels by an early Church Father (don't remember who though, but I can pull it up if intrest exists).

Terrorism is a way in which many thinks are kept in conformity. It again can be misused. That doesn't make it bad. Terrorism was used by God in the Old Testament quite a few times. God's prophets who repeated His words about Hell, and the death that only exists down there for the unrightous faithless man is indeed a form of terrorism. It shows the fires of Hell as a result of a life of inquity, just as much as scaring people with the stake is showing a result to being against God by holding flase beliefs.

God bless and Mary protect,

Mikey

[Ellenita]

[quote]Terrorism is not wrong at all, and as a matter of fact, is just as good as any other form of control over a populace.[/quote]

So at least an attempt to answer the question about how far the end justifies the means. Presumably, by this logic it is perfectly OK to murder anyone by any means in order to coerce the nation and therefore you feel no outrage towards Al Qaeda, or the group that's currently beheading civilian hostages, or those who shot children in their back as they tried to escape....

[quote]Terrorism can be misused, true, but again the IRA is nothing more than a group (much like a dictator) who is attempting to to coerce the citizens into their beliefs. They chose terrorism, I say good call, the Church did to.[/quote]

I am very grateful that my (Irish) priest has consistently condemned all forms of terrorism and exhorted us to pray for both the terrorists and the victims.




It is [b]deeply distressing [/b]that there are people at Phatmass who feel it is perfectly justifiable to murder me and my family, or Richard, or Deeds, or RandomProddy, or Adeodatus and others, by any means, simply because we were born in England, Scotland or Wales.......
It begs the question is there any love and forgiveness or sense of universal family within Christanity or the Catholic church.



I think I need time away from Phatmass.

[Apotheoun]

The intentional killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 26 2004, 02:51 AM'] The intentional killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. [/quote]
Amen Amen Amen !!!

[Paul]

To add to Michaels posts. The majority of Catholics here support the Crusades. However many of their acts, were forms of terrorism, and even genocide, we all know that the crusaders slaughtered over 50,000 Jerusalemites, on entering, yet people here have no problem with the crusades, or have crusader related objects. Also I dont have to mention the Inquisition, even though that had some form of justification for the protection of the faithful, many times the faithful turned out to be the victims, one of the most well known would be St. Joan D'arc.

Also. Remember the IRA did publish a letter of apology for the civilians killed in operations. As did the Church for its past crimes, here many are willing to accept the Church's apology, no problem, but IRA, not a chance in hell. Kinda hypocritical do you not think?

[Paul]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Sep 25 2004, 09:31 AM'] any form of terrorism is wrong, there is Nothing right about it, no matter what the circumstance [/quote]
Noel. I dont know your meaning for terrorism, it seems to incumber anything you dislike.