Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[IAN 2411]

Hollywood actor Martin Sheen has declared himself proud of his uncle's IRA past.

The star said he was also relieved to discover that his mother's brother, Michael Fieland, from Co Tipperary, had no part in the assassination of Irish revolutionary leader Michael Collins.

Sheen found out about his close family links to Ireland's War of Independence while taking part in the US version of the hit genealogy television series Who Do You Think You Are?. The 71-year-old visited Dublin's Kilmainham Gaol and spent time in the cell where it is believed his uncle was incarcerated.

"I'm enormously proud of him," he said. "I would like to hope that if I had been here in Ireland at the time, I would have followed him. And I would have been as committed as he was."

Best known for his roles in Apocalypse Now, Wall Street and the television series West Wing, he described his uncle as an Irish volunteer. The actor said Fieland went on to fight against the Free State side, who supported the Anglo-Irish treaty, during the resulting Civil War in the early 1920s.

Sheen was concerned about what the TV researchers would turn up. "When I was in Ireland and discovering the involvement of my uncle in the Rising and the Civil War, because he took an opposing side to (Eamon) de Valera, I was afraid he might have been in on the plan to assassinate Mick Collins," he said.

"But as it turned out he was in prison when Mick Collins was assassinated and I was deeply relieved
.................................................. ..........................

Martin Sheen.......= Ramon Antonio Gerard Esteves....Call me paddy O’Esteves. I am proud to be associated with the terrorist organisation the IRA.

Barrack Obama.....=President of the USA......I am proud of my ancestral past in Africa and Ireland, so call me paddy O’bama. His uncle and grandfather I believe were in the Mau-Mau, a terrorist organisation that rebelled against the government. The Mau-Mau killed no end of innocent civilians by beheading them, women, children and babies. They dismembered mothers in front of the children before raping and killing the children, and Obama is proud of them. I might add that although the British killed most of the Mau-Mau, it was an elected Kenyan government that employed the British. There’s that terrorist word again.

To admit to something like that, just shows me how much the American privileged; love to be associated with terrorists. It must give them a buzz knowing they are sticking their finger up to the rest of the world. Sticking their finger up to just about anyone that is not, terrorist related. They love sticking their finger up to all those innocent people that were killed in horrendous ways for a terrorist ideal.

Who is next I wonder to admit they are proud to be assosiated with terrorists? Would either Sheen or Obama be spouting off their mouth’s if they were related to El-Quada?

Be well IAN 2411

PS

By the way paddy O’Esteves, just because he was in prison does not mean he had nothing to do with the assassination, you stupid asshole.

[denuseri]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

[Thorne]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

LOL! I was just going to say the same thing! Only about 15 hours too late.

[js207]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

So what freedom do you think Mohamed Atta was fighting for on 9/11?

[Thorne]

So what freedom do you think Mohamed Atta was fighting for on 9/11?

Just off the top of my head, perhaps freedom from American involvement in Middle East affairs? Or maybe just the freedom to determine his own fate. Doesn't matter, though. I'm sure HE had what he believed were valid reasons for what he did. And I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Muslim world who regard him as a Freedom Fighter and not a terrorist. That's the point.

[IAN 2411]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

LOL! I was just going to say the same thing! Only about 15 hours too late.

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

Or other “Freedom Fighters” killed your mother, brother, sibling by blowing them to pieces while they peacefully shopped in Omagh. Are you changing the name so that you feel better? Or are you just burying your head in the sand like an Ostrich?

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

What I found amusing was the denuseri had the EXACT same thought that I had, to the exact words! While I can understand, sometimes, the need to kill to defend one's country/family, I don't find any kind of killing to be funny, regardless of who's doing it.

But the statement is nonetheless true, for the most part. Whether a group is termed Terrorist or Freedom Fighter can all-too-often depend on who's doing the naming. During WW2, the French Underground were considered patriots by the French, but criminals by the Germans. The American's who rebelled against England were, for the most part, considered criminals and even terrorists (though I doubt they used that term) by the British troops and the Loyalist civilians. Especially those "irregular" units that used guerrilla tactics, such as Francis Marion's group. Even those as nasty as the IRA and al-Qaeda are considered heroes by at least some of their own people.

For my part, when you start deliberately targeting civilians rather than military or infrastructure, you are crossing the line into terrorism. But even that line is blurred. Were the men who bombed German (or English) cities in WW2 acting as military units or as terrorists? When bombing factories, for example, there's little to question. But what about the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example? Where they actually aiming at military targets, or terrorizing civilians?

Again, it's all a question of who's doing the defining.

[denuseri]

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

Or other “Freedom Fighters” killed your mother, brother, sibling by blowing them to pieces while they peacefully shopped in Omagh. Are you changing the name so that you feel better? Or are you just burying your head in the sand like an Ostrich?

Be well IAN 2411

Oh I wasn't joking around hon...and I have no clue as to why you would think so or try to make this personnel. Although you may claim to not know ...I'm of mixed American and Lebanese /Jewish heritage and it's no secret I was born in Beirut in 1979 and have lost several family members from all three sides to the war I was born into.

Personally I could care less if the Sheen's are proud of whatever they wish to be proud of. I was simply pointing out that there are indeed two or more sides to the topic you presented and that from their "respective" perspectives their point of view concerning themselves and the actions of what they consider to be their enemies is, are, and has been, equally valid in their own eyes.

[lucy]

Or English troops killing your family, just because you happen to be Irish. Or, English settlers putting a price tag on your head, just because you're an aborigine living in Tasmania.

Look, Ian, the brits have fucked so many millions of people up their arse over the years, they shouldn't cry murder too loud when somebody shoots back.
I don't say it's right what the IRA did, but there are a lot of people could say the same about you when you say "I'm proud to be Brit."

[IAN 2411]

I

Or English troops killing your family, just because you happen to be Irish.

I am at a loss to understand that statement

Or, English settlers putting a price tag on your head, just because you're an aborigine living in Tasmania.
Look, Ian, the brits have fucked so many millions of people up their arse over the years, they shouldn't cry murder too loud when somebody shoots back.
I don't say it's right what the IRA did, but there are a lot of people could say the same about you when you say "I'm proud to be Brit."

There is a big difference when saying you’re proud to be American/English/Swiss/Any Country. To be related to a terrorist group and be proud? I would also like to point out if you haven’t been reading the papers, the IRA are still a terrorist group and are still active. They are over in foreign countries, and they are training Al Quada. They are training them to blow up anything that does not conform to their fanatical Muslim ideal. The IRA, only know how to kill and now there is an end to the violence in Province, they have decided to bring their war to the mainland. Teaching their disgusting trade of violence to people that don’t give a damn whether you are Brit, Swiss or American or any other European national. They can only see the infidel, and a person that will not bow down to Allah that has to be destroyed any, which-way.

I am proud to be a Brit, but I don’t have to be proud of the way things were done by the English a hundred or more years before I was born. I would like to point out as well that neither do I care because it stopped a long time before I was born. [The IRA, have not]

There is not a Kenyan that would hold his/her hand up and say they were proud to have ancestors fighting in the Mau-Mau.

I doubt either that you would find any Irish person say they were proud to be related to IRA scum, because the IRA were as wicked to their own, as much, if not more, than they were with the British soldier.

The difference is Barrack Obama and Martin Sheen, by saying such insulting things to Joe public, thinks it makes them look stronger than the small person they really are. They are with the privileged few that get where they are on the backs of others beliefs and money, and should show more respect.

However, lucy...I do understand what you are saying and your points are valid.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Noun 1. terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act- the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"

cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk, hacker - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism

Jacobin - a member of the radical movement that instituted the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution

radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions

sleeper - a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal

suicide bomber - a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people



I had to check it out to answer your post Thorne.

But what about the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example? Where they actually aiming at military targets, or terrorizing civilians?

I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that the allies can say what they like, but in the end they were atrocities. If the Germans had won the war and so too the Japanese, then again there is no doubt in my mind that the British and American high command would have been on trial for war crimes. However, we all know that the winners of wars will never admit guilt.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that the allies can say what they like, but in the end they were atrocities.

I agree. Atrocities by anybody's standards. Acts of terror in fact, designed to achieve a political as well as a military goal.

If the Germans had won the war and so too the Japanese, then again there is no doubt in my mind that the British and American high command would have been on trial for war crimes.

Which goes right along with denuseri's and my statement that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, or patriot.

However, we all know that the winners of wars will never admit guilt.

History tends to be written by the winners. A fact of life. If the German's had won, the London blitz would have been portrayed in a much better light, much as Dresden was. A sad necessity of combat.

[ksst]

If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud...

says Arlo Guthrie, and ksst, who is a dirty hippy at heart, even though slightly too young for it.

[js207]

And I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Muslim world who regard him as a Freedom Fighter and not a terrorist. That's the point.

A false dichotomy at best. Terrorism is committing the war crime of targeting civilians to get your way - whether that goal is "freedom" or anything else. The guys in Libya fighting against Gaddaffi's regime? Not terrorists: they were fighting Gaddaffi's military. If they'd hidden and fired missiles into or planted bombs in the middle of Tripoli then they'd have been terrorists - as well as rather less popular, of course, and less likely to be seen as fighting against oppression.

As for 'freedom to determine his own fate', Atta had that from the outset: born in Egypt, studied in Germany then trained in Afghanistan. He could have killed himself any time he wanted, but he wanted to deprive thousands of other people of that right - the very antithesis of a "freedom fighter". Ironically, of course, by bringing about the fall of the Taleban it could be argued he did indirectly bring some freedom to Afghanistan, but I somehow doubt that was his intent!

[Thorne]

Terrorism is committing the war crime of targeting civilians to get your way - whether that goal is "freedom" or anything else.

Like firebombing entire cities to "reduce the enemy's resistance"? It's a matter of perspective. If you're in one of the planes dropping the bombs, it's a cruel but necessary strategy. If you're in the city it's a terrorist act.

The guys in Libya fighting against Gaddaffi's regime? Not terrorists: they were fighting Gaddaffi's military.

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

If they'd hidden and fired missiles into or planted bombs in the middle of Tripoli then they'd have been terrorists - as well as rather less popular, of course, and less likely to be seen as fighting against oppression.

Naturally, the people who were being bombed wouldn't particularly like them. But if they were doing those things in, say, Chad or Tunisia, the Libyan people would consider them Freedom Fighters.

As for 'freedom to determine his own fate', Atta had that from the outset: born in Egypt, studied in Germany then trained in Afghanistan. He could have killed himself any time he wanted, but he wanted to deprive thousands of other people of that right - the very antithesis of a "freedom fighter".

It makes me think of the Egyptian Pharaohs, and other royalty, who killed dozens, if not hundreds, of their loyal subjects to have servants in the afterlife. It's a case of being afraid to face death alone, so they have to bring as many people along with them as possible. I suppose they figure that they can get lost in the crowd and their god won't realize they've slipped into heaven, or wherever.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

[js207]

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

Rebels, yes - they were rebelling against Gaddaffi's regime - and as that conflict went on, quite a few of his troops decided the rebels were actually the lesser evil - but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning. Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

The bombing of Dresden was legally questionable, in part because the relevant law had last been updated in 1907 when the nearest equivalent would have been firing rather inaccurate artillery pieces in that direction, though there was certainly no clear-cut prohibition. This was a factor in the subsequent Geneva Conventions. Terrorism, though? No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy. Never mind freedom, it's about hurting someone you hate. We all know there were those in the Middle East who literally cheered the massacre, but "set his people free"? Pull the other one.

[Thorne]

but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning.

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

[js207]

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror. It isn't a moral judgement, it's a particular tactic. One most of us in the West, excluding Martin Sheen, consider wrong, but that's another issue. If you were to ask anyone in Al Qaeda and get a candid response, they would agree it is indeed terrorism, they are a terrorist group - they just believe their terrorism is morally right and that terror is an appropriate tactic for them to use.

(I did feel from the outset that 'war on terror' was a stupid name, analogous to 'war on pincer movements' or 'war on vertical envelopment' - though of course the more accurate 'war on Islamic extremists' would be politically problematic and 'war on Al Qaeda' raises the obvious but awkward question of 'so why are you fighting the Taleban then'.)

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

I've italicised the key bit there: yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military' - more recently, trying much harder to minimise damage to non-military aspects.

[denuseri]

Or if they dressed up as native Americans and sneaked on board a British ship and dumped all the tea in the bay?

According to some:

There are multiple, conflicting explanations for Atta's behavior and motivation. Political psychologist Jerrold Post has suggested that Atta and his fellow hijackers were just following orders from Al Qaeda leadership, "and whatever their destructive, charismatic leader, Osama bin Laden said was the right thing to do for the sake of the cause was what they would do." In turn, political scientist Robert Pape has claimed that Atta was motivated by his commitment to the political cause, that he was psychologically normal, and that he was “not readily characterized as depressed, not unable to enjoy life, not detached from friends and society.” By contrast, criminal justice professor Adam Lankford has found evidence that Atta was clinically suicidal, and that his struggles with social isolation, depression, guilt, shame, hopelessness, and rage were extraordinarily similar to the struggles of those who commit conventional suicide and murder-suicide. By this view, Atta’s political and religious beliefs affected the method of his suicide and his choice of target, but they were not the underlying causes of his behavior.

Keep in mind none of the above actually examined the man face to face in so far as I know.

I am sure he felt perfectly justified in his own mind for his actions and did not in the slightest way paint himself as the bad guy any more than Hitler or Stalin painted themselves in such light...or for that matter George Washington or Boudicca or Spartacus or any other number of people who resort to violence to solve their problems etc etc.

[IAN 2411]

I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition.

I have to disagree, along with, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the above were atrocities. They were destruction causing the slaughter of innocent lives to make a point. The 9/11 conspirators terrorised no one, because the world was already alert to Al Qaedas methods of wanton destruction. The only people that can be terrorised are those that know something painfully bad is imminently going to take place involving them personally.

Please explain to me your reason in saying, that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism? It was calculated civilian slaughter of an unequalled nature. They was also three of the biggest atrocities in WW2.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I have to disagree, along with, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the above were atrocities. They were destruction causing the slaughter of innocent lives to make a point.

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

The 9/11 conspirators terrorised no one

No one? How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

The only people that can be terrorised are those that know something painfully bad is imminently going to take place involving them personally.

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

Please explain to me your reason in saying, that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism? It was calculated civilian slaughter of an unequalled nature. They was also three of the biggest atrocities in WW2.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

[js207]

But targeting the center of the city and ignoring the rail yards and factories on the outskirts? That's terrorism.

It could conceivably have been a war crime, if the middle of the city contained no military assets: there's no requirement to go for the "best" or biggest target. Also bear in mind the original accounts were deliberately inflated for propaganda reasons, increasing the claimed death toll by almost an entire order of magnitude compared to subsequent German figures. It wasn't like modern guided missiles, which you can fly between buildings to reach a target - targeting was more "should we hit this city, or that one?" In Dresden's case, the target area was several miles wide!

Moreover, it seems the Germans were holding POWs in those rail yards, which may have made bombing them rather less appealing to the Allies.

Not always. I don't believe the Japanese, for example, signed the Geneva Convention. Nor did the USSR.

The four Geneva Conventions we know as 'the Geneva Convention' today was agreed in 1949, then ratified by Japan, the US, UK and USSR in 1953, 1955, 1957 and 1960 respectively. The laws of war in force during WWII were, as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, older - including the First Geneva Convention of 1864, ratified by all those countries (except of course Russia wasn't the USSR in those days) back in the 19th century.

What difference whether the bomber was wearing a uniform or a business suit?

For one thing, it's the difference between war and war crime: wearing a uniform is a requirement of the laws of war. Remember all those movie scenes with captives being "shot as spies" if they're out of uniform?

[denuseri]

lol good gravy gertie, one little statement picked apart for no reason people...and everyone knows exactly what I meant by my statement

Who the good guys are and who the bad guys are all depends on which side if any you are on.

Now in the case of Mr Sheen I have no earthly idea how much or how little he knows about the actual facts concerning what his statements addressed, he may have been operating under completely false assumptions for all I know; its a moot point since it cant be determined outside of media public quotes taken perhaps out of context so shrugs.

I know in the USA considering how our country came into being that a certain degree of subjective interpretation is used in colloquial and unfortunately also in professional accounts of the history depending upon whose side one was on or with whom one's sympathies lay.

Also imho Americans in general (at least not those wholly sympathetic to England) due to our own country's past and social influence have a tendency to view the turbulent relationship of England and Ireland in favor of the Irish people as the underdog trying to do what we ourselves once did. Granted their methods are sometimes reprehensible. I know at lot of Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

Ironic considering that Great Briton is our closest and best ally (not over the Irish issue obviously) but because of two world wars that affected all of us and the subsequent threats posed by the rise of Communism, Terrorism and perhaps not so far in the future: "China".

[IAN 2411]

Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

If the Americans had read about Irelands history instead of sending millions of $ to help them kill the English soldier, the troubles in Northern Ireland would have been over a long time before they were. The Irish also sided with the Nazis’ during the war and that never helped either. The English were never the Oppressors they were invited to over lord Ireland, it was the IRA that made it an issue. The Irish Americans with their $ with blood on, are still a bad taste in the mouths of the British Soldier, but we have not yet stooped low enough to terrorise them.

Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

And so to do the British, but the IRA will never allow it, because the IRA will then be redundant.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

If the Americans had read about Irelands history instead of sending millions of $ to help them kill the English soldier, the troubles in Northern Ireland would have been over a long time before they were. The Irish also sided with the Nazis’ during the war and that never helped either. The English were never the Oppressors they were invited to over lord Ireland, it was the IRA that made it an issue. The Irish Americans with their $ with blood on, are still a bad taste in the mouths of the British Soldier, but we have not yet stooped low enough to terrorise them.



And so to do the British, but the IRA will never allow it, because the IRA will then be redundant.

Be well IAN 2411

Sorry Ive studied the history rather extensively and I think you will need a far better argument to convince me that the English/Irish issue or for that matter any of England's many international (anything outside of England proper such as with the Scots and Welsh and French and America etc etc) foibles all occur so sophistically one sided.

And why do you think Ireland sided with England's enemies I wonder?

[IAN 2411]

Sorry Ive studied the history rather extensively and I think you will need a far better argument to convince me that the English/Irish issue or for that matter any of England's many international (anything outside of England proper such as with the Scots and Welsh and French and America etc etc) foibles all occur so sophistically one sided.

And why do you think Ireland sided with England's enemies I wonder?

Take your blinkers off denu, and as for your question, you would have to ask them. [They were enemies of the world] If you have been reading the History of UK and Ireland extensively, then you would still be reading it now. You have also missed the main point of my argument that the British were not the opressors.

It is also a fact that if it was not for the American $ in later years, the IRA would not have been able to continue buying weapons and explosives. So as to kill not only the British soldier, but also their own race and creed along with the innocent people on the manland of England. It was an easy thing to omit while reading the history of ireland, because if it was written by the Irish it would not be printed. Neither did it help when Irish/American senitors pledged their alegience to the cause in Ireland, and were in a small way a great help to the gathering money to aid the IRA bomb making killing machine. Next time you talk to a British soldier of any rank, please do ask him/her where the IRA got 80% of their war chest? Then preach to me how bad the British were to the Irish. There were a lot of soldiers over in Northern Ireland questioning the Special Relationship while i was there, but perhaps that is only there when it is needed by the Americans.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength, [God help us]. I know the British were involved in all three of those atrocities that I mentioned, but they were no better than the atrocities and inhumane killing of the Jews. There was the shock and awe tactics in Iraq at the beginning, another example of an atrocity, because there was no justification to that either. Once again this was carried out by the same two countries that are now leading the fight against terrorism. What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.

How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

There is no such thing as a good act of terrorism. You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument, to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping? They had the ability to do so or they could not have dropped the bombs that they did...and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength

Which is my point. They were for political purposes, more than military purposes.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

Except that those others you mention don't cause problems by going into a panic on a plane, causing fear among the other passengers, and sometimes having an innocent person thrown off the plane just because he resembles someones stereotypical image of an Arab. Those others also didn't create the hassles we now have to endure in airports. They may be a minority, but their fear is affecting everyone.

You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument

And you are using a very narrow definition of terrorism to suit yours.

to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean.

Not at all! I don't downplay the horrible nature of these events. I'm only pointing out how some people view them.

If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping?

They destroyed most of the Japanese shipping. The Japanese Empire was virtually gone. But the Japanese government refused to surrender. The only option other than the bombs was to invade the home islands, which would have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of casualties both among the Japanese people and the American armed forces. I'm not saying they shouldn't have dropped those bombs. I think they did the right thing. I'm only saying that, in my broad, generalized view, their purpose was to terrorize the Japanese people and government as much as to destroy the military.

and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

If the Japanese government had shown any inclination towards surrender after the first, then one WOULD have been enough. They did not. Some within the Japanese High Command felt that it was only a fluke, a one-off that the US could not repeat. It was necessary to show them that we could do it again, the implication being that we could destroy all of their cities. Again, a terror weapon.

[MMI]

1. Irish history shows that, for most of the "800 years of English Oppression", it was one Irishman oppressing another. For most of that time, right up to the 19th century, Ireland had its own Parliament where Irish Lords made Irish laws for royal approval by the King of Ireland. It was due to the Earls, and the clan chiefs with whom they were often feuding, that the English King was invited into Ireland, and such peace as there ever was on that poor island was due more to English rule than to anything else. There were periods when English oppression was severe - Cromwell is a notable example - but at most other times, the violence was due to the inability of the Irish to live peacefully together, and English troops were forced to quell the not infrequent uprisings.

The majority of these uprisings happened because of the dire poverty most Irish people lived in while the Irish nobility and its merchant class kept fat cattle and the best wheat for export (to England and Europe) so that they could fill their own coffers at the expense of their countrymen.

The Irish, like the Americans, perpetuate the lies and deceptions that were used against the English right up to the present day, and they (the Irish) seek apologies from the English for what they did to themselves.

2. The Welsh have been closely united with England for hundreds of years, and Plaid Cymru is still a minority movement. There is no real hatred between the two countries, just a healthy rivalry. True, the Welsh have a keen desire to preserve their national language and heritage - looked down upon by English speakers until recently, but that is a good thing, and it does not demand that they cut their ties. Incidentally, English is spoken by more Welsh people than Welsh.

3. The Scots, too, are unlikely to become independent from England, and if they do, it will be by agreement between friends. Again, hatred of England is historical and largely unfounded - unless, like the Irish, you go back several centuries into history to justify your claim of unjust treatment.

The United Kingdom is exactly that - a union of two kingdoms, a principality and a province, and each has its place in that union just like any state in the USA. (The province is that part of Ireland which chose to remain British, after the establishment of the Irish Free State. It seems there are many Irish republicans who cannot countenance a British presence to the north, just like the American republic found it necessary to go to war against Canada after their independence.)

Most of the English/British possessions (save those where we had a peacekeeping role) sought independence by peaceful means and obtained it. The vast majority of those countries remained in the Commonwealth where they each have an equal voice on matters they deal with. A number still have the Queen as their head of state, and Britain is held in deep affection.

So, to sum up, England has committed many atrocities through its high handed arrogance and belief in its superiority over native peoples - that seems to be part of the Germanic DNA. I believe Britain is also guilty of genocide, where it successfully wiped out a whole race. We have ruled some places very badly.

But we have also ruled well, and the evidence of that is to be seen all round the globe. Some people, however, justify their own bad history by blaming it on us. The Irish were the authors of most of their own problems. They chose to become a third rate country rather than be part of the United Kingdom (an equal pert, remember). Zimbabwe shook off British shackles in order to murder white Zimbabweans and steal their property ... and that country is in financial ruins despite all its natural wealth. The 13 colonies were seized by a motley crew of smugglers, pirates, profiteers and other malcontents who sought to further their own interests rather than their compatriots and condemned them to years of war, to higher taxes and a national debt and called it "Liberty". There was no more freedom - in fact there was now less freedom - than they had under the British.

[IAN 2411]

Thank you MMI for putting the record streight.

Be well IAN 2411