anti americanism fashionable

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

Well at least you won`t have to worry too much about being attacked by the enemy, your own forces will provide enough of a threat to your life in that respect.

Seriously though, I think that anyone who voluntarily joins the armed forces these days needs their head examined. When I walk past the Army recruitment office in town and see young men in there I really feel like sticking my head in the door and telling them not to do it.

[Jerrek]

And they will most likely pity you.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And they will most likely pity you.

Good for them, but at least I won`t be participating in illegal military actions.

[Jerrek]

It is so funny how you call it "illegal," as if there is some law regarding war.

[Ramrod]

No-one has answered my question yet.....

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.

It doesn't provoke my ire, but it does demonstrate that you're very reluctant to answer the question. You've tried ignoring it and misunderstanding it, and now you're trying to redefine it.

The media's agenda in reporting the 'human angle' of this event is not at issue here. The facts are:

1. The IRA, in pursuit of its aim of a united Ireland, planted a bomb in Warrington town centre.
2. 30 years of experience meant they were fully aware of the serious risk of loss of life to men, women and children.
3. In any court in the civilised world, such reckless action would rightly be enough to prove the charge of murder.
4. Murder is defined as the deliberate (or malicious) and unlawful killing of another human being.
5. Our society (generally) values children highly, as they represent innocence and hope for the future. Not because they make heart-rending news copy.

The question is not flawed. Your silly attempts to avoid answering it are flawed.

I'll ask you again, and I suggest that unless you post otherwise, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you believe blowing up children was the correct course of action for the IRA to take.

So: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

Over to you.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

scastle, you're being very dumb. Two points.

Sovereign means, as Webster's put it, c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT <sovereign state>. It has nothing to do with royalty.

Second, Canada has a queen. So please. The United States is a sovereign republic, and Canada is a sovereign constitutional monarchy.

OK. I stand corrected.

But, do not call me dumb. That is insulting.

You still haven't answered my question: Who financed Saddam?

And I couldn't agree more. The United States does not go out there targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, accidents happen, and that is tragic. But I am quite a firm believer that our soldiers are rather honorable compared to the rest of the people. When was the last time you heard American soldiers rape their PoWs?

That's fair enough. Accidents do happen. I don't call the kind of "soldiers" that target civillians, rape & pillage soldiers. I call them thugs. Americans don't do this (rape & pillage I mean).

Israel is the same. They don't target civilians. They target militants. It just so happens that the Palestians, demonstrating the bravity, find it useful to hide among civilians and put their ammunition factories among schools and hospitals.

I have to admit, unless they are using the general public as a human shield, they wouldn't put military facilities in the middle of populated areas. We don't. The US & Canada don't. In fact, I don't think any civilised country does.

Now, just in case this isn't clear from my posts. I am not anti-American, and I do think it was right to remove Saddam (I actually think we should have done it in Gulf War 1). The only stupid thing (IMO) that both George Bush and Tony Blair did was announce that Saddam had WMDs before they had firm evidence. Having said that, I don't think we would have gone to war if they hadn't said that.

I also believe that Saddam did have (and possibly still has) WMDs, although I would be very surprised if they are anywhere near Iraq.

I have also found the few Americans I have met to be charming and extremely friendly.

The only thing I don't like is the "We are better than you attitude", but I don't like that attitude wherever it comes from. As I said in my earlier post, I don't think that attitude is patriotic, just arrogant.

Originally Posted by towny

The question is not flawed. Your silly attempts to avoid answering it are flawed.

I'll ask you again, and I suggest that unless you post otherwise, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you believe blowing up children was the correct course of action for the IRA to take.

So: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

Over to you.

To be honest, I don`t give a damn what conclusions you come to, but I simply refuse to answer a leading question that I believe is flawed in the first instance. Interpret that how you wish, it is of little concern to me as I do not need my beliefs and opinions validated by others.

[downquark1]

I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

I call it a diabolical act of terriorism perpatrated by people who feel they have been driven to such measures or conditioned to do so.

Oh and add to my list of reasons for opinion:
The us seek immunity from warcrimes. If no crimes are commited why do they need immunity

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.

Dr Wadd. The IRA planted a bomb in a shopping centre. They have also planted a bomb in one of the big department stores (Harrods I believe) at Christmas. Are you seriously suggesting they were not trying to kill civillians? And, of course, there are bound to be a few kids around.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

To be honest, I don`t give a damn what conclusions you come to, but I simply refuse to answer a leading question that I believe is flawed in the first instance. Interpret that how you wish, it is of little concern to me as I do not need my beliefs and opinions validated by others.

I don't know whether I am saddened or sickened by this. What I am sure of is that your reputation, as far as I'm concerned, should not be green.

Originally Posted by scastle

Dr Wadd. The IRA planted a bomb in a shopping centre. They have also planted a bomb in one of the big department stores (Harrods I believe) at Christmas. Are you seriously suggesting they were not trying to kill civillians? And, of course, there are bound to be a few kids around.

I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

[basa]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

What !!! .. You don't think the IRA were trying to manipulate the fears of the British public by planting bombs where children were likely to be killed ????????

That amounts to little more than terrorism in the extreme !!

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

Really, I don't think this requires any 'media manipulation' at all in order to make any right-thinking individual feel sick to the core.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I didn`t say the weren`t trying to target civilians. But I don`t like the way the stories are played to highlight the deaths of children in order to manipulate the sympathies of the public. That amounts to little more than propaganda.

True, the Media do tend to play up the death of Children. Children do seem to be more important to this society than adults.

However, if the IRA bombs either a shopping centre or a major department store (especially at Christmas), it is a fair bet they were aiming to hurt some kids, is it not?