Re: The UK march agaimst Bush

In uk.culture.language.english FreeIreland <kmcelhin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach <mmh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<bpa1ff$3a$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> In uk.culture.language.english professor vonroach
<vonroach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
  
>>> The british pacifists and appeaser society, also known as the cowards
>>> who refused to defend their country, is still alive I see.
 
>> Right, if you are going to take that line, I shall remind you that you
>> Yanks used to think it fine to have leaders and apologists for a
terrorist
>> group that was planting bombs in our cities leading "St Patrick's Day"
>> parades in your cities. You used to justify it by pointing out that for
>> a short time we interred suspected terrorists, and our squaddies in
>> attempting to keep the peace in Northern Ireland occasionally got
things
>> wrong.
 
> New conservative leader Mr Howard pointed out Mr Blair at one stage
> refered to the actions of the US as "state sponsored terrorism".
> 
> Though your counter agrument is ridiculous when your country is
> sup****ting a nation that your leader claimed was involed in "state
> sponsored terrorism" in a pre emtive strike on the very most
> unreliable intelligence.

I was deliberately framing my comments in such a way as to show the
ridiculousness of supposing that either the actions of the
government of a country, or the actions of some bunch of paraders or
protestors in the country have the sup****t of everyone in the country.
 
> As for your squadies attempting to keep the peace or keep both
> religious sides apart is a British myth. They where here to enfore a
> protestent maltia police force and forcefully uphold a unionist
> sub-state. 

If they were there to enforce the "unionist sub-state" that would
suggest either that sub-state was about to be brought down by force
(in which case they would have been keeping the peace) or that it
would otherwise have fallen due to lack of sup****t (which it wouldn't,
since the majoruty of its population sup****ted its existence).

I am suggesting that exactly the same ambiguity over the intentions of
the forces in Northern Ireland occurs in Iraq - are they really there just
to "keep the peace" or are they there to further USA interests? If
they are there as occupiers to further American interests, then terrorist
attacks against them and against the USA are just as justfiable as
terrorists attacks against British fores in Northern Ireland and
terrorist attacks on British cities were justifiable. Thus the situation
in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990 when the IRA were engaged in an active
terrorist campaign against Britain, but it was commonplace for the IRA
to be regarded in the USA as heroes and for its Sinn Fein spokespeople
to be asked to lead family pardes to commemorate Irishness, would be as
if Al-Qaeda was widely regarded in the UK today as a herioc movement,
and Al-Qaeda sup****ters were asked to lead various parades and family
days out in some of our major cities.

As you and I agree, British forces in Northern Ireand made terrible
mistakes and enraged the nationalist people and contributed greatly
to the growth in sup****t of terrorism. I do not think, therefore,
that people who point out that similar is happening, but on a hugely
greater scale, with regards to USA (and British) forces in Iraq, are
necessarily just "cowards" and "appeasers" as professor vonroach
accuses them. They may genuinely believe that a huge mistake
has been made that will backfire on our countries in a very unpleasant
way.

Matthew Huntbach