Boston: foreign or domestic terrorism?

A black flag operation .

 

I removed the irrelevant element of the sentence - given we were talking about Margaret Thatcher. I didn't change the point you were making.

As with the 'and many on the right in the UK,' your discussions with 'British right wingers back in the 1970-80’s' is also irrelevant, given we are talking about Margaret Thatcher.
If you were having discussions with those who thought he was, does that mean you thought he wasn't?

I did read your entire post. It was very good.
It was just the part about Margaret Thatcher/ANC/Nelson Mandela, and the later part about Menachem Begin (etc) that was a little peculiar to me.
I guess I should have adressed your whole post rather than one element of it.
But: I agree. I agree. I agree. Seemed a little pointless.

I could have spent some time, somewhat, defending Margaret Thatcher, and that claiming her only thoughts on the ANC/Nelson Mandela was that she thought that they were all terrorists seemed to be a little misleading.
Also that she seemed to be responding to threats made by the ANC, and a whole myth has sprung from that.
Perhaps you have some other e.g's of Margaret Thatcher spouting off that she thought they were all terrorists, other than implying that because you had discussions with many right-wingers - obviously Margert Thatcher thought exactly the same way they did. Is that fair?

Well, do you think he was a terrorist or not?

I would not dispute that. You'll be aware of Umkhonto we Sizwe and their activities, also Nelson Mandela's relationship with them.
So, imo, both the Umkhonto we Sizwe and Irgun's tactics were no different.

No. But perhaps you should.

To me, yes. I wouldn't wish to misrepresent you, though.
That's just how it came across to me.
If that is not how you feel - fair enough. Sorry.

 

Odon

Do I even imply this in my post - NO

OK so can you actually explain how and why?

How do I imply it?

Why do you think I imply it?

 

Odon

OK let’s just leave Maggie out of it – was the general thrust wrong?

The point I was trying to make is that terrorism can have a political dimension. In reply to Piney’s comment that “The thing about Terrorism/mass murder is that it is illogic. and to accredit it with a brand of Left or Right is really to give it credit it does not deserve”

That things can be complicated, many UK right wingers though Nelson Mandela a left wing (‘communist’) terrorist but said little against the terrorism of say the right wing Augusto Pinochet.

I was pointing out that known terrorists like Menachem Begin (from the right wing) (and if you wish Mandela(from the left wing)) can become the elected leaders of their country.

I don’t support ‘terrorism’ in any of its forms, be it personal, religious, state or other. But such acts need to be looked at and understood (or at least try to be) rather than just dismissed as illogical ‘terrorism’ that cannot be explained.

I mean there is the problem of justification, it can often come from the perspective of the people involved.

Let’s take some ‘acts of terror’ -

Was the Dresden bombings that killed some 25,000 people justified in the cause of toppling Nazis German?

Was the King David Hotel bombing, in which 91 people were killed and 46 were injured justified to advance the cause of Zionism?

Was the Nazis’ execution of millions of inferior people justified in the cause of improving the human race?

Was the Church Street bombing that killed 19 and injured 217 justified in the cause of toppling apartheid?

In Pinchot’s Chile were the 2,279 persons who disappeared and 31,947 tortured justified to ‘stabilise’ the country?

Is the wife beater justified in giving his wife a good slapping around in the cause of getting respect?

 

Balbus: 'During the British mandate of Palestinian, Jewish terrorist organisations attacked the British and Palestinian civilians, later the leaders of such groups, (Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir) were voted Israeli prime ministers.'

So, to me, you were calling Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir terrorists.

Irgun
Commander: Menachem Begin

King David Hotel, in which 91 people were killed and 46 were injured.

And so on.

Menachem Begin: Prime Minister of Israel 21 June 1977 – 10 October 1983

Balbus: Do you think that was a terrorist act? I’d say yes

Umkhonto we Sizwe
Commander: Nelson Mandela

The TRC found that torture was "routine" and was official policy – as were executions "without due process" at ANC detention camps particularly in the period of 1979–1989

In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government that a campaign of sabotage would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention.
Beginning on 16 December 1961, the campaign by Umkhonto we Sizwe with Mandela as its leader, launched bomb attacks on government targets and planned for possible guerrilla warfare. The first target of the campaign was an electricity sub-station. Umkhonto we Sizwe undertook other acts of sabotage in the next eighteen months.

Church Street bombing that killed 19 and injured 217

And so on...

Nelson Mandela: Presidency of South Africa: 1994–1999

Balbus: Do you think that was a terrorist act? I'd say: 'I remember many a discussion with British right wingers back in the 1970-80’s that thought that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were ‘terrorist’'
'Do I say Nelson Mandela was or wasn’t a terrorist? NO I say many on the right in the UK thought he was'

Balbus: 'known terrorists like Menachem Begin (from the right wing) ( and if you wish Mandela(from the left wing)'

See, it seems you still can't say 'yes' or 'no'.

I think there is a comparison to be made.
But you have refused to call Mandela a terrorist, even though he held the same position as a member of another group you classed as terrorist, and carried out similar acts.
So what should I take from that?

'I guess one is Israeli *boooo hissss* and the other is not *hooray*'

Perhaps the *hooray* is a bit much, to be fair. But a willingness to label one group/person a terrorist and not another, who was part of a comparable group, points to some sort of bias/hypocrisy.

Well, that (Margaret Thatcher) was the whole point, Balbus.

Forgive me, and correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying:
I do not support terrorism, but some terrorists acts I can understand why they did it.
Are you giving Nelson Mandela a pardon for what he did in his past?

Absolutely not.

 

we'll be ready ta deal with any further acts of terrorism against us,as we always were.

 

Way back in the day there was a guerilla unit known as the ACA labeled by most governments of the day as a terrorist unit leading a revolt against the Brits under the rule of King George. The American Continental Army led by that arch terrorist George Washington......

 

I'm not sure Ireland became involved in this thread, but if those persons living in Northern Ireland are desirous with being more closely involved with the UK, and those persons living in the Republic of Ireland are desirous of being governed apart from the UK, why would either side wish to make use of hostilities to change something against the will of the other?

 

people invovled Ireland in this thread pages back.when they called us terrorists.irish people live in northern Ireland.not just brits.go figure.

 

If Canada occupied the New England states by force of arms how soon do you think we would freely cede them? Ever? I think not!

 

Not all the people in NI feel the same way she does.

 

I had thought the issue had been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides, but it sounds like there may be some who might promote an eruption of violence once again sometime in the future.

 

last violence a few months ago.loyalists over union jack.

 

So what you're saying would be more relevant in the thread titled "War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?", as it shows you cannot get everyone to agree on anything, and some of those are the ones who will commit acts of terror from time to time.

I'm unaware of the event you refer to, but are you saying that simply the display of a flag resulted in someone carrying out an act of violence? Or was there something else related to being the cause?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZYtwrlRSC8"]Belfast protests over Union flag turns to violent - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32pizRkYfKM"]N. Ireland Secretary condemns Belfast flag protests - YouTube

Pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzNfPbY0SWI"]Gangsters At War - Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (Documentary) - YouTube

 

the lack! of its display. some day the union jack won'nt be there at all,so they might as well start getting used to it.

 

Sorry, you're right, the lack of display brought forth violence, but is it not likely that the daily display of the Union Jack would bring about a similar reaction from the other side?

I'm curious, but would violence of one side be viewed as foreign terrorism and that of the other side domestic terrorism? Just trying to see if there is some similar causation between the violence in Ireland and that in Boston.

 

the vote on the issue of the flying of the union jack was taken at belfast city council on december the 3rd 2012.the democratic vote was in favor of the alliance party motion to fly the union jack on designated days only.it was something which was already discussed during the good friday agreement discussions.the decision to allow it ta be only fly on designated day is huge step towards irish justice,as the union jack perviously ta that win had been flying 365days a year by the brits in the north since 1906.it should never have been there in the first place.no it should not be flying at all any day.but like i said its great progress in the right direction.the tricolour the real flag of Ireland is not as yet facilatated there at all in its own country.the brits are just angry that they are losing their power there.cos they want ta keep that part of our country in an apartheid like grip.no there is nothing in common with our countrys trouble with the boston bombings.i have my own views on why what happened in boston did happen.i may be wrong.we'll see.