www.ditl.org

I don't think we had an established police force until the mid 1800's.

In the colonies, the only police were the British military.

Right, well. In any case, I doubt civilians that were supplying inteligence to the British, or otherwise helping them against the rebels, were left alone.

Rochey wrote:Right, well. In any case, I doubt civilians that were supplying inteligence to the British, or otherwise helping them against the rebels, were left alone.

Absolutely not - in fact, some of our revered "founding fathers" are guilty of things like tarring and feathering local government functionaries, before the Revolution even started. My point was that these were incidents prosecuted by individuals, not a policy with an end by the rebels in general.

Now, I'm going to play dumb about current Irish affairs in order to get the most direct answer possible: I thought things were fairly OK lately. What was the purported end of the attack on the police?

Mikey wrote:Now, I'm going to play dumb about current Irish affairs in order to get the most direct answer possible: I thought things were fairly OK lately.

They have been, although over the last year and a bit things have apparently been getting worse - hence the SRR getting called in

What was the purported end of the attack on the police?

The same as the attack on the squaddies probably - to try and provoke a response from either the government, the UDA/UDF, or both, to try and get the Troubles started again.

Now, I'm going to play dumb about current Irish affairs in order to get the most direct answer possible: I thought things were fairly OK lately.

Up until the start of this year, they were pretty good. Everything was nice and peaceful. Then they found a 300 pound carbomb outside a school last month, and now two soldiers and a guard have been shot.

What was the purported end of the attack on the police?

To provoke the Unionist (pro-British) factions into making reprisal attacks against the IRA groups or their sympathisers. Then the IRA is "justified" in striking at the Unionist groups. Then the Unionist groups make a reprisal for that. And so on and so forth.

Basicaly, they wanted to start another few decades of terrorism and random death. They're scum who want innocent people to die. It's that simple.

So, they (I don't know which version of the IRA we're up to now) have taken John Lennon's joke way too seriously about "starting a war for peace?"

(I don't know which version of the IRA we're up to now)

We've so bloody many of them at this point, I'm amazed I know.

The shooting at the barracks was by the Continuity IRA, while the guard's murder was by the Real IRA.

Rochey wrote:...the Continuity IRA...

Shouldn't they be after Rick Berman?

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

Oh, if only.....

I think a lot of this comes down to one simple thing.

"What are the Standards of War for the parties involved?"

I've seen a few quotes on here about how you have to be "THIS" in order to be in the military. Which is mostly crap. Many of our agents travel without ID, without marking of any kind and without an order of war. Yet they will kill, kiddnap and torture just as much as any of those people we call terrorists. So, we do it and they do it.

Someone care to try and make one right and the other wrong just because you like one side over the other?

When people feel they are at war. They don't need a flag or a banner or a leader or even a "Just Cause" to whatever form you may wish. When someone has been pushed to that breaking point where there is no going back. No hope for peace and no reason to wish for anything better without bloodshed. They will fight, anyone not with them is the enemy. Thats how war works. Terror tactics are just that. Tactics to be used along side and other.

Deepcrush wrote:I think a lot of this comes down to one simple thing.

"What are the Standards of War for the parties involved?"

I've seen a few quotes on here about how you have to be "THIS" in order to be in the military. Which is mostly crap. Many of our agents travel without ID, without marking of any kind and without an order of war. Yet they will kill, kiddnap and torture just as much as any of those people we call terrorists. So, we do it and they do it.

Someone care to try and make one right and the other wrong just because you like one side over the other?

When people feel they are at war. They don't need a flag or a banner or a leader or even a "Just Cause" to whatever form you may wish. When someone has been pushed to that breaking point where there is no going back. No hope for peace and no reason to wish for anything better without bloodshed. They will fight, anyone not with them is the enemy. Thats how war works. Terror tactics are just that. Tactics to be used along side and other.

That was my point all along.

"We're not at war! See, they don't have neon green uniforms!"

Doesn't change that you are at war, so long as the other side sees it that way.

Deepcrush wrote:Someone care to try and make one right and the other wrong just because you like one side over the other?

Not in the slightest - in the specific example you give I don't give a damn whether the scum in question are called al-Qaeda or the CIA, their morality (or lack thereof) is determined by their actions.

Tsu wrote:Doesn't change that you are at war, so long as the other side sees it that way.

Here we go again.

Tell me, if a couple of thugs killed a policeman because they felt like it/they were bored/he looked at them funny, and then declared that act to be a "war", would you accept that argument and give those two PoW status?

If not, what's the difference between that murder and the murder of those two squaddies in NI last week?

What's the difference between my opinion on it, and the system's opinion on it? Theirs is more valid because?

No, "I'm bored" isn't an acceptable excuse to declare war. "You're occupying my land" is. You may have heard of one of my more famous "relatives", Crazy Horse. He wasn't a terrorist, though I'm sure the "laws of war" would class him as such. Would war paint qualify as an "identifying mark"?

Not in the slightest - in the specific example you give I don't give a damn whether the scum in question are called al-Qaeda or the CIA, their morality (or lack thereof) is determined by their actions.

But, they are in the service of a uniformed force. They may even have a formal war going on or maybe they don't. At what point should you switch from being a terrorist to a soldier? In your opinion that is.