Subject:
|
Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 06:22:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3806 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > >
> > > Note that I shan't deny that various Americans of whatever stripe(1) fund
> > > various terrorist and paramilitary groups (with their own personal funds, it
> > > should be noted) on both sides of the NI conflict.
> >
> > Hey, what's wrong with trying to throw out a foreign occupying force?
>
> Nothing, if that's what it is. What actually happened here? The conventional
> answer is that England took Ireland by force, right? Isn't it a lot more
> complicated than that?
Not really. England took Ireland by force. Not much else to say.
>
> I dunno, haven't done research in depth but aren't we in some cases talking
> about 800 years of occupation and the occupiers turning into the same people
> as the occupied?
The evidence certainly seems to suggest that that is not the case in
Northern Ireland.
>
> I really have no idea what is right in this case.
There is no easy answer, especially when such a high level of animosity has
gone on for so long with so many issues to resolve with so many entrenched
powers not wanting to resolve them.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA?
|
| (...) Nothing, if that's what it is. What actually happened here? The conventional answer is that England took Ireland by force, right? Isn't it a lot more complicated than that? I dunno, haven't done research in depth but aren't we in some cases (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
