churches religion speller whitener phentermine online http://phentermineonlinet.blogspot.com/ …

I lived in Belfast throughout the troubles, and I know for a fact that outfits such as the IRA, UVF and others are not simply political terrorists but are also a mafia within their own communities and are deeply involved with crime. The butchery of McCartney in the Short Strand area of Belfast is an example of the type of violence they resort to at short notice.

Their stated political objectives were pursued at the cost of laying waste to entire neighbourhoods in Ulster, turning the province into a fortress of fear and destroying families. That Blair has gone so far down the road of compromise with terrorists, is quite simply wrong and repugnant. I find it ironical that he has British troops in Iraq at present taking on an insurgency that has little to do with any threat to the British mainland.

I’m not a fan of the Orange Order or extreme Unionism, but I will say this … the sons of loyalist Ulster families gave their lives in many wars for flag and Queen. It’s little wonder the descendents of these people feel a deep sense of betrayal.

The recent riots on the Shankill and the show of fire power by the UVF is an example of the fear and desperation felt by protestant working class communities, in the face of a power shift that has essentially been stage managed by Downing Street. So we may yet see the UVF becoming the new threat to law and order in the province now that the IRA has given up arms (ostensibly).

Was there discrimination against catholics in Ulster? Yes, certainly there was. Will the culture and mindset created by the IRA alter as a result of decommissioning and a resurgent Sinn Fein on the political front? Highly unlikely. Same goes for extreme loyalist attitudes. These are entrenched communities and their leaders view democracy as cosmetic. They have acquired power and reached their present position with AK47’s and plastic explosives, and that’s not a lesson easily forgotten.

I think the British should have moved sooner to create a bi-partisan police force genuinely representitive of both communities, then moved forcefully against terrorism on all fronts – catholic and protestant. While doing this, they should have bolstered the middle ground by creating the conditions for moderate parties to emerge and draw people away from the extremist factions.

Pandering to Sinn Fein is wrong – just as pandering to extreme Unionism is wrong. Blair bungled this badly and in my view has created the conditions for civil strife in the furture, because there are constituencies in Ulster that will never accept the concessions that have been handed to Sinn Fein.

2) Democratic peace processes do not legitimise terrorism – which is better we did not negotiate with the IRA, they had not decommisioned, they had continued to bomb in Great Britain? – or that we did negotiate?

It’s possible that their aims can only be achieved by violence (for instance, if they wanted to kill everyone in London) or more generally that their aims are so incompatible with public opinion here that they could never be accomodated (for instance, if they want Britain to impose Islamic law). Equally, they might want to achieve some aim which is conceivable (withdrawing British forces from Iraq, say).

Now, in the first and second cases negotiation isn’t going to achieve a settlement, but would tell us something about the terrorists which could be useful to us (for this reason I wouldn’t expect them to be open to the possibility of negotiation in that case). In the third case negotiation could lead to a settlement, assuming that the terrorists, once they’d achieved one aim, did not decide to use more violence to achieve future aims; of course, if they have a list of aims and work down them from the most achievable to the least, they’ll swiftly turn into one of the first two categories.

All of this is of course independent of the question of whether we should negotiate with the terrorists (whether the question is motivated by ethics or by considerations of future policy), though obviously negotiation is only likely to achieve secondary aims like obtaining intelligence information or splitting up terrorist factions if it appears to have been entered into in seriousness.

That rather assumes that Middle Eastern fundamentalists know about, or give a monkey’s about, a relatively minor fracas in a relatively small area of the globe.

And it assumes also that the actions of the British government will inform and shape the response of world politics, rather than, say, the actions of the US government. Using that example, perhaps you could say rather that the actions of the US government in negotiating with the Palestinians is rather more significant, especially for the region.

It further assumes that the twisted unfortunates who blew themselves up in London wanted to negotiate, or that the aim of fundamentalist terrorism is to negotiate something.

I’d quite like to negotiate with the London bombers, simply to find out what if anything they want. They seem to be nihilists.

Am I the only person here who thinks that the Stormont strategy has worked much better than the Falluja strategy, and that negotiation with terrorists who have the support of a large area of the population is the only way to disarm them in the long run?

I think you misread my post. I at no point said the “IRA never deliberately targetted civilians”. I said the IRA “never tried to maximise civilian casualties”. I’m not trying to make out the IRA are saints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday

and this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

and that is not to mention Teebane, Enniskillen or La Mons.

The La Mons hotel incident was particularly shocking. The IRA used a homemade flamethrower to incinerate a party of people. If memory serves correctly 13 people were melted and it was something like an RSPCA do or the like. Its a side effect of a brilliant Sinn Fein PR campaign that makes out that the IRA were honourable soldiers.