King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Anthony wrote:[/b]
[quote]That's a difficult one, isn't it?

Of course it is wrong to kill innocent citizens. But as you say, JK, plenty of innocent Germans were killed in WW2, and if people hadn't fought and sometimes killed for their freedom throughout history, then no-one would have any rights apart from a privileged few. All you can do is use your judgement and conscience to assess each circumstance separately.

Should we be jailing people for inciting hatred and terrorism? My instinct says that sometimes we should, though I admit that is not something which sits very well with me. Personally, I'm delighted to see that Islamic fruit loop we were talking about on another thread sent down, but that belief stems from my personal opinions, so I am not necessarily right. I don't doubt that we are on the edge of a potentially slippery slope once those in power have the ability to jail people for voicing their beliefs. Where power can be abused, it usually is.

Essentially, I have used a lot of words to say &quot;I don't know&quot;[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Weekend thread - is terrorism a bad thing?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
zooloo	JC wrote: There's no record of the French resistance blowing up restaurants, shops or buses filled with civilians. Quite different to the IRA in my opinion. I don't know that much about the Resistance but it seems likely bystanders were harmed on occasion. The IRA usually gave warnings, the purpose of bombs was to cause disruption and kill the squaddie trying to defuse it. I don't recollect the IRA targeted civilians as such, even if some were killed it wasn't the direct intention - unless they were what could be thought of as "collaborators". Both groups were civilians fighting against a foreign army the only difference being is you think the French were ultimately more justified than the Irish.
JC	There's no record of the French resistance blowing up restaurants, shops or buses filled with civilians. Quite different to the IRA in my opinion.
zooloo	JC wrote: zooloo wrote: You reasoning shows a presumption that the French Resistance were in the right. No it doesn't. Whether they were in the right or not is beside the point. I said that they did not match that particular definition of terrorism because they had a specific target. Their target was the military force which had invaded their country. If we are to call all fighters terrorists then it renders the term invalid, or at least gives it new meaning. I'd be inclined to compare the French resistance to guerillas more than terrorists. You don't have to be in the right or the wrong to be either.[/quote] The IRA specific target was the security forces for much the same reason you allow for the Resistance.
In The Know	Anthony wrote: We will always support the underdog. Islam, however, when taken to its extremes is just as anti-Semitic and anti-gay as Hitler ever was. It subjugates women, practices capital punishment in the most brutal forms, and stands for everything we stand against. It's all a matter of degree, Anthony. Jews were banned from even entering the UK for nearly four hundred years, and its only in the last 40 years that gays have stopped being persecuted. Women still don't have equal pay (and its only today that plans have been announced to give women equal rights to the accession to the Monarchy). These people are behind, yes - but not that far behind us?
JC	zooloo wrote: You reasoning shows a presumption that the French Resistance were in the right. [/quote] No it doesn't. Whether they were in the right or not is beside the point. I said that they did not match that particular definition of terrorism because they had a specific target. Their target was the military force which had invaded their country. If we are to call all fighters terrorists then it renders the term invalid, or at least gives it new meaning. I'd be inclined to compare the French resistance to guerillas more than terrorists. You don't have to be in the right or the wrong to be either.