Innocence Riots

Out of interest do you think the UK was at war with the IRA last century? Where do you see if the differences if there are any?

Since Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the UK would not likely be at war with the IRA in those Nations that are part of the UK. There it would be a Police action. However, if the UK took military action against the IRA in the Republic of Ireland then there it would be at war with the IRA.Another example would be the Colonies Rebellion against England in 1774.Until there was a US, until there was a formal agreement between the twelve colonies to form a Union, a Nation, and before there was a formal Declaration of Independence and until there was a formal Government and before the fact of it's existence was recognized by other Nation States as in fact existing, all there was was rebellion. The British Government was simply putting down an internal rebellion and what the Continental Militias were doing was in fact terrorism and rebellion.Only after the Second Continental Congress and the recognition by other Nation States that in fact there was a Nation State could the conflict be described as a war.

It's no problem! I'll just pick out the small part of your message where I can disagree. Well, if TSA security was working, then they'd be catching terrorists at checkpoints. Obviously there will be some number of terrorists who say "oh, airplanes are secure now, I won't even try." But there should also be terrorists who look at the number of potential attacks that made it through and say "I'll take my chances". So there's a non-zero number of terrorists in the security line, yet the number of terrorists caught at TSA security checkpoints remains zero.So we know the security does nothing. After all, even the 9/11 guys and Richard Reed (the "shoe bomber") and the Yemeni underwear guy made it through roughly the same security regime. Those guys went through a TSA-style security checkpoint so we know they were there to catch, but they weren't.So we really can estimate the number of attacks prevented by the TSA, and that estimate is "zero." The security is completely useless at stopping attacks; the only reason there haven't been any subsequent successful attacks is that the natural rate of people trying to blow up airliners is extremely small. The "terror" of terrorism, after all, is that they can strike anywhere; another attack on an airline really doesn't send that message.TSA security is nothing but security theater - it's meant to give you the impression of safety. But it doesn't even do that very well, since people know it doesn't work. Actually if it were theater that would be an improvement, because theater doesn't actually kill people.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

So how have they done it? Right, and if they don't have a sovereign state then how can you be at war with them. Its not a proper war war.Riddle me this tho: cyber warfare. War or not war? How does the double standard legitimize the terrorist attacks?If anything, it would de-legitimize our attacks. Right, but we have a state with a military and they don't. It IS one-sided. Show me them pointing that out. I don't have a problem with that. But I also don't have a problem with just calling what we're doing war.

OK. Then in what sense are their "strategic attacks" also not acts of war rather than terrorism. Whichever way round you want to put it. Either way you seem to be making some sort of technical distinction such that what we (the US and it's allies) do is justified as an act of war whilst enemy attacks are automatically classed as unjustifiable acts of murderous terrorism.Surely you can see how this smacks of propogandaism.....?All I am asking for is some sort of consistency here.....

Despite the fact it involved British troops engaging in armed conflict in much the same they are doing as part of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?The use of the term "war" here seems to be increasingly self-serving. A way of definitionally justifying the actions of some as legitimate whilst condemning the acts of others by definitional-disqualification.

No, not t all. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not some action is justified, it simply defines what is and is not war.

Note - I said legitimate. Not justified. According to your statements above acts of war and acts of murder are no more or less legitimate than each other.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nonsense.Murder is NEVER justified.

Applying self serving definitions of which attacks constitute murder and which attacks constitute acts of war quite obviously does have a major propaganda effect.An effect so strong you seem to be blind to your own invocation of it...... Well I'm glad we cleared up the idea that the emotive use of self-serving definitions isn't at play here.

Try actually reading what is written.Murder by definition is never justified.Sorry but that's the definition.

They don't have a sovereign state, they don't have a military, they used civilians to target civilians in an act that provided no military atvantage. Um, I'm gonna go with not justifying the 9/11 attacks. Yet I admitted that some of what we've done wasn't justified, and have manually reasoned why what they have done is discounted as acts of war. I don't know what else I can do to dissuade you from characterizing my position that way. I suppose it could. But you're comparing apples to oranges.

They consider all of the Middle East holy land, and defend it. They sure do, it's just not as well funded as ours. They do the best they can do with what little funds they have. Smashing planes into buildings is a poor mans version of a drone attack. It sent us into a financial colapse, which is what they wanted to do in order to take out the "evil" imperialist nation.They're not fighting YOUR war, they're fighting THEIR war. But can you see why they see the attacks on 9/11 justified? It's all fruits though...- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You're defining what they do as murder and what we do as war. Then saying murder is never justified while war can be justified.Well isn't that self-serving and convinient?- Oni

Nonsense.I am saying that "war" is something that can only be done by a Nation State.I'm saying that "murder" by definition is an unjustified killing.No individual ever has the right to kill another except when that person presents a direct and immediate personal threat.Sorry but them's simply the facts.