Re: choosing hate

"Ray Haddad" <rhaddad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r945t1lj5lns58njoatsdleder2803k5n7@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:21:02 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Alan Hope <not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx> instead replied:
>
>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:57:47 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>and "Steve Pritchard" <Steve_Pritchard@xxxxxxxxxxxx> instead
>>>replied:
>>>
>>>>"Ray Haddad" <rhaddad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:lsd4t1tlqldirgspcqv8vsahm72247lhu3@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:42:22 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any
>>>>> card"
>>>>> and "Steve Pritchard" <Steve_Pritchard@xxxxxxxxxxxx> instead
>>>>> replied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ray Haddad" <rhaddad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:eni0t118q183dvtfi0f5u4r5quphfbpthi@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> They were all worn down by the use of steady force. None of
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> simply strode up and unilaterally decided they would be
>>>>>>> peaceful,
>>>>>>> Alan. You delude yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The IRA were not worn down by any force other than that exerted
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>people they claimed to represent. Public opinion and their lack
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>support is what forced the IRA to the negotiating table, not
>>>>>>guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were up against superior odds and they lost their stomach
>>>>> for
>>>>> their cause.
>>>>
>>>>That's nonsense. It was never a "war" in the sense your suggesting.
>>>>It
>>>>was a collection of individuals that believed they were fighting
>>>>for
>>>>the rights of their people and did so in a covert and violent
>>>>manner.
>>>>As their support and funding dwindled, and it became apparent that
>>>>they
>>>>would have a greater chance of solving their problems through talk
>>>>rather than with bombs, the outcome was inevitable.
>>>
>>>They lost their personal war whether it was with tanks or foot
>>>soldiers, they lost it and had no choice.
>>>
>>>>There was no "superior odds" involved here. And rather than losing
>>>>their stomach for the cause, their need to achieve results AND
>>>>maintain
>>>>their support led them to the negotiating table.
>>>
>>>Let's see. A handful of foot soldiers on one hand and an army with
>>>tanks and so forth on the other. What are the odds for each side?
>>>Well, the IRA used guerilla tactics and terror tactics, both of
>>>which allow an inferior army to sting a larger one. Much like what
>>>the insurgents are doing in Iraq. The IRA lost their stomach for the
>>>cause and soon enough so will the insurgents. Keeping the pressure
>>>on was a strategically good move by Britain.
>>
>>All wrong, from start to finish.
>
> Then I suppose you'll be along showing me how large an army the IRA
> had and how many tanks and so forth. Go on. I'm waiting.

Why would anyone try to show what wasn't there? Ray, it's only in your
rather odd head that this situation was down to who had the biggest
army/gun/***. That's not how it happened. Those of us that lived in
the part of the world where this happened were witness (all be it
remotely) to whole things unfolded. Those people living in
America/Australia/Mars were perhaps not so informed.

Now, I understand how someone who claims he used to kill people for a
living wants to simply everything into black and white terms like this,
but you are absolutely wrong. Wrong in the only way that people who
live half a world away from a situation, and yet profess some deep
insight, can be.

Alan, me or anyone else will not be showing you the IRA's army. Now, if
that means you've somehow proved your point, then so be it. It's just a
shame you throw yourself wholeheartedly into almost every discussion on
this newsgroup, in an effort to prove you apparently incredible
knowledge on every subject, and continually end up look like an ass.

>>You're a moron. Why does anyone bother?
>
> Alan, it becomes more and more clear why you do bother. You need the
> help.

Do you honestly think that this sort of thing looks smart? That stating
that someone responding to you means that they think you're important
therefore means you *are* important if they do respond? And if they
don't respond it means you've somehow "won" something?

It's pretty pitiful.


.

Loading