From: David Crookes (david@crimbles.demon.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 28 2000 - 06:33:08 MDT
At 19:56 26/04/00 -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>Which just indicates the the propaganda may be working, and the british
>have been
>able to avoid any fuckups for a sufficient amount of time. The SAS threw
>in the
>towel. They concluded there were at best 300 active IRA people committing
>most if
>not all violent acts, and they couldn't take them down. With one of the
>tightest
>gun control laws in the world, the SAS couldn't outgun the IRA. With one
>of the
>most absolute policies abdicating the human rights of the accused (and the
>Laws
>of War for that matter, depending on which way you want to take the argument),
>they couldn't hunt down and erase even a fraction of the enemy.
The rest of your post seemed valid but this paragraph surprised me. I doubt
that the IRA are able to out gun the SAS in the context of fighting an
equivalent battle. The IRA are regarded as terrorists and so will be fought
within the rule of appropriate law.
If Britain were to regard the IRA as a legitimate army, I'm sure a lot of
them would die, very rapidly, most likely with a fair ammount of collateral
damage (to use that odious phrase).
However, within British law, they're regarded as an in-between (terrorists)
which means that various normal criminal/human rights are waivered.
However, they cannot be killed/attacked in an offensive manner, well at a
public level, that is. At a covert level, it sometimes appears to be a
different story, but only the govnerment/spooks/victims know the true story
there.
In Britain, everyone I've ever met wants peace. But start discussing the
detail and the viewpoints diverge dramatically.
regards,
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:16 MST