At 09:35 28/04/00 -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>If the British regarded the IRA as a legitimate army, you'd have British
>being brought up on war crimes charges, and they'd never beat the IRA.
I'd agree with you that British officers would be brought up on war crimes
charges, and would agree with such action. I'm not a blind-supporter of the
army's behaviour in N.I.
>techniques are incapable of winning against native insurgencies.
>Insurgents win by
>merely continuing to exist until the oppressors get tired of the expense
>away, opressors can only win if the insurgents are wiped out to the last
>the remaining population is happy with their new leaders/owners.
You discuss the nature of victory. If wiping out the last insurgent is
victory, then what government can ever win, as you point out.
I doubt that is the intent of the British government. I believe the intent
is to create a "peace" that results in a N.I. that doesn't require a
military presence to "police" it.
I once tried to find out if there ever had been a "victory" against similar
terrorist organisations. I found none, although the demise of the
red-brigade in Italy was interesting.
>The SAS troops in Ireland had one mission and one mission only: to kill, with
>extreme prejudice, any IRA partisans they got ahold of.
Any evidence to back this very specific claim? I doubt that this was the
SAS' only mission throughout the troubles. If, and whenever it was, it
would have been illegal and I'd be happy to see the instigating parties
>Everybody wants peace. Some are willing to compromise to acheive it,
>only accept peace on their terms, some have the idea that peace means the
>is put back in his place of subservience, and some will only accept peace
>other guys are dead and buried.
Yes, effectively what I said.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:00 MDT