Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070079)

Apologies then. Though I have to say Christians weren't very innocent in the "not killing people" game!

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070084)

Hence why I am not religious - more murder has been committed in the name of religion than any other cause - which makes a complete mockery of religion fullstop!

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070098)

That statement simply underscores how little you understand religion.

Many serial killers say God told them to do it but no one takes that seriously. Killing people full stop is against God's command and so if you do this (and are Christian) you are

1. Not a Christian
2. Are not doing it in the name of religion

You are doing it for evil fallen earthly reasons. The whole point of say being a Christian is the cross and why Jesus dies for us.

Killers give many reasons why they kill but rarely if at all is the real reason put forth...

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070105)

I am not talking about serial killers - I'm talking about all the religious conflicts in the world - past and present.

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070110)

LT You know what she means though, don't play dumb! These people may not have been "real" Christians in your eyes but they were fighting under the name of Christians in Gods name!

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070108)

and neither was I

I was giving you an extreme comparable to illustrate how your claim was not correct.

Can you tell me what parts of the New testament or teachings of Jesus that one could use to justify murder?

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070115)

Muslims and Jews killing each other, Catholics and Protestants killing each other, Christians and Catholics killing each other etc - people of varying religious persuassions killing people of other religious persuassions - that is what I am talking about. History is full of it. It is still occuring in many parts of the world. Religion is supposed to be about peace and valuing human life - instead they kill each other because they disagree. I will never take it seriously. People just use religion to control others!

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070119)

In any gathering of men you will find murder and oppression. Man's violent nature creeps into all gatherings of men under any banner.

It would be more correct to state just how many more lives have been saved by religion over the past centuries, by the teachings of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070127)

And in the same way you could argue that this was because of good individuals not not down to Jesus

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070134)

you could if they had not done the deeds according to the teachings of Christianity and Jesus and therein lies the crucial difference.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070134)

you could if they had not done the deeds according to the teachings of Christianity and Jesus and therein lies the crucial difference.

Originally Posted by setanta (Post 3069997)

I don't see many to be honest with you: two individuals fighting in the name of their people by any means necessary. There's degrees of bloodletting, violence and death to you when fighting for an ideal? Not to me. Mandela has admitted to being involved with one bombing that killed many lives after you had said previously that he had no power over the organization after being imprisoned. That proves to me that he still had a huge influence on their strategies. He was their leader and founder for feck sake.

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070153)

A sense of decency and compassion comes from within - and is part of a person's genetic make-up. It cannot be taught - therefore has nothing to do with religion.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070316)

So how do you explain the death toll from secular wars in the 20th century. if you blame religion for the deaths say from the crusades (small beer in comparison) are we to blame man's genetic make-up for the 20th century and if so then we have a far greater culprit on our hands according to your logic?

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070344)

Most of the wars/conflicts throughout history have involved religion - which goes against what religion preaches - no small beer about it!

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070384)

I consider McGuinness and the like a bunch of cowards who should have received life sentences!

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070411)

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070411)

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070425)

2 enquiries have been held about this. The first cleared the soldiers and the next one has not had its findings published so you cannot legally jail the soldiers.

You do want to keep to the law here?

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 3070429)

Yes they should be tried, in a court of law. So should their leaders and the politicians and civil servants who took the decisions to send that particular unit there at that time.

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070432)

Thank you Shasown, atleast you seem to try and understand other peoples point of views.

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070430)

And I'm sure that was a proper enquiry.................. As I said before peoples perceptions of what is right and what is wrong all depends on where you are sitting.

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070411)

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070453)

lol, WOMBAI and LT, I am not a Solicitor and this is not a court of Law, It is a forum where I am expressing my opinion. The justice system has failed the Irish in regards to the North previously (Brimingham 6, Gilford 4) so you'll excuse me for not having a high regard for it.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070460)

But without it you have nothing. You have to agree to abide by it.


here is something to take our minds off nasty anglo-irish politics

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31e_1268133438

Originally Posted by Niamhxo (Post 3070463)

That is one of the most revolting things I've ever seen, cheers.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 3070467)

apparently he had been going around all week saying "do you smell maggots?"

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 3070313)

Lets put things in perspective. Mandela sanctioned operations to take place against legitimate military targets, not the actual operation itself. The result of some operations by the South African Military against ANC targets outside of South Africa. On hearing of the outcome of the Church Street Bombing he did, as you put it "sign off" violence.



Now lets look at McGuinness, he took part in operations in his early years with the IRA as a sniper,thats a bit different than agreeing to an operation. When promoted to command he sanctioned many operations where the targeting was indiscriminate at best.

In 1987 a bomb was targeted at a Remembrance Day parade. Eleven people were killed, sixty-three people were injured. Sinn Féin's publicity director Danny Morrison describing himself as "shattered" on hearing that the IRA was involved at all. However best was yet to come, one little incident failed to make much headlines, the other bomb in this little operation. This bomb four times larger was placed at a similar but smaller parade 20 miles (32 km) away at Tullyhommon. That parade was conducted by members of the Boys' Brigade, Girls' Brigade and "three or four members of the security forces in uniform there to lay a wreath". That bomb failed to explode.

McGuinness was the head of the IRA's Northern Command which not only sanctioned the Enniskillen bombing which left 11 civilians dead, it was in overall command of the operation, liaising with the three units involved.

In the aftermath of the attack the IRA insisted that its leadership had not sanctioned the bombing, however its Fermanagh Brigade was stood down. Then In 1997 Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams apologised for the bombing on behalf of the republican movement.

Do you see the difference?

One man sanctioned a strike back at what he believed were to be solely military targets, when he heard the results, he changed his belief in the application of violent methods.

One man not only shot people he was top sniper at one time, he liked to attend interrogations of his own people, which were very brutal. Black and decker drills, sandbags and death for the person being interrogated were a regular occurence of these interrogations.

This second man went on to sanction loads of operations involving civilian casualties, one which if one of the bombs of a dual strike operation had exploded, would have taken out a troop of girl's brigade and members of the Boys Brigade in order to possibly injure or kill up to 4 members of the UDR/RUC. The other bomb did explode and, to paraphase, "killed old-aged pensioners, their medals taken out and polished up for the day? Where's the glory in that?"

Boys brigade, Girl's Brigade and old age pensioners, legitimate military targets?

Originally Posted by WOMBAI (Post 3070446)

Maybe! Whatever the rights and wrongs of that situation - at least it wasn't planned and, therefore, pre-meditated like the bombings - which determines the difference between manslaughter and murder, to my understanding, in the eyes of the law!

Originally Posted by setanta (Post 3073139)

I have to get involved here because I've read up on the SAS's tactics when they were brought in to battle against the IRA and they ambushed and shot down many IRA members that weren't even armed at the time. I mean, every single person involved in the Troubles has blood on their hands, and don't get me started on Bloody Sunday.

Originally Posted by sooty (Post 3073128)

I feel like watching tennis.

My head is ,,,,,,right ,,,left,,,,right,,left,,.

Originally Posted by setanta (Post 3073139)

I have to get involved here because I've read up on the SAS's tactics when they were brought in to battle against the IRA and they ambushed and shot down many IRA members that weren't even armed at the time. I mean, every single person involved in the Troubles has blood on their hands, and don't get me started on Bloody Sunday.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 3073164)

Yes it really was bad to send in those nasty sassmen, butchers they are, to take on those awfully nice decent terrorist people, after all whats wrong with planting a few bombs that kill and maim innocent people? They were only expressing their ideology werent they?

The SAS were formally deployed to the Province in 1974 by Harold Wilson in response to bombing campaigns on the UK mainland including the bomb that took out a gardener a Roman Catholic Priest and 5 women working in the kitchens at the home of 3 Para(by the Official IRA in response to Bloody Sunday - 1972) and the car bomb campaign led by the Price sisters(PIRA - 1973).

Some would say, if you play with fire you get burnt.

Originally Posted by setanta (Post 3073178)

Some would also say that how the British dealt with every situation that occurred within Northern Ireland, which displayed a total bias and led to many civilians as well as prisoners' deaths (Bobby Sands etc), only furthered the Nationalists sense of isolation and frustation and fanned the flames of their hatred for the State that controlled them.

You think it's ok to ambush a target and then open fire on them at point blank range? Funny how one side views things differently to another when both have killed. You think the British didn't bomb civilians or commit heinous acts while on foreign soil? Give me a break.