The run up to conflict in Northern Ireland

[general_lee]

I didn't even finish reading your post. So put whatever you want on record. Like I said before from near the beginning. Context is key.

[johnneycool]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

Agreed on both counts, but when the government and legal arbiter of the day is proven to be unwilling to confront its own crimes, what other avenues are open to an oppressed community in this moral vacuum?

I see the statements of John Weir back doing the rounds on facebook again (From politics.ie) just to give an inkling to the mindset and actions to a lot of those in positions of power here!

I'm not condoning what was done, but I'm understanding of the environment at the time that led a lot of young men into doing what they did.

[trueblue1234]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

I'm confused, you've replied to my message with something completely unrelated. Now feel free to tell me of a war that has been limited to the sort of action you've outlined earlier.

[smelmoth]

I didn't even finish reading your post. So put whatever you want on record. Like I said before from near the beginning. Context is key.

Its a response to logic that serves you well. Well that is that is until you confront someone with a grasp on logic

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

Agreed on both counts, but when the government and legal arbiter of the day is proven to be unwilling to confront its own crimes, what other avenues are open to an oppressed community in this moral vacuum?

I see the statements of John Weir back doing the rounds on facebook again (From politics.ie) just to give an inkling to the mindset and actions to a lot of those in positions of power here!

I'm not condoning what was done, but I'm understanding of the environment at the time that led a lot of young men into doing what they did.

I am unclear on what it is that you are arguing.

I know that you are not arguing  that because that the state is (clearly) implicated in murder that murdering state employees is justified. After all only a loon would argue that. I know that you are not arguing that stupidity by a political opponent (e.g. Weir) justifies a counter argument based on stupidy never mind murder.  After all only an outrageous loon would argue that. And I know that you are  not arguing that the statisical probability that some young men will react violently to the abuses of the NI state justify the reponses of said young men. I know that you are not justifying what was done because you say

I'm not condoning what was done

So what exactly are you arguing?

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

I'm confused, you've replied to my message with something completely unrelated. Now feel free to tell me of a war that has been limited to the sort of action you've outlined earlier.

Completely unrelated? Are you serious?

Why the need to confirm a war that is limited to state vs state? Any major war of the last century and a half has had some guerrilla participant egged on by an official arm of a governmental secret service or an unoffical aggitation or arms/intelligence supply by the same agencies. it would be easy to argue that the first Gulf War was state vs State but the Kuwaiti rebels were clearly CIA inspired. Many government unofficially supported the international brigade in the spansish civil war (sadly the Irish state but more sadly the catholic church and Fine Gael were drastically on the wrong end of that one). The only genuine rebels that were not government backed (in a recognised war) that I can think of was the Argintine rebels that aided the Falkland rebels and the Peshmerga