The run up to conflict in Northern Ireland

[general_lee]

So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

[smelmoth]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

You said that justifications were entirely missing, you asked for a justification and you got one.
I have not engaged in side arguments, now you are accusing me of weaseling out.
Ethnic cleansing not enough of a justification for you? Seems fairly clear cut to me.

So tell me about this ethnic cleansing. If republican murders in the 1990s were justified by ethnic cleansing then tell me about the related cleansing?

Do you believe there was any ethnic cleansing of protestants?

No I won't indulge in any more of you mealy-mouthed side arguments nor will I share any of my beliefs with you. Indeed I'm not sure I have shared any of my beliefs with you thus far.
You asked for a justification and you got one.

If it was murder we were talking about that response would be laughable. As it is its disgusting.

Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

[smelmoth]

So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

In your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18 murders? Explain to me why they deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

[armaghniac]

Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

Assassination of Billy Wright?

[smelmoth]

Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

Assassination of Billy Wright?

absolutely not. He and the man that killed him were both scumbags and had deservedly been sentenced to prison.

I wouldn't be putting forward the idea of court award death sentences and I would definitely be staying away from inside prison executions of those sentenced to prison by the courts. If anybody is arguing for that sort of thing I would love for them to outline how they think society should order itself? Would be interesting to see if a party advocating that sort of society would do in an election

[general_lee]

So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

Of course not. Not in a fair and just society. NI in the early 70s (and before) however was not a fair and just society. The argument could be made that this remains the case, as people (such as the Kingsmills victims' relatives) have still not seen justice. In fact the sole survivor doesn't buy the government investigation into it.

In your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18? Explain to me why the deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

How many atrocities would you allow before some form of retribution would be acceptable? Do you think, given the context of their (to this day) unpunished crimes, that the parachute regiment legitimised themselves as targets? I would respectfully suggest that when the state murders and harasses it's own citizens that a form of retribution is entirely justified.

[smelmoth]

So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

Of course not. Not in a fair and just society. NI in the early 70s (and before) however was not a fair and just society. The argument could be made that this remains the case, as people (such as the Kingsmills victims' relatives) have still not seen justice. In fact the sole survivor doesn't buy the government investigation into it.

In your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18? Explain to me why the deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

How many atrocities would you allow before some form of retribution would be acceptable? Do you think, given the context of their (to this day) unpunished crimes, that the parachute regiment legitimised themselves as targets? I would respectfully suggest that when the state murders and harasses it's own citizens that a form of retribution is entirely justified.

So how many of those killed by republicans were "the state"?

[general_lee]

On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

[smelmoth]

On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

[general_lee]

On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

It's all about context, which you seen disregard.

That specific incident in my view was justified. I outlined my reasoning.

In your view, is there any instance or circumstance that taking another life would be justified?

[Orior]

It would be interesting to understand the age bracket of tiempo, general_lee and smelmoth in terms of:

a) < 20
b) 20-30
c) 30-40
d) 40-50
e) 50+

[smelmoth]

On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

It's all about context, which you seen disregard.

That specific incident in my view was justified. I outlined my reasoning.

In your view, is there any instance or circumstance that taking another life would be justified?

There is no context that allows me to kill person B because person A did something wrong.
There is no context that allows me to kill person B because they wear the same uniform as person A and person A did something wrong.

It is not credible to argue otherwise.

There is no context that allows me to act judge, juror and executioner and murder person A for something they have done.

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted. A trained sniper from the french security forces with a gun trained on a jihadist would, after taking all appropriate precautions, be justified in taking lethal action where the jihadist was reasonably believed to be about to kill a civilian/trigger bomb. There will be other scenarios but they would be very few.

murdering a man purely because he is a copper or a prison warden is unjustified.
Murdering a man purely because he is a member of  of a faith group is unjustified
Murdering someone because they propose a different political view is unjustified
Murdering someone for revenge is unjustified.
Murdering someone as revenge for the actions of another is unjustified
Murdering someone because you are angry at an injustice is unjustified.

I am angry at the Italian attitude and actions to the role of their emergency rescue services in the mediterranean. Am I allowed to kill an Italian?
I am angry at the west's treatment of the developing world. Am I allowed to bomb New York or Frankfurt?

After all I am right to be angry so why can't I murder?

[smelmoth]

It would be interesting to understand the age bracket of tiempo, general_lee and smelmoth in terms of:

a) < 20
b) 20-30
c) 30-40
d) 40-50
e) 50+

I'm in my early 40s if that helps

[general_lee]

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.

[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