fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2805 ]

[ SECRET POST #2805 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2805 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You built your country on land that was already occupied, and did noting to try and win over the pre-existing populace but instead herded them into ghettos and built walls around them. #NoSympathy.

lol, the Arabs have been attacking them there since even before Israel was formed

... and if you are making that statment and live in the US ... well, let us savor the irony.

So does that mean the surviving native Americans would be right to start fucking up some whities?

Can native Americans start using human shields and start killing white Americans? and still be considered to be in the right with the press? Because that shit is overdue for them.

Does that mean the IRA where the good guys?

Oh, no, they were the bad guys. The native American uprising would be a bad thing. Know why? Because in both those scenarios the people they would be attacking are not jews.
If you want to do bad guy things, and be thought of as the good guys, make sure you pick on the jews.
And this mentality is fucking everywhere, and is the reason Israel is taking precisely ZERO% shit from anyone attacking them.

The IRA were the good guys. Not perfect - I don't support everything they did, and atrocities were committed on both sides - but they were the good guys.

And American Indians had a lot of right on their side in violently resisting American expansionism in the 19th century, and have a lot of legitimate and valid claims against the American government today.

Similarly, Palestine has many valid and legitimate claims against Israel, even if both sides do bad things. These are actually very good analogies you're making here, so well done.

The IRA were not the good guys. The ones who marched peacefully, and came to the table peacefully, and talked peacefully, they were the good guys. The ones who planted bombs, and murdered people in front of their families and then hid the bodies, and shot and killed British soldiers in the last few years, they were not the good guys.

The outcome does not justify the means.

They were bad times on both sides and both sides were intensely violent and did many things wrong. I refuse to place the blame solely on the IRA for the violence and ultimately, the IRA were fighting to redress legitimate grievances that were not being heard and that were being responded to with violence.

(and, for reference, I was never talking about the Continuity IRA or any of those assholes, which I would have hoped would have been obvious but w/e)

I'm willing to accept that the IRA had good people in it.

But thinking the IRA itself was good is just so insane I deleted a paragraph of text because there is no fucking reasoning with somebody like you.

They were fighting to redress serious and real grievances. Even setting aside the question of independence, there were real and profound and glaring injustices in Northern Irish society, and the IRA and similar organizations developed in response to that injustice, and to the refusal of those in power to make serious changes, and the violent reactions that were seen on both sides.

I didn't and don't say that they were perfect. They did some awful things. People on both sides did awful, awful things. The Troubles were not a good time. But, on the whole, the IRA were responding to serious injustices.

Having a legitimate grievance doesn't make you a good guy and it never has.

They used the only means available to them to pursue it.

You mean they used non-violent protest coupled with a will to work within the political structure so as not to prolong the process with violence which would only serve to make the British dig their heels in to save face?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-07 23:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-07 23:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

elephantinegrace - 2014-09-07 23:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sabotabby - 2014-09-07 23:50 (UTC) - Expand

Even if you weren't full of shit, that still doesn't make somebody "the good guys"

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-07 23:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-07 23:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

insanenoodlyguy - 2014-09-08 01:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-08 22:33 (UTC) - Expand

Agreed. Wow. Someone actually said "the IRA are the good guy," with no irony whatsoever. I didn't think that level of naivete existed.

Pretty common in the United States, specially the North Eastern corner. NORAID was the second biggest funder of the IRA, behind selling Child Pornography, right up to early September 2001. Then something happened to make them think that funding foreign terrorists might just be wrong. Can't think what though. Hey, from his point of view Osama thought his cause was just and righteous and he did have a bit of a point too.

I live in the Northeast, and I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I've never, in my life, had anyone say to me that they thought the IRA were the good guys.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-09 02:13 (UTC) - Expand

What actions were right or wrong in your opinion, there was no fucking winning over the locals. That was never going to happen.

Like there was any chance of "winning over" the pre-existing populace, are you that fucking naive?

Also, my history textbook may have been biased or incorrect, but weren't the Arabs the first ones to attack, with the PLO and all that?

Your history book is leaving out the campaign on bombings and terrorism that was conducted by Jewish terrorists in order to get a toehold in the Palestinian Mandate and set up the country. Israel is a country that was founded only because of a successful terrorist invasion plan.

Was that before or after the 1920 Arab riots and the 1921 Jaffa riots?

Are you seriously going to play the "Who Started It" game?

Right, that might conflict with your "Israel is evil" narrative.

Maybe if Israel stopped killing thousands of children...

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-08 21:06 (UTC) - Expand

I'm Israeli, and this whole "but they started!!" ping-pong is stupid and leads to nowhere.

That's how most countries in the world have been founded (well, perhaps not terrorist invasion, but certainly invasion).

And that's the thing I don't get about these arguments. The Palestinians weren't originally there, either. People of various ethnicities have been fighting over that barren scrap of land for thousands of years, but because this happens to be the conflict that is freshest in our collective memories, we latch onto it and say things like "but Israel stole from Palestine." We care about land ownership, but it's almost as if we put a statute of limitations on it, as defined by how close we personally are in time. It was yours five hundred years ago, you say? Ah, well, but it was this guy's eighty years ago, and my grandmother was alive then, so that seems more legit.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only