|
7/23/2006 9:42:00 PM
I feel bad that the terrorists are holding their own people hostage like this. what a bunch of animals.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:05:00 PM
when would be an appropriate time to mention the old saying: "All's fair in love and war"?
you're a jerk off. not all is fair in love and war. I guess you missed the holocaust? was that fair? holy crap you're thick! do they teach you nothing at boot camp?
I feel bad that the terrorists are holding their own people hostage like this. what a bunch of animals.
That doesnt' make sense. Did the IRA hold the irish hostage? Hell even THAT doesnt' make sense. The Lebanese christians that are dead are not part of Hezbollah. I guess those Israeli weapons that have a degree of accuracy of 1 meter missed the crosses around their necks?
|
|
7/23/2006 11:10:00 PM
I guess you missed the holocaust?
Touche.
That doesnt' make sense. Did the IRA hold the irish hostage?
Completely different situation/ mentality/ reasoning. Your analogy is flawed.
The Irish wanted representation in their own govt. They were already living in their native homeland(s).
|
|
7/23/2006 11:23:00 PM
uhh.. you mean northern ireland? it's a perfect analogy, terrorists living in the midst of civilians, and terrorizing the english population with bombs and secret attacks.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:37:00 PM
-edit-
the british didn't bomb northern ireland because it's part of the united-kingdom ... it's own land ... vast majority of all UK's land belong to the queen .... the british have investments there such as factories, plants, etc. ....... they wouldn't bomb northern ireland because of those primary factors.
the situation and approach in dealing with the IRA-conflict were completely different in mentality and monetary interests which dictated matters thereafter. and yes, of course, had the irish civilians been bombed, there would have been a civil war or a revolution.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:39:00 PM
and let's not forget irish-american influence/interest to the region .... the british did not want to jeopardize its relations with the united states.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:40:00 PM
good points by both of you, but the analogy is flawed because like omar mentioned, the british didnt bomb the land they "owned"
there arent enough similarities for a proper analogy.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:47:00 PM
also ... i think the IRA had there own way of dealing with things ... they sure were smarter terrorists than Hezbollah ..... the irish culture is not poisoned by backward ideologies like those in the middle-east.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:48:00 PM
thank you
|
|
7/23/2006 11:51:00 PM
The republic of ireland is owned by England?
I think the house of pain will have something to say about that.
|
|
7/23/2006 11:53:00 PM
LOLOLOLOL hahahaaaaaa
|
|
7/23/2006 11:53:00 PM
it is owned by the queen .. she owns over 80% of the land in GB and IR
|
|
7/23/2006 11:55:00 PM
practically ... the UK is leased-land
|
|
7/24/2006 12:03:00 AM
uhm. I don't know about northern ireland, but ireland is not 80% owned by the queen.
|
|
7/24/2006 12:04:00 AM
more specifically, the crown, who happens to be the queen
|
|
7/24/2006 12:17:00 AM
i'll look into it ... i will read up more on ireland for sure and see where the lines are drawn ... i am missing something for sure with regards to "northern ireland / southern ireland".
but the queen and her monarchy .... they own 80+% of the land in UK .... which is why those lands are actually "leased" ....... but exactly which lands she (the monarchy, not the government) owns, i would have to check on it.
even if a common person purchases land through real-estate ... it appears as "bought & owned" ... but in fact that person "leased" the land for 99 years maximum ..... i proper terms, that person is "holding the land for the Crown in the form of a 'freeholder'."
british old-money (going back even further than the east-indian company) reign supreme all over .... it is their british-sterling ... their circulation of money. i guess my general point is that the british old-money-&-power have huge financial and economic influence in ireland as well.
don't forget, the queen is of german bloodline, relative of the rothschild(s) .... that says a lot when it comes to international monetary fund (IMF).
|
|
7/24/2006 12:19:00 AM
shes still a windsor
|
|
7/24/2006 12:20:00 AM
all her children are rotten ugly
the queen was jealous of diana's beauty LOL
|
|
7/24/2006 12:36:00 AM
i stand somewhat corrected, engineerF.
based on (*gulp*) wikipedia ...... only northern ireland is part of the UK.
|
|
7/24/2006 12:37:00 AM
Ireland (the southern part) is like a province of Great Britain, no?
|
|
7/24/2006 12:51:00 AM
i am not sure ... but from what i'm reading right now .... only northern ireland is part of the UK.
also, hence the words UNITED KINGDOM ...... all its lands are part of the UK and are 100% owned by the queen & monarchy.
any person who buys land anywhere in the UK (both northern ireland and great britain) are actually leasing the land from the queen for a maximum of 99 years should that person/family not sell the land during that amount of time .......... that person (the freeholder) is actually holding the land for the queen and can do whatever he/she wants with it) ................. but after 99 years, the property is taken away from the "freeholder" and goes back to the Crown's possession.
it seems the only ones who do not have this 99-year limit on freeholding lands are THE LORDS ... relatives of the monarchy or bloodlines. hence how the UK's political and judicial system is divided by The House of LORDS and The House of Commons ..... but practically only Lords can be judges .... eg, Lord Justice John Chadwick, LOL.
|