Only 60% is crap???

[Guest]

Bill O'Reilly appeared on the Letterman show last evening. Here's a transcript.

Letterman: Our first guest is the host of Cable Television's number one news program - The O'Reilly Factor - it can be seen five nights a week on Fox News. Ladies and gentlemen, here's Bill O'Reilly. Bill come on out. Welcome back.

O'Reilly: Thank you.

Letterman: Happy New Year. Welcome back to the show. Tell me and people what you did before the O'Reilly, Factor, Foxnews thing.

O'Reilly: I was running the deli downstairs with that guy they have.

Letterman: Is that a fact?

O'Reilly: So, you can build on that career he's making.

Letterman: Yea, but seriously.

O'Reilly: I did a show called Inside Edition. Then, before that, I was a correspondent for ABC News, Peter Jennings, and before that CBS News.

Letterman: So, you're a life-long news journalist?

O'Reilly: Yea.

Letterman: How were your holidays? Good?

[laughter]

O'Reilly: I had a nice winter solstice, yea.

[long pause and laughter]

Letterman: Okay.

O'Reilly: You can't say - you can't say Christmas.

Letterman: You can't say Christmas?

O'Reilly: No.

Letterman: Why is that?

O'Reilly: Because it is politically incorrect and we did a lot of reporting on this and, uh, that was the big thing we were doing leading up to that. While you were in St. Barts, we were leading up to the Christmas holidays by saying 'Hey, how come we can't say Christmas?'

Letterman: I wasn't aware that you couldn't say Christmas. When did this happen?

O'Reilly: Sears, Kmart started it, said no more Christmas. It's all happy holidays or winter solstice. I actually got a card from a friend of mine, it said 'Have a Blessed Winter.' I live in New York. You know what you can do with your blessed winter. You know what I'm talking about? Are you with me, Dave?

Letterman: I wasn't aware that this had happened.

O'Reilly: You weren't aware of the big giant controversy over Christmas?

Letterman: Well, I ignore stuff like that, it doesn't really affect me. I go ahead and do what I wanna do and you know I say Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, Happy Hannukah.

O'Reilly: Here's why it matters. You with me on this?

Letterman: Yea.

O'Reilly: Okay. Ridgewood Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. The song - Silent Night. [singing] Silent Night, you know? Knocked out the words and told the little kids to sing 'cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whine and bite, how I wish I was happy and warm, safe with my family, out of the storm.' They replaced the words to Silent Night with that. Now, with all due respect, I even think the baby Jesus would say 'gimme a break.' You know? You want another one ?

Letterman: No, but let- I don't-

O'Reilly: Woah, Woah, Woah, when great tradition-

Letterman: But what does this prove? It proves that one community-

O'Reilly: It proves there are pinheads at the Ridgewell [sic] uh Elementary School in Wisconsin.

Letterman: Right.

O'Reilly: That's what it proves.

Letterman: Right.

O'Reilly: Here's another one, you want another one? Or are you bored with this?

Letterman: I'm kinda- think we should move on.

[talking over one another]

Letterman: I mean but isn't this the kind of thing uh uh once or twice every twenty years somebody gets outraged and says oh by god we gotta put diapers on horses isn't it just about, it's just so what, let it go, it'll take care of itself.

O'Reilly: No. There is a movement in this country by politically correct people to erode traditions and the Christmas tradition is the most cherished in the country. Look. How absurd is it?

Letterman: But I don't -

[talking over one another]

Letterman: I don't feel threatened.

O'Reilly: It's not a matter of you feel threatened.

Letterman: I don't this is an actual threat. I think this is something that happened here and it happened there and so people like you are trying to make us think that it's a threat.

O'Reilly: Wrong.

Letterman: Because nobody said happy holidays to me and then said Merry Christmas, oh I can't say Merry Christmas.

O'Reilly: Well, here's why it gets to be more than that, because it's in court. There are lawsuits. in plano texas, another grammer school, umm the kids were told not to bring in Christmas colors like napkins that are red and green. That's in court; that's being litigated. Now you can say 'Oh, that's just a little thing, it doesn't affect you,' but it isn't. The erosion of the culture and the protection of tradition is important in this country.

Letterman: Yea, but are we really describing an erosion here? It's two examples one in Wisconsin and one in Texas.

O'Reilly: I got a million of them.

Letterman: Oh, you got a million of them? Okay. Fine.

O'Reilly: Umm, and they're funny ones. Memphis, Tennessee, Bible Belt, library. They have a little display where you can, say you are in a duck hunting club you can bring in a dead duck and put it there and advertise you duck hunting club. We kill ducks. Show up at 9 o'cloCk and we'll blow some ducks out of the air. Okay. There was a church that wanted to advertise a Christmas pageant so they brought in the manger scene and the library said you can the manger scene in Memphis Tennessee, but you can't have the baby Jesus, Joseph, or Mary or the wise men. We're not sure about the shephards. That was a big debate. Now, how stupid and crazy is this?

Letterman: I don't believe you.

O'Reilly: It's true.

Letterman: I don't believe you. I don't...I don't believe you.

O'Reilly: You think I'm making this up?

Letterman: I do.

O'Reilly: Then I could write for your show. [reaching for cup on Letterman's desk] This mine?

Letterman: Yes. let's talk about your firinds in the Bush admin, things seem to be darker now.

O'Reilly: They don't like me.

Letterman: Then they might have been a year before how do things look to you?

O'Reilly: It's pretty rough, but they're not my friends in the bush admin. they're not kicking the door down to be on my show, in fact you have an easier time getting pres bush to come on here than I have getting him to come on the factor. But I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it's a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it's absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?

Letterman: Yes, absolutely.

O'Reilly: Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him. That is putting us all in danger. So our philosophy is we call it as we see it. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. Robust debate is good. But we believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing, a noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,' we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.

Letterman: Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also.

[audience applause]

O'Reilly: Give me an example.

Letterman: How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?

O'Reilly: Because I think she's run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.

Letterman: Have you lost family members in armed conflict?

O'Reilly: No, I have not.

Letterman: Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?

[applause]

O'Reilly: I'm not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.

Letterman: [referring back to O'Reilly's phony "War on Christmas"] Let's go back to your little red and green stories.

O'Reilly: This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters' how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, waht about their feelings, sir?

Letterman: What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?

O'Reilly: No.

Letterman: No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration.

O'Reilly: By the CIA.

Letterman: Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There's no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we're in it it's going to take a long, long time. People who expect it's going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it's not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of Why the Hell are we there to begin with?

O'Reilly: If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that's obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin's people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak's intelligence agency in Egypt.

Letterman: Well then that makes it all right?

O'Reilly: No it doesn't make it right.

Letterman: That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we're there?

O'Reilly: It doesn't make it right.

Letterman: See, I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.

[audience applause]

O'Reilly: No, I'm sorry.

Letterman: Honest to Christ.

O'Reilly: No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you're going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.

Letterman: Do you have children?

O'Reilly: Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a freedom fighter on my program.

[mild audience applause]

Letterman: I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don't know that for a fact.

[more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: Sixty percent.

Letterman: Sixty percent. I'm just spit-balling here.

O'Reilly: Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.

Letterman: Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you're-

O'Reilly: Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.

Letterman: Yeah, but I think there's something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.

O'Reilly: Well, you're going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.

Letterman: Well I don't watch your show so that would be impossible.

O'Reilly: Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?

Letterman: Because of things that I've read, things that I know.

O'Reilly: Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.

Letterman: You'll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat.

O'Reilly: I'll be happy to.

Letterman: Uh, Bill, it's always a pleasure.

[laughter]

O'Reilly: Thank you very much. Happy New Year.

Letterman: Same to you.


Here's a link to another discussion - http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/04/david_letterman_bill_oreilly.php

Here's the link to another discussion - http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/04.html#a6571

 

[Alex756]

Interesting,

As in I just saw portions (about half) of this and the 'mild' audience applause was not mild *shrug* The entire thing is up online if anyone wants to watch an unbiased version of it. Alot of applause was also left off, but I guess if they aren't doing it for the monkey applause light.

~Alex

 

[rgraham666]

I don't watch TV.

It's 99.99% crap.

 

[SummerMorning]

No no no! What pretty box say is true! It must be!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

David Letterman has suddenly risen 60% in my esteem.

 

[TheEarl]

I don't know any of the protagonists, but I can't help agreeing with the guy O'Reilly when he disagrees with the use of the term 'freedom fighters' to refer to terrorists. That's the kind of language that got people in America funding those poor oppressed Irish freedom fighters against those horrible jack-booted British army soldiers who were ther to oppress Ireland, not to keep the peace in a democratic province.

The Earl

 

[Svenskaflicka]

EVERY country claims that THEIR soldiers are Freedom Fighters, struggling to protect the values created by THEIR religious icon.

I really can't see the difference between the different groups, except for the team colours.

 

[Alex756]

EVERY country claims that THEIR soldiers are Freedom Fighters, struggling to protect the values created by THEIR religious icon.

I really can't see the difference between the different groups, except for the team colours.

The difference are innocent people going about their day to day activities the -target- If yes, then that group has some serious issues. In all wars there are unintended casulties, nothing is perfect, but when you are intentionally targetting people at a funeral for a child, that is a heck of alot difference.

~Alex

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The difference are innocent people going about their day to day activities the -target- If yes, then that group has some serious issues. In all wars there are unintended casulties, nothing is perfect, but when you are intentionally targetting people at a funeral for a child, that is a heck of alot difference.

~Alex

What about dropping bombs on non-military targets? Is that strategic warfare, unintended casualties, or terrorism?

CORRECT ANSWER: If "they" do it, it's "terrorism". If "we" do it, it's "strategic warfare" or "unintended casualties", depending on whether or not CNN finds out about it.

 

[Purple Sage]

I don't know any of the protagonists, but I can't help agreeing with the guy O'Reilly when he disagrees with the use of the term 'freedom fighters' to refer to terrorists. That's the kind of language that got people in America funding those poor oppressed Irish freedom fighters against those horrible jack-booted British army soldiers who were ther to oppress Ireland, not to keep the peace in a democratic province.

The Earl

Well, as a matter of historical fact, the English did invade Ireland and wreak some pretty fierce oppression there, for several centuries, and the Orangemen of Northern Ireland are a legacy of that. Northern Ireland is a part of Britain rather than Ireland not because of any democratic process, but because the Brits decided that was all they could hang on to.
"Freedom Fighters" strikes me as a perfectly appropriate term to use for people attempting to free their country from a foreign military occupation. "Terrorist" describes someone who uses a particular set of tactics in that attempt- they aren't mutually exclusive terms. Cuban "freedom fighters" resisting Fidel Castro practically monopolized the practice of airplane hijacking for years- that's now generally considered a 'terrorist' activity. Proto-Israeli "freedom fighters" utilized hijackings, bank robbery and attacks on Palestinian civilians in their struggle to create the state of Israel. The Palestinians who use similar tactics are 'terrorists'. Perhaps the difference is that the Israelis won, and the Palestinians continue not to.
"Freedom fighters" want to be like you, "terrorists" want you to be like them.

 

[Purple Sage]

The difference are innocent people going about their day to day activities the -target- ...
~Alex

Define "innocent".

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What about dropping bombs on non-military targets? Is that strategic warfare, unintended casualties, or terrorism?

CORRECT ANSWER: If "they" do it, it's "terrorism". If "we" do it, it's "strategic warfare" or "unintended casualties", depending on whether or not CNN finds out about it.

Collateral Damage is uninteneded. The people are just as dead, but there was no intent to harm them. Terrorists target civilains with the intent to kill them, maim them and terrorize those who are not hit.

Soldier, will end up killing civilains. It happens in every campaign, probably has in every campaign throughout history and most certainly has in every one since the advent of gunpowder and rifeling. But a soldier dosen't kill civilains willfully.

A freedom fighter is in the eye of the beholder. When a freedom fighter ceases to target the enemy military or constabulary forces and intentionally attacks civilians, he has crossed the line. That is the bottom line for most in determining if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Excatly whom they are trying to kill.

 

[TheEarl]

Well, as a matter of historical fact, the English did invade Ireland and wreak some pretty fierce oppression there, for several centuries, and the Orangemen of Northern Ireland are a legacy of that. Northern Ireland is a part of Britain rather than Ireland not because of any democratic process, but because the Brits decided that was all they could hang on to.
"Freedom Fighters" strikes me as a perfectly appropriate term to use for people attempting to free their country from a foreign military occupation. "Terrorist" describes someone who uses a particular set of tactics in that attempt- they aren't mutually exclusive terms. Cuban "freedom fighters" resisting Fidel Castro practically monopolized the practice of airplane hijacking for years- that's now generally considered a 'terrorist' activity. Proto-Israeli "freedom fighters" utilized hijackings, bank robbery and attacks on Palestinian civilians in their struggle to create the state of Israel. The Palestinians who use similar tactics are 'terrorists'. Perhaps the difference is that the Israelis won, and the Palestinians continue not to.
"Freedom fighters" want to be like you, "terrorists" want you to be like them.

Let's get this straight. Northern Ireland is a part of Britain because the majority of people living there want it to be. They consider themselves British and would be thoroughly narked to be told they were being transferred to Ireland. That's democracy.

Back in time, the IRA might've been freedom fighters. Back when the English army was occupying, not implementing the democratic will of the people. As soon as an insurgent goes against the will of the majority, simply because they don't agree, or wilfully attacks innocents, then they lose all claim to the non-perjorative term freedom fighters.

This is a major pet peeve for me. Bombs were bought with money from some Americans 'trying to find their roots', simply because they were too dumb to actually learn anything about the situation and simply assumed that the British were occupying and that the IRA's opinion was that of the masses. That money killed innocent people and terrorised neighbourhoods with protection schemes.

They are terrorists, because their aim is to spread terror in order to get what they want. I can't understand anything less being used and would be happy to see them referred to in the textbooks as 'massmurdering fuckwits.' The same goes for the UVF.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

Let's get this straight. Northern Ireland is a part of Britain because the majority of people living there want it to be. They consider themselves British and would be thoroughly narked to be told they were being transferred to Ireland. That's democracy.

Yes, but they became the majority because the British drove out the original inhabitants, forcibly took their land, and outlawed their language and their religion. That's the non-democratic bit. One might well argue that the United States is under the rule of people of European ancestry because they were democratically elected, but that doesn't obviate the issue of how they came to be the majority. The plantation of Ulster was a deliberate policy on the part of the British to destroy, displace, and disenfranchise the local Irish population.

Back in time, the IRA might've been freedom fighters. Back when the English army was occupying, not implementing the democratic will of the people. As soon as an insurgent goes against the will of the majority, simply because they don't agree, or wilfully attacks innocents, then they lose all claim to the non-perjorative term freedom fighters.

Unless the will of majority is to oppress, abuse, and subjugate them. While I'm no apologist for the IRA, the loyalist groups and the official police of the area have a great deal to answer for as well.

This is a major pet peeve for me. Bombs were bought with money from some Americans 'trying to find their roots', simply because they were too dumb to actually learn anything about the situation and simply assumed that the British were occupying and that the IRA's opinion was that of the masses. That money killed innocent people and terrorised neighbourhoods with protection schemes.

And we're back to the majority. They aren't always right, you know. Some of those people sent money because the British were the reason they were in the United States in the first place. They were part of the eight million Irish who died or emigrated in the last half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th. They were, in fact, part of the reason that loyalists ended up in the majority.

They are terrorists, because their aim is to spread terror in order to get what they want. I can't understand anything less being used and would be happy to see them referred to in the textbooks as 'massmurdering fuckwits.' The same goes for the UVF.

Here, happily, we agree.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Collateral Damage is uninteneded.

Or fairly well calculated and accepted.

But yes, it's the difference that makes us good guys the lesser monsters. And as such, we sleep at night.

 

[TheEarl]

Yes, but they became the majority because the British drove out the original inhabitants, forcibly took their land, and outlawed their language and their religion. That's the non-democratic bit. One might well argue that the United States is under the rule of people of European ancestry because they were democratically elected, but that doesn't obviate the issue of how they came to be the majority. The plantation of Ulster was a deliberate policy on the part of the British to destroy, displace, and disenfranchise the local Irish population.



Unless the will of majority is to oppress, abuse, and subjugate them. While I'm no apologist for the IRA, the loyalist groups and the official police of the area have a great deal to answer for as well.



And we're back to the majority. They aren't always right, you know. Some of those people sent money because the British were the reason they were in the United States in the first place. They were part of the eight million Irish who died or emigrated in the last half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th. They were, in fact, part of the reason that loyalists ended up in the majority.



Here, happily, we agree.

Shanglan

Overall, I have no problem seeing that the British are in the wrong as they invaded land that did not belong to them and took spoils of war, being fair bastards about it. However, in modern times, several generations later, the oppression is finished due to modern standards of ethics (and also the fact that they won already). This is the situation I'm referring to - the last twenty or so years, where US citizens didn't bother to learn the current situation and just sent money because of some vague mishmash of historical knowledge. That money killed innocents.

And I did mention the UVF (Loyalist wankers) being under the 'massmurdering fuckwits' banner as well.

The Earl

 

[Huckleman2000]

Collateral Damage is uninteneded. The people are just as dead, but there was no intent to harm them. Terrorists target civilains with the intent to kill them, maim them and terrorize those who are not hit.

Soldier, will end up killing civilains. It happens in every campaign, probably has in every campaign throughout history and most certainly has in every one since the advent of gunpowder and rifeling. But a soldier dosen't kill civilains willfully.

A freedom fighter is in the eye of the beholder. When a freedom fighter ceases to target the enemy military or constabulary forces and intentionally attacks civilians, he has crossed the line. That is the bottom line for most in determining if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Excatly whom they are trying to kill.

I don't disagree, really, it's just that I have problems reconciling this with US behavior at the end of WWII - particularly, the Dresden firebombing and the like, and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a different time and a different circumstance, to be sure. But, that's always the case, isn't it?

 

[TheEarl]

I don't disagree, really, it's just that I have problems reconciling this with US behavior at the end of WWII - particularly, the Dresden firebombing and the like, and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a different time and a different circumstance, to be sure. But, that's always the case, isn't it?

I was actually discussing this with someone over lunch and he brought up the bombing of Dresden to counter my argument of 'not on the side of right when they target innocents'. I have to say that it's not something I'm proud of my country for participating in and that we certainly acted like terrorists at times.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

Overall, I have no problem seeing that the British are in the wrong as they invaded land that did not belong to them and took spoils of war, being fair bastards about it. However, in modern times, several generations later, the oppression is finished due to modern standards of ethics (and also the fact that they won already).

I think that here we will have to agree to disagree.

This is the situation I'm referring to - the last twenty or so years, where US citizens didn't bother to learn the current situation and just sent money because of some vague mishmash of historical knowledge. That money killed innocents.

First, you assume that people are ignorant rather than accepting that they may know the facts and disagree with you. I think that rather a hasty assumption. To be clear, I don't think that anyone was right to fund terrorists. However, I also don't think that ignorance is the only possible reason for their actions, or even the most likely.

Second, interestingly, the past twenty years is almost precisely the period during which the IRA's funding has dried up. The optimistic hope that the recurrent attempts at peace come from sincere desire for it; the cynical observe that the IRA was in dire financial straits anyway.

And I did mention the UVF (Loyalist wankers) being under the 'massmurdering fuckwits' banner as well.

A topic on which I am quite pleased to agree with you.

 

[Purple Sage]

However, in modern times, several generations later, the oppression is finished due to modern standards of ethics (and also the fact that they won already).

The Earl

Well, you've just destroyed the entire justification for the state of Israel... several generations later, egad! Let us also consider the 'fact that they won already'. As we see from our inspiring victory in Iraq, winning only happens when the other side stops fighting. The Irish have demonstrated incredible stamina (albeit intermittent) that we can only hope is unique in the world (no telling what to expect from the Blackfoot-Shoshone if not...), but that stamina in itself suggests that 'the oppression' is not entirely finished- unless that's happened in the last year or so. The alternative is to believe that some substantial groups of people (the Irish, Iraqis, Palestinians, Basques, Moro, Mayans, Afghans, Somalis- I could go on, but you get the gist- are reasonable candidates) just like to kill people from sheer bloody-mindedness. This kind of characterization makes for pretty lame fiction- perhaps in the real world it's worthwhile to look for what is really motivating these behaviors.
I don't say this in order to justify terrorism- I'm opposed to it. It just seems to me that anyone who wants to actually prevent terrorism ought to try to understand why it's happening, instead of relying on the simplistic labeling and demonization that characterizes U.S. reporting.
It's also worth noting that terrorism, as a particular sub-class of guerilla warfare, requires at least the passive support of a substantial segment of the population. Pulling off a big strike like World Trade Towers is an exception- clearly it says nothing about the attitudes of Americans- but sustaining a campaign of terror, as in Iraq or Israel/Palestine, requires substantial popular complicity. Democracy in action, eh?

 

[TheEarl]

First, you assume that people are ignorant rather than accepting that they may know the facts and disagree with you. I think that rather a hasty assumption. To be clear, I don't think that anyone was right to fund terrorists. However, I also don't think that ignorance is the only possible reason for their actions, or even the most likely.

I really, really, really hope that people were ignorant. If they understood the situation, knew that the democratic will of the people of NI was to stay part of the United Kingdom and still sent money for the IRA to buy bombs and try and subvert democracy with, then I'd be thoroughly depressed about the state of the world.

I think I'll stay hoping that they were ignorant.

Well, you've just destroyed the entire justification for the state of Israel... several generations later, egad! Let us also consider the 'fact that they won already'. As we see from our inspiring victory in Iraq, winning only happens when the other side stops fighting. The Irish have demonstrated incredible stamina (albeit intermittent) that we can only hope is unique in the world (no telling what to expect from the Blackfoot-Shoshone if not...), but that stamina in itself suggests that 'the oppression' is not entirely finished- unless that's happened in the last year or so.

So, you're saying that the IRA killed men, women and children in Northern Ireland in the 1990s, because the British Army was still oppressing the populace who had exercised their democratic choice to keep them there?

Your ideas are basically sound, but terrorism can survive in a country where it has little popular support on one condition - that it is well supported by other countries.

The Earl

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Or fairly well calculated and accepted.

But yes, it's the difference that makes us good guys the lesser monsters. And as such, we sleep at night.

Correction: two types of people sleep well: those with a clean conscience, and those who are too stupid to HAVE a conscience.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Correction: two types of people sleep well: those with a clean conscience, and those who are too stupid to HAVE a conscience.

This will always be true, but sometimes it's best to remember that just because both groups sleep well, doesn't mean they lay down together. I have a clean conscience. Don't confuse me with a Manson type who has none at all. I work harder than one might think at being a good person. I don't deserve the scrutiny of being labeled otherwise.

Q_C

 

[Svenskaflicka]

This will always be true, but sometimes it's best to remember that just because both groups sleep well, doesn't mean they lay down together. I have a clean conscience. Don't confuse me with a Manson type who has none at all. I work harder than one might think at being a good person. I don't deserve the scrutiny of being labeled otherwise.

Q_C

Telling the guilty idiots apart from the innocent un-awares is always a hard task.

Especially when they claim they were under the Imperius-curse.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I really, really, really hope that people were ignorant. If they understood the situation, knew that the democratic will of the people of NI was to stay part of the United Kingdom and still sent money for the IRA to buy bombs and try and subvert democracy with, then I'd be thoroughly depressed about the state of the world.

We're back to "democratic will" again. And, again, I think it fair to point out that killing, disenfranchising, and driving out most of the previous inhabitants and then slapping the name "democracy" on the tyranny of the majority that is left doesn't do much for those who were so deliberately and painstakingly forced into the position of "minority" in what had been their own country.

To attempt to "subvert democracy," one has to accept that it was there in the first place. Getting rid of everyone who doesn't agree with you and then holding elections with what is left is only a "democracy" in the most cynical of all possible definitions. It's all very well to say "it's a democracy now!" - when those currently in the majority have done exercising their desire to violently conquer the region and destroy its culture and inhabitants. This sort of "I've got mine; now let's have stability and peace!" approach is generally only attractive to those who have, indeed, got theirs.

Shanglan