LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHas McGuinness said anything to contradict this, or do you simply equate 'national self-determination' with a duff-like death fetish?Originally Posted by Thar an Phail
Has McGuinness said anything to contradict this, or do you simply equate 'national self-determination' with a duff-like death fetish?
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Have they explained WHY the Tamils should give up their struggle?. This is more headline grabbing, gimmickry politics, from the PSF crew. The day after ETA called a ceasefire, Adams also "leaked" to the Spanish media, how he called on ETA to do so, prior to their statement.
I don't know much of the Tamils' struggle, but I have a cursory understanding of the shyt their people are living through. Who are we to lecture them. I'm startin' to believe the leadership is driven by Factual.
Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.
BTW, who's funding Martins trips to meet the Tamils? Honest question.
Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.
This is very interesting.
The Tamils, I believe, form about 20% of the population of Sri Lanka.
They are concentrated in the North East corner of the island, and also live on the Indian 'mainland'.
Sound familiar?
It seems odd that Republicans support the rights of Tamils to their own partitionist state, but not those of Irish Unionists to exactly the same thing.
Explain.
Could anyone please explain why Tamils have the right to self-determination, and not Unionists:
surely its only necessary to kill as many of them as is necessary ?Does this mean you think they all should actually be killed?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course all members of an alien and illegitimate police force and army should be killed. Don't be asking silly questions.
As far as I know the Tamil Tigers were not in the strongest position in the war against the Sri Lankian govt. and their chances of military victory were slim at best. In any case it is always better to have a negotiated settlement than a military victory, soft and all as it sounds. Soldiers should not be allowed to hold the levers of power in any state, no matter how much you respect them and their cause. It was appropiate in South Africa for the ANC to enter into negotiations with de Klerk instead of oushing for MK to further the struggle and push from a victory that was still possible up until the early 1990s.
Revolution not devolution.
Is it your party line that all members of the PSNI should be killed, or are people like you now a minority within SF?
Also, I would also quite like to see a republican tackle Pogo's analogy.
"If there is a future, it will be Green." - Petra Kelly.
It's a question that's been on my mind for some time.
I looked at Tamils on wiki, and found they were 18% of Sri Lanka's population, exactly the same proportion of the population as Prods in Ireland.
Republicans like to berate Britain for creating artificial 'partitionist' states, for example India/Pakistan, yet when they create a unitary state such as Sri Lanka they would also appear to be at fault.
Can anyone, (for the third time of asking), please explain this paradox from a Republican perspective
Why doesn't anyone want to attempt to answer my question
I believe it's been phrased reasonably politely.
Reply With Quote