'now We Are The Redcoats!'

[Who Cares]

Now were redcoats

After you finish reading that read this article about how many of the charges the Declaration of Independence made against the tyrant King George also apply to the Bush Adminstration.

[clocker]

If we (the USA) are the "redcoats" and the as yet unnamed terrorists are the upstart rebel colonists, then what part does SH and the B'aath Party play in this little analogy?

[sabbath]

Originally posted by clocker@4 September 2003 - 07:31
After you finish reading that read this article about how many of the charges the Declaration of Independence made against the tyrant King George also apply to the Bush Adminstration.

Throughout the centuries there have been so many Great Powers, who have practised exactly the same methodology in killing, terrorizing and trying to control the planet:

Athens, Roman Empire, .... , U.K. and finally U.S.A.

They fall and they rise...

[MeMeMeSoHony]

britain is still there though

[sabbath]

Nah... Watch carefuly, Britain is not there.

[RGX]

Britain is here, but its nothing like it used to be, the empires colonies gradually regained their old power back, although I only know the basics on this paticular subject

We have no real empire, but in a lot of ways, thats a good thing.

[sabbath]

Originally posted by RGX@4 September 2003 - 20:08
Britain is here, but its nothing like it used to be, the empires colonies gradually regained their old power back, although I only know the basics on this paticular subject

We have no real empire, but in a lot of ways, thats a good thing.

My point exactly

[DanB]

Originally posted by sabbath@4 September 2003 - 12:13
Nah... Watch carefuly, Britain is not there.

listen, yeah, britain will remain through out. yes we were once a great power but we took over countries with the some what vain outlook of trying to base them on our society, we bred them up and got them going and then they all rebelled against us eg. northern ireland.

at the end of the day i can see iraq turning into americza's northern ireland,. you're there trying to show them the benfits and what do they do apart from blow you up and attack you?

at least you have the beneift of your friends trying to help you, unlike britain and the great american support of the IRA.

Irish Republican Army (IRA)
a.k.a. Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the Provos
Description

Terrorist group formed in 1969 as clandestine armed wing of Sinn Fein, a legal political movement dedicated to removing British forces from Northern Ireland and unifying Ireland. Has a Marxist orientation. Organized into small, tightly knit cells under the leadership of the Army Council.

Activities

Bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies. Targets have included senior British Government officials, British military and police in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland Loyalist paramilitary groups. Bombing campaigns have been conducted against train and subway stations and shopping areas on mainland Britain, as well as against British and Royal Ulster Constabulary targets in Northern Ireland, and a British military facility on the European Continent. The IRA has been observing a cease-fire since July 1997 and previously observed a cease-fire from 1 September 1994 to February 1996.

Strength

Largely unchanged--several hundred members, plus several thousand sympathizers--despite the defection of some members to the dissident splinter groups.

Location/Area of Operation

Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Great Britain, Europe.

External Aid

Has in the past received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. Is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. Similarities in operations suggest links to the ETA.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by danb+4 September 2003 - 21:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (danb &#064; 4 September 2003 - 21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-sabbath@4 September 2003 - 12:13
Nah... Watch carefuly, Britain is not there.

at least you have the beneift of your friends trying to help you, unlike britain and the great american support of the IRA.[/b][/quote]
What are you talking about?

If you mean that the IRA launders money through the US via motivated individuals, that is far different from "great American support" of the IRA.

Please explain yourself.

To Americans, IRA means "individual retirement account".

[hobbes]

Back on topic, I found the comparison (to redcoats) superficial, but that aside I found the article a worthwhile read.
In not saying I agree with the author on all counts, but he definitely makes an effort to be balanced.

Compare his style with that of the Gilliard article (linked on same page).

Partridge:

In Iraq today, friend and foe look alike. If the American soldier hesitates, the fedayeen will take the first shot, and another American casualty will be added to the list. But if he shoots first, his target may be a twelve-year old boy on the roof, a photographer lifting his camera, or a family rushing to get home before the curfew. More dead innocent Iraqis. More rage against the invaders. All to the advantage of the resistance.

Gilliards take on same issue:

US troops are so trigger happy and so poorly trained, they shoot civilians without pause. A cameraman shooting US troops was gunned down. Whole families have been blown away by US troops.

or

We often shoot recklessly among civilians as well. The desire to go home is obvious, but when troopers kill a child because they freak when Iraqis fire guns in celebration, that&#39;s a failure of training.

Gilliard may have some legimate points, but his sensationalistic style and obvious bias really turns off the neutral reader. You wonder how much he is twisting the truth to fit his convictions. He, yes, he actually used the word "freaked".

Anyway, I did a little research on the guy and it confirmed my impression from reading his article.


My point in bringing up Gilliard is that many intentionalty inflammatory articles, such as his, are posted here to specifically irritate Americans. It puts the burdonsome task of rebuttal on the forum members. The poster knows that this take time and effort, and all he had to do was post the link. It is like calling someone a "racist", then leaving the room, offering no further explanation. Cheap shots.

I just wanted to say that although I am not totally in bed with the author in his article about "Redcoats", I found his effort to consider both sides refreshing.