Patrick Finucane

[LiamO]

It's just these threads turn into a bully-banging.

Frank came here. Made offensive/contradictory posts and was pulled on them. He kept coming back. Nobody pursued him.

These kinds of threads are pretty much all men, and I defy you to tell me there isn't a lot of egos at work.

What is this loaded, judgemental nonsense?

We are discussing the state-sponsored assassination of a solicitor in front of his family, not comparing cock sizes. Do you have anything to contribute?

 

[Idaho]

.... And breathe Liam...

 

[Pickman's model]

.... And breathe Liam...

Unfortunately Liam asked 'do you have anything [on topick] to contribute', not 'post up some unrelated shit to prove you're a cunt'.

 

[butchersapron]

I think there is a very human tendancy to see large powerful organisations as monolithic and unchanging. The state is just as transient. People come and go in jobs. They retire. Departments are closed. Organisational maps a changed.

My point is that if we are, rightly, going to be cynical about the methods and motivations of the state, it seems a bit illogical to at the same time carry high expectations of the moral behaviour of the state.

And do you think a situation where there is a public understanding that the state will act in this way if it sees fit to be better than one with no such understanding?

 

[Idaho]

And do you think a situation where there is a public understanding that the state will act in this way if it sees fit to be better than one with no such understanding?

That assumes the public are unhappy with the state carrying out extra-judicial killings. The public, especially during the mainland bombing campaign, were generally supportive of the draconian laws enacted in response.

To my mind, it's one of the failings of terrorist strategy. It shores up support for the state that is being attacked, and allows them to restrict civil rights further.

 

[Idaho]

'post up some unrelated shit to prove you're a cunt'.

Oh the irony

 

[butchersapron]

That assumes the public are unhappy with the state carrying out extra-judicial killings. The public, especially during the mainland bombing campaign, were generally supportive of the draconian laws enacted in response.

To my mind, it's one of the failings of terrorist strategy. It shores up support for the state that is being attacked, and allows them to restrict civil rights further.

It assumes no such thing. And i note that you didn't actually answer the question.

 

[Idaho]

It assumes no such thing. And i note that you didn't actually answer the question.

I thought it was rhetorical. Of course it's important that people know what dirty tricks the state is willing to perform.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought it was rhetorical. Of course it's important that people know what dirty tricks the state is willing to perform.

So what then is the point of your whining sneering and passive-aggressive insults throughout this thread? And why are they aimed at people who are attempting to help achieve what you yourself recognise as a better situation?

 

[Meltingpot]

That assumes the public are unhappy with the state carrying out extra-judicial killings. The public, especially during the mainland bombing campaign, were generally supportive of the draconian laws enacted in response.

To my mind, it's one of the failings of terrorist strategy. It shores up support for the state that is being attacked, and allows them to restrict civil rights further.

That's a strategy in itself - Carlos Marighella in Brazil wrote about it at length in the early '70's. The idea is that eventually the people will get so pissed off with the now draconian state that they will rise up and overthrow it.

I think the Tupumaros tried it in Uruguay, but it didn't work.

 

[butchersapron]

That's a strategy in itself - Carlos Marighella in Brazil wrote about it at length in the '70's. Eventually the idea is that the people will get so pissed off with the now draconian state that they will rise up and overthrow it.

I think the Tupumaros tried it in Uruguay, but it didn't work.

I think the RAF is a better example of the strategy to force the state to expose what it really is.

 

[likesfish]

Posssibly the most stupid idea ever.
No that was baader meinhoff a useless bunch of cunts appalled that the people running the state were ex nazis.
Exactly who else was going to run the place?
If you didnt join the nazi party that was end of career or death much like the communist or baathist partys.
West germany was fat rich and happy waa waaa lets kill people cunts

 

[butchersapron]

Posssibly the most stupid idea ever.
No that was baader meinhoff a useless bunch of cunts appalled that the people running the state were ex nazis.
Exactly who else was going to run the place?
If you didnt join the nazi party that was end of career or death much like the communist or baathist partys.
West germany was fat rich and happy waa waaa lets kill people cunts

Well, first off, that's not true at all - you did not need to join the nazi party to take part in german public life, even under the nazis - which makes those who chose to do so even bigger dangers to any society claiming to be democratic. If you cannot see any post-war option other than minimal (and low level) de-naizification with the elite not only being let off but given leading roles in the post-nazi state then frankly you're showing a paucity of imagination that the powerful would simply love to put to use.

 

[Idaho]

So what then is the point of your whining sneering and passive-aggressive insults throughout this thread? And why are they aimed at people who are attempting to help achieve what you yourself recognise as a better situation?

Because, as is shown in the words you have elected to use, and the frequent verbal abuse dished out by you politicos, that it's not about discussion, spreading ideas or engaging in debate. It's about maintaining your own unwavering belief you are right, and attacking anyone who questions that belief.

 

[butchersapron]

Because, as is shown in the words you have elected to use, and the frequent verbal abuse dished out by you politicos, that it's not about discussion, spreading ideas or engaging in debate. It's about maintaining your own unwavering belief you are right, and attacking anyone who questions that belief.

Marvellous. Everyone else is wrong to be right - wrong to to aim towards the situation that you identify as good. Everyone else.

 

[Idaho]

That's a strategy in itself - Carlos Marighella in Brazil wrote about it at length in the early '70's. The idea is that eventually the people will get so pissed off with the now draconian state that they will rise up and overthrow it.

I think the Tupumaros tried it in Uruguay, but it didn't work.

Heh. You learn something new everyday

That is a particular daft idea by Mr Marighella.

 

[Idaho]

Marvellous. Everyone else is wrong to be right - wrong to to aim towards the situation that you identify as good. Everyone else.

I am very much aware of the flaws, limits and gaps in my knowledge and opinions. I have never seen you suggest as much of yours. You manifest as someone with total conviction in his beliefs.

 

[Meltingpot]

Well, first off, that's not true at all - you did not need to join the nazi party to take part in german public life, even under the nazis - which makes those who chose to do so even bigger dangers to any society claiming to be democratic. If you cannot see any post-war option other than minimal (and low level) de-naizification with the elite not only being let off but given leading roles in the post-nazi state then frankly you're showing a paucity of imagination that the powerful would simply love to put to use.

Maybe, but at the time the RAF were most active (the early '70s) Willy Brandt was in power - someone who'd always opposed Nazism and wanted to make social democracy work, so you can't tar him or IIRC any of his cabinet (Helmut Schmidt et al.) with that brush.

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe, but at the time the RAF were most active (the early '70s) Willy Brandt was in power - someone who'd always opposed Nazism and wanted to make social democracy work, so you can't tar him or IIRC any of his cabinet (Helmut Schmidt et al.) with that brush.

I think you've ran together two different posts of mine there. The first one was agreeing with you that historically some groups have theorised a method of activity that they imagine will expose the reality of state power provoking a rebellion against it when this takes place. The second was that the post-war german state had other options than the feeble partial low-level de-nazification program they (in conjunction wit the occupying powers and he developing cold ward) adopted. I wasn't suggesting that the RAF were seeking to expose an inner nazi state (although, they did often see their fight in those terms).

 

[nino_savatte]

so what if nobody explained it to them? you cant excuse the british states behaviour, an organisation which has killed many innocent people in Ireland and elsewhere, by saying that people like defence lawyers and that have to be treated like prisoners of war. even fash in WWII working in england who were working for the nazis during the war were treated under the terms of the geneva convention, and rightly so, and finucane didn't even kill anyone

Exactly and one of those Finucane defended was Bobby Sands, who never shot or bombed anyone.

 

[nino_savatte]

Urban75 is 99% talking shit. It's only the pompous, self important politicos on the board who take themselves seriously.

It's funny how I often see this when the person in question has has their argument taken to bits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That assumes the public are unhappy with the state carrying out extra-judicial killings. The public, especially during the mainland bombing campaign, were generally supportive of the draconian laws enacted in response.

By what measure?

I'll tell you, none.

In fact many of the draconian laws imposed because of terrorism manifested clear opposition in the form of public protests, lobbying of MPs etc, from internment all the way to RIPA.

To my mind, it's one of the failings of terrorist strategy. It shores up support for the state that is being attacked, and allows them to restrict civil rights further.

Only if the state is allowed to get away with imposing it's own narrative on matters.

 

[Idaho]

By what measure?

I'll tell you, none.

In fact many of the draconian laws imposed because of terrorism manifested clear opposition in the form of public protests, lobbying of MPs etc, from internment all the way to RIPA.



Only if the state is allowed to get away with imposing it's own narrative on matters.

I think you, and most leftists, gravely underestimate the innate right-wing, reactionary nature of the British public.

 

[stethoscope]

I think you, and most leftists, gravely underestimate the innate right-wing, reactionary nature of the British public.

It's what now? Innate?

 

[likesfish]

Well PIRA failed in there stated aim to throw rhe brits out of Ni

 

[butchersapron]

It's what now? Innate?

Everyone else. They are all shit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think you, and most leftists...

Erroneous assumption.

...gravely underestimate the innate right-wing...

Small c conservatism is arguably "innate", rightism isn't.

...reactionary nature of the British public.

Not at all, I merely take into account self-interest. No-one likes laws that can as easily fall on "people like us" as on actual criminals.

 

[Idaho]

A referendum on hanging would attract a strong yes vote.

 

[butchersapron]

A referendum on hanging would attract a strong yes vote.

It's not all about you.

 

[Meltingpot]

I think you've ran together two different posts of mine there. The first one was agreeing with you that historically some groups have theorised a method of activity that they imagine will expose the reality of state power provoking a rebellion against it when this takes place. The second was that the post-war german state had other options than the feeble partial low-level de-nazification program they (in conjunction wit the occupying powers and he developing cold ward) adopted. I wasn't suggesting that the RAF were seeking to expose an inner nazi state (although, they did often see their fight in those terms).

Point taken butch. It was the second one I didn't get - I thought you were saying that the German state even under Willy Brandt was run by poorly (or not at all) denazified ex-Nazis and that was why the RAF were right to oppose it.