Did IRA Prisoners deserve POW status?

[Arglorand]

Operation Armageddon

what a fitting name

They actually did give it that name with and because of a complete and absolute understanding that it had absolutely no chance of working.

[Imperializt Russia]

While the IRA did some pretty shady shite. The British did some equally horrid things. If British soldiers can shoot civilians and get a free pass than IRA members should have at least been given POW status.

Republican paramilitaries were by definition not official combatants.

[Smithdown and Wavertree]

They actually did give it that name with and because of a complete and absolute understanding that it had absolutely no chance of working.

smart blokes those Irish

[Arglorand]

They actually did give it that name with and because of a complete and absolute understanding that it had absolutely no chance of working.

smart blokes those Irish

I can only assume the plan was drawn up over like 15 minutes out of the desperation of some dude in the government offices down in Ireland at having no ideas how to stop violence in NI.

[Dreadful Sagittarius]

But why?

For a kickoff Paddy is a slur in and of itself.

Paddy is a recognised diminutive of 'Patrick', 'Padraig' and other such names. At the same time, I hardly think it retains any connotations of being a slur given that numerous British and Irish males of varying backgrounds have adopted it, such as Lord Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrat Party, Paddy Belton of the Fine Gael party, and Paddy Daly of the IRA and latterly the Irish National Army.

[Vassenor]

For a kickoff Paddy is a slur in and of itself.

Paddy is a recognised diminutive of 'Patrick', 'Padraig' and other such names. At the same time, I hardly think it retains any connotations of being a slur given that numerous British and Irish males of varying backgrounds have adopted it, such as Lord Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrat Party, Paddy Belton of the Fine Gael party, and Paddy Daly of the IRA and latterly the Irish National Army.

Well my understanding is that "Plastic Paddy" is roughly equivalent in intention and usage to the term "Wigger" (with my apologies for the use of a term containing what actually is a racial slur).

[Fartsniffage]

Paddy is a recognised diminutive of 'Patrick', 'Padraig' and other such names. At the same time, I hardly think it retains any connotations of being a slur given that numerous British and Irish males of varying backgrounds have adopted it, such as Lord Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrat Party, Paddy Belton of the Fine Gael party, and Paddy Daly of the IRA and latterly the Irish National Army.

Well my understanding is that "Plastic Paddy" is roughly equivalent in intention and usage to the term "Wigger" (with my apologies for the use of a term containing what actually is a racial slur).

It's an insult. It's supposed to be a slur.

[HMS Vanguard]

As does the Irish (and every other) government every day, enforcing its laws. At this point the word becomes meaningless.

The IRA had no claim to special status for the simple reason that they were not a sovereign and did not belong to a sovereign. They were attempting to become one, but failed. If they had succeeded, they could have enforced their demand for special status.

That was the point...I am illustrating the meaninglessness of "terrorist". We should stop throwing around this sensationalist label.

Terrorism has a clear meaning: a person or organisation that is not sovereign attempting to exercise the powers of a sovereign.

[New Skaaneland]

What about plastic English? I never really spent more than a few weeks on the islands.

[Napkiraly]

What about plastic English? I never really spent more than a few weeks on the islands.

Not the same. Elastic English could work.

[Paper Sprite]

What about plastic English? I never really spent more than a few weeks on the islands.

Not the same. Elastic English could work.

It doesn't really. Plastic paddy and synthetic Scot are implying a manufactured identity. Elastic doesn't fit the manufactured, fake, intention

[New Skaaneland]

It made me think of latex costumes, but I'm not going into that.

[Napkiraly]

It made me think of latex costumes, but I'm not going into that.

50 Shades of Earl Grey?

[New Skaaneland]

Hm. Perhaps you meant brown?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342636/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It's not all that far from a Skåne flag actually.

[The Two Jerseys]

Not the same. Elastic English could work.

It doesn't really. Plastic paddy and synthetic Scot are implying a manufactured identity. Elastic doesn't fit the manufactured, fake, intention

Engineered English.

[Arana]

That was the point...I am illustrating the meaninglessness of "terrorist". We should stop throwing around this sensationalist label.

Terrorism has a clear meaning: a person or organisation that is not sovereign attempting to exercise the powers of a sovereign.

I don't even think that that's one of the many accepted meanings of terrorism. By that logic, you could argue that the United Nations is a terrorist organization. They aren't a sovereign body, but on occasion act as if they were.

[Tiocfaidh Allah]

It doesn't really. Plastic paddy and synthetic Scot are implying a manufactured identity. Elastic doesn't fit the manufactured, fake, intention

Engineered English.

That one would work. Doesn't roll off the tongue like the others but close enough.

But really, only creepy old American songstresses try to pretend to be English.

[New Skaaneland]

Terrorism has a clear meaning: a person or organisation that is not sovereign attempting to exercise the powers of a sovereign.

I don't even think that that's one of the many accepted meanings of terrorism. By that logic, you could argue that the United Nations is a terrorist organization. They aren't a sovereign body, but on occasion act as if they were.

I find this interesting.

[HMS Vanguard]

Terrorism has a clear meaning: a person or organisation that is not sovereign attempting to exercise the powers of a sovereign.

I don't even think that that's one of the many accepted meanings of terrorism. By that logic, you could argue that the United Nations is a terrorist organization. They aren't a sovereign body, but on occasion act as if they were.

The United Nations only exercises powers that it has been delegated by sovereigns, and it doesn't have independent armed forces, so that exercise of power is in turn more like asking those sovereigns to please implement its decisions.

[Arana]

I don't even think that that's one of the many accepted meanings of terrorism. By that logic, you could argue that the United Nations is a terrorist organization. They aren't a sovereign body, but on occasion act as if they were.

The United Nations only exercises powers that it has been delegated by sovereigns, and it doesn't have independent armed forces, so that exercise of power is in turn more like asking those sovereigns to please implement its decisions.

Well, this is a bit of a stretch, but some of the powers exercised by American states are the same as those exercised by sovereign powers, yet the states themselves are not sovereigns.

Is Texas now a terrorist state?

[Imperializt Russia]

It doesn't really. Plastic paddy and synthetic Scot are implying a manufactured identity. Elastic doesn't fit the manufactured, fake, intention

Engineered English.

That's something to be proud of.

[HMS Vanguard]

The United Nations only exercises powers that it has been delegated by sovereigns, and it doesn't have independent armed forces, so that exercise of power is in turn more like asking those sovereigns to please implement its decisions.

Well, this is a bit of a stretch, but some of the powers exercised by American states are the same as those exercised by sovereign powers, yet the states themselves are not sovereigns.

Is Texas now a terrorist state?

Texas is a sovereign state, bound by its own agreement in a federation, the United States, which collectively exercises some of the sovereign powers of its members. The US and Texas both exercise sovereign powers over the same territory, according to an agreed scheme and with an agreed arbitrator for disputes (the US Supreme Court).

It would have been possible to argue that Texas was a terrorist state during the time it was in secession from the United States, and that the CSA was also a terrorist state.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, this is a bit of a stretch, but some of the powers exercised by American states are the same as those exercised by sovereign powers, yet the states themselves are not sovereigns.

Is Texas now a terrorist state?

Texas is a sovereign state, bound by its own agreement in a federation, the United States, which collectively exercises some of the sovereign powers of its members. The US and Texas both exercise sovereign powers over the same territory, according to an agreed scheme and with an agreed arbitrator for disputes (the US Supreme Court).

It would have been possible to argue that Texas was a terrorist state during the time it was in secession from the United States, and that the CSA was also a terrorist state.

The CSA was far from a terrorist state, they were pretty much on the level fighting the war. Only the bushwhackers could really be considered terrorists.

[Vassenor]

Texas is a sovereign state, bound by its own agreement in a federation, the United States, which collectively exercises some of the sovereign powers of its members. The US and Texas both exercise sovereign powers over the same territory, according to an agreed scheme and with an agreed arbitrator for disputes (the US Supreme Court).

It would have been possible to argue that Texas was a terrorist state during the time it was in secession from the United States, and that the CSA was also a terrorist state.

The CSA was far from a terrorist state, they were pretty much on the level fighting the war. Only the bushwhackers could really be considered terrorists.

Yeah, we need to recognise the difference between insurgency and terrorism. Because by this logic the United States got its start as a terrorist state.

[HMS Vanguard]

Texas is a sovereign state, bound by its own agreement in a federation, the United States, which collectively exercises some of the sovereign powers of its members. The US and Texas both exercise sovereign powers over the same territory, according to an agreed scheme and with an agreed arbitrator for disputes (the US Supreme Court).

It would have been possible to argue that Texas was a terrorist state during the time it was in secession from the United States, and that the CSA was also a terrorist state.

The CSA was far from a terrorist state, they were pretty much on the level fighting the war. Only the bushwhackers could really be considered terrorists.

This was not the position of the US federal government:

WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of the South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

...

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Lincoln addressed the CSA as nothing more than a private mob obstructing the powers of the courts.