Hunger

Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
edited December 2008 in All Encompassing Trip
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    yes.... bobby sands - political prisoner or terrorist?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Both.

    I don't see why government-supported terrorism is considered legitimate warfare but the IRA's terrorism was considered murder. They had a just cause and went about fighting for it the wrong way. Sounds a bit like most wars :) Or more justified than most wars...

    The death of innocents is always wrong but it seems to me that the IRA prisoners should have been allowed special prisoner status. They were no more criminals than any soldier who kills an innocent person in a war.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Both.

    I don't see why government-supported terrorism is considered legitimate warfare but the IRA's terrorism was considered murder. They had a just cause and went about fighting for it the wrong way. Sounds a bit like most wars :)

    this has always been my question. whats makes state sanctioned terrorism acceptable. or more acceptable. perhaps tis the propaganda machines involved on both sides
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    and the thing is state sponsored terrorism is so much more devastating. but its ok for some reason.
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    this has always been my question. whats makes state sanctioned terrorism acceptable. or more acceptable. perhaps tis the propaganda machines involved on both sides
    The way I see it with Sands and the other strikers is, petty criminals who join terrorist groups because they are criminal scum are not generally willing to die for that identity. That in itself suggests that, however misguided and wrong their actions were, their intentions were political and should have been treated as such.

    It's a real joke to me, the contradiction involved in allowing men to die in jails as criminals rather than accept their legitimacy and then letting them all out in 1998 for an easy life. The British goverment had no moral conviction on the subject, just a stubborn political stance.

    But this thread isn't meant to go into all that contentious and potentially dangerous territory :p I haven't seen the film yet but I'm downloading it and wondering what people thought about it?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    ...I haven't seen the film yet but I'm downloading it and wondering what people thought about it?

    im biased. i will most always come down on the side of the irish fighting for a free state. and as with the wind that shakes the barley i cried. which by my measure puts it as a good film.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
Sign In or Register to comment.