http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

harry wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0..._1529282.html?
ref=uk&ir=UK&icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-ws-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

Will you stop posting your off-topic **** here you doddery old ****.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

harry wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

Never cross an Italian solar panel salesman.

Especially if he has a godfather in Sicily


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In article , A.Lee
writes
harry wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0..._1529282.html?
ref=uk&ir=UK&icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-ws-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3
D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

Will you stop posting your off-topic **** here you doddery old ****.

When you're a sad lonely old ****, who's been drummed out of every other
group they've attempted to join, what else is there left for you to do?
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

harry wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

No, not at all. Italy is running at considerably fewer bomb detonations
than the UK per decade, there are no terrorist cells bombing citizens and
Italy's cities are, unlike England, not in flames. There is a problem
with organised crime at about the same scale as organised crime in the UK.
The difference is that the Italian police do something about it and
Zitalian citizens are aware of it. The Brits just stick their heads in the
sand and pretend that there's no such thing as organised crime in the UK.

Perhaps if your life wasn't sad and empty you would be able to set aside
being a racist, homophobic, xenophobic bigot.

harry wrote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D108740

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
current problems, it appears to just be another mafia
bombing given that the school is named after the
wife of one of the anti mafia judges who was himself
blown to bits by the mafia many years go now, Falcone.

On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

The difference is that the Italian police do something about it and
Zitalian citizens are aware of it.

I've heard from a couple of Italians. Perhaps it's their North-South
bias, but they think the south of the country is irretrevably corrupt,
Mafia-run and sinking in a sea of its own making.
One of them sighs wistfully for the days of Il Duce, even though he's
far too young to have known them.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

The difference is that the Italian police do something about it and
Zitalian citizens are aware of it.

I've heard from a couple of Italians. Perhaps it's their North-South
bias, but they think the south of the country is irretrevably corrupt,
Mafia-run and sinking in a sea of its own making.

Think S****horpe x 20.

One of them sighs wistfully for the days of Il Duce, even though he's
far too young to have known them.

He ran the North, the Mafia ran the south,
Both, badly.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:22:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

One of them sighs wistfully for the days of Il Duce, even though he's
far too young to have known them.

He ran the North, the Mafia ran the south,
Both, badly.

Beware, some propaganda coming up...
From the mouth/keyboard of another...
Il Duce sent the troops in, rounded up the Mafia leaders, strung them
up and shot others. He made things too hot for them and the survivors
got out and went to the US. The south of the country, and especially
Sicily, was mostly Mafia free until the Yanks enlisted their help for
the invasion of Sicily.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:22:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

One of them sighs wistfully for the days of Il Duce, even though he's
far too young to have known them.
He ran the North, the Mafia ran the south,
Both, badly.

Beware, some propaganda coming up...
From the mouth/keyboard of another...
Il Duce sent the troops in, rounded up the Mafia leaders, strung them
up and shot others. He made things too hot for them and the survivors
got out and went to the US. The south of the country, and especially
Sicily, was mostly Mafia free until the Yanks enlisted their help for
the invasion of Sicily.

well they couldn't have been mafia free if the yanks enlisted them,
could they?



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Rod Speed wrote:

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
current problems, it appears to just be another mafia
bombing given that the school is named after the
wife of one of the anti mafia judges who was himself
blown to bits by the mafia many years go now, Falcone.

I'm in Italy at the moment,
and the opinion of those who are expert in these matters
seems to be that it is not at all typical of Mafia outrages.
There has been an enormous reaction to the murder,
and it would not be in the Mafia's interest
to cause such local hostility,
since they rely on sympathy or at least tolerance
from the local community.

All countries in Europe suffer from random lunatic attacks,
eg Breivik in Norway, or school shootings in the UK.
I don't think Italy is more or less subject to these.

Re the Mafia, I think recent governments,
including those of Berlusconi,
have been taking strong and effective action.
Mere "association with the Mafia" is a serious offence,
and many politicians and others have been imprisoned for this.
I think the Mafia, at least in its historic form,
is coming to an end, as the social context it developed in
is disappearing.

The fact that the school in Brindisi (in the south)
is named after the murdered Mafia investigator, Falcone,
simply reflects the fact that he is almost universally regarded
as a hero; I doubt if it was relevant to the bombing.
This week is the 20th anniversary of the murder of Falcone and his wife,
and there many memorial manifestations, particularly in the south.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I've heard from a couple of Italians. Perhaps it's their North-South
bias, but they think the south of the country is irretrevably corrupt,
Mafia-run and sinking in a sea of its own making.

Think S****horpe x 20.

You don't half talk ****.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

The difference is that the Italian police do something about it and
Zitalian citizens are aware of it.

I've heard from a couple of Italians. Perhaps it's their North-South
bias, but they think the south of the country is irretrevably corrupt,
Mafia-run and sinking in a sea of its own making.

Largely complete ********. The Lombards are ludicrously predjudiced
against their fellow countryment and the Northern League in particular
are simply *******s, among whom harry would feel at home.

One of them sighs wistfully for the days of Il Duce, even though he's
far too young to have known them.

There you go, that's the sort of moronic right-wing tosser that you get
in the north.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 01:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

well they couldn't have been mafia free if the yanks enlisted them,
could they?

Look up Lucky Luciano.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 14:37:05 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Largely complete ********. The Lombards are ludicrously predjudiced
against their fellow countryment and the Northern League in particular
are simply *******s, among whom harry would feel at home.

Not too different from the UK, then.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:44:28 +0200, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

The fact that the school in Brindisi (in the south)
is named after the murdered Mafia investigator, Falcone,
simply reflects the fact that he is almost universally regarded
as a hero; I doubt if it was relevant to the bombing.

Initial reports suggested that it was a mis-fire that exploded on the
way to some other target.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 14:37:05 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Largely complete ********. The Lombards are ludicrously predjudiced
against their fellow countryment and the Northern League in particular
are simply *******s, among whom harry would feel at home.

Not too different from the UK, then.

No not much different at all, except that to understand Italian politics
it's helpful to turn the country upside down so that the North of Italy
becomes equivalent to the South of England.

That sets the wealth, prejudice and general chav distribution to about
what it is in the UK.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2012 01:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

well they couldn't have been mafia free if the yanks enlisted them,
could they?

Look up Lucky Luciano.

I dont need to.

BUT he had contacts over there, so they could NOT have all been shot my
Mussolini.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Things seem to be going downhill rapidly in Italy.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
current problems, it appears to just be another mafia
bombing given that the school is named after the
wife of one of the anti mafia judges who was himself
blown to bits by the mafia many years go now, Falcone.

I'm in Italy at the moment,
and the opinion of those who are expert in these matters

Who have in fact been completely wrong countless times in the past...

seems to be that it is not at all typical of Mafia outrages.

Sure, but there have been plenty of other mafia outrages
that have not been at all typical in the past too.

There has been an enormous reaction to
the murder, and it would not be in the Mafia's
interest to cause such local hostility,

There have been plenty of other mafia outrages
in the past that have got just that sort of reaction
from the general public.

They have their incompetent fools, just like every other group has.

since they rely on sympathy or at least
tolerance from the local community.

Have fun explaining the other previous mafia outrages
that clearly havent actually given a damn about that at all.

All countries in Europe suffer from random lunatic attacks,

You don't see too many as pointless as that particular one.

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

His targets were what he stupidly believed were
doing what he objected to. With inevitable collateral
damage, most obviously with the initial bombing.

Hard to see what the point of bombing that particular
school was except that it was named after the wife of
Falcone who is known to have been blown to bits by
the mafia because of his anti mafia activitys.

or school shootings in the UK.

They are rather different to bombings.

I don't think Italy is more or less subject to these.

They are actually. We havent seen much in the
way of moslem terrorist activity at all and much
less political bombing than britain has seen with
the irish particularly and moslems as well.

Re the Mafia, I think recent governments,
including those of Berlusconi,
have been taking strong and effective action.

Not really. There have been **** all of the mafia jailed for life etc.

Mere "association with the Mafia" is a serious offence,

That's just plain wrong in the sense of actual convictions achieved.

and many politicians and others have been imprisoned for this.

Very few have in fact.

I think the Mafia, at least in its historic form, is coming to an end,

Not a chance in the worst of Italy.

And even if it was, its far from clear that we wont
see some more outrages before they die completely.

as the social context it developed in is disappearing.

Like hell it is in the worst of italy.

The fact that the school in Brindisi (in the south) is
named after the murdered Mafia investigator, Falcone,

Its actually named after his wife, not him.
Presumably because it's a girl's school.

simply reflects the fact that he is almost universally regarded as a hero;

Not by the mafia he isnt.

I doubt if it was relevant to the bombing.

We'll see...

This week is the 20th anniversary of the murder of Falcone and his wife,

Odd coincidence that a school named after them is bombed at that time
then...

and there many memorial manifestations, particularly in the south.

And the school named after them is bombed. Tad of a coincidence...

Rod Speed wrote:

I'm in Italy at the moment,
and the opinion of those who are expert in these matters

Who have in fact been completely wrong countless times in the past...

I don't agree.
The anti-mafia police seem to me to know pretty well what is going on,
and to be reasonably efficient at dealing with it.

The head of the national anti-mafia brigade, Piero Grasso,
said today,
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_m...ba-a-brindisi-
due-persone-in-questura_f0015d70-a238-11e1-bfa6-752e370d244b.shtml
"It seems possible to exclude Mafia involvement.
It appears to be an isolated act,
though a political element cannot be ignored,
and neither can the possibility that others may be involved."

All countries in Europe suffer from random lunatic attacks,

You don't see too many as pointless as that particular one.

The Dunblane and Hungerford murders in the UK
seem to me just as pointless.
In this case we don't know the killer's purported motive.

Personally, I don't want to hear the justification of anyone
who enters a school and murders children at random.

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Re the Mafia, I think recent governments,
including those of Berlusconi,
have been taking strong and effective action.

Not really. There have been **** all of the mafia jailed for life etc.

A very large number of men have been given long sentences for Mafia crimes.
In one case alone, at the end of 2011,
over 100 men were sentenced to 10 years of more in prison.
Incidentally Mafia prisoners are treated particularly harshly
under Article 41-bis, which has been denounced by Amnesty as inhumane.

Last month the Camorra boss in Naples and 4 of his henchmen
were given life sentences.

Mere "association with the Mafia" is a serious offence,

That's just plain wrong in the sense of actual convictions achieved.

I don't know what you mean.
An MP, Nicola Cosetino, was arrested earlier this year for Mafia links,
and is currently under house arrest awaiting trial.
Many local councillors have been tried for this offence.
I believe a prison sentence is mandatory if they are found guilty.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I'm in Italy at the moment,
and the opinion of those who are expert in these matters

Who have in fact been completely wrong countless times in the past...

I don't agree.

Try telling that to Amanda Knox, don't be TOO surprised
when her and her parents just laugh in your face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

The anti-mafia police seem to me to know pretty well what is going on,

It isnt them that have made that claim.

and to be reasonably efficient at dealing with it.

Have fun explaining the countless mafiosi who have never been jailed.

Countless mafia murders have never had anyone convicted for them.

The head of the national anti-mafia brigade, Piero Grasso, said today,
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_m...ba-a-brindisi-
due-persone-in-questura_f0015d70-a238-11e1-bfa6-752e370d244b.shtml
"It seems possible

Wota stunningly unambiguous declaration...

to exclude Mafia involvement. It appears to be an
isolated act, though a political element cannot be ignored,
and neither can the possibility that others may be involved."

And he gave no basis for that waffle.

All countries in Europe suffer from random lunatic attacks,

You don't see too many as pointless as that particular one.

The Dunblane and Hungerford murders
in the UK seem to me just as pointless.

They werent even bombings.

In this case we don't know the killer's purported motive.

So it isnt even possible to rule out the mafia.

Personally, I don't want to hear the justification of anyone
who enters a school and murders children at random.

It is relevant to whether the mafia is involved.

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;

They clearly werent completely random. Those killed were
mostly killed for a reason, with the obvious exception of
the collateral damage from the bomb which is inevitable
with any bomb in a public place like that.

there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

That is a completely silly claim,

Re the Mafia, I think recent governments,
including those of Berlusconi, have been
taking strong and effective action.

Not really. There have been **** all of the mafia jailed for life etc.

A very large number of men have been
given long sentences for Mafia crimes.

Only a tiny subset of all mafiosi.

In one case alone, at the end of 2011, over 100
men were sentenced to 10 years of more in prison.

Only a tiny subset of all mafiosi and it remains to be seen
how many of them will actually spend how long in jail.

There have been plenty of examples of mafiosi
who have spent **** all time in jail even for murder.

Incidentally Mafia prisoners are treated
particularly harshly under Article 41-bis,

And not much of that actually happens in practice.

which has been denounced by Amnesty as inhumane.

More fool Amnesty. Those fools have never had a clue.

Last month the Camorra boss in Naples and
4 of his henchmen were given life sentences.

Only a tiny subset of all mafiosi.

Mere "association with the Mafia" is a serious offence,

That's just plain wrong in the sense of actual convictions achieved.

I don't know what you mean.

That **** all have ever got serious jail time for that particular offense
alone.

An MP, Nicola Cosetino, was arrested earlier this year for
Mafia links, and is currently under house arrest awaiting trial.

And it remains to be seen if she is actually convicted,
let alone gets serious jail time for that alleged crime.

Many local councillors have been tried for this offence.

And **** all have ended up with serious jail time for that particular crime.

I believe a prison sentence is mandatory if they are found guilty.

You're wrong.

On Mon, 21 May 2012 02:26:52 +0200, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 02:26:52 +0200, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

eg Breivik in Norway,
There was some warped 'logic' in that one.
I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

+1
His mindset saw socialism as a threat to his national culture, and
therefore a demonstration against a Labour party camp and the government
offices was the rationale, since he considered the camp to be little
more than a political indoctrination centre.

He is completely logical in his worldview: Only the metaphysics of it
are awry, by most peoples standards. Most people do not consider
socialism to be such and immediate and present danger that it is
worthwhile killing any socialists you can find.

No matter how much one may wish to :-)


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 02:26:52 +0200, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

I agree. If you listen to the *******, he is quite lucid. He seemed to have
perceived a set of problems in his world view and concluded the actions he
chose were a logical response. He then went to some extranordinary lengths
to prepare for the fateful day.

Brevik seems to be missing two things that would prevent a normal rational
person from doing similar:

1) A sense of ethics that would be compatible with the majority of humanity;

2) The realisation that sporadic[1] terrorism usually fails to achieve the
stated long term goals (if any)


This is quite the opposite of Michael Ryan who had the means at hand and
just appeared to snap.


[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the IRA did
eventually achieve something - if only because it was impossible for anyone
to continue to ignore the problem forever.

--
Tim Watts

On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:49:38 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the IRA did
eventually achieve something - if only because it was impossible for anyone
to continue to ignore the problem forever.

As long as the IRA continued to bomb stuff in NI and occasionally
cause carnage in the UK mainland, the Govt and the people of the UK
could grit their teeth and carry on.
When the first economic [1] bomb at the Edgware flyover [2] went off,
the game shifted. Economic targets from then on proved much more
effective at getting attention.



[1] I recall mention was made of the damage and chaos caused by the
traffic holdups and diversions cost something like £4bn.

[2] I always suspected that was an accident - under the flyover was
where the Transit broke down.

Tim Watts wrote:

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

I agree. If you listen to the *******, he is quite lucid.

Lots of lunatics sound lucid.

I hate Frenchmen.
Germans are nice to Frenchmen,
so I am going to kill a lot of Germans.
No, wait a minute, I'm not going to kill Germans.
I'm going to kill Dutchmen, because Dutch sounds like Deutsch.
Some logic.

This is quite the opposite of Michael Ryan who had the means at hand and
just appeared to snap.

We've no idea why Mr Ryan killed all those people,
since he also killed himself (as Breivik probably meant to do).
Maybe Mr Ryan had a motive you would consider rational.

[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the IRA
did eventually achieve something - if only because it was impossible for
anyone to continue to ignore the problem forever.

The use of the same term, "terrorism", to cover Breivik and the IRA
just confuses the issue, in my view.

I agree that the IRA/Sinn Fein did achieve something,
namely a share in power.
But they didn't achieve their purported aim, a united Ireland.

Incidentally, we don't know why the Brindisi bomber
wanted to murder schoolgirls.
I think the Italian police will catch him, and then we will know
how many marks he gets in your logic exam.



--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

+1
His mindset saw socialism as a threat to his national culture, and
therefore a demonstration against a Labour party camp and the government
offices was the rationale, since he considered the camp to be little more
than a political indoctrination centre.

He is completely logical in his worldview: Only the metaphysics of it are
awry, by most peoples standards. Most people do not consider socialism to
be such and immediate and present danger that it is worthwhile killing any
socialists you can find.

And it wasnt just socialism he objects too, it was allowing
hordes of moslems and other immigrants into his country
etc and letting them be parasites on the welfare system.

He does have a point that many agree with. Its just how he
expressed that point of view thats the problem, not the view itself.

No matter how much one may wish to :-)

Tim Watts wrote
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Timothy Murphy wrote

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

I agree. If you listen to the *******, he is quite lucid.

Not that that proves much. Someone I have known personally for
a couple of decades now ended up so far out of his ****ing tree
that he had to be involuntarily committed to the loony bin at least
3 times, the last two with him arguing with the magistrate about that.

What was so striking was how lucid he was at the time, even when
he quite literally rang me from the loony bin to ask me which DVD
player he should get his wife to buy for him that was region free so
he could watch his DVD collection in the loony bin.

He seemed to have perceived a set of problems in his world view

And many agree with him on that, particularly about immigrants to his
country.

and concluded the actions he chose were a logical response. He then
went to some extranordinary lengths to prepare for the fateful day.

Yeah, that that was done quite effectively too.

Brevik seems to be missing two things that would
prevent a normal rational person from doing similar:

1) A sense of ethics that would be compatible with the majority of
humanity;

Don't really agree with this one. Plenty have done similar
stuff in wartime when told to do it. The only real difference
in his case is that he decided to do it for himself. Not really
that different to Harris with firestorm bombing for example
or with with Speer and slave labor either.

2) The realisation that sporadic[1] terrorism usually
fails to achieve the stated long term goals (if any)

Even that's rather iffy. Much of the terrorism seen when
getting colonial powers to give up on their colonys did
work pretty well, most obviously with the bombing of
the King David Hotel in Palestine etc.

He just could grasp the difference between those situations
where terrorism can work and what he objected to govt
policy wise with immigrants where it cant work.

This is quite the opposite of Michael Ryan who
had the means at hand and just appeared to snap.

I've never really bought that 'just snap' line.

Most striking with the Port Arthur executioner Martin
Bryant who did something similar to what Brevik did on the
island but without any real spelt out rationale for doing it.

[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the
IRA did eventually achieve something - if only because it was
impossible for anyone to continue to ignore the problem forever.

And that also happened in plenty of other colonys.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Tim Watts wrote

[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the
IRA did eventually achieve something - if only because it was
impossible for anyone to continue to ignore the problem forever.

As long as the IRA continued to bomb stuff in NI and occasionally
cause carnage in the UK mainland, the Govt and the people of the
UK could grit their teeth and carry on.

Sure, but in some of the colonys, and with situations like the bombing
of the King David Hotel, there wasn't any point in staying and with the
immense cost of staying etc. Terrorism has worked in those situations.

When the first economic [1] bomb at the Edgware flyover
[2] went off, the game shifted. Economic targets from then
on proved much more effective at getting attention.

It isnt really about getting attention.

[1] I recall mention was made of the damage and chaos caused
by the traffic holdups and diversions cost something like £4bn.

[2] I always suspected that was an accident - under
the flyover was where the Transit broke down.

Timothy Murphy wrote
Tim Watts wrote

eg Breivik in Norway,

There was some warped 'logic' in that one.

I don't agree;
there was no rational connection between his views and his acts.

Bull****. There was twisted rationale, but rationale nonetheless.

I agree. If you listen to the *******, he is quite lucid.

Lots of lunatics sound lucid.

Lots of lunatics are lucid. But Brevik does
have some warped 'logic' for what he did.

So did those who did pogroms.

They cant have all been barking mad.

I hate Frenchmen.
Germans are nice to Frenchmen,
so I am going to kill a lot of Germans.

That aint what Brevik was about.

No, wait a minute, I'm not going to kill Germans.
I'm going to kill Dutchmen, because Dutch sounds
like Deutsch.
Some logic.

Sure, but that's nothing like what Brevik was about.

This is quite the opposite of Michael Ryan who
had the means at hand and just appeared to snap.

We've no idea why Mr Ryan killed all those people,
since he also killed himself (as Breivik probably meant to do).

Nope, Brevik assumed that the cops would gun him
down, not give him the opportunity to put his hands up.

That's a reasonable assumption.

Maybe Mr Ryan had a motive you would consider rational.

We'll obviously never know now.

We do know that Martin Bryant never did, because he's still around.

[1] Ireland being a little different in that whilst the UK Gov claimed
terrorism would never be allowed to achieve anything, in effect the
IRA did eventually achieve something - if only because it was
impossible for anyone to continue to ignore the problem forever.

The use of the same term, "terrorism", to cover Breivik
and the IRA just confuses the issue, in my view.

Not really. They are both examples of well thought out
activity with what they believe is a reason to do that.

bin Laden in spades.

I agree that the IRA/Sinn Fein did achieve something,
namely a share in power.
But they didn't achieve their purported aim, a united Ireland.

Sure, but that's just as true of what the allies got out of WW2 too.

It isnt always feasible to get all of what you want.

Plenty of the ex colonys that used terrorism to get the colonial
power out didn't end up with what they wanted in the sense of
a viable operation either. Most obviously with India.

Incidentally, we don't know why the Brindisi
bomber wanted to murder schoolgirls.

But that may become clearer if he gets caught.

I think the Italian police will catch him,

We'll see...

and then we will know how many marks he gets in your logic exam.

Not necessarily, most obviously if he ends up dead in the process.

Rod Speed wrote:

The use of the same term, "terrorism", to cover Breivik
and the IRA just confuses the issue, in my view.

Not really. They are both examples of well thought out
activity with what they believe is a reason to do that.

Like catching the bus to go to work?

In my view there is something wrong with Breivik's brain.
(That doesn't mean he is mad in the legal sense.)
There is nothing wrong with Gerry Adam's brain.

I don't think one should even listen to child-murderers
explaining their motives.
The norwegian court was absurdly generous to Breivik.
I don't think the Nazis at Nuremberg were invited to lecture
on the evils of Jewry.

They should just have determined whether or not
he committed these crimes, which would have taken no time at all
since he admitted responsibility, and then sentenced him.
He didn't offer any rational defence.

The Provisional IRA is a completely different kettle of fish,
and to consider them under the same heading
is bound to lead to confusion.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The use of the same term, "terrorism", to cover Breivik
and the IRA just confuses the issue, in my view.

Not really. They are both examples of well thought out
activity with what they believe is a reason to do that.

Like catching the bus to go to work?

Nothing like with what Brevik did.

In my view there is something wrong with Breivik's brain.

Sure, but that's a different matter entirely to your original
objection to what I said about his activity having a warped
'logic' to it, which everyone else who has chosen to
comment so far has agreed with me about.

That's true in spades of that fool bin Laden.

Neither are anything like Martin Bryant or Ryan.

(That doesn't mean he is mad in the legal sense.)
There is nothing wrong with Gerry Adam's brain.

I don't believe that stuff is binary. It's a continuum basically.

You can claim that there is nothing wrong with Maggy Thatcher's
brain too, and many would disagree with you on that.

Churchill in spades, particularly on the empire etc.

I don't think one should even listen to
child-murderers explaining their motives.

We do need to understand why people like Martin Bryant
and Brevik do what they do, if only so that we can at least
attempt to work out who might do something like that
before they do it, or make it harder for people like that
to do that sort of thing by understanding what drives them.

It would be useful to know just how likely that sort of
thing is, even just how likely copy cat stuff is likely to be.

We do need to know just what drives the sort of fools
that did the sort of bombings that have been seen in
britain etc, particularly when its not the irish where
the motivation is pretty obvious.

The norwegian court was absurdly generous to Breivik.

That's the nature of modern scandinavian systems.

I don't think the Nazis at Nuremberg were
invited to lecture on the evils of Jewry.

Sure, but that wasn't something that happened
out of the blue with a particular individual.

It is useful to at least consider what bin Laden claimed
he was about and to compare that with the evidence
we have about what he actually got up to etc.

They should just have determined whether
or not he committed these crimes,

They didn't need to do that, that was obvious
particularly with the shootings on the island
and he confessed to both outrages anyway.

which would have taken no time at all since
he admitted responsibility, and then sentenced
him. He didn't offer any rational defence.

And that last isnt possible to decide without listening
to what he had to say about why he did what he did.

The Provisional IRA is a completely different kettle of fish,

Yes, but that's much more because it involved a hell of
a lot more people, with a 'cause' that was a hell of a lot
more obvious too.

bin Laden is actually a lot closer to Brevik, although
again, he didn't do much personally himself.

Similar very warped 'logic' behind why he did it tho.

and to consider them under the same
heading is bound to lead to confusion.

Not so much with bin Laden tho.

And I didn't bring up the IRA anyway.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:52:18 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

When the first economic [1] bomb at the Edgware flyover
[2] went off, the game shifted. Economic targets from then
on proved much more effective at getting attention.

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

When the first economic [1] bomb at the Edgware flyover
[2] went off, the game shifted. Economic targets from then
on proved much more effective at getting attention.

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

That aint what the IRA is about.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:15:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

That aint what the IRA is about.

That was.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

That aint what the IRA is about.

That was.

Pigs arse it ever was.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:22:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

That aint what the IRA is about.

That was.

Pigs arse it ever was.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
That particular incident was.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It isnt really about getting attention.

Of course it was.

That aint what the IRA is about.

That was.

Pigs arse it ever was.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

That particular incident was.

Wrong, as always.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 07:42:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Ah, standard response.
I suspect you're a ****ing autoresponder.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2012 07:42:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Ah, standard response.
I suspect you're a ****ing autoresponder.

Sounds plausible to me. In any event, he/she/it types ********.
You do realise that you're now plonked?
LOL