June 11, 2003

And now for something completely stupid

Not only do we have to suffer through the revisionist liars and their "where are the WMDs" crap, now I have to read some utter moron who calls himself "Bon Scott"* say in the comments to this post on the latest atrocity in Israel perpetrated by baby-and-grandma-killers Hamas, that -- here, you read it:

Tim says: "Hamas, like all terrorist organisations, is destined to lose..."

Interesting. Have the IRA lost then? Must have missed that newsflash while I was having a ciggie outside the rehearsal room.

When someone pointed out that the IRA's stated objectives (a united Ireland, Brits out of Eire, all Protestants gone) Mr. "Scott" replied:

On the other hand, the IRA has a seat at the political table and had its bombers and murderers released from prison.

So they haven't lost, either.

Would the peace process have been quicker if the IRA hadn't been blowing things and people up? I have no idea- I'm just a dead rock singer, remember - but in any case the IRA is still kicking on as a viable political force.

"Viable political force"? I like that. Yeah, they got some recognition -- too much as it is, but the only reason they got it is because they finally agreed to stop blowing people up. Hamas et al have not only not agreed to stop killing people (I'd say Jews, but they don't seem too reluctant to kill everyone else, so it's "people"), they brag about their intentions of killing more people.

Anyway, here is what I said in Tim's comments:

Hey, Fake Dead Rockstar -- how about thinking that maybe if the IRA hadn't been so busy blowing people up they'd have gotten what they want sooner rather than later? You don't know much about history, do you? [AD HOMINEM ATTACK] Are you stupid or do you just play an idiot on MTV? [/AD HOMINEM ATTACK]

How many centuries have the Irish been fighting with the English? How many decades have the IRA (who are a bunch of fascist communists who use the religious divide as a convenient cover for their true intentions) been blowing up kiddies and grandmas in NI?

*Oh, and his cute "I'm just a dead rockstar" shtick is such a dead joke that it doesn't even stink anymore. It's a dried-up mummy of a joke. No -- a fossil.

Posted by Andrea Harris at June 11, 2003 11:23 PM

Didn't Bon Scott choke on his own vomit? And isn't this pretender doing the same thing, logically?

Posted by: David Perron at June 12, 2003 at 08:57 AM

Sorry to find the nit and pick it, but technically the Irish weren't fighting with the "English", they were fighting with the British. Most of the settlers in Northern Ireland were from Scotland, and indeed most of them consider themselves to be either Irish or British-Irish.

And the IRA agreed to stop blowing up British people. They're still regulars on the punishment beating front when it comes to their own.

Posted by: Emily at June 12, 2003 at 10:51 AM

There are two other fundamental differences between the IRA and Hamas which explain why a negotiated peace is possible in Ireland:

1) IRA bombers don't seek their own martyrdom as suicide bombers

2) The goal of the IRA was to get the British out of Ireland, not to exterminate all non-Irish.

My own firm opinion is that there will never be peace in the mideast until all of the radical Islamists have been killed. My fear is that they will take all the non-Islamist Muslims with them.

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 12, 2003 at 12:29 PM

Well, Emily, if you want to go back far enough the Irish were specifically fighting the English. I mean, wasn't it Henry II who first laid claim to being Ireland's overlord and gave it to John just so he wouldn't be "Lackland" (Richard got England, Geoffrey got Anjou)? Although I suppose one could draw the same distinction and say these people weren't English either: they were Normans and/or Angevins.

Posted by: David Jaroslav at June 13, 2003 at 04:06 PM