It's only terrorism if you have brown skin or a towel on your head

[fuji]

It's impossible to find a "right" side in the Northern Ireland situation.

The British horrendously abused the rights of Catholics in Northern Ireland. The authorities co-operated with paramilitary death squads. The Catholics formed terrorist groups and engaged in bombing campaigns against innocent civilians on the "other side". No one in that conflict comes up smelling like roses.

 

[Aardvark154]

On the Irish Potato Famine sub-thread may I recommend what to date is considered the definitive work on the subject, Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849.

 

[fuji]

While there's no 1 singular, all-encompassing definition of "terrorism", terrorism is usually a tactic used to achieve or promote some other objective.

That sounds like EXACTLY what he was doing.

I wouldn't call him a terrorist any more that I would call the guy who straps on a semtex & screws vest........(I'd call them both murderous idiots). It's the fellows who can convince someone else to strap on that vest, or kamikaze that airplane into a building, who are the terrorists.

The organizers, the command and control, are plainly the bigger fish, and the ones that the authorities should spend the most time tracking down.

I don't think that means their foot soldiers aren't terrorists though. The definition you gave above applies to both those who give the orders, and those who follow because they believe in the cause, as well as to lone wolfs.

 

[Rockslinger]

It's impossible to find a "right" side in the Northern Ireland situation.

There is a "right" side. The indigenous Irish people were happy and prosperous and they bothered no one. THEN CAME THE ENGLISH AND THEIR WILLING PROXY AGENTS.

EDIT: Please do not refer to the IRA as "terrorists". They were and are defending their homeland against a brutal invader and occupier. What would you do if a bunch of thugs invaded your homeland?

 

[fuji]

There is a "right" side. The indigenous Irish people were happy and prosperous and they bothered no one. THEN CAME THE ENGLISH AND THEIR WILLING PROXY AGENTS.

You are right, but then the indigenous Irish people turned to terrorism.

 

[Aardvark154]

The actions of the Irish in America, including the Kennedys, in supporting their brothers and sisters in their ancestral homeland are perfectly understandable.

Save for the fact that most of the Irish in Ireland considered them tone deaf to the realities of both the Republic and Northern Ireland.

 

[fuji]

Please do not refer to the IRA as "terrorists". They were and are defending their homeland against a brutal invader and occupier. What would you do if a bunch of thugs invaded your homeland?

I'm not going to dispute that they had a valid grievance against the British. It's their methods, bombing bars and public places full of innocent civilians, that makes them terorrists. Had they limited themselves to carrying out attacks on government, police, and military targets and avoided killing regular civilians then they would simply be insurgents.

 

[Rockslinger]

You are right, but then the indigenous Irish people turned to terrorism.

I added an EDIT to my post above. It is not terrorism when one defend one's home against a brutal invader.

 

[Rockslinger]

I'm not going to dispute that they had a valid grievance against the British. It's their methods, bombing bars and public places full of innocent civilians, that makes them terorrists. Had they limited themselves to carrying out attacks on government, police, and military targets and avoided killing regular civilians then they would simply be insurgents.

Against a superior miliraty power, one does what one needs to do. The suffering of British civilians pale mightily in comparison to the suffering of Irish civilians.

 

[scouser1]

EDIT: Please do not refer to the IRA as "terrorists". They were and are defending their homeland against a brutal invader and occupier. What would you do if a bunch of thugs invaded your homeland?

would you use the same argument to defend Hamas and Hezbollah?? just wondering.

 

[fuji]

I added an EDIT to my post above. It is not terrorism when one defend one's home against a brutal invader.

Do you grant that to the Taliban as well? It's terrorism whenever your methods involve targetting innocent civilians.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I think someone has talked themself into a corner...

 

[Rockslinger]

would you use the same argument to defend Hamas and Hezbollah?? just wondering.

A valid question. I'll have to give it some careful thought before responding.

 

[fuji]

I think someone has talked themself into a corner...

LOL. I think he just proved the point I was making with the title of this thread...

 

[Aardvark154]

The Irish sub-thread is a great example of myth as history (although doubtless those holding the view don't see it that way). We have combined here the Elizabethan and Jacobite Planting (which were really different things at that) of Ireland and the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1849 stirred well and then filtered through nostalgia and the Troubles in Northern Ireland.


For instance yes food was exported from Ireland during 1845-1849 but it was grain, while Irish tenant farmers ate almost exclusively potatoes, in fact one of the problems during the famine was that the British Government utterly failed to grasp how problems with but a single crop could cause widespread famine. Likewise that although there were landlords who failed to grasp the situation there were others who suffered serious economic damage as they struggled to make sure that their tenants were able to survive.

Again for those interested in the topic read The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849.

 

[Rockslinger]

It's terrorism whenever your methods involve targetting innocent civilians.

Yes it is, and British policies towards Ireland for centuries have targeted innocent indigenous Irish civilians. British policies and laws deprived the indigenous Irish of their human rights and their land and killed more of them than British guns and bombs.

 

[Aardvark154]

It is not terrorism when one defend one's home against a brutal invader.

However, most Irish of all stripes do consider them terrorists.

I'm not going to dispute that they had a valid grievance against the British. . . .carrying out attacks on government, police, and military targets and avoided killing regular civilians.

You presumably do know that the British Army was originaly sent to prevent "loyalist" paramilitaries from murdering "Catholics". However, at the heart of the Troubles the Army indeed became like police at a domestic violence complaint.

 

[Rockslinger]

Likewise that although there were landlords who failed to grasp the situation there were others who suffered serious economic damage has they struggled to make sure that their tenants were able to survive.

These landlords were British and the land that they "own" were stolen from the indigenous Irish at the point of a gun. That is not a myth, but a sad historical fact. Would over one million Irish have starved to death and over one million departed for foreign shores if the British had never set foot in Ireland?

 

[fuji]

Yes it is, and British policies towards Ireland for centuries have targeted innocent indigenous Irish civilians. British policies and laws deprived the indigenous Irish of their human rights and their land and killed more of them than British guns and bombs.

Sure. And then the indigenous Irish civilians turned to terrorism.

 

[fuji]

You presumably do know that the British Army was originaly sent to prevent "loyalist" paramilitaries from murdering "Catholics".

There is a difference between what was described as their official purpose by politicians in London, and what they actually did on the ground when they got there.

British state security forces armed the paramilitaries and colluded with them on attacks on Catholics. In fact many members of the British Army in N. Ireland were also members of the loyalist paramilitary groups.

That is hardly how the police act in a domestic disturbance.