IRA, terrorists or freedom fighters?

[doodle]

There is a lot of talk of IRA, terrorism and Congressman Peter King in google news these days. I was wondering do most people see IRA as terrorists or freedom fighters, regardless of Peter King's ties to the?

[Zippyjuan]

Do freedom fighters blow up old aged pensioners participating in a parade to honor war dead? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm

1987: Bomb kills 11 at Enniskillen
A bomb has exploded during a Remembrance Day service at Enniskillen in County Fermanagh, killing 11 people.
It is the highest death toll in a terrorist attack in Northern Ireland for five years.

At least 63 people were injured in the blast, nine of them seriously.

The device went off without warning at 1045 GMT at the town's cenotaph where people had gathered to pay their respects to the war dead.

The bomb is believed to have been hidden in a nearby hall.

It blew out one of the building's walls, showering the area with debris and burying some people in several feet of rubble.

The dead included three married couples, a retired policeman and a nurse.

The Queen has sent her "heartfelt sympathy" to the people of Enniskillen.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said the bombing was "utterly barbaric".

"It's really desecrating the dead and a blot on mankind," Mrs Thatcher said.

[roho76]

Somebody mentioned on here the other day:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

It depends on what side of the line drawn in the sand you are on.

[hazek]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


Damn you, I was going to post that :)

[doodle]

Somebody mentioned on here the other day:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

It depends on what side of the line drawn in the sand you are on.

I may say something like that too when discussing this issue in general. But if I was talking to Peter King on the subject, I would use the term "IRA terrorists".


All opinions are welcome but it was a question for objective observers with some detachment to the situation.

[Danke]

Somebody mentioned on here the other day:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

It depends on what side of the line drawn in the sand you are on.

yeah, but I'm sure our resident government shill will post no wrong doings on the part of the British forces.

[Teaser Rate]

Somebody mentioned on here the other day:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

It depends on what side of the line drawn in the sand you are on.

Deliberately targeting civilians to achieve a political goal makes you a terrorist, there is no gray area about it.

[doodle]

Deliberately targeting civilians to achieve a political goal makes you a terrorist, there is no gray area about it.

Will journalists of Al Jazeera in a hotel covering Iraq war be civilians even if they are sending violent images of war to arab populations that could spread anger in public about a foreign occupation?

Or will that be asymmetric warfare and they will be fair game for military attack?

[Danke]

Deliberately targeting civilians to achieve a political goal makes you a terrorist, there is no gray area about it.

Are politicians "civilians." There are a lot of groups targeted by the US that don't wear a military uniform (i.e. civilians) but we go after them nonetheless. Do you support those actions?

[Teaser Rate]

Will journalists of Al Jazeera in a hotel covering Iraq war be civilians even if they are sending violent images of war to arab populations that could spread anger in public about a foreign occupation?

Yes.

[Teaser Rate]

Are politicians "civilians." There are a lot of groups targeted by the US that don't wear a military uniform (i.e. civilians) but we go after them nonetheless. Do you support those actions?

When there is sufficient intelligence that they pose a significant threat to us, then yes. Terrorist groups =/= civilians.

[Anti Federalist]

Are politicians "civilians." There are a lot of groups targeted by the US that don't wear a military uniform (i.e. civilians) but we go after them nonetheless. Do you support those actions?

That^^^

Shit, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "military targets" in any sense of the word.

[Anti Federalist]

When there is sufficient intelligence that they pose a significant threat to us, then yes. Terrorist groups =/= civilians.

So then you agree with this FEMA instructor that the Founders were, in fact, "terrorists".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio

[Anti Federalist]

Somebody mentioned on here the other day:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

It depends on what side of the line drawn in the sand you are on.

Raises hand...

[doodle]

Yes.

If it is known in advance that a bombing from air or drone attack is certain to kill some innocent civilians with some supected suspects, will the verdict be same or in this case it will be justified?


By same definition, were populations killed in Heroshima, Nagasaki civilians or not?

[Danke]

When there is sufficient intelligence that they pose a significant threat to us, then yes. Terrorist groups =/= civilians.

"pose a significant threat to us" does that include the Amish? Or groups that don't pay income taxes?

[Teaser Rate]

So then you agree with this FEMA instructor that the Founders were, in fact, "terrorists".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio

Using force to accomplish political goals does not make you a terrorist, using force against civilians to accomplish political goals does.

I'm not aware of any founding fathers targeting British civilians on the streets of London with muskets to pressure the Crown into granting the colonies independence.

[roho76]

I may say something like that too when discussing this issue in general. But if I was talking to Peter King on the subject, I would use the term "IRA terrorists".


All opinions are welcome but it was a question for objective observers with some detachment to the situation.

I'm not standing on higher ground and I am being objective. I would argue that we are the terrorists in the middle east, yet we constantly call freedom fighters who want us out of their country, terrorists. Of course to our war hawk leaders all brown people in the desert who read the Koran are terrorists because it's easier for our masters to demonize race/religion than it is to say a certain faction of people (Bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11) are the criminals. This makes it harder to tell the difference between the bad guys and collateral damage and gives our government the excuse to destroy everything in it's path.

[doodle]

roho, I didn't disagree with your reply to the question, I was referring to mysef when I said looking at the line on ground from higher plane.

[Anti Federalist]

Using force to accomplish political goals does not make you a terrorist, using force against civilians to accomplish political goals does.

I'm not aware of any founding fathers targeting British civilians on the streets of London with muskets to pressure the Crown into granting the colonies independence.

The founders and Sons of Liberty routinely used violence against British civil servants, tax collectors, tariff assessors, judges and others.

[Teaser Rate]

If it is known in advance that a bombing from air or drone attack is certain to kill some innocent civilians with some supected suspects, will the verdict be same or in this case it will be justified?


By same definition, were populations killed in Heroshima, Nagasaki civilians or not?

Doing collateral damage to civilians as an unfortunate result of targeting military objectives is different than targeting civilian from the start. Not that it necessarily makes it justified, but there is a difference.

[doodle]

Do freedom fighters blow up old aged pensioners participating in a parade to honor war dead? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm

I'm curious, using same civilian life sanctity standard, what is your view of Heroshima, Nagaski WMD bombings?

[doodle]

Doing collateral damage to civilians as an unfortunate result of targeting military objectives is different than targeting civilian from the start. Not that it necessarily makes it justified, but there is a difference.

So if some terrorists plan an attack with a military objective of defeating the opponent on a population center like city like Nagasaki, it is known with certainity that very large number of civilians will be killed in such WMD attack, it will not be a "terror" attack?

[roho76]

roho, I didn't disagree with your reply to the question, I was referring to mysef when I said looking at the line on ground from higher plane.

Sorry. I misunderstood your reply then. :)

[roho76]

Doing collateral damage to civilians as an unfortunate result of targeting military objectives is different than targeting civilian from the start. Not that it necessarily makes it justified, but there is a difference.

No there isn't. Especially if the civilians are against their governments actions. Would there be a difference in killing Libyan rebels vs. any other civilians while trying to get Gaddafi? No, because we shouldn't be bombing anything. Anything our government does in any other country that kills innocent civilians is terrorism IMO.

[Teaser Rate]

The founders and Sons of Liberty routinely used violence against British civil servants, tax collectors, tariff assessors, judges and others.


So if some terrorists plan an attack with a military objective of defeating the opponent on a population center like city like Nagasaki, it is known with certainity that very large number of civilians will be killed in such WMD attack, it will not be a "terror" attack?

I think a good way of putting things is that terrorist attacks can be defined as war crimes in situations where there isn't a war between military forces.

A war crime's main goal is military while a terrorist attack's main goal is political.

[doodle]

I think a good way of putting things is that terrorist attacks can be defined as war crimes in situations where there isn't a war between military forces.

A war crime's main goal is military while a terrorist attack's main goal is political.

Are you suggesting that deliberately killing millions of innocent civilians with a WMD attack is OK if purpose is military but not NOT OK if purpose is political?

When we over throw a regime and hold elections to get someone else elected as happed in Iraq, our main objective was military or political?

If some insurgent or terrorrist group wants to defeat our military in their country or remove our military base, will that be military or political objective?

[roho76]

I think a good way of putting things is that terrorist attacks can be defined as war crimes in situations where there isn't a war between military forces.

A war crime's main goal is military while a terrorist attack's main goal is political.

So label innocent civilians as enemy combatants and that makes it NOT terrorism?

[roho76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

[Anti Federalist]

I think a good way of putting things is that terrorist attacks can be defined as war crimes in situations where there isn't a war between military forces.

A war crime's main goal is military while a terrorist attack's main goal is political.

So everything that happened from the Battle of Lexington and Concord, 19 April, 1775 up until 4 July, 1776 was terrorism.


“War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” Karl von Clausewitz

[Zippyjuan]

I'm curious, using same civilian life sanctity standard, what is your view of Heroshima, Nagaski WMD bombings?
Those weren't justified either.

[doodle]

There was also a rumor that all political power flew througgh the barrel of a gun. Hence, Iraq has a new political regime with close ties to Iranian radicals now, thans mostly to power of our guns.

[Anti Federalist]

There was also a rumor that all political power flew througgh the barrel of a gun. Hence, Iraq has a new political regime with close ties to Iranian radicals now, thans mostly to power of our guns.

That was Chairman Mao.

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

[doodle]

That was Chairman Mao.

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

Oh ok, that sounds right.

[puppetmaster]

Deliberately targeting civilians to achieve a political goal makes you a terrorist, there is no gray area about it.


decoys happen......staged?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So everything that happened from the Battle of Lexington and Concord, 19 April, 1775 up until 4 July, 1776 was terrorism.

lol, feel free to also include any acts of terrorism concerning abolition of slavery or any events prior to the civil war. :)

[Vessol]

Violence is immoral no matter what unless it is in immediate self defense.

[Xavi1990]

First of all, the british empire has been occupying Ireland for more than 800 years. That's the first point. It's an occupation.

Now, when Ireland was partitioned, the discrimination augmented in northern Ireland, but the brutality declined, but that cannot expiate for the crimes that were committed by the british empire.

Today, people in the south regard the I.R.A with contempt, a classic example is Gerry Adams. He denies any involvement in the I.R.A but his association is to the detriment of his reputation. However, these people - mostly Fianna Fail and Fine Gael supporters - will cite Eamon de Valera or Michael Collins as their heroes. Yet, what Micheal Collins' organisation did was horrific and he brutally murdered people. The same can be said for de Valera who didn't oppose Collins' actions, even though he was above him.

After the Treaty, the civil war broke out, and after that, C'n'G were in power during the free state. They went to war against the I.R.A and brought in internment and banned the I.R.A. They also kicked out members of the army during the Army Mutiny who had fought with Collins.

When de Valera came to power with Fianna Fail "he lifted the ban" and gave many pensions because of their "participation in the war of independence." See, freedom fighters then, but not now? Oh, because they killed a few innocent people? What about all the times they "warned" about bombs going off? I can't imagine Atta ringing up the Towers' head office and telling them to evacuate.

If you can see what I'm getting at here: The I.R.A led Ireland to freedom. It was the I.R.A who got the 26 counties, but a lot of members wanted more. To say that the I.R.A were/are terrorists is like saying that Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist. Yet, de Valera, Collins aren't viewed as terrorists or scumbags, yet they murdered people, just like the I.R.A did after partition.

Now, go to Northern Ireland after Ireland was divided up. Internment was brought in by the government. The RUC and their auxiliaries - the B Specials - enforced this with them brutally and many innocent people were arrested. Then look at gerrymandering. For example, Derry was a Catholic majority, yet because of Gerrymandering, it was impossible for the Catholics to have free and fair elections. The housing lists also discriminated against catholics. And on and on and on.

Now, living under discrimination. Things such as the Coleraine University scandal, Bloody Sunday, and everything else, it was wrong for the I.R.A to begin a murder campaign?

I suppose the people of Chile were wrong to feel antipathy towards America over their role in helping Pinochet into power?

Post is bit messy, simultaneously doing things here, but you get the point.

Wonder how you would feel if the government in America outlawed Ron Paul supporters?

[Xavi1990]

Violence is immoral no matter what unless it is in immediate self defense.

Or if someone comes into your house forcefully(or country), decides to stay and charges you for their stay?

[moostraks]

Or if someone comes into your house forcefully(or country), decides to stay and charges you for their stay?

I wonder why this escapes people when it comes to the IRA?

[oyarde]

That was Chairman Mao.

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

Yes , and he killed more than all , so , his experience means the statement stands.

[oyarde]

The IRA are not what I would consider freedom fighters . They would have taken freedom from others...

[doodle]

Those weren't justified either.

Millions of innocent civilians deliberately targetted and killed with full advanced knowleddge of their demise from that bombing and classification there is "not justified". Interesting.

[Xavi1990]

I wonder why this escapes people when it comes to the IRA?

As I said already, I'm not a nationalist and wouldn't be prepared to die for Ireland, but I will defend the I.R.A when it comes to their policies of why they were fighting. Verily, I only disagree with their left wing tendencies, but the whole Irish Nationalist political spectrum is now left wing.

I can't answer your question though, it seems so logically and easy, doesn't it? Any Americans who think that the I.R.A were bad need to read "Common Sense."

[Xavi1990]

The IRA are not what I would consider freedom fighters . They would have taken freedom from others...

That maybe true, but it still doesn't give the British a right to control the 6 counties.

[ghostrp]

Main reason is that the IRA was a last ditch effort for freedom. They had tried peaceful measures in Ireland and those ended with leaders being excited. Not to mention once the country was divided the orange state refused any human rights to catholics and many non-Protestants, often having the police forces raping and murdering, and nothing be done. They had no vote, or right to own land. They suffered most from the famines and any relief food was taken from them. The statistics of the IRAs campaign tell a story the british press wanted to hide. 32% of those killed by the IRA were civilians, 60% of those killed by the British army were civilians, and 93% of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries were civilians. The IRA didn't target civilians, but loyalist paramilitaries made it a habit or killing anyone who disliked the British. Worst of all these groups where made out to be heros by the British, and had memorials built after them. Once the IRA was brought back to help in the orange state, the british police forces made it a habit of, "The more you shoot the more I will like you" and "You will never get in-trouble for killing anyone. It's okay if you kill innocents, because if you kill enough, your bound to get one" (one being an IRA member). To make it worse people of Ireland were arrested for anything that promoted anti-british ideals. Often being executed with no proof. Peaceful protesters were often shoot, for no good cause and the soldiers were never taken to court over it. Most other countries besides a few Americans and Scots know what we went through. So please keep an open mind when we call the freedom fighters. And plus most bombings were called in 50 minutes ahead of time to prevent casualties, they were ment to bring the publics attention to the Irish, never to harm. I really wish Ron Paul would give his statement on what he thinks of it all, I would love to hear it. He seems like a very open minded person.

[otherone]

Targeting civilians is not, in of itself, terrorism.
Terrorism is a political, not a military tactic. The purpose of terrorism is to alter the relationship civilians have with the State.
This is unfortunately why OBL won his war on America.

[Anti Federalist]

Too many fallen in this thread.

Depressing thread is depressing.

[NidStyles]

Main reason is that the IRA was a last ditch effort for freedom. They had tried peaceful measures in Ireland and those ended with leaders being excited. Not to mention once the country was divided the orange state refused any human rights to catholics and many non-Protestants, often having the police forces raping and murdering, and nothing be done. They had no vote, or right to own land. They suffered most from the famines and any relief food was taken from them. The statistics of the IRAs campaign tell a story the british press wanted to hide. 32% of those killed by the IRA were civilians, 60% of those killed by the British army were civilians, and 93% of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries were civilians. The IRA didn't target civilians, but loyalist paramilitaries made it a habit or killing anyone who disliked the British. Worst of all these groups where made out to be heros by the British, and had memorials built after them. Once the IRA was brought back to help in the orange state, the british police forces made it a habit of, "The more you shoot the more I will like you" and "You will never get in-trouble for killing anyone. It's okay if you kill innocents, because if you kill enough, your bound to get one" (one being an IRA member). To make it worse people of Ireland were arrested for anything that promoted anti-british ideals. Often being executed with no proof. Peaceful protesters were often shoot, for no good cause and the soldiers were never taken to court over it. Most other countries besides a few Americans and Scots know what we went through. So please keep an open mind when we call the freedom fighters. And plus most bombings were called in 50 minutes ahead of time to prevent casualties, they were ment to bring the publics attention to the Irish, never to harm. I really wish Ron Paul would give his statement on what he thinks of it all, I would love to hear it. He seems like a very open minded person.

Paul would probably tell you that he understood the argument, but does not agree with the means. However seeing as he is not part of the situation, he would have no real say on it, as that would be him interfering with another person's rights. Most likely he would condemn the acts of violence, but want to reach out to the IRA and help them find a peaceful means.

This is me interpreting his Voluntaryist stance on most issues of that matter. He's more likely to push the peaceful solution until self-defense is required.

Being that I do not know the situation myself, I was too young when the IRA was really active, I can not comment directly.

I will say that the British certainly have a history of screwing things up for others. Even their own country is essentially a prison for the non-party members/nobility.

[jmdrake]

A mural in Northern Ireland.

http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/plo.ira.jpg

Enough said. Congressman Peter King is a terrorist.

[GrahamUK]

How many of you are actually aware of Ireland's and the IRA's ties to Hitler during WW2?

The IRA helped German U-boat crews while they were out hunting down trans-Atlantic convoys going between The US and Britain, Its well known they helped resupply these crews to allow them to stay out longer.. They also left lights on to help guide Germans bombers into Belfast so they could find their targets with ease..

Oh and they also harboured nazi war criminals after the war..

Ireland is its own nation, in its own right, they have what they want. The people in the North have VOTED, recently to remain with the UK and won an overwhelming majority..

Also, I happen to be Scottish and we too live under English rule and have had our problems over the years but we're not killin each other..

I could go on and on about this but the fact remains that they murdered innocent woman and children in both mainland Britain and Ulster..Whats going on is basically the south are fighting for unification of ALL Ireland and the Protestant majority in the north are fighting to defend their FREEDOMS and their rights to remain with the United Kingdom under their own devolved parliament.

[Pericles]

Terrorists - you can make your point without wanton murder.

[Pericles]

So everything that happened from the Battle of Lexington and Concord, 19 April, 1775 up until 4 July, 1776 was terrorism.

I have a slight disagreement here. Once uniformed militias took the field, there were clearly identified as combatants, thus a rebellion, which I would not classify as terrorism, in that the attacker is not using the civil population to serve as a cover from which to launch attacks, and generally (admitting there was some brutal partisan activity) both side stuck to the customs of war.