Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'
Options
Comments
-
There were no Irish there; there were Northern Irish, it being a state that existed before the Irish Free State. If people chose to emigrate, well and good. We were British until 1922, the north became a separate entity in 1920, to the benefit of the majority there.
And frankly, it is about money. The British don't want to remain in the north; the Irish don't really want the north; the Northern Irish wish to remain part of Britain, so the British government recognises its duty to its citizens and continues to throw money at them.
So why should we want the six counties? We never had them, in any way, shape or form, and they would not benefit us, and we would not benefit them. Economic hara kiri is not something I want to see our government commit. Frankly, I pity the British government, but I recognise that it was violent republicanism that led to this sorry state. I ask again, where was the problem with Home Rule?0 -
BostonFenian wrote: »I'm sure he wouldn't have let the North go without a fight.
The north was gone. This is what people don't seem to get. Ireland as a country did not exist until 1922, while the north was formed in 1920. The north was only formed because people were getting cranky, because people kept flashing weapons at one another. It was stupid bravado, killed a lot of people and set us back a century, so where was the good?0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »There were no Irish there; there were Northern Irish, it being a state that existed before the Irish Free State. If people chose to emigrate, well and good. We were British until 1922, the north became a separate entity in 1920, to the benefit of the majority there.
And frankly, it is about money. The British don't want to remain in the north; the Irish don't really want the north; the Northern Irish wish to remain part of Britain, so the British government recognises its duty to its citizens and continues to throw money at them.
So why should we want the six counties? We never had them, in any way, shape or form, and they would not benefit us, and we would not benefit them. Economic hara kiri is not something I want to see our government commit. Frankly, I pity the British government, but I recognise that it was violent republicanism that led to this sorry state. I ask again, where was the problem with Home Rule?
Are you suggesting that there were no Irish there because Cromwell convinced them they'd like it better in Connacht?0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »The north was gone. This is what people don't seem to get. Ireland as a country did not exist until 1922, while the north was formed in 1920. The north was only formed because people were getting cranky, because people kept flashing weapons at one another. It was stupid bravado, killed a lot of people and set us back a century, so where was the good?
So the fact that as far back as the ancient Romans, the Irish are referred to as a nation probably doesn't mean anything to you?0 -
Not an iota, still doesn't mean we were one.
And in all seriousness, so were tribal regions in squalid corners of Europe, so not much of a compelling argument.
I'm suggesting there were no Irish there because there was no Irish country, only an island, and I don't consider people from Bere Island to be their own nationality, to be honest.0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »Not an iota, still doesn't mean we were one. And in all seriousness, so were tribal regions in squalid corners of Europe, so not much of a compelling argument.
I'm suggesting there were no Irish there because there was no Irish country, only an island, and I don't consider people from Bere Island to be their own nationality, to be honest.
I just think that your reasoning belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nations and how they develop.0 -
BostonFenian wrote: »You're essentially saying We stole this fair and square, and even though you've been consistently trying to get it back, and even though we used all sorts of barbaric methods to take and maintain it, the statute of limitations has run out, and you'd have to be a raving lunatic to want it back?
Why should a group of people ever stop trying to regain a piece of themselves that was taken, just because a long time has passed? With the exception of the language in the GFA, the claim that Ulster is part of Ireland was consistently maintained since it was planted.
better tell 99% of Americans to pack up and ship off then, as I presume you are all for handing the country back to the Native Americans.0 -
I don't think so. To state such would require you, logically, to back it up, so how do you think one develops? Throwing out the "sure you clearly don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to support this statement in any way" card doesn't help the debate.
Frankly it's very difficult to give a definitive explanation of how nations develop. It's not exactly a step by step homogenous process.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »better tell 99% of Americans to pack up and ship off then, as I presume you are all for handing the country back to the Native Americans.
I strongly identify with their plight at least, as I do with the Mexicans when the Americans stole texas, and so many other misadventures. I would strongly support some sort of effort at the very least of recognizing that barbarism of that period.
I would find it very difficult to argue against a Native American making that point. In fact, I'm so upset about it, as well as Iraq, and other things, that I've started the process of claiming Irish citizenship through descent, and expect to move to Cork before too much longer.0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »I don't think so. To state such would require you, logically, to back it up, so how do you think one develops? Throwing out the "sure you clearly don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to support this statement in any way" card doesn't help the debate.
Frankly it's very difficult to give a definitive explanation of how nations develop. It's not exactly a step by step homogenous process.
That's my point. It's generally a group of ethnically related, but politically disparate groups that come to recognize their cultural identity joins them, and that there is advantage in banding together. It was happening. Yeah, there were armed conflicts, but that would be like saying any nation that's had a civil war is not a nation.
That certainly would've been much more likely to happen if England hadn't been practicing 'divide and rule' down the centuries. You can't justify England's actions in planting the North by saying that Ireland was not a unified nation, while the reason that it was as it was was primarily England's aggression and manipulation. It's surreal.0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »Which is why the age of colonialism is done. Modern armies are peace-keeping forces.
yes, there is imperalism now0 -
But there's no advantage for anyone bar the British in uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic, so why would it be right to unite it?
Imperialism? You using the north as an example? Weak effort. Britain would like few things more than to get out of the north, as it's an economic and political hole, but one whose people have their commitment until they renounce it, which is the key thing; the people of the north *want* to be ruled from London, and who are you people to say otherwise? And who are those scumbags with guns and an agenda not given them by the government of any nation nor the majority of any civilian population and with no popular support?0 -
It wasn't me!;55258455]Terrorism is a military tactic, but no, the British army don't use it, because they don't need to. Sheer force of numbers and military might do the job nicely for them.
The British Army do use Terrorism, as do a lot of huge armies. They've killed innocent people too, and they knew they would. That's what those bombs being dropped from airplane bombers are used for.Violence does not overshadow politics, to say otherwise is to throw society into the stone age, and is a bloody childish opinion. Can't get what you want from someone? Shoot them. That fair enough? Can't get the IRA to sit down and shut up? Kill them all, on sight, but that wouldn't be fair, would it? You'd want due process, in some kind of societal structure, for your IRA thugs. When the IRA start prosecuting those they attack, individually, then perhaps they'll have some moral clout (not bloody likely, but hey, it's a start). Until then, frankly, I'd love to see the SAS take anyone convicted of IRA membership, or UVF involvement, or any other scummy, murdering terrorist sect, and hang them. Wouldn't even waste the cost of the rounds to shoot them.
Sometimes violence is nessary. To some extent war is nessary regardless of what some people believe. Like i said before if Briain and France hadn't declared war on Germany in WW2 then maybe most of Europe would be German right now. If Micheal Collins and the old IRA hadn't of fought against the British then maybe Ireland wouldn't have been a Free State. It's not a good thought but sometimes precaustions must be taken to get what you want0 -
The British Army do use Terrorism, as do a lot of huge armies. They've killed innocent people too, and they knew they would. That's what those bombs being dropped from airplane bombers are used for.
Sometimes violence is nessary. To some extent war is nessary regardless of what some people believe. Like i said before if Briain and France hadn't declared war on Germany in WW2 then maybe most of Europe would be German right now. If Micheal Collins and the old IRA hadn't of fought against the British then maybe Ireland wouldn't have been a Free State. It's not a good thought but sometimes precaustions must be taken to get what you want
An applicable quote from American Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!0 -
The British Army do use Terrorism, as do a lot of huge armies. They've killed innocent people too, and they knew they would. That's what those bombs being dropped from airplane bombers are used for.
Prove it. Give me cut and dry examples of the British using seditious terrorist tactics, without referring to northern Irish collusion or some watery tale.Sometimes violence is nessary. To some extent war is nessary regardless of what some people believe. Like i said before if Briain and France hadn't declared war on Germany in WW2 then maybe most of Europe would be German right now. If Micheal Collins and the old IRA hadn't of fought against the British then maybe Ireland wouldn't have been a Free State. It's not a good thought but sometimes precaustions must be taken to get what you want
SO do you think Home Rule was a bad thing? Do you not think it would be better to have kept the island as one country and possibly waited slightly longer to be a whole free state? Or do you think it was better to fight, split the country (yes, violent republicanism is responsible for the divide, bitter pill though it might be to swallow) and deal with it afterwards? Damn immature attitude to international politics I would think, particularly historically. All the whole bloody affair, the Troubles and IRA whinging and Unionist aggression and all that could so easily avoidable had Pearse, who I think we're all agreed was a deranged lunatic, had kept his shít together rather than satisying a personal blood-lust in 1916, so, would you rather a peaceful solution to haev happened long, long before you were ever born, or are you glad we had a civil war, the partition of a country and damn near forty years of crap ever since?0 -
I was interested to read BostonFenian's line that regarding Native Americans and Mexico/Texas he "strongly identif[ies] with their plight" but stops far short of suggesting that Texas be given back to Mexico and the US to Native Americans.
On that basis would you not also argue for identification with and recognition of the barbarism Northern Catholics had to go through in the past, but now accept the North as a political entity that has the right of self-determination?
Otherwise, why exactly should Texas not be given back to Mexico?0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »Prove it. Give me cut and dry examples of the British using seditious terrorist tactics, without referring to northern Irish collusion or some watery tale.
SO do you think Home Rule was a bad thing? Do you not think it would be better to have kept the island as one country and possibly waited slightly longer to be a whole free state? Or do you think it was better to fight, split the country (yes, violent republicanism is responsible for the divide, bitter pill though it might be to swallow) and deal with it afterwards? Damn immature attitude to international politics I would think, particularly historically. All the whole bloody affair, the Troubles and IRA whinging and Unionist aggression and all that could so easily avoidable had Pearse, who I think we're all agreed was a deranged lunatic, had kept his shít together rather than satisying a personal blood-lust in 1916, so, would you rather a peaceful solution to haev happened long, long before you were ever born, or are you glad we had a civil war, the partition of a country and damn near forty years of crap ever since?
IRA volunteers swore an oath that they took very seriously. This:
"I... do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations".
Might be seen as a betrayal of that oath.
Also, there was a deep suspicion that if meaningful resolution wasn't achieved at that time, it might never be. 800 years is a long time to wait..
Home Rule is a difficult thing to dissect. Had Collins not been killed, had Dev been able to come to grips with the fact that Collins was being a realist, and ken his strategy, Home Rule may have been an effective stepping stone towards a united Ireland. I think my family in Cork were supportive of this idea. My family in Cavan clearly regarded it as a betrayal of brothers and sisters in the North, and could not morally cope with the decision to abandon them.0 -
I was interested to read BostonFenian's line that regarding Native Americans and Mexico/Texas he "strongly identif[ies] with their plight" but stops far short of suggesting that Texas be given back to Mexico and the US to Native Americans.
On that basis would you not also argue for identification with and recognition of the barbarism Northern Catholics had to go through in the past, but now accept the North as a political entity that has the right of self-determination?
Otherwise, why exactly should Texas not be given back to Mexico?
Well seeing as how my saying it should be given back wouldn't make it so, I'm not sure that it matters. I simply don't see where you would put the 300 million displace Americans, but I can accept that morally speaking, that each of these groups does deserve that which was stolen from them.
I'm not sure what exactly you found interesting about that.
I'm not exactly sure that Northern Catholics objected to unity with the South, or that they were just fed up with the violence. If that's the case, you could make the argument that they'd been cowed into submission. I can't imagine that if you offered instantaneous unification with no violence that the majority of Northern Catholics would be opposed.0 -
Well that is probably because you aren't bothering yourself to read my posts properly. No offence.Wichknight i really don't get what you are on about, for some reason you seem to be talking in random circles. No offence.
Glad we agree on that.But first you claim the IRA terrorists and you speak of how it is a bad thing which is ok because terrorism is a bad thing
It is a military tactic. It is not a catch all for "bad things" as some people seem to think.but then when someone talks about the British or the US as being terrorists you claim it's a military tactic
If I shoot a child with a sniper rifle from a mile away that is a bad thing.
If I stab to death a child with a hand knife, that is a bad thing.
But the two things are very different military tactics. They are both bad things, but it is silly to say that in the first instance you were "stabbed". You weren't stabbed, you where shot. That isn't saying that being shot is better than being stabbed or being stabbed is better than being shot.
When I say someone is a terrorist I mean that that person or group uses terrorism.
When I say someone isn't a terrorist I mean that person or group doesn't use terrorism.
People seem to think that when I say the British very rarely use terrorism because it doesn't work and they don't need to, I am some how making a moral judgement that because of this they are some how "better" than a group like the IRA that does use terrorism. Which is ridiculous.
Terrorism is immoral. The British Army very rarely used terrorism. It does not follow though that the British Army are some how moral because of that. You would have to be an idiot to make that leap. There are hundreds of other military tactics that are equally immoral as terrorism, and I'm pretty sure the British Army has in the pasted used plenty of them.
The British Government have nothing to do with this topic. They only reason they are ever brought up is by people playing the "But miss all the other boys did it too" card. Which I personally can't stand., and then you say something like the British Government has nothing to do with this topic
The British Government could have molested school children while wearing Satan worshipping robes draped in blood and raping virgin sheep. That still has nothing to do with the morality of the actions of the IRA. The only reason it is ever brought up in threads about the IRA (and this thread is about the IRA by the way) is to deflect the issue away from what the IRA did, in the same way that school children when caught doing something naughty start pointing out that everyone else does it, as if that some how makes it not bold any more.
And? If you want to start a topic about the British Army go ahead. I've discussed at length the moral and ethical issues I've had with how the British Army have operated over the years in countries from Northern Ireland to Iraq. But this thread is about the IRA.even though it's making a point of why the IRA are terrorist scum but the British are simply not branded as anything.
Well, which one?I ask you, do you believe the British Government as being a terrorist scum or not? That's all i'm asking
A better question is do I believe that actions directed towards Iraq by the British Government under Tony Blair were immoral and illegal? You bet I do.
The Tony Blair government was not a terrorist government because it didn't use terrorism, it didn't need to. It has one of the most advanced armies in the world. Why would they use terrorism, terrorism is slow and most of the time doesn't work. It was a highly immoral government because its actions f**ked up a country and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousand of people. Tony Blair is a c**t and should face a criminal court for how he handled Iraq. People can debate whether or not the war in Iraq was technically legal or not, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was immoral and unethical.
Its possible to be scum without being terrorist scum.
That is not a reason to approve of said violence.By the way. You speak a lot about peaceful means but unfortunately the world works a lot differently. I'd like nothing more then seeing peace but we have to look around us, violence is part of politics and as long as people believe in their cause violence will alway over shadow politics.
Terrorism may always happen. But I will always object to it.0 -
Well that is probably because you aren't bothering yourself to read my posts properly. No offence.
Glad we agree on that.
It is a military tactic. It is not a catch all for "bad things" as some people seem to think.
If I shoot a child with a sniper rifle from a mile away that is a bad thing.
If I stab to death a child with a hand knife, that is a bad thing.
But the two things are very different military tactics. They are both bad things, but it is silly to say that in the first instance you were "stabbed". You weren't stabbed, you where shot. That isn't saying that being shot is better than being stabbed or being stabbed is better than being shot.
When I say someone is a terrorist I mean that that person or group uses terrorism.
When I say someone isn't a terrorist I mean that person or group doesn't use terrorism.
People seem to think that when I say the British very rarely use terrorism because it doesn't work and they don't need to, I am some how making a moral judgement that because of this they are some how "better" than a group like the IRA that does use terrorism. Which is ridiculous.
Terrorism is immoral. The British Army very rarely used terrorism. It does not follow though that the British Army are some how moral because of that. You would have to be an idiot to make that leap. There are hundreds of other military tactics that are equally immoral as terrorism, and I'm pretty sure the British Army has in the pasted used plenty of them.
The British Government have nothing to do with this topic. They only reason they are ever brought up is by people playing the "But miss all the other boys did it too" card. Which I personally can't stand.
The British Government could have molested school children while wearing Satan worshipping robes draped in blood and raping virgin sheep. That still has nothing to do with the morality of the actions of the IRA. The only reason it is ever brought up in threads about the IRA (and this thread is about the IRA by the way) is to deflect the issue away from what the IRA did, in the same way that school children when caught doing something naughty start pointing out that everyone else does it, as if that some how makes it not bold any more.
And? If you want to start a topic about the British Army go ahead. I've discussed at length the moral and ethical issues I've had with how the British Army have operated over the years in countries from Northern Ireland to Iraq. But this thread is about the IRA.
Well, which one?
A better question is do I believe that actions directed towards Iraq by the British Government under Tony Blair were immoral and illegal? You bet I do.
The Tony Blair government was not a terrorist government because it didn't use terrorism, it didn't need to. It has one of the most advanced armies in the world. Why would they use terrorism, terrorism is slow and most of the time doesn't work. It was a highly immoral government because its actions f**ked up a country and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousand of people. Tony Blair is a c**t and should face a criminal court for how he handled Iraq. People can debate whether or not the war in Iraq was technically legal or not, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was immoral and unethical.
Its possible to be scum without being terrorist scum.
That is not a reason to approve of said violence.
Terrorism may always happen. But I will always object to it.
I have to say I think your definition of Terrorism is simplistic. I know it's tricky topic with lots of different points of view, and not easy at all to define, but I think you could do better.
I think there is some basis to viewing it as a strategy, but if someone unaffiliated with a state was to start assassinating their enemies, I think I can safely say based on your previous postings that you would consider that terrorism, especially if a political goal was involved.
What about when Israel does it? You've stated previously that no army with the means of a developed nation behind it would need to resort to those tactics, but it does. Car bombs, assassinations, etc.
What about the Shock and Awe prelude to the Iraq war. How many innocents died in that? Was it impossible to predict that it would happen? Given that the name was Shock and Awe, would you call it aweism? I think we can safely say that in this instance awe is synomynous with terrorism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Also, here's the crux:
If someone violently and maliciously takes something from you that you value more than life itself, and refuses to give it back, are you supposed to just say, oh well, i'd have to resort to violence, and that would be bad. Perhaps we should appease them more?
What would make you fight? Would you do something if they came and took your women and children?0 -
Irish Nationalists by definition would support this (and there have been many significant Protestant Nationalists.) But you are conveniently leaving out that a majority in Northern Ireland does _not_ support this. What about all the Irish Unionists who are Irish too and whose families date back to the 1600s? You don't mention them. These people are as Irish (probably more so) as any modern US citizen is an American. And they have a right to have an opinion too and express that through the democratic process.BostonFenian wrote: »I'm not exactly sure that Northern Catholics objected to unity with the South, or that they were just fed up with the violence. If that's the case, you could make the argument that they'd been cowed into submission. I can't imagine that if you offered instantaneous unification with no violence that the majority of Northern Catholics would be opposed.0 -
The crux is that the plantation of Ulster took place in the early 1600s, well _before_ most of America was conquered by it's present inhabitants. On this basis the descendants of planters have as much right to be there as any white American has to be in America.BostonFenian wrote: »Also, here's the crux:
If someone violently and maliciously takes something from you that you value more than life itself, and refuses to give it back, are you supposed to just say, oh well, i'd have to resort to violence, and that would be bad. Perhaps we should appease them more?
What would make you fight? Would you do something if they came and took your women and children?0 -
Irish Nationalists by definition would support this (and there have been many significant Protestant Nationalists.) But you are conveniently leaving out that a majority in Northern Ireland does _not_ support this. What about all the Irish Unionists who are Irish too and whose families date back to the 1600s? You don't mention them. These people are as Irish (probably more so) as any modern US citizen is an American. And they have a right to have an opinion too and express that through the democratic process.
Again, the land was stolen. Ireland as a soveriegn nation does not need to consult her citizens to assert her soveriegnty and territorial integrity. I would argue that anyone in the North who wishes to identify themselves as Irish is, Irish, and I think that everyone needs to be included, but could we at least include the other three counties, then when determining what an Ulster 'majority' is? I mean that's the real punchline isn't it? Do you think they left the three counties int he republic to be nice?0 -
The crux is that the plantation of Ulster took place in the early 1600s, well _before_ most of America was conquered by it's present inhabitants. On this basis the descendants of planters have as much right to be there as any white American has to be in America.
I'm not saying they don't have a right to be there. Just that they have a right to be in a united Ireland, and not some statelet they made up.0 -
Actually my definition of terrorism is complicated and rather specific. Which is I think why some people have a problem with it. Some seem to think terrorism is simply one group inflicting terror in another group, which I would have to say is a very simplistic and inaccurate definition. If that was the case every army in the world would be terrorist in nature.BostonFenian wrote: »I have to say I think your definition of Terrorism is simplistic.
No, I would considered it terrorism only if it was done for a specific purpose of terrorising a population through the threat of random and indiscriminate violence so that they perform the desired political or social change on your behalf.BostonFenian wrote: »I think there is some basis to viewing it as a strategy, but if someone unaffiliated with a state was to start assassinating their enemies, I think I can safely say based on your previous postings that you would consider that terrorism, especially if a political goal was involved.
Think of it this way. There are two groups, and one castle. It is a situtation of King of the Hill, and the large group has the castle, and your small group doesn't.
Now if you were the US or British Army, and you wanted to take the hill you would simply take the hill. You would over whelm the military defences of the castle with your tanks and bombers and snipers and infantry.
But you aren't the US or British Army. You are the IRA. You are small group vastly out numbered and vastly out gunned. So what do you do. Well being the IRA you decide to use the tactic of "terrorism" You want the castle and you are going to make them give you the castle voluntarily. How are you going to do this?
Well each night you are going to sneak someone into the castle and cut the throat of a random person. When the castle dwellers wake up they will find the dead person. And you will announce to them that each night you will kill another random person until you get what you want. This threat of violence, the idea that anyone can be next works by making the entire population fearful, the entire population is terrorised because any one of them could be next. So you keep sneaking into the castle at night and killing a random person, and the entire population gets more and more nervous thinking they, or some other poor innocent bugger, might be next.
Eventually they are so tired of living in this state of fear, they make their leaders give you the castle, to make you stop, to remove the fear the live with everyday. They hand it over to you and leave on their own.
That is terrorism.
I wasn't aware that Israel carried out terrorist attacks, but if you have specific examples I would be happy to look at them. There is nothing about an army like the Israeli army that says it can't use terrorism, simply that I would be surprised if it ever felt they needed to. Israel would probably just bomb the sh*t out if its enemies and kill the leaders, thus making terrorism rather pointless.BostonFenian wrote: »What about when Israel does it? You've stated previously that no army with the means of a developed nation behind it would need to resort to those tactics, but it does. Car bombs, assassinations, etc.
How many innocent civilians die have nothing to do with whether or not it was terrorism.BostonFenian wrote: »What about the Shock and Awe prelude to the Iraq war. How many innocents died in that?
Terrorism by the US Army would never have worked in Iraq in the first place because you couldn't terrorise the Iraqi people into over throwing Saddam, his power was too strong and he ignored the wishes of the Iraqi people anyway. You could have gotten the entire Iraqi population to a very high state of fear, that still wouldn't have changed anything. They were probably in that state already from the way Saddam treated them.
I would have called it its technical name, "rapid dominance", which is a specific military tactic designed to disorientate and disorganise an enemies defensive positions, paralysing their ability to respond and allowing for quick capture of enemy positions with limited loss of life (on your side).BostonFenian wrote: »Was it impossible to predict that it would happen? Given that the name was Shock and Awe, would you call it aweism?BostonFenian wrote: »I think we can safely say that in this instance awe is synomynous with terrorism.
Not really. Again simply terrorising your enemy is not by itself terrorism. The US Armies Shock and Awe strategy was never going to make the Iraqi people over throw Saddam (the ultimate goal of the invasion) nor was it designed to.0 -
BostonFenian wrote: »I'm not saying they don't have a right to be there. Just that they have a right to be in a united Ireland, and not some statelet they made up.
They have the right to a united Ireland if the majority in Northern Ireland decide they want to join the South, thus forming an all island state, and of course if the South decide they want them to join (something I think it is ultimately unlikely).0 -
They have the right to a united Ireland if the majority in Northern Ireland decide they want to join the South, thus forming an all island state, and of course if the South decide they want them to join (something I think it is ultimately unlikely).
Just like the original inhabitants of Ulster had the right to have their lands stripped?0 -
Actually my definition of terrorism is complicated and rather specific. Which is I think why some people have a problem with it. Some seem to think terrorism is simply one group inflicting terror in another group, which I would have to say is a very simplistic and inaccurate definition. If that was the case every army in the world would be terrorist in nature.
No, I would considered it terrorism only if it was done for a specific purpose of terrorising a population through the threat of random and indiscriminate violence so that they perform the desired political or social change on your behalf.
Think of it this way. There are two groups, and one castle. It is a situtation of King of the Hill, and the large group has the castle, and your small group doesn't.
Now if you were the US or British Army, and you wanted to take the hill you would simply take the hill. You would over whelm the military defences of the castle with your tanks and bombers and snipers and infantry.
But you aren't the US or British Army. You are the IRA. You are small group vastly out numbered and vastly out gunned. So what do you do. Well being the IRA you decide to use the tactic of "terrorism" You want the castle and you are going to make them give you the castle voluntarily. How are you going to do this?
Well each night you are going to sneak someone into the castle and cut the throat of a random person. When the castle dwellers wake up they will find the dead person. And you will announce to them that each night you will kill another random person until you get what you want. This threat of violence, the idea that anyone can be next works by making the entire population fearful, the entire population is terrorised because any one of them could be next. So you keep sneaking into the castle at night and killing a random person, and the entire population gets more and more nervous thinking they, or some other poor innocent bugger, might be next.
Eventually they are so tired of living in this state of fear, they make their leaders give you the castle, to make you stop, to remove the fear the live with everyday. They hand it over to you and leave on their own.
That is terrorism.
I wasn't aware that Israel carried out terrorist attacks, but if you have specific examples I would be happy to look at them. There is nothing about an army like the Israeli army that says it can't use terrorism, simply that I would be surprised if it ever felt they needed to. Israel would probably just bomb the sh*t out if its enemies and kill the leaders, thus making terrorism rather pointless.
How many innocent civilians die have nothing to do with whether or not it was terrorism.
Terrorism by the US Army would never have worked in Iraq in the first place because you couldn't terrorise the Iraqi people into over throwing Saddam, his power was too strong and he ignored the wishes of the Iraqi people anyway. You could have gotten the entire Iraqi population to a very high state of fear, that still wouldn't have changed anything. They were probably in that state already from the way Saddam treated them.
I would have called it its technical name, "rapid dominance", which is a specific military tactic designed to disorientate and disorganise an enemies defensive positions, paralysing their ability to respond and allowing for quick capture of enemy positions with limited loss of life (on your side).
Not really. Again simply terrorising your enemy is not by itself terrorism. The US Armies Shock and Awe strategy was never going to make the Iraqi people over throw Saddam (the ultimate goal of the invasion) nor was it designed to.
Israel frequently uses carbombs and assassination to take out troublesome resistance figures when they think a military incursion would be too obvious, or costly.
I think the shock and awe strategy was designed to scare the crap out of the Iraqi power structure, convince them there was no use in fighting and make them surrender. That sounds like violence for a political objective, which is how I view terrorism.
Given your definition, it sounds as if you equate guerilla war with terrorism. I don't think that's entirely appropriate. Assymetric warfare is it's own term, and I think that's the term that would apply to a lot of the things you're describing.0 -
Advertisement
-
BostonFenian wrote: »Just like the original inhabitants of Ulster had the right to have their lands stripped?
What happened 400 years ago was wrong. Very wrong in fact. But the key point is the 400 year ago bit
All the people involved in the plantations, the bad guys and good guys, are dead. Long dead. The opportunity to punish them is gone.
The problem is you are connecting the people of today with the people 400 years ago, and saying that the ancestors of the bad guys should give their land to the ancestors of the good guys.
Which is equally immoral.
You don't punish children for what their parents did. You don't punish grand children for what their grand parents did.
If my dad beats up your dead you don't get to beat me up 10 years after both are dads have died.
The Unionists are here. Punishing them for something that happened 400 years before they were born is immoral.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement