General Irish politics discussion thread

No, he has not ruled out a coalition with SF, but he gives the impression they would be a last resort. He has said "Sinn Féin was guilty of 'poisoning' a new generation 'in the notion that violence can be worth it or violence is justified". Last October MM said Sinn Féin were having 'chilling' effect on Ireland's democracy. Then again, I suppose Unionists in N.I. did at one stage go in to government in NI with Sinn Fein, even though their paramilitary wing in the past had killed democratic unionist politicians in N. I. Eg Stronge MP, Bradford MP, Edgar Graham, John Barnhill etc, and for which they have not apologised.

Micheál Martin said that Sinn Féin is guilty of "poisoning" younger generations with its attitude towards the Troubles. MM said last summer that "We shouldn't poison a new generation, again, in the notion that violence can be worth it or violence is justified. That's all I'm saying. "

"It doesn't become a barrier potentially, but it's something that they need to deal with, in my view. There is a tendency that this is being glorified somehow. I think we owe it to the younger generations that this wasn’t a good war and it wasn’t a just war and it damaged a lot of people, it killed a lot of people.”

His words, not mine.

As someone else once said, the question presents a false dichotomy. It is possible to be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist, or to be one but not the other. The logical fallacy in the question comes from confusing means and ends. A freedom fighter is “a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment.” 

 That is, the end sought by a freedom fighter is freedom, but the term “freedom fighter” is silent as to the means.

Terrorism is concerned with means. It is a tactic, a method of achieving a political goal, the essential elements of which are: (1) the use of violence, (2) directed at non-combatants or civilians, (3) intended to induce extreme fear in a population or government, (4) in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological end. What is Terrorism?

Thus, a person could use terrorist tactics in pursuit of freedom for a national, ethnic or religious group, and thus simultaneously be a freedom fighter and a terrorist. On the other hand, many freedom-fighting groups (such as the French Resistance) have avoided terrorism, but we are also only too familiar with terrorist groups whose goals are the worst kinds of tyranny rather than freedom.

With regard to the Provisional IRA, it was (is?) a terrorist group but its members were not freedom fighters. The terrorism part is, unfortunately, easy to demonstrate. The Provisional IRA repeatedly (1) used violence, (2) directed at non-combatants and civilians, (3) intended to induce extreme fear in a population (Northern Ireland unionists) or government (British), (4) in order to achieve a political or ideological end. Examples of IRA terrorist acts in Northern Ireland include the January 1972 bombing of the Abercorn restaurant, Bloody Friday bombings etc etc

Some may object, however, that while the Provisional IRA were terrorists, they also were freedom fighters because, er, they were fighting for Irish freedom, weren’t they? Well, no, they were not. As far as the IRA is concerned, it owes allegiance to the “Irish Republic” established in 1919, which has continued in a shadowy existence since 1922. Both Northern Ireland and the actual Republic of Ireland are illegitimate usurper states that must be overthrown by force. Remember the Provisional IRA Army Council’s first public statement of December 1969? The IRA held that the sole legitimate government of their 32-county Irish Republic is the IRA Army Council, and that to recognize the governments of either NI or the ROI (or to oppose the IRA in any way) is an act of treason. The ultimate goal of the “armed struggle” was the destruction of both existing Irish states and the reinstatement of the 32-county Republic with the Army Council at its head. The governing ideology of the IRA’s republic was to be its own brand of national socialism

It is possible to argue, as MM I suspect would, that the Old IRA, 1919–21, were freedom fighters, not terrorists , and that the Provisional IRA, 1969 onwards, were terrorists, not freedom fighters. Of course, there are some who would think that any unelected group which engages in violence and murder are / were terrorists - be they Al Qaeda, be they the old IRA who murdered people coming out of a methodist church after attending a service there, and who engaged in sectarian murders and murders of civilians, be they the pira ( who killed about 650 civilians ) or the New IRA or whoever. As Bush said, you are either for terrorism, or against terrorism.

Terrorist = Someone who utilises terror to achieve an aim.

You can apply that to any army or soldiers, freedom fighter, revolutionary et etc you wish.

A redundant term and only used by those with a bias.

The really interesting thing will be if deals with FG and SF are both on the table for FF. I would formerly have said Martin would pick FG over SF every time but after his 'wobble' on SF after the last election I'm not so sure...

There were almost 1000 civilians killed in the War of Independence alone.

I would be positive that 'type of violence' by which they died would be of small concern to them and their relatives.

The fact is, they died because people, now celebrated by MM, chose to use terror to achieve their aims.

It is the height of hypocrisy to celebrate one while criticising the other. But we are used to that here.

Your definition of terrorist looks to be intentionally narrowed to make your point.

The definition of a Terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism.

Actual definition of terrorism;

Oxford;

​the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act

Merriam Webster;

the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

Bolding in both definitions are mine for emphasis. While there's no doubting that what you describe meets the definition of terrorism, there can indeed be acts of terrorism by definition that do not fall within your more restrictive scope.

The definition you waded in to correct is no less accurate than your own, but either way I don't see any definition of Terrorist which applies to the Provos that doesn't also apply to the, 'good old boy' IRA that we routinely celebrate as a state. Both most certainly used violent action to achieve political aims, both most certainly unlawfully used violence against the state as a politically motivated means of attack.

I'm purely discussing this from a semantics/linguistics point of view to be clear, not to justify, celebrate or minimise any PIRA actions.

People have engaged in violence to achieve aims from the begining of time. They are still doing it now.

Pretending this isn't the case is the hypocrisy.

Pretending you would never condone violence when you in fact celebrate what was achieved by violence is hypocrisy. Classic hypocrisy in fact.

So if you condone one type of IRA violence and condemn another type of IRA violence you are a hypocrite, is that what you are admitting?

Not that narrow. I looked up lots of definitions of terrorist. We are not talking about the type of person who robs a filling station with a syringe or knife - the staff there may feel terrorised or experience terror for a time but the people or person who robs a shop to get money for their next fix or whatever are not what we mean by terrorists.

As I said, there are some who would think that any unelected group which engages in violence and murder are / were terrorists - be they Al Qaeda, be they the old IRA who murdered people coming out of a methodist church after attending a service there, and who engaged in sectarian murders and murders of civilians, be they the pira ( who killed about 650 civilians ) or the New IRA or whoever. As Bush said, you are either for terrorism, or against terrorism.

You can look up all the definitions you want and decide that the one that suits your agenda is the, 'right' one, of course. That would be pretty much definition cherry picking though. You'll excuse me if I hold Oxford and Merriam Webster in higher regard with regards to meanings of words than someone on the internet with an agenda to push though.

The person with the knife or syringe wouldn't meet either of the definitions I shared though; neither political nor intended to coerce government.

As for Bush's statement, it has precisely nothing to do with the definition of terrorism. In his context, terrorist essentially just means whoever he decided was the enemy. If he had just said, 'you're with us or against us', he would've at least been more honest. The term, 'terrorism' is being used very intentionally for it's lack of specificity but high emotive value... you know, definition propaganda.

I'd put it up there with another of his famous lines;