- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They are fighting for freedom from Israel.
/fail, try again.
They are fighting for freedom from Israel.
Convincing argument. I think I will pass./fail, try again.
So your claiming some member of the P.I.R.A acted independantly? I think thats highly unlikely given how the P.I.R.A enforced such a ridgid system of discipline over there members [Not to mention the catholic community as a whole].
Though i except that they had *very* legitimate grevences ild dispute that the P.I.R.A were fighting for freedom when they were fighting against what the vast majority of people in NI wanted. The whole reason Northern Ireland was created in the first place was that most of those living there didnt want to be part of Eire. How was fighting against their wishes fighting for freedom?
you could probably make a pretty good argument that Al Qaeda is trying to install theocratic totalitarianism, however fascism is not just a byword for totalitarianism, it's specific manifestation of totalitarianism.
Fascism is totally incompatible with Islamic totalitarianism for a lot of reasons, most important being fascism's nationalism (which is totally the opposite of Islamic totalitarianism's pan-nationalism) and fascism's enthusiastic acceptance of industrial modernity (versus Islamic totalitarianism's obsession with returning to pre-industrial antiquity).
Fascism does not simply mean "bad" or "totalitarian" and terms like "Islamofascism" are nothing but meaningless propaganda which not only confuses our battle with Islamic totalitarianism but degrades the meaning of fascism.
Fascism was a very distinct, and distinctly evil, thing. To dilute its meaning to "they're bad authoritarians" diminishes the lesson that their evil has taught us.
I'd be very suprised if the leadership were not involved in a lot of the bombings and such attacks.Some members of the pIRA did not engage in terrorist tactics. They attacked the RUC and British soldiers. Others did engage in terrorist activities. I made no claims about independent activities. There is no doubt that occasionally, terrorist actions were sanctioned by the higher-ups, but that was not the standard behavior of the pIRA.
Also, if one wants to label a person a terrorist, one must look at that individual's personal actions, not just the actions of the group to which they belong.
I'm not saying that they acted independently, necessarily, but anyone familiar with the South Armagh branch can attest to the fact that there was much much more autonomy than you suggest within the IRA as well as different tactics based on the sect.
Catholic does not necessarily mean republican. I think that about 65% of Ulstermen are Unionists at the moment. I personally think those border counties that are very much Republican should be given to Eire.
"Vast" majority?
Maybe in Antrim and Down, but most definitely not in Armagh, Fermanagh, Derry, or Tyrone, which all currently have a Catholic majority.
There may be an overall Protestant majority, but in 4 out of 6 counties there is a Catholic Majority. Not really a convincing argument regarding "vast majority" of Northern Ireland being Unionist.
I'd be very suprised if the leadership were not involved in a lot of the bombings and such attacks.
Catholic does not necessarily mean republican. I think that about 65% of Ulstermen are Unionists at the moment. I personally think those border counties that are very much Republican should be given to Eire.
Okay to all those that dont agree that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...
what about
Luis Posada Carriles?
Here you have a man, convicted of blowing up an airplane, and yet protected by the US. Is he a freedom fighter because the plane was Cuban and he is a cuban exile or is he no better than a Hamas bomber that blows himself up in a disco?
Which is it?
I can see what you are saying. It depends on where you are, what you believe and politics.
During the Bush administration, I sort of considered myself a freedom fighter.
Bush and his cronies were so busy trying harm the USA and get his rich buddies richer. We still have our pointless endless war against the Iraqi people.:doh
Again, freedom is different for each group of people. It is all subjective. The sooner you realize this the better.
When you are sick, you are sick. When you are well, you are well. When you are hungry, you are hungry. When you are oppressed, you are oppressed. When you are free, you are free.
Nothing subjective about freedom. Unless, of course, you are trying to be politically correct.
As would I. I'm not talking about the leadership, I'm talking about the individuals who were IRA members. Some never engaged in terrorism.
65% is way off, Wessex. 68% of Protestants are Unionist, but overall using the total population, the numbers are 38% Unionist, 24% Republican, and 35% "Neither"
NI Life and Times Survey - 2003: UNINATID
This really isn't about PC.
Freedom isn't absolute. There are different degrees. No one is arguing that the terrorists aren't oppressive. They are fighting essentially for the freedom to oppress. I know, it sounds stupid. It's like the whole conundrum with tolerating intolerance.
For the life of me I can not understand how some of you can support an organization that is responsible for suicide bombings of civilians. And you call them freedom fighters? I call them terrorist, cowards of the worst kind. Suicide is not an act of bravery and when they target civilians they loose the right to be called freedom fighters.The same goes for any group that uses these tactics regardles of their religion, race, nationality, or tribe.
Then what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism? ie - Atomic bombings in Japan.
Then what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism? ie - Atomic bombings in Japan.
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Of course. The British government regarded our forefathers as terrorists. And don't forget Thomas Jefferson, who said that the tree of liberty must be sometimes refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
:roll:
Right. Because Jefferson was all about time-bombing restaurants, and what he had in mind when he wrote that was maximizing civilian casualties.
This is patently absurd. There are rebels who use terrorist tactics. But not all rebels do. Our Founding Fathers did not. They were traitors to the Crown. But they were not terrorists.
I agree. They are fighting for their freedom to oppress. That is not freedom for the masses. That is what I am talking about. Individual freedom. The freedom to chart your own course in life. That is the freedom our founding fathers fought for. That is not the kind of freedom the terrorists are fighting for. That's why comparing our founding fathers to the terrorists of today is hilarious.
For the life of me I can not understand how some of you can support an organization that is responsible for suicide bombings of civilians. And you call them freedom fighters? I call them terrorist, cowards of the worst kind. Suicide is not an act of bravery and when they target civilians they loose the right to be called freedom fighters.The same goes for any group that uses these tactics regardles of their religion, race, nationality, or tribe.
You may agree or disagree with its severity, but it was a military campaign conducted against an enemy during a time of war.