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

EgoffTib said:

They are fighting for freedom from Israel.

Click to expand...

/fail, try again.

Jerry said:

/fail, try again.

Click to expand...

Convincing argument. I think I will pass.

Red_Dave said:

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].

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

"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 say it was generally but no completely true.

new coup for you said:

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.

Click to expand...

Can I just say you are completely right here. They're not fascists and to use the term is just another example of the misuse of terminology.

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd be very suprised if the leadership were not involved in a lot of the bombings and such attacks.

For decades McGuinness swore he was not at the "bloody Sunday" march until he was basically forced to admit it.

The IRA like a lot of the Protestant groups were up to their eye balls in organised crime as well. They're not chivalrous freedom fighers mostly despite the continued support of Fenianism from America.

"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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wessexman said:

I'd be very suprised if the leadership were not involved in a lot of the bombings and such attacks.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

PeteEU said:

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?

Click to expand...

How is he "protected" by the US? The Bush Administration sought to keep him imprisoned as a terrorist; it was a state court who authorized his bail.

The only thing that remotely resembles "protecting" him was an immigration judge ruling that he could not be deported because he would face torture in Venezuela.

So, I'll ask you the same thing -- which is it? Should the Bush Administration simply have kept him locked up indefinitely in contravention of a court order? Should it have deported him to another country where there was reason to believe he faced torture?

Or do you simply criticize in any way it's possible to do so with no regard for consistent principle?

dragonslayer said:

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

Click to expand...

I guess that would be true if you call terrorists and religious thugs the "iraqi people".

EgoffTib said:

Again, freedom is different for each group of people. It is all subjective. The sooner you realize this the better.

Click to expand...

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.

walleye said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tucker Case said:

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

Click to expand...

Well unionists consistently get the most votes, surely that demonstrates a high level of support? Also if only 24% of the population classes themselves as republican then surely that would surgest most are against a united ireland?

independent_thinker2002 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SgtRock said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism? ie - Atomic bombings in Japan.

Degreez said:

Then what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism? ie - Atomic bombings in Japan.

Click to expand...

If you can't figure that out then you should simply turn around and leave...

Degreez said:

Then what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism? ie - Atomic bombings in Japan.

Click to expand...

Totally different. Declared war between 2 nations is not terrorism. The Nazis were not tried and convicted of dropping bombs on England and other nations. They were tried and convicted of murder. If you want to call dropping bombs terrorism then the entire world is guilty, not just the USA.

Hatuey said:

Do you agree? Why? Why not?

Click to expand...

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.

danarhea said:

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.

Click to expand...

: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.

The founding fathers were fighting against a dictator and tyranny. The terrorists are the ones who want to establish a dictator and tyranny. Some people are very confused. Getting their talking points from Rosie O'Donnell is not very wise.

Harshaw said:

: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.

Click to expand...

That is debatable... They may not have used the term, since it was not thought of until the French Revolution in those terms... but did use terror tactics and some were ordered by the Founding Fathers themselves. Just because portions of the Army were legit does not mean that those that fought on the Western Front were not brutal beheading terrorists....




Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.

I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them

The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources [/QUOTE]


There is nothing "implied" about his orders. They are crystal clear. "in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive ".

Terrorize the enemy and it's people by using tactics so severe that they will never again rise against us. It is that these orders are issued and to be used against settlements. Not forts. Not troops. Settlements, which are villages that house woman and children. Women and children that lived in forts were not target, but the forces and the forts themselves are. Settlements are, by definition, different in nature and purpose than a fort or military outpost

Terrorism is not solely about killing people. It is about terrorrizing them. Washington and his men were generally upstanding and great men. They fought a noble cause and a good war. They fought with honor just about every single time. They minimized hurt to civilians whenever they could, if it was to white people. There are simply a couple of instances when they did not act in accordance with the nobility that we grant them. They were in error sometimes, that is all. Just as everybody else has been. The British, the Indians, the French... I just think that we should be honest about some things too.

You may agree or disagree with its severity, but it was a military campaign conducted against an enemy during a time of war.

walleye said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can compare anything to anything. Things don't have to be similar to compare. The FF weren't saints. They oppressed women and black people. It doesn't mean that they were terrorists or insane whackjobs. I can compare a banana to a Corvette if I want to. They don't have to be similar in all aspects to be compared.

SgtRock said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't call them freedom fighters as a compliment. I don't call them freedom fighters at all. That isn't the point of this thread. I am only saying that I can see how their supporters do. I don't call our side terrorists but I can see how they do. It doesn't make it right. It is what it is.

Harshaw said:

You may agree or disagree with its severity, but it was a military campaign conducted against an enemy during a time of war.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just military... It was conducted against women and children by Enlightened men professing the highest values for personal rights and freedom. I understand your point, but I made my point and I am sure that you see it for what it is.