Having a terrorist mindset and being a terrorist are not the same thing. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. If he had planted those bombs instead of stalking down murdering the doctor in cold blood, then I would agree that he was a terrorist. In the end when he came to the choice to take the terrorist path or the murderer path, he chose the latter. Not that the choice is ultimately any better, but in the end he was just a twisted and sick murderer and not a terrorist.Christian that killed Tiller, was not a terrorist. He was a stalker and a murderer. What is the difference? He did not use terror tactics and target innocent bystanders. He had a specfic target and killed that target. He didn't open fire into Tiller's church, instead he jumped in his car and ran. He is a murderer, plain and simple.I disagree. I'd argue part of Scott Roeder's motivation to murder Tiller was to terrorize other women's healthcare professionals who provide access to abortion. He didn't indiscriminately kill others, but psychologically he was targeting other doctors and nurses.
Roeder's ex-wife did testify that explosives found in her ex-husband's possession in an earlier arrest were part of his plot to blow up a clinic that offers abortions. If that is true, then he does (or did) definitely have the terrorist mindset of one who also kills indiscriminately.
I threw in the bomb plot to show he was already thinking along those lines back in 1996, but ignore it.
Murdering Tiller in surgical fashion was still meant as a physical act of violence to intimidate other healthcare providers. That is terrorism.
This Pastor is doing more then making a statement with the threat of burning, he is holding it hostage. You see, he is attempting to coerce the iman from building a mosque near ground zero. Something the Government said isnt wise to do either and shouldnt stop from happening just the same.
Just to be clear, the pastor didn't bring up the NYC issue, until the Florida Imam got involved. There is some disagreement on how it was brought up, whom promised whom what, what was offered in exchange for what.
Just to be clear, the pastor didn't bring up the NYC issue, until the Florida Imam got involved. There is some disagreement on how it was brought up, whom promised whom what, what was offered in exchange for what.
Im not sure if that matters. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that with teh ongoing mosque debate, and the amount of media time the iman gets, that he wouldnt get the opportunity to comment.
You and I both know the Pastors timing isnt a coincidence.
Just to be clear, the pastor didn't bring up the NYC issue, until the Florida Imam got involved. There is some disagreement on how it was brought up, whom promised whom what, what was offered in exchange for what.Im not sure if that matters. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that with teh ongoing mosque debate, and the amount of media time the iman gets, that he wouldnt get the opportunity to comment.
You and I both know the Pastors timing isnt a coincidence.
Are you suggesting that this wacky pastor, knew that if this went on long enough, the Florida Imam would involve himself with it and indicate that a possible discussion with the NYC Imam might happen? I think that is giving this guy way more credit than he deserves.
Murdering Tiller in surgical fashion was still meant as a physical act of violence to intimidate other healthcare providers. That is terrorism.
Surgical? Surgical like removing a kidney with a sledgehammer maybe.
Are you suggesting that this wacky pastor, knew that if this went on long enough, the Florida Imam would involve himself with it and indicate that a possible discussion with the NYC Imam might happen? I think that is giving this guy way more credit than he deserves.
I think he is fanatical an extremist, not wacky.
|
Wretched Atheists!!!I fixed your post for you. ;-)
Slapping an emoticon at the end of a sentence doesn't make it alright to deliberately misquote someone. Anyone who doesn't read the entire thread might think I was making anti-atheist remarks (which we both know I wasn't).
Sorry, I was being a total ass!
Look, I apologized for you. ;-)
Murdering Tiller in surgical fashion was still meant as a physical act of violence to intimidate other healthcare providers. That is terrorism.Surgical? Surgical like removing a kidney with a sledgehammer maybe.
OK, you don't like "surgical" -- fine.
Murdering Tiller was still meant as a physical act of violence to intimidate other healthcare providers. That is terrorism.
So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?
The IRA are terrorists (So are the Loyalists they are just as bad) – Americans were more than happy to fund terrorists like the IRA because the are “freedom fighters” or make excuses for them or say the are Terroristish to absolve themselves that they had sympathy for people that have been using the same tactics that the Islamic extremists have used against the US for decades. The IRA (and loyalists) murdered children, they took fathers out of their homes and in front of their families shot them in the head, US opinion at the time – the IRA are freedom fighters lets turn a blind eye or send them some money and its not a problem because they weren’t killing Americans.
I thought the following might be a little fun...
My wife sent me this. (I haven't had a chance yet to check it out -- YouTube is blocked at work...)
The similarities are amazing.
+1 to Moff. Why are you so darn reasonable?! :)
I think we need to rail against the Basque separatists some more; they've been sadly neglected so far. ETA!
I thought the following might be a little fun...
My wife sent me this. (I haven't had a chance yet to check it out -- YouTube is blocked at work...)
The similarities are amazing.
Yes but Terry Jones of Monty Python was so much more talented!
So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?
Actually if you went back and read what was being discussed, you would see that we were not talking about "randomly" shooting people. In fact, it was exactly not random. Which was my point. If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target.
People who target our military AND only our military are not terrorist, they are insurgents. Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
Thanks for that link Kirth.What is the saying, there are no atheists on death row or in foxholes?I love the fact that there's a whole organization of combat veterans now called Atheists in Foxholes, who echo my thoughts: "When you're about to get killed, you worry about how to get out alive. You're sure as hell not thinking about God or the meaning of life or any other grand metaphysical questions."
Yeah I never understood that saying.
So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?Actually if you went back and read what was being discussed, you would see that we were not talking about "randomly" shooting people. In fact, it was exactly not random. Which was my point. If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target.
People who target our military AND only our military are not terrorist, they are insurgents. Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
So picking people at random from your group of hostages and shooting them in the head - When your stated aim is to make political, religious or societal change is that murder or terrorism?
Having a group of hostages and killing people specifically based on their nationality, political allegiance, religion or function in society = terrorism.
Having a group of hostages and killing them so you can force the authorities to get you a helicopter so you can escape with your loot = murder.
So picking people at random from your group of hostages and shooting them in the head - When your stated aim is to make political, religious or societal change is that murder or terrorism?So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?Actually if you went back and read what was being discussed, you would see that we were not talking about "randomly" shooting people. In fact, it was exactly not random. Which was my point. If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target.
People who target our military AND only our military are not terrorist, they are insurgents. Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
Yes.
Yes.So picking people at random from your group of hostages and shooting them in the head - When your stated aim is to make political, religious or societal change is that murder or terrorism?So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?Actually if you went back and read what was being discussed, you would see that we were not talking about "randomly" shooting people. In fact, it was exactly not random. Which was my point. If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target.
People who target our military AND only our military are not terrorist, they are insurgents. Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
Thanks Kosh
Kosh: They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass.
Sinclair: The Narn or the Centauri?
Kosh: Yes.
...If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target... Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
OK, maybe this helps:
You, Pres Man, work at a civilian company in the US that manufactures many different but all legal products. One of these, a widget, is highly controversial with a select group of individuals. These individuals often picket outside the plant and even go so far as to put up pictures of you and other employees on the web with text saying you all deserve to die. Even a television personality goes so far as to single you out repeatedly on his national tv program as a baby killer.
Now one of these individuals, with proven ties to these extremist elements, tracks you down in your church and executes you. His intent is to murder you as a physical act of violence to intimidate other employees at the widget plant. That is terrorism.
...If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target... Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
OK, maybe this helps:
You, Pres Man, work at a civilian company in the US that manufactures many different but all legal products. One of these, a widget, is highly controversial with a select group of individuals. These individuals often picket outside the plant and even go so far as to put up pictures of you and other employees on the web with text saying you all deserve to die. Even a television personality goes so far as to single you out repeatedly on his national tv program as a baby killer.
Now one of these individuals, with proven ties to these extremist elements, tracks you down in your church and executes you. His intent is to murder you as a physical act of violence to intimidate other employees at the widget plant. That is terrorism.
Well said Ambrosia Slaad.
United States Law Code
United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
"(d) Definitions (...)
(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"[50]
[edit] US Federal criminal code
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331[51] defines terrorism as:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."
Commenting on the genesis of this provision, Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and former ambassador to Mauritania said:
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress [passed] U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331 ... the US definition of terrorism. […] one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.[52]
[edit] US Code of Federal Regulations
The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
[edit] US national security strategy
The current US national security strategy defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
[edit] United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as:
premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
—Title 22 of the United States Code section 2656f(d).[53]
A footnote at the bottom of this definition qualifies and explains the Department of Defense's understanding of this legal definition:
For the purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include,in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty ... We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines or elsewhere.[53]
[edit] USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
[edit] US National Counterterrorism Center
The US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as: "...premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." [54]
Question for a real lawyer;
I saw from one of my Gainesville peeps that the city is going to charge the church money for the extra security needed possibly; I know that one would have to lawyer up to challenge such a move, thus making it painful from a war of attrition standpoint, but is that right if the city is doing that? It doesn't sound legal.
(not that I care; the guy's a d#$#$ead but still).
Question for a real lawyer;
I saw from one of my Gainesville peeps that the city is going to charge the church money for the extra security needed possibly; I know that one would have to lawyer up to challenge such a move, thus making it painful from a war of attrition standpoint, but is that right if the city is doing that? It doesn't sound legal.
(not that I care; the guy's a d!@&!ead but still).
Didn't LA do something similar to the Jackson estate regarding Michael's funeral?
|
Again, where did I refer to the IRA in my previous statement? I know what he's saying, frankly I don't know enough about that whole mess to comment on it.Actually, I agree with JM a bit CJ, but I'd move some of his words around so that they make more sense: I would say that the IRA was a terrorist organisation that was christian/catholic, not so much a christian organization that was made up of terrorists. I think syntax plays a role here, and keeps it from going all strawman on us.Frankly your supposition that christians didn't have organized terror cells is BS at it's finest.I was referring to the abortion clinic nutjobs, not the IRA but don't let that get in the way of your strawman arguments.
You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.
|
I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.
Since when are the IRA considered a Christian terrorist organisation. It was a secular terrorist organisation concerned with geo-political conflict.
My knowledge of the IRA (which could be wrong) was that it was more concerned with the British occupation of the North (which happended to be Protestant) and the unification of Ireland (the majority of which was the Republic of Ireland that happened to be Catholic).
The label of Catholic or Christian terror is incorrect when applied to the IRA. It was more a coincidence of demographics that had the IRA fighting from the Catholic side against the Protestant side in the North.
Historically, the Catholics have suffered in Ireland. However, I am not too sure we can confidently say it was a religious conflict. I would be more confident in saying it was a geo-political conflict instead.
EDIT: I thought the Klu Klux Klan and the Hutaree of Michigan were Christian terrorist groups.
|
|
I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.Since when are the IRA considered a Christian terrorist organisation. It was a secular terrorist organisation concerned with geo-political conflict.
My knowledge of the IRA (which could be wrong) was that it was more concerned with the British occupation of the North (which happended to be Protestant) and the unification of Ireland (the majority of which was the Republic of Ireland that happened to be Catholic).
The label of Catholic or Christian terror is incorrect when applied to the IRA. It was more a coincidence of demographics that had the IRA fighting from the Catholic side against the Protestant side in the North.
Historically, the Catholics have suffered in Ireland. However, I am not too sure we can confidently say it was a religious conflict. I would be more confident in saying it was a geo-political conflict instead.
EDIT: I thought the Klu Klux Klan and the Hutaree of Michigan were Christian terrorist groups.
In which case, al Qaida isn't a a Muslim terrorist group as it's concerned wtih the geo-politics of getting the United Startes (mostly Christian) out of the Arabian peninsula (which just happens to be Muslim). This is obvious bull excrement.
In both cases, the groups explicitly use religious iconography and target those of the rival religion. The IRA targeted ordinary protestants, not just the authorities (thus screwing up Presman's attempt to rewrite history to make them some kind of non-rterrorist terorist as well).
|
|
This is obvious bull excrement.
Difference between Al-Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army:
Al-Qaeda is a militant organisation that actively funds, organises and promotes Islamic militants.
The IRA was founded by Irish resistant fighters who were responsible for the Easter Rising in 1916. These militants were concerned with Irish independence from the British.
Al-Qaeda wants to establish Islam as globally as well as opposing the West and American interests. Al-Qaeda is far more obviously based in its religion.
The IRA aimed to create an Irish Republic that would also include the removal of British dominion in the North. While it targeted people in the North, who were mostly Protestant, it also attacked soldiers and police.
The bull excrement in this case comes from what you have written above. Al-Qaeda is identified far more with Islam than the IRA was with Catholicism. One is tied strongly with a religion and the other happened to originate in a country that was Catholic.
The IRA may have used Christianity from time to time, as many of its members would have been Catholic, but the organisation itself was more focused on politics rather than religion.
Again, I am no expert on either Al-Qaeda or the IRA.
By the way, terrorists target ordinary people all the time. That is the aim of terrorism. If they happen to be of a predominant religious philosophy does not mean that suddenly they are waging religious terrorism.
Is Al-Qaeda more about politics, power, resources and territory than religion? Is it fulfilling aims that are using Islam as a convenient tool?
Does the religion really matter when people are dying? Many Muslims would not consider Al-Qaeda a Muslim terrorist group, just a terrorist group. The same can be said about Catholics and the IRA.
|
|
You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.
True, while I do not agree that the IRA were a Christian terrorist organisation, I agree that you were not making a strawman argument. I think the term 'strawman' gets thrown around a bit too fast. Are the not the Hutaree or the KKK examples of organised Christian terrorist groups?
|
|
In which case, al Qaida isn't a a Muslim terrorist group as it's concerned wtih the geo-politics of getting the United Startes (mostly Christian) out of the Arabian peninsula (which just happens to be Muslim).
This is an interesting point.
Is Al-Qaeda a Muslim terrorist group or is Islam just a convenient foundation for it to manipulate recruits and support? I think the same can be said about the IRA, its members probably joined for differing reasons. However, the overall aims of the organisation may not match those of its members, just the outcomes of trying to achieve their aims.
Violence and terror.
Religion is just the veneer, a means to an end?
|
|
I think a more appropriate term for the conflict in Ireland is ethno-political rather than geo-political.
To be more accurate the IRA was a secular organisation, there is no doubt the religious divisions in Ireland also contribute to the idea that this was a Christian terrorist organisation.
Religious memberships became a way of identifying the sides in the conflict. While the IRA may have been protecting the Catholic community in the North, its real objective was the reunification of Ireland and the removal of the British from Ireland.
The distinction between Catholic and Protestant is still used today. To an extent it is misleading. However, there is the probability that many people in the IRA saw it as a religious conflict as well as a fight for reunification.
I expect the idea of it being a religious conflict was a corruption of the original intentions of the IRA. This was a group that went through many divisions, splits and evolved over time. May be the 1970s and 1980s really saw it becoming more religious, but I would say that Al-Qaeda wears religion more clearly than the IRA did in its halcyon days.
The best way the conflict was explained to me was by my late godmother, a former native of County Kerry, "Its all too hard to explain as many people do not remember exactly why their fighting. It's all about the hate nowadays." She didn't really have an answer for why so many Irish were willing to devote themselves to terrorism.
|
|
On The Theology of the IRA:
"For Protestants in the North take this for granted, and nearly everyone who speaks of the two sides refers to them as 'Catholics' or 'Protestants'. Yet there are obvious difficulties with this religious interpretation. The IRA regards itself and its aspirations as non-denominational and non-sectarian. It has Protestant members, and some of its leading heroes, Tone and Emmet, were Protestants. Perhaps even more important, the IRA often denounces the Roman Catholic Hierarchy - which as frequently returns the compliment..."
Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 1983 by David Berman, Stephen Lalor and Brian Torode.
|
|
Way to line your straw men all up in a row.
That should make them far easier to knock them down then. Free shot.
Actually, could you explain to me exactly how my post was a straw man argument? I see that term bandied around a lot and never quite knew what it meant, so I looked it up. Now that I know what it means, I realise that many of the people who use it appear to do so incorrectly, unless there is something I am just not understanding about the whole thing.
|
|
I think a more appropriate term for the conflict in Ireland is ethno-political rather than geo-political.
To be more accurate the IRA was a secular organisation, there is no doubt the religious divisions in Ireland also contribute to the idea that this was a Christian terrorist organisation.
Religious memberships became a way of identifying the sides in the conflict. While the IRA may have been protecting the Catholic community in the North, its real objective was the reunification of Ireland and the removal of the British from Ireland.
The distinction between Catholic and Protestant is still used today. To an extent it is misleading. However, there is the probability that many people in the IRA saw it as a religious conflict as well as a fight for reunification.
I expect the idea of it being a religious conflict was a corruption of the original intentions of the IRA. This was a group that went through many divisions, splits and evolved over time. May be the 1970s and 1980s really saw it becoming more religious, but I would say that Al-Qaeda wears religion more clearly than the IRA did in its halcyon days.
The best way the conflict was explained to me was by my late godmother, a former native of County Kerry, "Its all too hard to explain as many people do not remember exactly why their fighting. It's all about the hate nowadays." She didn't really have an answer for why so many Irish were willing to devote themselves to terrorism.
Bolded one very troubling word. Protecting them from who exactly? This is exactly the sort of misinformed garbage that pisses me off when Americans talk about the conflict in Northern Ireland. They weren't protecting people; they were a bunch of brutal murderers who had nio problem blowing up innocent people to advance their 'cause'. Stop putting these violent thugs on a pedestal.
|
|
One thing that really frustrates me about this whole situation (and yes, I have brought into it by starting this thread) is that for many people, this whole Koran burning thing and the surrounding debate and media focus has taken the focus for many people AWAY from what today, September the 11th should really be about; remembering and honouring the thousands of people who died this day nine years ago in those completely horrific and detestable events, as well as their families and friends, and all the fantastic people who did their best to help the victims and survivors in the face of such tragedy.
Burning a book won’t bring the people ultimately responsible for those attacks to justice, it won’t bring any solace to the innocent people who died that day, and the circus it has become does not honour their memory. I think Pastor Terry Jones is doing a very selfish thing if he continues this farce any longer. If he really thinks it must be done, choose some other day of the year.
On The Theology of the IRA:
"For Protestants in the North take this for granted, and nearly everyone who speaks of the two sides refers to them as 'Catholics' or 'Protestants'. Yet there are obvious difficulties with this religious interpretation. The IRA regards itself and its aspirations as non-denominational and non-sectarian. It has Protestant members, and some of its leading heroes, Tone and Emmet, were Protestants. Perhaps even more important, the IRA often denounces the Roman Catholic Hierarchy - which as frequently returns the compliment..."
Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 1983 by David Berman, Stephen Lalor and Brian Torode.
Chubbs you are talking about the original IRA - not the Provisional IRA or the "Real IRA" there is a major difference (also your sources are dated 1983 dude). The aim of the original IRA was to remove English rule over Ireland and its ranks were filled with both Protestant and Catholic members - they moved from being terrorists to rebels when they gained enough momentum and popular support. The English were forced out of all but the predominately Protestant and loyalist counties in the north. On the formation of the Irish state the IRA officially ceased to exist.
The Provisional IRA (including the more radical offshoots like the Real IRA) were formed by the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland to force the English out and the unification of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. The problem is that the Majority of Northern Irelands citizens are
a) loyal to the Protestant English Crown and
b) Very reluctant to unify with a non secular Catholic state
c) unable to forget centuries of religious and sectarian violence.
Religion is a major determining factor and inseparable from the politics. The protagonists identify them selves by their religion and the Catholic minority want to be part of the non secular Catholic Irish Republic and the Protestant Majority want to be part of the secularish (as QE2 is both head of state and church) United Kingdom.
The Provisional IRA will never have the critical mass to force the overthrow of English rule as the majority of the citizens do not support the PROVISIONAL IRA. This means that they are doomed to be nothing more than the terrorist scum that they are. The IRA lost financial support from prominent US citizens when the US government realised that having its citizens funding terrorism against their allies was not in their best interests and with that realisation and the fact that the IRA were loosing the war of attrition have wound down their activities and moved into trying to achieve their aims through politics (thankfully).
|
|
Bolded one very troubling word. Protecting them from who exactly?
Did you read the proceeding words "may have been..."?
I am quite OK with the idea that you disagree with what I post, but please do not quote out of context. I was stating that its real objective was the reunification of Ireland and the removal of the British!
To break it down for you:
1) The IRA were terrorists (BAD GUYS)
2) The protection of Catholic communities was excuse used by the IRA (NOT ME)
3) The IRA are not to be promoted as crusaders for a noble cause (THEY WERE TERRORISTS)
Now, I hope that clarifies for you that I do not PERSONALLY idolise or assign pedestal space for the IRA. In future, I will make sure I spell out it all very clearly.
|
|
Chubbs you are talking about the original IRA - not the Provisional IRA or the "Real IRA" there is a major difference (also your sources are dated 1983 dude).
If you bothered to read my previous posts, in one I state:
"I expect the idea of it being a religious conflict was a corruption of the original intentions of the IRA. This was a group that went through many divisions, splits and evolved over time. May be the 1970s and 1980s really saw it becoming more religious, but I would say that Al-Qaeda wears religion more clearly than the IRA did in its halcyon days."
I am well aware of factionalism within the IRA. May be you should pay more attention to posts.
As I bothered to place the date of the source in my post, I am well aware of that as well. I am not ignorant of the historiography.
Religion is a major determining factor and inseparable from the politics.
Again, I am not denying that members of the IRA did not define their role within the organisation by their religion. I am also not refuting that the labels of 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' were used. This was mainly through the media as well. They were convenient terms.
What I was saying was the IRA itself was a secular political movement. I did not deny that over time it evolved into something else (you may appreciate that it is not always possible to write exhaustive posts that cover every single detail). If you are going to try and sling bulldust, please make sure you understand what I was stating in my posts.
In two posts I have stated that I see a role for religion in these movements.
Chubbs you are talking about the original IRA...
No, the quote is talking about the original IRA. I was using it to illustrate that the initial aims of the group were non-religious. As state above, I am willing to accept the evolution of the organisation to move towards the religious.
Contributor
|
…I think the logic in your argument runs into trouble too. Taken to its limit…Fair enough. However, taking the opposing argument to its limit puts us in an equally disturbing place. So where does that leave us?
It leaves us at a much, much better starting point and a more narrowed field for developing principles that can really help us adjudicate these situations.
I think recognizing the inherent failure of the most commonly made approaches starts us on a genuine path forward.
So, since total collective guilt, on the one hand, and radical individualism on the other, both fail as guides to establishing rational criteria of acceptability for specific political behavior, what would be a good principle?
Me, I'd start by reading the legal cases involving just these issues: when is an action -- especially those not attendant on a direct, physical act -- sufficiently contributory to be declared negligent and punishable? I'm sure a large number of judges and litigators, much smarter than you and I, have wrestled to develop just this sort of criteria. Starting with their conclusions is probably a good way to begin.
In short, it leaves us having to do work if we mean to be serious about the question.
The problem with conveniently trying to separate "political" terrorists from "religious" ones is that a lot of the world doesn't see church and state as logically separate entities, but rather as a seamless whole. I believe that Hamas, for example, will ultimately always reject a two-state solution in the end, because there's a cognitive dissonance in the fact of a Jewish state on "Muslim" lands that most of the members cannot reconcile with their world-view.
The IRA targeted ordinary protestants, not just the authorities (thus screwing up Presman's attempt to rewrite history to make them some kind of non-rterrorist terorist as well).
Wait. What? Where did I did I try to "rewrite history" about the IRA? The most I've said about the IRA is:
"IRA, yeah very terrorist-ish. But as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
I personally feel their behavior is very much along the terrorist lines. I don't know enough about the overall situation to validate someone's claim that they were freedom fighters, but I certainly believe some viewed them as such.
Considering the British Army used pretty terrorist tactics themselves, some could try to justify the IRA's behavior as "tit-for-tat". Still, I personally don't think that justifies their actions.
As for (some) Americans financial supporting the IRA. I personally believe most people that did that were unaware of where the money was going. Many believed they donating to help the victims of the conflict. Much as how many people who financially supported the Palestinian terrorist groups thought they were sending aid to those in need.
|
|
The IRA targeted ordinary protestants, not just the authorities (thus screwing up Presman's attempt to rewrite history to make them some kind of non-rterrorist terorist as well).Wait. What? Where did I did I try to "rewrite history" about the IRA? The most I've said about the IRA is:
"IRA, yeah very terrorist-ish. But as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
I personally feel their behavior is very much along the terrorist lines. I don't know enough about the overall situation to validate someone's claim that they were freedom fighters, but I certainly believe some viewed them as such.
Considering the British Army used pretty terrorist tactics themselves, some could try to justify the IRA's behavior as "tit-for-tat". Still, I personally don't think that justifies their actions.
As for (some) Americans financial supporting the IRA. I personally believe most people that did that were unaware of where the money was going. Many believed they donating to help the victims of the conflict. Much as how many people who financially supported the Palestinian terrorist groups thought they were sending aid to those in need.
Bolded the part that caused the problem. I usually hear it when people are trying to say that the group under discussion isn't really a terrorist group.
And you're right, the Army, the Ulster Police and the Loyalist terrorists have hardly covered themselves in glory, either. Not arguing that it's somehow all the IRA's fault.
Yes.So picking people at random from your group of hostages and shooting them in the head - When your stated aim is to make political, religious or societal change is that murder or terrorism?So Presman People that assassinate or randomly shoot people to incite terror are not terrorists by your definition - unless maybe they were from the middle east and use bombs?Actually if you went back and read what was being discussed, you would see that we were not talking about "randomly" shooting people. In fact, it was exactly not random. Which was my point. If the gun man had shot the doctor and then open fire on the rest of the church, then I would be saying this person was a terrorist. I am saying he is not, because he acted with only the specified target.
People who target our military AND only our military are not terrorist, they are insurgents. Terrorist are the ones that bomb shopping centers claiming to be targeting Americans, yet there are no americans where they in fact bombed.
If we want to claim that any person that kills someone is a terrorist, we can go that route, but at that point murderer and terrorist are basically the same thing.
Thanks Kosh
Kosh: They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass.
Sinclair: The Narn or the Centauri?
Kosh: Yes.
My wife HATES it when I do that to her.
In all honesty though my answer would be yes, it is both murder and terrorism.
You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.Again, where did I refer to the IRA in my previous statement? I know what he's saying, frankly I don't know enough about that whole mess to comment on it.Actually, I agree with JM a bit CJ, but I'd move some of his words around so that they make more sense: I would say that the IRA was a terrorist organisation that was christian/catholic, not so much a christian organization that was made up of terrorists. I think syntax plays a role here, and keeps it from going all strawman on us.Frankly your supposition that christians didn't have organized terror cells is BS at it's finest.I was referring to the abortion clinic nutjobs, not the IRA but don't let that get in the way of your strawman arguments.
Jeremy, while I will not debate the straw-men issue with you or anyone else. I will say that the IRA, while clinging to religion, were not a religious organization in any way. They were a political movement using religion as an excuse, and a very poor one, amongst others, for a long and disastrous conflict.
There are however some groups that would if they could be religious terrorists. I would say they would not be actual Christians but fear the ever present "not a real Scotsman" argument.
Well, pulling out of any foreign engagements and putting an end to free trade agreements that hurt us more than help us would be a good start.We need to move away from being world police and back toward a more isolationist policy (IMO).I agree, although, I do not think we can afford to be completely isolated.Like that worked the last time... in the 1920's The Japanese had already started planning eliminate your isolationist nation as a threat in the pacific. You can bet that today China has plans in the event of something "unfortunate". Isolate your self and its even easier to hate you.
Isolationism works better if your not in an expansionistic imperialistic phase. America's advance into the Pacific after the Spanish American War, the annexation of Hawaii and the decision that China was within the American Sphere of influence put America into conflict with Japan's own imperialistic interests in China and the Pacific.
|
|
You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.Again, where did I refer to the IRA in my previous statement? I know what he's saying, frankly I don't know enough about that whole mess to comment on it.Actually, I agree with JM a bit CJ, but I'd move some of his words around so that they make more sense: I would say that the IRA was a terrorist organisation that was christian/catholic, not so much a christian organization that was made up of terrorists. I think syntax plays a role here, and keeps it from going all strawman on us.Frankly your supposition that christians didn't have organized terror cells is BS at it's finest.I was referring to the abortion clinic nutjobs, not the IRA but don't let that get in the way of your strawman arguments.Jeremy, while I will not debate the straw-men issue with you or anyone else. I will say that the IRA, while clinging to religion, were not a religious organization in any way. They were a political movement using religion as an excuse, and a very poor one, amongst others, for a long and disastrous conflict.
There are however some groups that would if they could be religious terrorists. I would say they would not be actual Christians but fear the ever present "not a real Scotsman" argument.
And again, how is this different from al Qaida? This is the part I'm not seeing. Everything you say about the IRA to prove it's not a Christian organisation applies to bin Laden and his fellow psychopaths.
And again, how is this different from al Qaida? This is the part I'm not seeing. Everything you say about the IRA to prove it's not a Christian organisation applies to bin Laden and his fellow psychopaths.You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.Again, where did I refer to the IRA in my previous statement? I know what he's saying, frankly I don't know enough about that whole mess to comment on it.Actually, I agree with JM a bit CJ, but I'd move some of his words around so that they make more sense: I would say that the IRA was a terrorist organisation that was christian/catholic, not so much a christian organization that was made up of terrorists. I think syntax plays a role here, and keeps it from going all strawman on us.Frankly your supposition that christians didn't have organized terror cells is BS at it's finest.I was referring to the abortion clinic nutjobs, not the IRA but don't let that get in the way of your strawman arguments.Jeremy, while I will not debate the straw-men issue with you or anyone else. I will say that the IRA, while clinging to religion, were not a religious organization in any way. They were a political movement using religion as an excuse, and a very poor one, amongst others, for a long and disastrous conflict.
There are however some groups that would if they could be religious terrorists. I would say they would not be actual Christians but fear the ever present "not a real Scotsman" argument.
I for one Paul have never, nor will I ever, claim that Al-Qaida is anything but a pathetic terrorism campaign. Yes they may scream and rant and rave about Allah but are they actually a religious organization, I for one doubt it. I would however place the IRA more in line with Hamas then ever with Al-Qaida. They are not really the same thing. Once again just to restate, I see nothing about Islam in Al-Qaida.
|
|
The problem with conveniently trying to separate "political" terrorists from "religious" ones is that a lot of the world doesn't see church and state as logically separate entities, but rather as a seamless whole. I believe that Hamas, for example, will ultimately always reject a two-state solution in the end, because there's a cognitive dissonance in the fact of a Jewish state on "Muslim" lands that most of the members cannot reconcile with their world-view.
That is an excellent point! :D
Movements can begin as political and evolve into the religious as well. I was trying to say that about the IRA. However, was the main objective of the IRA secular and then layered (or corrupted) by religion? Media, the members and the global community began to associate religion with the movement?
I am not old enough to remember the IRA clear enough for the events in the 1970s and 1980s. Still, from what I can remember, Al-Qaeda still appears to be more heavily entrenched in Islam than the IRA was in Catholicism.
This was a problem for The 8th Dwarf. He was unable to understand the point that while the IRA began as a secular, non-denominational organisation it has evolved into that over time. May be that is the natural progression of these terrorist organisations, that eventually the original ideology and stated purpose becomes influenced by religion (or lack of belief in religion).
The guise of religion is convenient for these movements. Religion allows them to recruit and gain support from the populace. May be religion is just a means to an end. The original, secular, movement wants a group removed from an area. This attracts a second group, that is religious, that shares the same objective but on different grounds. Eventually, the religious aspect becomes the most convenient (and in some cases) dominate part of the organisation. This would not be true in all circumstances I imagine.
I am probably right off the mark on this, so it definitely requires a bit more broader research on my part.
|
|
I for one Paul have never, nor will I ever, claim that Al-Qaida is anything but a pathetic terrorism campaign. Yes they may scream and rant and rave about Allah but are they actually a religious organization, I for one doubt it. I would however place the IRA more in line with Hamas then ever with Al-Qaida. They are not really the same thing. Once again just to restate, I see nothing about Islam in Al-Qaida.
I cannot really see how you were sympathising with any movement or placing them on a pedestal. We're debating semantics really. A couple of bolded points have simply been used to state that this is an expression of protecting or defending these organisations.
These organisations perceive themselves as religious and keep to [some of] the trappings of their faith. I imagine Catholics and Muslims see little of their faith in the hate and violence conducted by these people. Hamas does feel like a better fit with the IRA, I think that would be interesting to explore further through some independent research.
I for one Paul have never, nor will I ever, claim that Al-Qaida is anything but a pathetic terrorism campaign. Yes they may scream and rant and rave about Allah but are they actually a religious organization, I for one doubt it. I would however place the IRA more in line with Hamas then ever with Al-Qaida. They are not really the same thing. Once again just to restate, I see nothing about Islam in Al-Qaida.I cannot really see how you were sympathizing with any movement or placing them on a pedestal. We're debating semantics really. A couple of bolded points have simply been used to state that this is an expression of protecting or defending these organizations.
These organizations perceive themselves as religious and keep to [some of] the trappings of their faith. I imagine Catholics and Muslims see little of their faith in the hate and violence conducted by these people. Hamas does feel like a better fit with the IRA, I think that would be interesting to explore further through some independent research.
I can not see placing any of these groups on any pedestals.