Use of the word terrorist

Brussels Sprout

The other day I heard the Syrian government refer to the democracy protesters as terrorists. Gaddafi has also referred to the Libyan rebels as terrorists.

It seems to me that nowadays if a government wants to treat a group in whatever way they want with no questions asked they just use the 't' word.

I guess in a way they are just picking up on what Israel and the US (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) have been doing for years.

Is the word being overused and abused? Has it lost all meaning in political terms?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The other day I heard the Syrian government refer to the democracy protesters as terrorists. Gaddafi has also referred to the Libyan rebels as terrorists.

It seems to me that nowadays if a government wants to treat a group in whatever way they want with no questions asked they just use the 't' word.

I guess in a way they are just picking up on what Israel and the US (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) have been doing for years.

Is the word being overused and abused? Has it lost all meaning in political terms?

Yes it completely has. Like feminism everyone has their own definition of what it means.

shaneybaby

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes it completely has. Like feminism everyone has their own definition of what it means.

Judge Koojmans (!?) in the Palestinian Wall case before the ICJ talked of terrorism requiring an international element. As in that Israel could not at the same time claim Palestine as its own but then say attacks on them from Palestine were terrorist attacks, they were internal disputes and should be dealt with by internal laws.

gurramok

Using the word terrorist is a case of hiding state forces atrocities against civilians. It happened on this island up north alot in the 70's & 80's, its happening now in any country you pick where the state abuses it's civilians. Its a word of convenience for a state to terrorise unarmed civilians the world over.

wes

I don't think there has ever been a agreed upon meaning for what terrorism is, and as mentioned above, we have Syria etc calling peaceful protesters terrorists. Calling a group of people terrorists in the last few years has only made this worse imho, the word has lost all meaning.

digme

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The other day I heard the Syrian government refer to the democracy protesters as terrorists. Gaddafi has also referred to the Libyan rebels as terrorists.

It seems to me that nowadays if a government wants to treat a group in whatever way they want with no questions asked they just use the 't' word.

I guess in a way they are just picking up on what Israel and the US (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) have been doing for years.

Is the word being overused and abused? Has it lost all meaning in political terms?

Well of course it has.Here's a great example for you.
The Obama Administration has convinced a jury of ordinary Americans that Bernard von NotHaus, the creator of the Liberty Dollar, is a terrorist.

What Did Bernie Do?
Bernie took his gold and silver and made it into coins. He also printed receipts which could be used to transfer ownership of gold and silver that was held in secure storage. In effect, he gave the American people a safe and secure free market alternative to the crashing U.S. dollar.


The word has lost all meaning.

hardCopy

Freedom Fighter, Rebel, Terrorist.

Choose one, depending on which side you support.

Denerick

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

Spot-on. The clue is in the word "terror".

The only grey area is where government forces like the U.S. arbitrarily bomb a city/area/country, because that also targets civilians....of course when they do it they trot out the even more objectionable phrase of "collateral damage" :mad:

Language can, however, be twisted in an unbelieveable fashion by those wishing to defend the indefensible.

Basically the high moral ground is increasingly hard to find these days, which is why I only accept such terms from those who resist the urge to target civilians completely.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Denerick wrote: »

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

Is there an army on the planet who have never deliberately targeted civillians?

Furthermore your definition means the IRA attacks on British Soldiers and PSNI were not terrorist attacks, and I'd be surprised if you held that view.

I'd be more inclined to define it as

Using force and the threat of force with the intention of achieving political aims

A lot of peopel don't like this definition because it is neutral on integrity. It means a terrorist could be good or bad, depending on your subjective point of view.

shaneybaby wrote:

Judge Koojmans (!?) in the Palestinian Wall case before the ICJ talked of terrorism requiring an international element. As in that Israel could not at the same time claim Palestine as its own but then say attacks on them from Palestine were terrorist attacks, they were internal disputes and should be dealt with by internal laws.

Interesting point. I don't recall the British government ever refering to the IRA as "British Terrorists" come to think of it. The comedian Stuart lee as well as some others have made light of this anomaly in their routines

HivemindXX

Denerick wrote: »

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

In general only non-state actors are considered terrorists. The Syrian (or American or British) government should not be considered terrorists. War Criminals would be the more correct term. The Nazis were not terrorists, they were war criminals.

I'd also change this to "targets civilians with violence or the threat of violence". People who talk about the ECB or the unions being economic terrorists deserve to be dragged from their homes, stuffed in the boot of a car and be made to kneel in a bog somewhere with a gun to their head just to clarify for them the difference between actual terrorists and people they don't like.

Bottle_of_Smoke

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'd also change this to "targets civilians with violence or the threat of violence". People who talk about the ECB or the unions being economic terrorists deserve to be dragged from their homes, stuffed in the boot of a car and be made to kneel in a bog somewhere with a gun to their head just to clarify for them the difference between actual terrorists and people they don't like.

feel your pain. And lets not forget those eco-terrorists who don't throw their cigarettes in the bin

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

So the British army would also be included in this, on account of their deliberate targeting of civilians in Derry, Ballymurphy and Springhill, correct?

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

So the British army would also be included in this, on account of their deliberate targeting of civilians in Derry, Ballymurphy and Springhill, correct?

In those instances where civilians were directly targeted by the British military infrastructure, sure. You seem to have erroneously painted me as a Unionist. Indeed if you followed my reasoning at all, I hold a passionate hatred of all armed camp nationalist groups, all of the inveterate imbeciles who fly flags and scream abuse and fire AK47s in the air and generally do all they can to stamp down on reasonable debate or compromise.

Nationalism is a disgusting ideology and how anyone of sound mind can continue to defend it is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dsmythy

Denerick wrote: »

Nationalism is a disgusting ideology and how anyone of sound mind can continue to defend it is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Talk about taking a broad swipe. I presume you just mean racial Nationalism.

Denerick

dsmythy wrote: »

Talk about taking a broad swipe. I presume you just mean racial Nationalism.

Any and all. Put the flag away and join the universal brotherhood of man.

Cú Giobach

A Terrorist is any person who uses or instils terror to achieve their aim.
The word is meaningless at this stage with regard to its vernacular usage.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

In those instances where civilians were directly targeted by the British military infrastructure, sure.

Ah, see.. So when the British military directly targets civilians - only those responsible are deemed terrorists, and not the army as a whole. But when paramilitary groups do the same - all actions and members are deemed as terrorism/terrorists. Do you see where your logic is not applied evenly?

Denerick wrote: »

You seem to have erroneously painted me as a Unionist.

I don't believe I ever painted you as a Unionist. The British army was just a case in point - I could have used any army, but chose one that was most relevant in an Irish context.

Denerick wrote: »

Indeed if you followed my reasoning at all, I hold a passionate hatred of all armed camp nationalist groups, all of the inveterate imbeciles who fly flags and scream abuse and fire AK47s in the air and generally do all they can to stamp down on reasonable debate or compromise.

That's a pretty ignorant generalisation in fairness. The reason such groups exist, is because it has been impossible in the first place to reach a fair compromise. , that is why many of the world's wars start and end - because a compromise is unable to be achieved. Israel and Palestine are in conflict, because they cannot reach a compromise on borders. American and Britain went to war because they could not reach a compromise on fiscal freedom.

However, you have cunningly attacked nationalists - because they aspire to live in a state that will represent their best interests. Those interests could be something as simple as cultural expression, up to social equality and political balance. In the case of the north, it was all of the above. So for you to attempt to paint their cause as something of an erroneous one, lacking any real depth or merit - is quite ignorant to the reality that existed on the ground.

Denerick wrote: »

Nationalism is a disgusting ideology and how anyone of sound mind can continue to defend it is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Let us be clear. There are two types (or more) of nationalism. In the context of Ireland, Irish nationalism is a political and cultural movement that at it's very core aspires for equality. It includes cross-community development with Unionism. This type of nationalism is driven from minority groups, because they are surrounded by an establishment that voices a polar opposite ideology.

On the opposite end of nationalism, is one where the group in question is a clear-cut majority. This can be seen in Southern-USA where white nationalism is a cover for racism, and wishes to see the white race remove all elements of other races.

I think it's very disingenuous to try and place both in the same boat, and shows very clear ignorance on your behalf with regards to basic sociology.

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah, see.. So when the British military directly targets civilians - only those responsible are deemed terrorists, and not the army as a whole. But when paramilitary groups do the same - all actions and members are deemed as terrorism/terrorists. Do you see where your logic is not applied evenly?

I'm glad you've found a way to read my post in a way that makes you feel morally superior and also to invent things that weren't actually there.

That's a pretty ignorant generalisation in fairness. The reason such groups exist, is because it has been impossible in the first place to reach a fair compromise. , that is why many of the world's wars start and end - because a compromise is unable to be achieved. Israel and Palestine are in conflict, because they cannot reach a compromise on borders. American and Britain went to war because they could not reach a compromise on fiscal freedom.

The reason there is no peace in the levant is because Israeli and Palestinian nationalists are intent on stoking fears, division and general stupidity. Nationalism is the root cause of these problems, not its solution. To suggest that nationalism should be the antidote to the poison of nationalism reflects a state of mind that is still hung up on the insanity of that most pernicious of human ideologies. Suppose the Israeli's and Palestinians did something trule remarkable - renounce religion, embrace shared power, and intermarry between the races and faith's - do you really think there would ever be any suicide bombings or Israeli raids?

Bringing America into this is quite apt as the colonials didn't have what we would term 'nationalism', but instead went to revolution on the basis of freedom and liberty, namely from taxation without representation. It was their inability to be equal players in deciding their own destinies that led them to their revolt. Not some irrelevant crap about ancient myths and pyschotic death poetry.

However, you have cunningly attacked nationalists - because they aspire to live in a state that will represent their best interests. Those interests could be something as simple as cultural expression, up to social equality and political balance. In the case of the north, it was all of the above. So for you to attempt to paint their cause as something of an erroneous one, lacking any real depth or merit - is quite ignorant to the reality that existed on the ground.

Let us be clear. There are two types (or more) of nationalism. In the context of Ireland, Irish nationalism is a political and cultural movement that at it's very core aspires for equality. It includes cross-community development with Unionism. This type of nationalism is driven from minority groups, because they are surrounded by an establishment that voices a polar opposite ideology.

On the opposite end of nationalism, is one where the group in question is a clear-cut majority. This can be seen in Southern-USA where white nationalism is a cover for racism, and wishes to see the white race remove all elements of other races.


I think it's very disingenuous to try and place both in the same boat, and shows very clear ignorance on your behalf with regards to basic sociology.

Your invocation of sociology at the tail end of your post is almost an admission of some kind of defeat, that you have to resort to pseudo science to defend the indefensible.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the execution of Jean Mc Conville, which is Irish Republicanism in microcosm and a clear example of home grown Irish terrorism and the insanity it leads to. All your theoretic pontifications are majestically irrelevant in the face of the dead bodies on the ground that your ideology allows you to excuse and to indeed justify. Which is why nationalism is such a thoroughly degrading and disgusting ideology that has long since served its use.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Denerick wrote: »

I'm glad you've found a way to read my post in a way that makes you feel morally superior and also to invent things that weren't actually there.

To be fair you did say:

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

By this definition the British Army/Government would be included as terrorists. Not just for the afforementioned killings but also the funding of groups which targeted civillians to put pressure on the IRA.
I kind of touched on it in my reply about there not being an army on the planet which hasn't targeted civillians.

So it was a valid criticism of inconsistency as you appeared to suggest only those directly responsible would be considered terrorists, and not the organisation as a whole.

Laminations

Denerick wrote: »

Your invocation of sociology at the tail end of your post is almost an admission of some kind of defeat, that you have to resort to pseudo science to defend the indefensible.

You mistake social science for pseudo science. The latter presents itself disingenuously under the guise of science and is a label suited to phrenology or astrology. Referring to sociological thought is not an admission of defeat and if you can't recognise it's worth in debating issues concerning politics, social concepts and society then perhaps you'll be generous enough to explain these things using a hard, natural science. Be sure to be nice and reductionist for us, maybe describe group conflict on the molecular and chemical level.

Terrorists are individuals in a society who set about to have their beliefs, social order, values, aims etc. recognised and facilitated by the majority through the use of force, with the acts being more abhorant the more indiscriminate the target. IMO

When a majority attacks another majority you get war and when a majority oppresses a minority by force you get war crimes.

When a majority oppresses a minority by the ballot box you get democracy.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

I'm glad you've found a way to read my post in a way that makes you feel morally superior and also to invent things that weren't actually there.

I didn't do anything of the sort. I examined your wording applied to paramilitaries, and I examined your wording when applied to the British army. I saw didn't see your logic evenly applied, and therefore I called you on it. Quite a ruse on your behalf.

Denerick wrote: »

Bringing America into this is quite apt as the colonials didn't have what we would term 'nationalism', but instead went to revolution on the basis of freedom and liberty, namely from taxation without representation. It was their inability to be equal players in deciding their own destinies that led them to their revolt. Not some irrelevant crap about ancient myths and pyschotic death poetry.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees you buttering up one revolution, and mud-slinging another on a similar context. Northern nationalists rebelled because they had no real political representation, and lived in a hostile environment which saw their social, political and cultural rights and aspirations curbed. With your own words 'It was their inability to be equal players in deciding their own destinies that led them to their revolt'.

Denerick wrote: »

Your invocation of sociology at the tail end of your post is almost an admission of some kind of defeat, that you have to resort to pseudo science to defend the indefensible.

Sociology is not a pseudo-science. My post doesn't admit defeat. This isn't a game of soccer, this is a mature discussion on a complex topic. If anything, you're further cementing my view that you lack any sort of understanding on basic social issues - and I would hazard a guess that it's wilfully done. For you to suggest to sociology is a pseudo-science is asinine.

Denerick wrote: »

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the execution of Jean Mc Conville, which is Irish Republicanism in microcosm and a clear example of home grown Irish terrorism and the insanity it leads to.

There's a deflection from the topic at hand if I ever saw one.

Denerick wrote: »

All your theoretic pontifications are majestically irrelevant in the face of the dead bodies on the ground that your ideology allows you to excuse and to indeed justify. Which is why nationalism is such a thoroughly degrading and disgusting ideology that has long since served its use.

I never justified the murder of any civilians. You see, you're looking at the cause of conflict backwards. Nationalism exists because of inequality. If the north was socially equal from the get go, and where both communities had equal political representation, where the defence forces had equal representation from all communities, and the said defence forces were actually held to account for their actions - then the place would be much different as we know it today.

Denerick

There's a deflection from the topic at hand if I ever saw one.

Nope, it is the topic at hand. No amount of abstract indulgance will ever get away from that.

I never justified the murder of any civilians. You see, you're looking at the cause of conflict backwards. Nationalism exists because of inequality. If the north was socially equal from the get go, and where both communities had equal political representation, where the defence forces had equal representation from all communities, and the said defence forces were actually held to account for their actions - then the place would be much different as we know it today.

Which would be a nice and pleasant description if it were actually the case and if the Republican movement had actually a majority of the nationalist vote during the Troubles (It did not) or if every nationalist resorted to terrorist violence (They did not) Thousands of young men were caught in a cultish hysteria, a worship of violence, the idea of 'we'll do whatever it takes'. To suggest that the majority of people affected by these inequalities agreed with either these methods or the base assumptions is simply false. Nationalism was like a parasite sucking all that was good and constructive out of the Catholic community.

The Saint

shaneybaby wrote: »

Judge Koojmans (!?) in the Palestinian Wall case before the ICJ talked of terrorism requiring an international element. As in that Israel could not at the same time claim Palestine as its own but then say attacks on them from Palestine were terrorist attacks, they were internal disputes and should be dealt with by internal laws.

I'm afraid your interpretation of the ICJ opinion and Judge Koojimans' endorsement of its section on international terrorism is incorrect.

In the ICJ case, Israel claimed that it had the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It also argued that in two resolutions passed after 9/11, detailing that international terrorism was a threat to international peace and security, therefore allowed Israel to act in self-defense under Article 51.

However, the ICJ and Judge Koojimans endorsement you speak of rightly dismissed this interpretation since the area from which the attacks on Israeli emanated we under Israeli control and were therefore not act of international terrorism.

However, to the point of this thread, the ICJ and Judge Koojimans rightly referred to the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militant groups as terrorism on a number of occasions.

Terrorist attacks in this conflict do fall under international law, as Judge Goldstone stated in his report with regard to Hamas rockets targeted at civilians being a war crime and possible crime against humanity, however, the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter cannot be invoked.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

Which would be a nice and pleasant description if it were actually the case

It was the case, or would you like to re-write history too, on top of re-writing sociology?

Denerick wrote: »

Thousands of young men were caught in a cultish hysteria, a worship of violence, the idea of 'we'll do whatever it takes'.

You see - here you're at it again. Using emotive words like 'cultish hysteria' to define a struggle against a state that was suppressing basic civil and political liberties. One revolt to you is see as a "revolution", the other you see as a 'worship of violence'. Your double standards are very clear to everyone, but you.

Denerick wrote: »

To suggest that the majority of people affected by these inequalities agreed with either these methods or the base assumptions is simply false.

I never suggested that the majority of the population agreed with physical force Republicanism. Indeed, there were many pacifists. That doesn't change the fact that the young men and women who engaged in the conflict, did so because they felt it was the most functional path to take to remove an oppressive Government for dictating their personal affairs - the same oppressive Government that had tried to dictate the affairs of their colonial outpost in America earlier in history.

Denerick wrote: »

Nationalism was like a parasite sucking all that was good and constructive out of the Catholic community.

No - mass inequality sucked the good out of that community. Nationalism helped lift communities and bring people together to fight against a common cause, the mass fuck-up that was British rule in Ireland. If you wish to continue to blame nationalism for the conflict in Ireland, and not the root cause of the conflict - inequality, then be my guest.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah, see.. So when the British military directly targets civilians - only those responsible are deemed terrorists, and not the army as a whole. But when paramilitary groups do the same - all actions and members are deemed as terrorism/terrorists. Do you see where your logic is not applied evenly?

Is the British Army's sole reason for existence to target civilians ?

No.

Therein lies the distinction, complete with logic applied evenly : setting up / joining a group that has the sole objective of causing terror to get its own way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Is the British Army's sole reason for existence to target civilians ?

No.

Therein lies the distinction, complete with logic applied evenly : setting up / joining a group that has the sole objective of causing terror to get its own way.

I can't think of any outfit in the world that's sole reason for existance is targeting civillians. Maybe Al-Qaeda styled groups but I'm sure even they would prefer military targets.

The others mentioned by Denerick - Syrian Government/IRA/ETA - do not fall into the category of only existing to target civillians.

Cú Giobach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Is the British Army's sole reason for existence to target civilians ?

It is not its reason to exist but it will do it and has done it, if it is essential to further its aims.

Therein lies the distinction, complete with logic applied evenly : setting up / joining a group that has the sole objective of causing terror to get its own way.

I think you will find that the very purpose of a military force is to use force against others. Instilling terror to dishearten and disabling the opposition being the function of any military force.

Regarding the setting up, if no force exists at the time it is needed, is setting it up and engaging in actions that all military forces engage in wrong?

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Is the British Army's sole reason for existence to target civilians ?

No, and I never made that assertion either. It wasn't the IRA's sole reason for existence either.

Denerick suggested that because paramilitary groups like the IRA in the past have targeted civilians, that that alone qualifies them as terrorists as a 'whole'. However, when I pointed out that the British army have also targeted civilians and asked him if they were terrorists as a whole also - he suggested that those 'instances' would be, rather than using his original definition - which was:

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to pursue a political agenda. In this sense the Syrian government, the IRA, ETA, Al Qaeda etc. etc. are terrorist organisations.

So by his very definition, the British army are terrorists - as they have deliberately targeted civilians.

KeithAFC

IRA, Taliban, Al Qaeda, UDA etc. Follow the guideline for this lot and you get terrorists.

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

No, and I never made that assertion either. It wasn't the IRA's sole reason for existence either.

Denerick suggested that because paramilitary groups like the IRA in the past have targeted civilians, that that alone qualifies them as terrorists as a 'whole'. However, when I pointed out that the British army have also targeted civilians and asked him if they were terrorists as a whole also - he suggested that those 'instances' would be, rather than using his original definition - which was:



So by his very definition, the British army are terrorists - as they have deliberately targeted civilians.

What is it with Republicans and ambiguity. What do you think of the countless atrocities carried out in the name of the cause? What do you think about any of their terrorist activities? You're more than willing to lionise Bobby Sands and co but conveniently overlook the execution of mothers and bystanders, as if these are irrelevant distractions from the core abstract* 'sociological root cause'.

*Intellectual masturbation

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

No, and I never made that assertion either. It wasn't the IRA's sole reason for existence either.

I didn't say you made the assertion.

There is/was no reason for the IRA to exist other than their terrorism; that is the point that I was making. I don't know what you view as the IRA's other reasons for existing, but I'd suspect that we'd differ on that regardless of whether or not I knew what you think they were.

As such, it is perfectly valid to differentiate between the IRA and the British Army and still be consistent.

Not to mention the fact that they have the backing of the democratically-elected government.

And I'm no apologist for the British Army, mind; their invasion of Iraq as puppets of the US was a disgrace.

I'm just pointing out that if an organisation's ONLY reason to exist is to instil terror, they are definitely terrorists, while other organisations' existence can be less clear-cut.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

What do you think of the countless atrocities carried out in the name of the cause? What do you think about any of their terrorist activities?

Any attacks on military targets were justified, any attacks on civilians were condemnable. It's a pretty clear-cut issue for me.

Denerick wrote: »

You're more than willing to lionise Bobby Sands and co but conveniently overlook the execution of mothers and bystanders, as if these are irrelevant distractions from the core abstract* 'sociological root cause'.

I don't overlook them at all, nor do I sweep them under the carpet. I accept them as a valid criticism of the history of physical force Republicanism. However, I don't accept them as the sole aim of the IRA.

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There is/was no reason for the IRA to exist other than their terrorism; that is the point that I was making. I don't know what you view as the IRA's other reasons for existing, but I'd suspect that we'd differ on that regardless of whether or not I knew what you think they were.

The IRA's reason for existing was to end British rule in Ireland. I believe that much is very clear, even for their most ardent opponents.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As such, it is perfectly valid to differentiate between the IRA and the British Army and still be consistent.

It isn't. The British army sought to uphold British rule in Ireland, the IRA sought to end British rule in Ireland.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that they have the backing of the democratically-elected government.

That doesn't excuse their actions, nor did it justify their presence. The invasion of Iraq had the backing of a democratically elected Government. In the broad scheme of things, that doesn't add any merit to it's legitimacy.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that if an organisation's ONLY reason to exist is to instil terror, they are definitely terrorists, while other organisations' existence can be less clear-cut.

That wasn't their only reason to exist however. Their purpose was to remove British rule in Ireland. To say that their existence was solely to instil terror is inaccurate.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

That wasn't their only reason to exist however. Their purpose was to remove British rule in Ireland. To say that their existence was solely to instil terror is inaccurate.

I think you're confusing cause and purpose there. Or perhaps goal and method would be better words to use that are less open to debate. The IRA weren't as black and white as that anyway.

LordSutch

A short list for those who cant remember . . .
AL-QAEDA - TALIBAN - Provisional IRA - Real IRA - INLA - Continuity IRA - Ulster Volunteer Force - Ulster Freedom Fighters - RED ARMY FACTION - ETA - PLO - HEZBOLLA - HAMAS - BAADER-MEINHOF Gang + many more . . .

Just a few of the lovelies 'who have Terrorised' (murdered & maimed) past & present.

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

A short list for those who cant remember . . .
AL-QAEDA - TALIBAN - Provisional IRA - Real IRA - INLA - Continuity IRA - Ulster Volunteer Force - Ulster Freedom Fighters - RED ARMY FACTION - ETA - PLO - HEZBOLLA - HAMAS - BAADER-MEINHOF Gang + many more . . .

Just a few of the lovelies 'who have Terrorised' (murdered & maimed) past & present.

You forgot to mention The British Army, The United States Armed Forces, The Armed Forces of The Russian Federation and The Israel Defense Forces, the list goes on and on.

TheInquisitor

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

deise go deo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to define it as

Using force and the threat of force with the intention of achieving political aims

Would you consider the UN to be a terrorist organization?

MysticalRain

I think the debate is largely down to people's political views and where they stand in a particular conflict. In my book, any organisation that engages in planned massacres of civilians for political ends is a terrorist organisation.

I think the main point with the IRA Vs the British army debate is that regardless of how bad the other side behaved, it still didn't justify the IRA degenerating to the same level of their enemies. They should have pursued politics from day one, not war.

lugha

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Is the word being overused and abused? Has it lost all meaning in political terms?

It is not so much that it has lost meaning, more that it has, much like other potent words such as racism or homophobia, being redefined. It now pretty much means, quite simply, the bad guys!

The original understanding of the term is not very helpful as there are not that many groupings would qualify as terrorists. Even 9/11, arguably, was not primarily about instilling terror in US civilians. Of the top of my head, a clear cut practice of terrorism I can recall would be the behaviour of the nazis in France in WW2.

In terms of our own local quarrels. The BA were not terrorists, PIRA for most part (though with some exceptions) were not, the loyalists probably were. The more pertinent question of course is not the matter of what to label such actions but whether such activities could be justified.

And while we continue to insist on playing the terrorist card, it will be seen by the freedom fighter card and the question of justification for violence rarely gets properly discussed.

The consequences resulting from this can be rather comical; we recently had people asking (presumably sincerely!) why a “freedom fighter” who had unequivocally committed himself to the subversion of this state did not have his efforts acknowledged in some way by this state!

Until we are willing to relinquish the T word, and all its potency, we can expect such confused thinking to continue. Focus on justification, not methods.

Bottle_of_Smoke

deise go deo wrote: »

Would you consider the UN to be a terrorist organization?

That's kind of the point - I think its a pointless term nowadays

RandomName2

dlofnep wrote: »

No, and I never made that assertion either. It wasn't the IRA's sole reason for existence either.

Denerick suggested that because paramilitary groups like the IRA in the past have targeted civilians, that that alone qualifies them as terrorists as a 'whole'. However, when I pointed out that the British army have also targeted civilians and asked him if they were terrorists as a whole also - he suggested that those 'instances' would be, rather than using his original definition - which was:



So by his very definition, the British army are terrorists - as they have deliberately targeted civilians.

Look the IRA is clearly a terrorist organisation - it has justified this approach because it has never had the capacity to wage conventional warfare. The IRA tends to use soft targets because that's the way they roll.

The British Army has occasionally used methods pertaining to terrorism with the justification that that was the only way it could combat guerrilla warfare - which nicely aided the objectives of its enemies because the terror that the British army produced was sufficient to increase opposition to its presence, whilst insufficient to cow existing opposition.

RandomName2

TheInquisitor wrote: »

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

Only if the ends alone justify the means

Sunnyisland

Was nelson mandela a terrorist ?

Sunnyisland

My take on this is that it is very easy and now very common for Governments in power under some sort of attack to name the people as terrorists, We even by some accounts got terrorist supporting countries,Are the animal liberation front terrorists ? are the people who kill & maim abortion clinics terrorists ?Dont know myself what a terrorist is as it comes in all shapes and sizes.

KeithAFC

TheInquisitor wrote: »

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

So the Ulster Volunteer Force were freedom fighters for the PUL community during the troubles and the saviours of Ulster? Some people in that community think like that. That can't be right can it? The nonsense that is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is very odd.

A Dub in Glasgo

realies wrote: »

Was nelson mandela a terrorist ?

He was, I am pretty sure I remember the 1980s bulletin boards where the righteous were stating such things and sneering at those who claimed differently and wanted him released. Of course, people couldn't respond so quick as everyone was using the 1200b/s dial up modems!

We have come a long way since then... err.. hang on..

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

The nonsense that is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is very odd.

Nelson Mandela was viewed by a large portion of White south Africans as a terrorist, and indeed by a large portion of the world's media. Today he is now recognised as a 'freedom fighter'.

What about the concept is it that you don't understand?

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Nelson Mandela was viewed by a large portion of White south Africans as a terrorist, and indeed by a large portion of the world's media. Today he is now recognised as a 'freedom fighter'.

What about the concept is it that you don't understand?

Because then you could claim that about any terrorist group. Like the one i named.