Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Use of the word terrorist

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


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


  • Options
    #40
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #41
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #44
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

    Only if the ends alone justify the means


  • Options
    #46
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    Was nelson mandela a terrorist ?


  • Options
    #47
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,123 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Options
    #50
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The US DoD's definition of the term is as follows:
    The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

    That seems pretty good to me.

    The definition currently proposed in the UN is as follows:
    "1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

    The issue is the exact nature and extent of the wording to exempt from this definition any actions taken in accordance with the laws of warfare, or at least directed against military targets.

    However, I will agree with the general consensus that the word is being greatly over-used.
    Using force and the threat of force with the intention of achieving political aims

    You realise, you've just covered the Irish Army?

    NTM


  • Options
    #53
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,352 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Just for clarity and to avoid being naive, there are people using the Arab Spring for their own nefarious purposes.


  • Options
    #54
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Manic Moran wrote: »

    You realise, you've just covered the Irish Army?

    NTM

    I just think its a pointless term unless its being used to describe a tactic. Like the definitions you quoted could be used to describe the arab spring protesters and it is just as absurd to describe them as terrorists as the Irish Army.

    The use of "unlawful" is fairly pointless if its an unlawful dictator in power


  • Options
    #55
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    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.

    Remind me again....by what means ?
    dlofnep wrote: »
    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.

    Agreed, but that's down to the lies told to make it democratically acceptable.
    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.

    OK - let's assume the IRA didn't engage in terrorism ? Explain to the rest of us what "other" things they did / would have done ?

    I could claim that my "reason for existing" is to make money, if I do that by selling drugs or robbing banks, it doesn't suddenly mean that I'm not a drug-dealer or bank robber.


  • Options
    #56
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Remind me again....by what means ?

    By engaging in a military conflict.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Agreed, but that's down to the lies told to make it democratically acceptable.

    I'm sure that's of great consolation to the thousands who have died.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    OK - let's assume the IRA didn't engage in terrorism ? Explain to the rest of us what "other" things they did / would have done ?

    We haven't agreed upon a mutual description of the word yet. Any attacks on military targets were valid, any attacks on civilian populations were not. I believe I've already stated this. Given that they were an army, who's intent was to remove British rule through an armed campaign - that about covers it, does it not?
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I could claim that my "reason for existing" is to make money, if I do that by selling drugs or robbing banks, it doesn't suddenly mean that I'm not a drug-dealer or bank robber.

    The PIRA never sold drugs, just so we are clear. Rob banks, yes - they absolutely did. Their justification was to buy weapons to protect their communities against loyalist attacks and attacks from the British army - and to ensure that they had the military power to force Britain to re-think it's position in Ireland. For an IRA volunteer - morals didn't play a high factor with regards to robbing banks to fund weapons, when the British army was slaughtering civilians on their streets.


  • Options
    #57
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    By engaging in a military conflict.

    If that's what they did then I might have a modicum of respect for them. However they left bombs in places and ran away.

    I don't remember them ever "engaging".
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm sure that's of great consolation to the thousands who have died.

    Strawmanning.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    We haven't agreed upon a mutual description of the word yet. Any attacks on military targets were valid, any attacks on civilian populations were not. I believe I've already stated this. Given that they were an army, who's intent was to remove British rule through an armed campaign - that about covers it, does it not?

    The IRA were not an army, and you describing them as such ensures that we won't agree on a mutual description.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    The PIRA never sold drugs, just so we are clear. Rob banks, yes - they absolutely did.

    Never said that they did. You've avoided the point completely. I said that if I did those things it wouldn't matter what my "aim" was, you'd still call me a drug-dealer or bank robber.


  • Options
    #58
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I don't remember them ever "engaging".

    Fergal O'Hanlon and Seán Sabht never engaged? The IRA engaged on a number of occasions.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Strawmanning.

    It's not, when looking at the context of the discussion. You stated the following, as if it gave credence to a war.
    Not to mention the fact that they have the backing of the democratically-elected government.

    My point is that, the fact that something has the backing of democratically elected government is wholly irrelevant to the families of those who have died, nor does it actually validate the war. And therefore, it's a valid criticism of your original point.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Never said that they did. You've avoided the point completely. I said that if I did those things it wouldn't matter what my "aim" was, you'd still call me a drug-dealer or bank robber.

    Why bring drug-dealing into it at all? Let's suppose you robbed a post office to pay for the medical treatment of your mother who would die without it - Do you think I would label you as a thief, rather than a considerate son? It's never black and white. The IRA robbed banks to fund their campaign against British rule in Ireland. Whether you believe it had merit or not is entirely subjective and not worth bantering on.


  • Options
    #59
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

    Exactly, which is why this thread goes on and on. You could also say in response to some of the comments here that "One man's terrorist is another man's policeman/soldier".

    Thing is, like other black v white debates on boards (have public servants taken enough pay cuts) neither side is adding much to the debate.

    On the labelling issue, someone told me that the Irish Times now refers to Muslim militants such as Al-Qaeda rather than muslim terrorists. Not sure whether it is true, but an interesting viewpoint from the paper of record.


  • Options
    #60
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I just think its a pointless term unless its being used to describe a tactic. Like the definitions you quoted could be used to describe the arab spring protesters and it is just as absurd to describe them as terrorists as the Irish Army.

    The use of "unlawful" is fairly pointless if its an unlawful dictator in power

    The definition can still exclude freedom fighters/rebels. For example, the 1949 Geneva Conventions recognise the legitimacy of a non-international armed conflict, defined as "armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State."

    As long as they conduct their campaign within the laws of war, then they are not unlawful combatants. A perfect example of this right now are the Libyan rebels, who are generally attacking government targets, bearing arms openly and paint rebel insignia on their vehicles. No matter how much Gaddafi wants to label them terrorists, or claim that they're acting unlawfully, they are in fact a lawfully recogniseable fighting force.*

    NTM

    *Well.. lawfully recogniseable running-around-shooting-randomly-and-yelling-allah-akhbar force, if not really a fighting force.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The definition can still exclude freedom fighters/rebels. For example, the 1949 Geneva Conventions recognise the legitimacy of a non-international armed conflict, defined as "armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State."

    As long as they conduct their campaign within the laws of war, then they are not unlawful combatants. A perfect example of this right now are the Libyan rebels, who are generally attacking government targets, bearing arms openly and paint rebel insignia on their vehicles. No matter how much Gaddafi wants to label them terrorists, or claim that they're acting unlawfully, they are in fact a lawfully recogniseable fighting force.*

    NTM

    *Well.. lawfully recogniseable running-around-shooting-randomly-and-yelling-allah-akhbar force, if not really a fighting force.

    I still think that's useless and I'll tell you why. Say those Libyans had less access to arms or nato/us weren't supporting them. They would then have to use guerilla tactics - carbombs/surprise shootings etc. They would then therefore be terrorists even though their enemy hasn't changed.

    Your definition basically fits with the joke that the terrorist is the one with the smaller gun


Advertisement