Use of the word terrorist

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

But I wouldn't murder someone else's mother while robbing the post office.

And I also believe my mum would rather pass away than be alive to see me turn criminal, particularly as the type of thug who'd happily murder innocents, but then that's the way she and dad brought us up.

Manic Moran

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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.

Nothing wrong with guerilla tactics either. Five page topic on that here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055509814

Guerillas and terrorists are both generally subcategories of insurgents. Some guerilla attacks have been labelled terrorist attacks (my personal favourite example is the Beiruit Barracks bombing) but that doesn't make them so.

From the US Army's manual on the subject, FM3-24:

Violent actions by insurgents use three types of tactics, which may occur simultaneously:
�� Terrorist.
�� Guerrilla.
�� Conventional.
Terrorist tactics employ violence primarily against noncombatants. Terror attacks generally require
fewer personnel than guerrilla warfare or conventional warfare. They allow insurgents greater security and
relatively low support requirements. Insurgencies often rely on terrorist tactics early in their formation due
to these factors. Terrorist tactics do not involve mindless destruction nor are they employed randomly. In
surgents choose targets that have maximum informational and political effects in support of their goals. As
explained above, terrorist tactics can be effective for generating popular support and altering the behavior
of governments

Guerrilla tactics, in contrast, feature hit-and-run attacks by lightly armed groups. The primarily targets are HN government activities, security forces, and other COIN elements. Insurgents using guerrilla tactics usually avoid decisive confrontations unless they know they can win. Instead, they focus on harassing counterinsurgents. As with terrorist tactics, guerrilla tactics are neither mindless nor random. Insurgents choose targets that produce maximum informational and political effects. The goal is not to militarily defeat COIN forces but to outlast them while building popular support for the insurgency. Terrorist and guerrilla tactics are not mutually exclusive. An insurgent group may employ both forms of violent action simultaneously.

NTM

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thanks for the info though I think nowadays no one distinguishes guerillas from terrorists.

Is there any uniform requirement to be classed as a guerrilla?

Like I'm just thinking the current campaigns of RIRA/CIRA etc would fit that description but I've never heard any government officials or journalists describe them as guerrillas

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But I wouldn't murder someone else's mother while robbing the post office.

I wouldn't justify the murder of anyone in pursuit of funds for weapons. I don't think we are in disagreement on that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I also believe my mum would rather pass away than be alive to see me turn criminal, particularly as the type of thug who'd happily murder innocents, but then that's the way she and dad brought us up.

Once again, I'm not justifying murder. I believe you missed my point, again.

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nothing wrong with guerilla tactics either. Five page topic on that here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055509814

Guerillas and terrorists are both generally subcategories of insurgents. Some guerilla attacks have been labelled terrorist attacks (my personal favourite example is the Beiruit Barracks bombing) but that doesn't make them so.

From the US Army's manual on the subject, FM3-24:


NTM

In all fairness, I wouldn't accept the U.S. Army's definition of anything.

Manic Moran

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thanks for the info though I think nowadays no one distinguishes guerillas from terrorists.

Sadly, this is not the only issue in which common modern usage differs from what is actually correct. It's hard enough to get everyone to punctuate correctly, let alone follow verbal nuances. On the one hand, yes, the English language evolves. On the other hand, as language becomes encoded into laws, there is a necessity for rigidity.

Is there any uniform requirement to be classed as a guerrilla?

Any distinctive marking suffices. An armband, for example. (Or headband, if you're in the Medhi army). In some cases, just your equipment can suffice, if it is sufficiently unique enough to clearly distinguish your affiliation.

Like I'm just thinking the current campaigns of RIRA/CIRA etc would fit that description but I've never heard any government officials or journalists describe them as guerrillas

You would be very hard pressed, I think, to describe the an act such as the RIRA's Omagh bombing as an act of a guerilla force and not a terrorist organisation.

In all fairness, I wouldn't accept the U.S. Army's definition of anything.

You have a better source? Feel free to quote the Irish counterinsurgency manual if you wish. The US Army's definitions make sense and fit within the legal framework.

NTM

Bottle_of_Smoke

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sadly, this is not the only issue in which common modern usage differs from what is actually correct. It's hard enough to get everyone to punctuate correctly, let alone follow verbal nuances. On the one hand, yes, the English language evolves. On the other hand, as language becomes encoded into laws, there is a necessity for rigidity.



Any distinctive marking suffices. An armband, for example. (Or headband, if you're in the Medhi army). In some cases, just your equipment can suffice, if it is sufficiently unique enough to clearly distinguish your affiliation.



You would be very hard pressed, I think, to describe the an act such as the RIRA's Omagh bombing as an act of a guerilla force and not a terrorist organisation.

Thanks for the informative post. I was wondering should I have mentioned the Omagh bombing, just based on the current campaigns, say of the last 2-3 years they would have fallen into the previous definition. that aside they do not wear any form of uniform so therefore wouldn't

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have a better source? Feel free to quote the Irish counterinsurgency manual if you wish. The US Army's definitions make sense and fit within the legal framework.

NTM

A better source ? Let's just say that people in glasshouses are in no position to throw stones.

Jonny7

Sorry, haven't read through the whole thread

After 911, terrorist, the word, became indoctrinated into us as a purely evil thing

Much the same way rats became absolutely demonised after the black plague.

Its just been clever marketing, and we're all pretty much indoctrinated, even if we think we aren't.

To Irish people the word used to conjure up an image of a man in a balaclava, now its a middle eastern guy with a beard.

The key thing here, is the evil associated with it, so we can completely detach ourselves from the fact that its a human being with feelings, family, passions, love, hope, anything

Three people were killed yesterday
Three terrorists were killed yesterday

Former is bad news, the latter is good news.

The word has been abused for years now, from the media spin in middle America to get more ratings in scare stories, all the way to dictators using it against peaceful protestors in order to justify killing them

JustinDee

"After 911, terrorist, the word, became indoctrinated into us as a purely evil thing. Much the same way rats became absolutely demonised after the black plague"

-Rats enjoyed a relatively happy and inocuous social standing before the Plague? Sorry but that just reads very strangely indeed.
As for 'marketing' (strangely used), congrats to you on joining the masses with the phrase "911".

I'll get me coat.

RandomName2

dlofnep wrote: »

By engaging in a military conflict.

Name the battles then?

None. That isn't a radom superlative by the way.

The Provisional IRA have never -not once- fought a battle.

*YET* they have killed people. Hmmm...

By what means?

Principally by planting bombs. Usually in the vicinity of civil authorities (police). Sometimes in civilian areas. Rarely near areas of military significance.

So it is tenuous to describe any actions of theirs as military, let alone concordat with the rules of engagement.

RandomName2

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sorry, haven't read through the whole thread

After 911, terrorist, the word, became indoctrinated into us as a purely evil thing

Much the same way rats became absolutely demonised after the black plague.

Its just been clever marketing, and we're all pretty much indoctrinated, even if we think we aren't.

To Irish people the word used to conjure up an image of a man in a balaclava, now its a middle eastern guy with a beard.

The key thing here, is the evil associated with it, so we can completely detach ourselves from the fact that its a human being with feelings, family, passions, love, hope, anything

Three people were killed yesterday
Three terrorists were killed yesterday

Former is bad news, the latter is good news.

The word has been abused for years now, from the media spin in middle America to get more ratings in scare stories, all the way to dictators using it against peaceful protestors in order to justify killing them

That the fact that it is simple form of polarisation should not detract from the reality of what it describes. Whilst you are correct that a simple gesture of 'well I suppose all terrorists should be shot' as a bald statement is a pretty idiotic viewpoint for a government (George Bush...) ... nevertheless if you are going to make a generalised sweeping statement then: yes your good news/bad news scenario is actually correct!

The point is that the polarisation by necessity leaves out details. Lies, however, are false details. There is a difference between the two!

Jonny7

JustinDee wrote: »

As for 'marketing' (strangely used), congrats to you on joining the masses with the phrase "911".

I'll get me coat.

The event that happened on September 11th where jetliners flew into the twin towers in New York....... no I'll just call it 911 for simplicity, there's no 'hidden meaning' or 'agenda' behind '911'

However, something like - 'collateral damage' - now theres a marketed phrase, there was an agenda behind that introduction to our lexicon


The rat analogy was a random, just watched a doc on how they revered in some societies, an entire swath of human civilisation thinking they are evil and despicable - and another group revering them - personal preference doesn't seem to play a part in it, its basically a form of indoctrination

Bush's speeches were laden with indoctrination using the word terrorist, sure it drove half of us mad, but its had the desired effect, can you negotiate with the enemy? yes, can you negotiate with terrorists? no

Manic Moran

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A better source ? Let's just say that people in glasshouses are in no position to throw stones.

So you're not going to attempt to contribute anything positive to the conversation, then?

Even if you won't provide alternate sources, perhaps you would at least deign to let us know which parts of the descriptions you have particular objection to and believe to be wrong?

NTM

Manic Moran

RandomName2 wrote: »

Name the battles then?

None. That isn't a radom superlative by the way.

The Provisional IRA have never -not once- fought a battle.

*YET* they have killed people. Hmmm...

A quick look through the PIRA timeline indicates a number of 'legitimate' engagements on British military personnel, from sniper attacks to ambushes, to full-on assaults on facilities such as the attack on the Derryard checkpoint manned by the King's Own Scottish Borderers .

A senior British military officer, when quizzed about the IRA attack said:
They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.

It seems that there were several firefights on 06FEB71, so it goes back a while. One soldier, one PIRA, one civilian killed that day.

NTM

Hannibal

RandomName2 wrote: »

Name the battles then?

None. That isn't a radom superlative by the way.

The Provisional IRA have never -not once- fought a battle.

*YET* they have killed people. Hmmm...

By what means?

Principally by planting bombs. Usually in the vicinity of civil authorities (police). Sometimes in civilian areas. Rarely near areas of military significance.

So it is tenuous to describe any actions of theirs as military, let alone concordat with the rules of engagement.

The "Provisional" IRA fought a battle from 1969 until 1997.
How could they come onto a battle field against the British army who are one of the most heavily equipped armies in the world? It's impossible and stupid so they chose to remain as invisible as they could. It's in the IRA's green book not to deliberately target civilians and over the course of the Troubles they never resorted to what the British army (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy etc) or what the UDA and UVF done by deliberately setting out to target and shoot innocent civilians just because of their religion.
I can accept the innocent people got killed by the IRA and of course it's wrong but it was never the intention of the organisation. Look at the events pre 1969 and you will have an understanding of why the IRA chose to use military means.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dotsey wrote: »

The "Provisional" IRA fought a battle from 1969 until 1997.
How could they come onto a battle field against the British army who are one of the most heavily equipped armies in the world? It's impossible and stupid so they chose to remain as invisible as they could. It's in the IRA's green book not to deliberately target civilians and over the course of the Troubles they never resorted to what the British army (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy etc) or what the UDA and UVF done by deliberately setting out to target and shoot innocent civilians just because of their religion.
I can accept the innocent people got killed by the IRA and of course it's wrong but it was never the intention of the organisation. Look at the events pre 1969 and you will have an understanding of why the IRA chose to use military means.

I agree with most of your sentiments but it is incorrect to say they never resorted to those methods. Kingsmill Massacre would be the best example of an indefensible deliberate sectarian attack on innocent civillians

Hannibal

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree with most of your sentiments but it is incorrect to say they never resorted to those methods. Kingsmill Massacre would be the best example of an indefensible deliberate sectarian attack on innocent civillians

That is obviously indefensible. The Kingsmill massacre took place while the IRA was on ceasefire and was claimed by another republican group in South Armagh, although it's highly likely that it was the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA. They acted without consulting and without the authorisation of the Army Council and as I said the IRA as an organisation was never set up to deliberately target innocent civilians and 99% of members adhered to this policy. But while arming your members it's impossible to control every single one of them and some as in the case of Kingsmill and Jerry McCabe acted independently and as a result made some disastrous decisions.

Manic Moran

The "Provisional" IRA fought a battle from 1969 until 1997

Campaign, not battle.

NTM

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

That is obviously indefensible. The Kingsmill massacre took place while the IRA was on ceasefire and was claimed by another republican group in South Armagh, although it's highly likely that it was the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA. They acted without consulting and without the authorisation of the Army Council and as I said the IRA as an organisation was never set up to deliberately target innocent civilians and 99% of members adhered to this policy. But while arming your members it's impossible to control every single one of them and some as in the case of Kingsmill and Jerry McCabe acted independently and as a result made some disastrous decisions.

Dotsey, the PIRA killed a lot of Protestants in random shootings and breaking into their homes and so on. An awful lot of sectarian murder took place. I dislike the writing of history on here sometimes. I thought that was well known amongst everyone.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Name the battles then?

None. That isn't a radom superlative by the way.

The Provisional IRA have never -not once- fought a battle.

.

Some noted incidents amongst hundreds of gun battles, and the shooting down of approximately 5 helicopters.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Curfew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasdrumman_ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummuckavall_Ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Conservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Ballygawley_barracks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McVerry

I'd suggest reading through Tim Pat Coogans book on the IRA, as well as JM Bowyer Bells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1970-1979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1980-1989)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1990-1999)

Nodin

Dotsey wrote: »

That is obviously indefensible. The Kingsmill massacre took place while the IRA was on ceasefire and was claimed by another republican group in South Armagh, although it's highly likely that it was the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA. They acted without consulting and without the authorisation of the Army Council and as I said the IRA as an organisation was never set up to deliberately target innocent civilians and 99% of members adhered to this policy. But while arming your members it's impossible to control every single one of them and some as in the case of Kingsmill and Jerry McCabe acted independently and as a result made some disastrous decisions.

Its the perils of a semi-autonomous closed cell system.

hatrickpatrick

I called this back in 2003. "The word 'terrorism' will become the new 'communism' this decade", I predicted.

Bottle_of_Smoke

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I called this back in 2003. "The word 'terrorism' will become the new 'communism' this decade", I predicted.

Troll will be next one.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

Some noted incidents amongst hundreds of gun battles, and the shooting down of approximately 5 helicopters.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Curfew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasdrumman_ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummuckavall_Ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Conservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Ballygawley_barracks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McVerry

I'd suggest reading through Tim Pat Coogans book on the IRA, as well as JM Bowyer Bells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1970-1979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1980-1989)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1990-1999)

Really shows you how deluded the dissidents are given their capabilites compared to this

DoesNotCompute

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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

Yes. It's being thrown around by anyone with an agenda.

hatrickpatrick

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Troll will be next one.

Are you implying that I'M trolling here?!

Nodin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you implying that I'M trolling here?!

...doubt it.

Anyhoo, terrorist was a common enough term to slander the opposition back in the 1980's/90's. It's only that it gained increased weight in the States following Osama etc.

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Name the battles then?

None. That isn't a radom superlative by the way.

The Provisional IRA have never -not once- fought a battle.

*YET* they have killed people. Hmmm...

By what means?

Principally by planting bombs. Usually in the vicinity of civil authorities (police). Sometimes in civilian areas. Rarely near areas of military significance.

So it is tenuous to describe any actions of theirs as military, let alone concordat with the rules of engagement.

Perhaps this quote from the British Officer in charge of Operation Concervation will give a more in depth insight into the capabilities of the IRA at the time from a military point of view.

In military terms, it was one of the IRA's finest attacks in South Armagh. They picked out the COP team in the most exposed position. With hindsight, it was the one weak link in the operation and it says something for the IRA's tactical and field skills that they identified that fact before we did.

Bottle_of_Smoke

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you implying that I'M trolling here?!

Hehe no - though it had occurred to me you might think that!

Basically as the link shows its another word which no one can agree on its definition and its commonly used to discredit people if the accuser just doesn't like them.