Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, Paramilitaries, Insurgents, Rebels, Extemists, Guerilla

iDave

Ok big question here and yes it is because of Mandela's death but what is the difference?
I've seen IRA/ETA/Hamas/Al-Qaeda labelled terrorists. ANC Freedom Fighters. UVF/UDA/UFF Paramilitaries. Suicide bombers in Iraq after 2003 invasion were Insurgents. In Libya the recent campaign against Gaddafi were rebels. In Columbia armed Marxist groups in the jungle are guerrillas.
They all have one thing in common in that they are non-state and use violence to achieve some sort of political objective. Normally their tactics are non-traditional in a military sense usually trying to avoid directly engaging a better funded and armed state military.
The different labels though seem to demonise some group while glorify others and others like paramilitary are ambiguous, while guerrilla just describes their tactics.

Ran out of space in the title but you can throw in dissident, revolutionary, insurrectionist etc in there.

For Forks Sake

I thought that was going to be the title of Manic Street Preachers new album

Iwasfrozen

iDave wrote: »

Ok big question here and yes it is because of Mandela's death but what is the difference?
I've seen IRA/ETA/Hamas/Al-Qaeda labelled terrorists. ANC Freedom Fighters. UVF/UDA/UFF Paramilitaries. Suicide bombers in Iraq after 2003 invasion were Insurgents. In Libya the recent campaign against Gaddafi were rebels. In Columbia armed Marxist groups in the jungle are guerrillas.
They all have one thing in common in that they are non-state and use violence to achieve some sort of political objective. Normally their tactics are non-traditional in a military sense usually trying to avoid directly engaging a better funded and armed state military.
The different labels though seem to demonise some group while glorify others and others like paramilitary are ambiguous, while guerrilla just describes their tactics.

Ran out of space in the title but you can throw in dissident, revolutionary, insurrectionist etc in there.

They're all the same thing. It depends on your point of view.

Banjo String

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

.jacksparrow.

Here we go again!

Sunnyisland

iDave wrote: »

Ok big question here and yes it is because of Mandela's death but what is the difference?
I've seen IRA/ETA/Hamas/Al-Qaeda labelled terrorists. ANC Freedom Fighters. UVF/UDA/UFF Paramilitaries. Suicide bombers in Iraq after 2003 invasion were Insurgents. In Libya the recent campaign against Gaddafi were rebels. In Columbia armed Marxist groups in the jungle are guerrillas.
They all have one thing in common in that they are non-state and use violence to achieve some sort of political objective. Normally their tactics are non-traditional in a military sense usually trying to avoid directly engaging a better funded and armed state military.
The different labels though seem to demonise some group while glorify others and others like paramilitary are ambiguous, while guerrilla just describes their tactics.

Ran out of space in the title but you can throw in dissident, revolutionary, insurrectionist etc in there.

Back in the day Who ever is controlling the media or wins the conflict/war/rebellion/revolution etc etc usually call the shots,

Nowadays with worldwide media and up to the minute social boards etc etc it's hard to know who is what.

If you can win the media war with public opinion it also helps.

freyners

I forget who said it initially but, as banjo string already quoted

"One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"

It really does come down to the POV of the person concerned, look at Syria, those in the establishment would see the rebels as terrorists, those who support them reject that label but proudly embrace freedom fighter

EDIT: it was David Hannay apparently, a British diplomat

keeponhurling

From what I can glean from the Irish media, and to try to answer the OP's question

IRA = bad (but good before a certain date)
ETA = bad
Hamas = mixed reviews
Al-Qaeda labelled terrorists = bad
ANC Freedom Fighters = good
UVF = mixed
UDA/UFF Paramilitaries = bad
Suicide bombers in Iraq = bad (sunni = very bad, shiite = mediumly bad)
Gaddafi = bad (previously good)
Libyan insurgents = good
In Columbia armed Marxist groups guerrillas.= bad

I think you can use the above as a general guide, though it not an exhaustive list. Those marked good can be referred to as rebels or freedom fighters, those marked bad should be referred to as terrorists.

Mint Aero

Look, it's whatever America tells us. OK?!

Muise...

"The terrorist is the one with the small bomb."

Brendan Behan

FTA69

Often it's whatever's convenient for people at the time. Mandela for instance was widely denounced as a terrorist by most people in power throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle. Chief among the apartheid regime's backers were the British Conservatives and Israeli right, both of whom are out in force today lauding him as a great inspiration as well as a load of other nauseating b*llocks. These sort of people are typical politicians, they realise that public opinion would not favour them sticking to their right-wing sh*te on this matter so they lie through their teeth.

Another factor is people's lack of objective historical analysis. To again use Mandela as an example, he has been rewritten and recast as a cuddly old grandfather, a man who said lovely things and was a black version of Gandhi. And sure wasn't he fierce into rugby, God bless him. The reality is that he was a Marxist revolutionary who took a very pragmatic approach to armed struggle and had zero qualms with employing that against the power structure that he faced. However, many people have falsely bought into the former narrative and to this end we see right-wing, law-and-order types hailing him as a hero when he actually embodied everything they should be opposed to.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I would say the US and Britain are terrorist states but then I'll come to the attention of the NSA and GCHQ and all my online activity will come under massive scrutiny and surveillance for the rest of my life and if I dare say I think I'm being watched to anyone I'll get "conspiracy theories

---

>" so I'm not going to say they are terroristic states.

I keep ALL my death to the West thoughts and feelings offline, and in the Wicklow mountains where we have a training camp and are planning to take Belfast down on December 24th at noon.

Banjo String

From terrorist or dreamer.

The terrorist or the dreamer the savage or the brave?
It depends whose vote you’re trying to catch
Whose face you’re trying to save

Fratton Fred

freyners wrote: »

I forget who said it initially but, as banjo string already quoted

"One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"

It really does come down to the POV of the person concerned, look at Syria, those in the establishment would see the rebels as terrorists, those who support them reject that label but proudly embrace freedom fighter

EDIT: it was David Hannay apparently, a British diplomat

There is both a point of view and a modus operandi as well.

Al Qeada's campaign has no discernable goal and they will pretty much only use terrorist tactics. Hijacking a plane and flying it in to a building can't by any stretch of the imagination be called a military operation. Calling them terrorists is pretty clear.

The IRA had a cause and were fighting for freedom, but they carried out numerous attacks that can only be called terrorist, so I would say there is a very grey area with them. Hamas, the PLO, ANC etc the same.

uch

Does insurrectionist mean when you have a Stiffie ?

PopePalpatine

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is both a point of view and a modus operandi as well.

Al Qeada's campaign has no discernable goal and they will pretty much only use terrorist tactics. Hijacking a plane and flying it in to a building can't by any stretch of the imagination be called a military operation. Calling them terrorists is pretty clear.

Technically, they do have a goal, if "pushing the Jews into the sea" and expelling the USA from the Middle East counts.

Balaclava1991

Terrorism

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Usually terrorists have no democratic support and have an extremist ideology - religious fundamentalist, extreme left, extreme right, separatist - that has no popular support and are prepared to attack law enforcement, the military, politicians and murder civilians or take hostages to try and force an entire country to submit to their extremist demands.

Freedom Fighter

A freedom fighter might use the same tactics as a terrorist but is not seeking to create an undemocratic society and has popular support. The freedom fight is usually fighting on behalf of the democratic government which has been overthrown by a foreign invasion or else is fighting to overthrow a dictatorship in order to restore democratic government deposed by a coup or by a terrorist group.

Paramilitaries

A paramilitary group is a supplement to a regular military force.
For example when uniformed police need more firepower to deal with criminals they call up a SWAT team which is an elite unit of police officers who have limited military training and are armed with military weapons and operate as a military unit.
A civilian paramilitary unit is often an ad hoc group of civilians - some of them ex-military and others with no military experience who organize themselves into companies and battalions with officers and armed themselves with available small arms.
A paramilitary force could evolve into a terrorist group or a freedom fighting group or could be used by the state to supplement the regular police and military during a national emergency when law and order has broken down.
In the U.S. citizens have the right to form and maintain armed militias - paramilitary forces than are independent of the government and would fight against the government if it were to become tyrannical.
A paramilitary force often operate openly as police in their own areas, openly carrying weapons and openly training and publically drilling rather than as an underground hidden force.

Insurgent/rebel

a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel

A rebel could be a faction of the army who maintain their regular conventional army structure e.g. platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions wearing uniforms and fight a conventional war against the regular government forces.
They might also be a band of civilians of paramilitaries and they might use terror tactics - assassinations, bombings and sabotage. They could be democratic or they could undemocratic.

Extremists

An extremist is someone who holds extreme political opinions.
If I believed that only my race should be allowed to live in this country and that all other races should be killed or if I believed that only my religion should be the faith of all the citizens of this country whether they agree with me or not and I have the right to kill them if they resist then I would be an extremist.
An extremist could be a lone nut like the assassin of political leader or a member of a large organization with a political wing and a paramilitary wing involved in terrorism.

Guerrilla

the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force.

Guerrillas are usually led by serving military or ex-military with civilian recruits and operate in civilian clothes and masquerade as civilians. They could be organized as an open paramilitary force or as a hidden army and usually take part in hit and run attacks.
They ambush an enemy convoy and then disperse hide out and hide their weapons and then regroup to strike somewhere else.
Sometimes they use terror - no warning bombs or assassinations and intimidate civilians into co-operating with them while punishing those who co-operate with the government.

What marks them out as bad guys or good guys is what they are fighting for and how they go about it.

If a group is fighting for democracy, human rights and freedom and fighting against dictatorship then they are good guys.
If they deliberately target civilians or take part in massacres and human rights abuses of their opponents then they are not good guys and their claims to be fighting for a good cause is questionable at best.

If a group is fighting for an extremist cause - to create an Islamic state, to establish a communist dictatorship, to establish a fascist state and mass murder the Jews - then they are clearly the bad guys. If they also deliberately target civilians, take part in massacres and murder their opponents they cannot be supported.

Therefore there is no equivalence between Islamic extremists fighting against NATO troops in Afghanistan with the goal of restoring Taliban rule and the French Resistance who fought to liberate France from Nazi occupation and sought to restore French democracy.

There is no equivalence between the IRA in 1919-1921 who fought against the British - attacking the police and army - because a democratic majority was denied independence and the IRA in the Troubles who fought the British to overthrow democracy in Northern Ireland and force a United Ireland upon the Ulster Unionists and using indiscriminate bomb and gun attacks on civilians to try and bring it about.

FTA69

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is no equivalence between the IRA in 1919-1921 who fought against the British - attacking the police and army - because a democratic majority was denied independence and the IRA in the Troubles who fought the British to overthrow democracy in Northern Ireland and force a United Ireland upon the Ulster Unionists and using indiscriminate bomb and gun attacks on civilians to try and bring it about.

Here's an example of what I was on about above. The twisting of a definition depending on political expediency and rooted in a lack of historical fact.

KyussBishop

In the news media, 'terrorist' means "anyone the US labels as a terrorist".

There is no more consistent definition than that, in use by news media, because if there was it would be impossible to apply consistently, without concluding that the US engages in many 'terrorist' actions on a regular, industrialized basis.

IrishProd

Some people claim that Sinn Féin and the IRA during the Troubles had no political mandate so they are bad and are "terrorists". What political mandate did the Irish Volunteers in the 1916 Easter Rising have or Wolfe Tone & the United Irishmen in 1798?

Gbear

For me terrorism is a set of tactics. Anyone who uses those tactics is a terrorist.

Then again, there's terrorism and there's terrorism.
Killing people indiscriminately is obviously terrorism. But is blowing up a building having sent in a bomb threat so that everyone gets out beforehand?
Probably still counts but is obviously not as bad.
Then again, attacking infrastructure which directly leads to starvation or people dying of thirst is as bad.

There were acts of terror on both sides in WW2, for example. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo are amongst the worst war crimes ever committed, making the nuclear bombs pale into insignificance by comparison.

When the enemy does it it's "heinous attacks against unarmed civilians", when you do it it's "striking at enemy morale" or something like that.
There really has been an awful lot of terrorism committed by the so called "good guys".


There's never any excuse for using terror tactics. At least not the kind that directly endanger the lives of non-combatants.

The parallels drawn to Mandela don't really work for me because, from my admittedly limited knowledge, I don't think he had any real part in the serious terror activities against civilians.
It'd be like blaming Thomas Jefferson for Obama's drone strikes.

Lawlesz

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

There is no equivalence between the IRA in 1919-1921 who fought against the British - attacking the police and army - because a democratic majority was denied independence and the IRA in the Troubles who fought the British to overthrow democracy in Northern Ireland and force a United Ireland upon the Ulster Unionists and using indiscriminate bomb and gun attacks on civilians to try and bring it about.

You have pretty much undermined your point by claming Northern Ireland was a democracy pre 1969

Victor

Lawlesz wrote: »

You have pretty much undermined your point by claming Northern Ireland was a democracy pre 1969

I think most people will agree it wasn't fully democratic in pre-1969, but post-1974? And for the 25 years that followed?

MadsL

If categorising Mandala as a terrorist means agreeing with Thatcher...well fuck that, fuck that very much.

HansHolzel

keeponhurling wrote: »

From what I can glean from the Irish media,

UVF = mixed

You know, it actually wouldn't surprise me if most of the Irish media gave the Shankill Butchers a mixed review e.g.

"Misunderstood, alienated, believed in what they were doing, used whatever they could lay their hands on..."

especially PLIERS

Victor

MadsL wrote: »

If categorising Mandala as a terrorist means agreeing with Thatcher...well fuck that, fuck that very much.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

HansHolzel

Netanyahu says Mandela was his inspiration. Shimon Peres, Naftali Bennet etc are coming out with similar sh*t.

Puke.

They even gave the white SA regime NUKES ffs.

moxin

Remember state forces can and have committed terror acts too, the ones who criticise non-state terrorists are quiet when it comes to state terror.

Also, how come the Taliban are called insurgents and not terrorists? They have deliberately killed civilians using suicidal bombers!!

wretcheddomain

I hate the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

My own position is that you can be both at the same time. I also think it's easier to distinguish between an individual terrorist act and a terrorist organisation. For instance, if I commit 1 selfish act then this doesn't make me a selfish person because every other act is not selfish and it would be rash to generalise.

In the same sense, if a minority of individuals within an organisation commit 1 terrorist act (i.e. unnecessary killing of children for example) then this by no means should overshadow the organisation as a 'terrorist organisation'. This is especially true with respect to organisations which are overwhelmingly actively avoiding such incidents.

So while there is a grey area between the concepts, I think this is a somewhat easier way to approach a better understanding of it. Using the quote above is usually used by people unwilling to think of a potential solution to how to politically and socially define such groups a.k.a lazy thinking.

bnt

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're all the same thing. It depends on your point of view.

Banjo String wrote: »

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

Back in 1900, a young war correspondent named Winston Churchill was captured by a gang of Terrorists who were waging unconventional war against the invading British Colonialists. He escaped to report what he found, which boosted his nascent political career, and the rest is history.

The "Terrorists" were Afrikaners (Boers), and the country was South Africa. Some of those same people would go on to assist the Allies in World War I (e.g. Jan Smuts) and rule South Africa, and their direct descendants (filial or political) would implement the Apartheid system after 1948. They went from oppressed to oppressor in less than fifty years.

We always root for the underdog, and for most of its history the ANC was the underdog. Well, it's been the top dog since 1994, and since Mandela retired, it has proceeded to crap all over the carpet and rip chunks out of the furniture. All the while using Mandela to legitimise its regime. Now he's gone, so if his influence and the myth of moderation will be trampled by expediency.

As for Churchill: he grew to admire the "terrorist" tactics he saw in action, and remembered them during World War II when he organised the formation of "unconventional warfare" units. He even kept the Afrikaans name for them, only changing the K to a C: they were called "Commando" units.

Why bring Churchill in to it? Because he, as a historian in his own right, understood the subjectivity of the observer when it comes to history:

Winston Churchill wrote:

For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history.

Nodin

Victor wrote: »

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Not when it has the wrong figures on it.

everdead.ie

Terrorists are loosers and Freedom fighters are winners no?

CakeWalk

Banjo String wrote: »

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

One man's state forces are another mans terrorists.

Balaclava1991

Lawlesz wrote: »

You have pretty much undermined your point by claming Northern Ireland was a democracy pre 1969

Wrong.

Northern Ireland WAS a democracy pre-1969.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland have voted for pro-Unionist parties consistently since the foundation of the Northern state to the present in election after election after election.

Don't take my word it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Northern_Ireland

The PIRA objective was to force the British to withdraw from Northern Ireland and to force the Unionist majority in the six counties to join a United Ireland.

In the Republic of Ireland since 1922 no Irish republican party that favored forcing the Unionist majority into a United Ireland has ever been elected into the government.

Don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Therefore the PIRA WERE a wholly anti-democratic movement who substituted violence - the killing of politicians, members of the security forces and civilians - for democratic parliamentary politics and held the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland north and south of the border in arrogant contempt.

By definition they were terrorists.

End of.

Fratton Fred

CakeWalk wrote: »

One man's state forces are another mans terrorists.

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

And round it goes.

Cienciano

KyussBishop wrote: »

In the news media, 'terrorist' means "anyone the US labels as a terrorist".

There is no more consistent definition than that, in use by news media, because if there was it would be impossible to apply consistently, without concluding that the US engages in many 'terrorist' actions on a regular, industrialized basis.

And the thing is, with the US history we can see it openly, but the media continue to go along with it.

Nodin

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Wrong.

Northern Ireland WAS a democracy pre-1969.

.

Yep. Sort of like South Africa was at the time. Not everyone got to vote, and when they did it was made sure it had the minimum impact.

FTA69

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Sort of like South Africa was at the time. Not everyone got to vote, and when they did it was made sure it had the minimum impact.

Not to mention the fact that Ireland in 1919 was also a democracy and the Brits were actually so benevolent we were over represented in Westminster with a whopping 105 seats. (That is until those bloody terrorists in the IRA upstaged the democratic process by shooting the cops.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Brit

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Sort of like South Africa was at the time. Not everyone got to vote, and when they did it was made sure it had the minimum impact.

You make it sound like the government of NI had no sort of Judicial system it had to work within.

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that Ireland in 1919 was also a democracy and the Brits were actually so benevolent we were over represented in Westminster with a whopping 105 seats. (That is until those bloody terrorists in the IRA upstaged the democratic process by shooting the cops.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Brit

What are you even talking about?

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You make it sound like the government of NI had no sort of Judicial system it had to work within.

Considering the sectarian hole it was in 1969, it's clear that they had a very particular judicial system indeed.

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You make it sound like the government of NI had no sort of Judicial system it had to work within.

A great system it was and all, one that interned its own citizens for years without trial and was then indicted by Europe for torturing its captives. The same judicial system then later presided over a system of non-jury trials where people received life-sentences based on verbal confessions extracted via torture in Castlereagh.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/inside-castlereagh-confessions-torture

Spare us your double standards.

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are you even talking about?

I'm talking about the person above telling us the IRA were unjustified due to the northern state being a "democracy".

The same person then goes on to tell us that the IRA during the early 1920s were a great bunch of lads despite the fact they were also rebelling in the context of a "democracy". Ireland in 1918 was an integral part of the United Kingdom and was afforded 105 seats within Westminster.

You could try and read up on this stuff for yourself like.

sue_me

Banjo String wrote: »

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

absolutely

the word " terrorist " is at best subjective and at worst a completely loaded term

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the sectarian hole it was in 1969, it's clear that they had a very particular judicial system indeed.

It didn't have an independent judicial system. The Government had to work within the confines of the Supreme court of the United Kingdom. But look this is getting off topic. You just have to tone down the extreme rhetoric, it doesn't help your case one bit.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It didn't have an independent judicial system. The Government had to work within the confines of the Supreme court of the United Kingdom. But look this is getting off topic. You just have to tone down the extreme rhetoric, it doesn't help your case one bit.

....it managed to work quite well, if you consider a few decades of a sectarian statelet a "result". 'An avoidable tragedy' would be my description.

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

A great system it was and all, one that interned its own citizens for years without trial and was then indicted by Europe for torturing its captives. The same judicial system then later presided over a system of non-jury trials where people received life-sentences based on verbal confessions extracted via torture in Castlereagh.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/inside-castlereagh-confessions-torture

Spare us your double standards.

I love how Republicans claim the troubles was a war but moan about interrogation. And I'm the one with doubles standards? :rolleyes:

Balaclava1991

IrishProd wrote: »

Some people claim that Sinn Féin and the IRA during the Troubles had no political mandate so they are bad and are "terrorists". What political mandate did the Irish Volunteers in the 1916 Easter Rising have or Wolfe Tone & the United Irishmen in 1798?

Firstly 1798.

Since the Protestant Reformation and prior to its dissolution in 1800 the Irish Parliament was a parliament with a franchise limited to only a limited number of extremely wealthy aristocratic Anglo-Irish Protestant landowners.

At that time the overwhelming majority of Irish people were Catholic poor and even wealthy educated Catholics were excluded from holding political office. Educated middle class Protestants were also excluded. Tone and his friends who formed the secret Society of the United Irishmen were the descendants of planters but inspired by the liberal egalitarian secular ideas of the American and French revolutionaries who believed in the Rights of Man, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

They believed Ireland should be a nation in its own right, a democratic Republic with Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter living in harmony and in freedom with justice and equality and liberty for all.
That is why the 1798 rebellion was fought.
To overthrow tyranny and replace with freedom.

Therefore the men of 1798 were freedom fighters in the truest sense.

Secondly 1916.

Since 1829 when Catholics were first admitted to the House of Commons, Irish Nationalists had steadily grown in strength until the majority of the Irish seats in the House of Commons. The Irish Parliamentary Party pushed for Home Rule in 1886 and in 1893 but their bills were defeated each time. In the 1910 election the IPP again won a massive majority in Ireland except for the north east which was dominated by the Unionists. The Liberal government needed the support of the IPP and return the IPP won Liberal support for the 3rd Home Rule Bill which passed the final hurdles in 1914 the culmination of 30 years of constitutional democratic politics.

The Unionists threatened rebellion and the British Army threatened mutiny while the Conservative Party in England openly sided with the Unionists.
Home Rule was suspended for the duration of World War I.
The Irish National Volunteers split for the war with Redmond, the leader of the IPP, leading the INV into the war with the promise of Home Rule after the war.
Redmond died in early 1918 after his brother perished in battle in 1917 and lost his seat to Eamon De Valera one of the few 1916 rebels leaders left alive.
Patrick Pearse had supported Home Rule and his militant republicanism was inspired by yet another British betrayal.
After 1916 the majority of young Irishmen who had not voted in the years since 1910 had turned on the IPP and they turned against the war and opposed conscription.
It was the young who voted for Sinn Féin in 1918 and thereby gave legitimacy to the Easter Rising.
Pearse had correctly predicted that a blood sacrifice was needed to inspire Irishmen to fight for their freedom against British tyranny which had made a mockery of democracy.
When the British government sought to crush Dáil Éireann they made the War of Independence 1919-1921 inevitable.

That is why the men of 1916 were freedom fighters in the truest sense.

It is grotesque to call the of 1798 and 1916 terrorists.

Just as it is grotesque to call the criminal mafia scum of the Provisional IRA "freedom fighters."

K-9

Banjo String wrote: »

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

And just because somebody fervently believes in a cause doesn't necessarily make that cause just or right.

I'd accept the IRA campaign was just and right to a certain extent, not as much as many Republicans, but I'd say it went on far too long, so much that it lost any higher moral ground over the occupying forces it was fighting, it became more and more like the very thing it opposed.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

....it managed to work quite well, if you consider a few decades of a sectarian statelet a "result". 'An avoidable tragedy' would be my description.

Sure there was hatred on but how much of it was reactionary? Both groups are as bad as each other.

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I love how Republicans claim the troubles was a war but moan about interrogation. And I'm the one with doubles standards? :rolleyes:

No Republican expected anything else from the British really, however it does tend to rankle when one is abducted and tortured in their own country.

Another hypocrisy is you attempting to trivialise police brutality and also banging on about how Nelson Mandela was a great man.

Here's what happened a contemporary of Nelson's after such an interrogation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biko

If you're going to be right-wing mate, at least have the fortitude to be consistent in your support for oppressive states.

Balaclava1991

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure there was hatred on but how much of it was reactionary? Both groups are as bad as each other.

If the PIRA had won the Troubles they would have unleashed ethnic cleansing Yugoslavia style on the Protestant population of Northern Ireland and would have established a Soviet style dictatorship over the rest of the people with Gerry Adams as supreme leader and the IRA Army Council as his Politburo.