Terrorism - a definition

MakeEmLaugh

Facebook has been filled with self-congratulatory, back-slapping nonsense this week from people asking the rhetorical question - “Why is it, when Muslims or people of colour commit violent acts, they're called terrorists? Yet when white people commit violent acts, they're called 'mentally ill'?

(a) Firstly, you are wrong. Plenty of white people have carried out acts of violence and been called terrorists. Every convicted member of the IRA, for a start.

Not to mention, Richard Dart, a middle-class white Englishman who was convicted of terrorist offences in 2013 and sentenced to six years in prison. Dart had planned to attack soldiers in the Royal Wootton Bassett.

(b) Secondly, terrorism didn't use to be defined simply as being a “violent act”. When I was being educated on what terrorism was, the definition I learned was as follows:

Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence.

That's why the IRA were and are considered terrorists. They were attempting to subvert the democratic wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland to remain in the UK.

That's why Al-Qaeda were and are considered terrorists. They were attempting to subvert the democratic wishes of the majority of the people globally not to belong to a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Dylann Roof, unless someone knows something that I don't, did not have any political aims this week. He wasn't trying to create a new, all-white state in or adjacent to South Carolina. What he did was mass murder.

'Terrorist', if anything, bestows more credibility on his actions that simply calling him a 'mass murderer'. He didn't have any aims, other than to kill and maim.

KingBrian2

This bloke was trying to provoke race war so yes a terrorist by any definition. Perhaps a more appropriate term the rarely used traitor or subversive.

digzy

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

MakeEmLaugh

digzy wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Deep.

strandroad

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Dylann Roof, unless someone knows something that I don't, did not have any political aims this week. He wasn't trying to create a new, all-white state in or adjacent to South Carolina. What he did was mass murder.

Apparently he wanted to start a civil war (his words to the police or to his friend, I don't recall). There's more of that in his "manifesto" in the news today; he did not accept integration, to put it mildly, and wanted to stimulate a change.

Richard

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

That's why the IRA were and are considered terrorists. They were attempting to subvert the democratic wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland to remain in the UK.
.

I don't disagree that the IRA were terrorists, although loyalist paramilitaries were terrorists too, despite wanting NI to stay in the UK. Having said that, had NI voted democratically to leave the UK and create a UI, then loyalists would have tried to subvert the democratic process violently.

MakeEmLaugh

Richard wrote: »

I don't disagree that the IRA were terrorists, although loyalist paramilitaries were terrorists too, despite wanting NI to stay in the UK. Having said that, had NI voted democratically to leave the UK and create a UI, then loyalists would have tried to subvert the democratic process violently.

Ulser loyalist paramilitaries still resisted any democratic attempt to accommodate non-unionists in the framework of Northern Ireland's political landscape.

The Ulster Workers' Council Strike took place between May 15 and May 28 1974, and was organised largely by Ulster loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, who wanted to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement, which had the support of both the British government and the Irish government.

On May 17, in the middle of the strike, the UVF exploded bombs in Dublin and Monaghan, killing 34 people, in order to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement (which it succeeded in doing).

In that sense, the UVF and UDA could be seen as anti-democratic terrorists.

A Primal Nut

Roof is definitely a terrorist and the department of justice are looking at using terrorism laws against him.

He may have been mentally ill possibly as a result of drugs and brainwashing but I'd consider extremist Muslim terrorists to be mentally ill also, except as a result of just brainwashing in that case.

Eric Cartman

Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence.

so Paul Murphy and Right2Water well then…..

Victor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence.

so Paul Murphy and Right2Water well then…..

Well, Mr. Murphy and his colleauges does want a revolution.

However, I think most of what has happened to date could be described as public disorder.

MakeEmLaugh

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence.

so Paul Murphy and Right2Water well then…..

I'm not a supporter of Paul Murphy, but it's nonsensical to say he and the other Right2Water people are trying to subvert democracy through violence.

They haven't committed a single shooting, a single bombing or a single abduction.

At worse, they're a nuisance.

conorh91

I disagree with the definition that characterizes terrorism as an attempt to subvert democracy. That would suggest that terrorism cannot exist outside of democracies, and limit terrorists' objectives much too narrowly.

A better definition might hold that terrorism is the arbitrary use of violence, contrary to the law of war, which intends to precipitate political change.

Eric Cartman

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I'm not a supporter of Paul Murphy, but it's nonsensical to say he and the other Right2Water people are trying to subvert democracy through violence.

They haven't committed a single shooting, a single bombing or a single abduction.

At worse, they're a nuisance.

trapping government officials in cars, bricking police cars, attacking police and intimidating workers is a slippery slope though. But your right, we'll leave the definition alone until they shoot someone.

KingBrian2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

trapping government officials in cars, bricking police cars, attacking police and intimidating workers is a slippery slope though. But your right, we'll leave the definition alone until they shoot someone.

Their is a difference between terrorism and starting a riot. While riots can be started by terrorists, riots usually are preached by bigots or extremists and when they get going descend into thuggery and looting.

johnnyskeleton

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Deep.

Mod: Please read the charter before posting again, specifically re: the standard of debate required.

Ash.J.Williams

He was a pretend terrorist. Mental issues more than likely. It's noticeable too how there seems to be many agendas trying to manipulate the situations to suit themselves.

Surely the very notion of arming EVERYONE to protect against rogue gunmen has to be.....man do i have to even finish that sentence.......the world has jumped the shark ....i really do despair..... leaders of the of the free world me hole...

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This bloke was trying to provoke race war so yes a terrorist by any definition. Perhaps a more appropriate term the rarely used traitor or subversive.

It was a hate crime, it was not a terrorist attack. You can be one, or you can be the other, you can not be both.

IrishTrajan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence.

so Paul Murphy and Right2Water well then…..

Well, the definition is closer to: Anyone who uses violence to terrorize/incite fear in pursuit of a political aim.

Victor

conorh91 wrote: »

I disagree with the definition that characterizes terrorism as an attempt to subvert democracy. That would suggest that terrorism cannot exist outside of democracies, and limit terrorists' objectives much too narrowly.

I concur.

A better definition might hold that terrorism is the arbitrary use of violence, contrary to the law of war, which intends to precipitate political change.

I wonder if this might put some state actions, e.g. covert direct action, on the wrong side of the line (in particular when it is directed at, say, a military target)?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

riots usually are preached by bigots or extremists and when they get going descend into thuggery and looting.

And sometimes it is a reaction to state abuse.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It was a hate crime, it was not a terrorist attack. You can be one, or you can be the other, you can not be both.

I wouldn't be so certain in this.

Peregrinus

I'd quibble with the definition that "Terrorism is any attempt to subvert democracy through violence", since a corollary would be that any campaign, however violent and indiscriminate, directed against a non-democratic opponent would not be terrorism. ISIS, for example, would not be waging a terrorist campaign in Syria, and that defies common sense and common usage. Most of what Al-Qaeda does would not be terrorism, since their principal enemies are not democracies. And so forth.

I suggest that terrorism is, basically, the use of violence to create terror as a tactic for achieving political ends. The term originally came into the language to describe the policy of the French government during the "Reign of Terror" (or, simply, "the Terror"). So, yes, terrorism can definitely refer to state actors as well as non-state actors, and this has always been so since the word was coined. And it is not confined to actions attacking democracy - the victims of the Terror were not democrats, or the representatives of democracy or democratic ideals.

Can one man's terrorist be another man's freedom fighter? Yes, of course, and there is no contradiction here. Describing someone as a terrorist is a reference to his tactics or strategy. Basically, he is using violence to foment terror because he thinks or hopes that it will help him to acheive his goal. If his goal happens to be "freedom", or something that can meaningfully be described as freedom, then he's a freedom fighter as well. Why not? Generally, we'll call him a "freedom fighter" if we wish, for our own reasons, not to draw attention to his use of terrorist methods, but we'll call him a "terrorist" if we are out of sympathy with his political goals. The choice of terminology probably says more about us than about him.

Is it possible for hate crimes to be part of a terrorist campaign? Yes, absolutely. It's not only possible but common; just look at ISIS rounding up and executing Christians, or gays, or the wrong kind of Muslims. How is that not a hate crime? How is it not also terrorism?

Is it possible to be mentally ill and a terrorist? Again, yes. Why not? Mental illness might explain why you have become a terrorist, and depending on the nature and degree of your illness it might have some bearing on your culpability for your terrorist actions. But only in rare cases will it change the fact that your actions are terrorist in nature.

Are Roof's crimes terrorist in nature? From what we read so far, yes, emphatically. His motive was not to bring about the deaths of his victims; in fact he did not know who they were and had no particular animus against them. His motive was to provoke a race war - a political goal, which he sought to achieve by creating terror through perpetrating random killings of people selected on account of their race.

TomBtheGoat

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Deep.

Your sarcasm aside, the comment the other poster made is quite true.

conorh91

Victor wrote: »

Conorh91 wrote:

A better definition might hold that terrorism is the arbitrary use of violence, contrary to the law of war, which intends to precipitate political change.

I wonder if this might put some state actions, e.g. covert direct action, on the wrong side of the line (in particular when it is directed at,s ay, a military target)?

Yes it would, but that is part of my intention.

I do not consider that any definition of terrorism (or attempted terrorism) can exclude things like the Soviet biological weapons programme, Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah.

Closer to home, this definition would also regard as terrorist CJ Haughey's and Niall Blaney's illegal importation of arms in 1970, even though they were Government ministers. The reason is, they intended to use their offices to exercise arbitrarily (i.e. beyond any lawful process) the use of force for political ends.

However, using my definition, the invasion of iraq, for example, would not constitute terrorism because although one might conceivably argue it was against the law of war and that it intended to precipitate political change, the decision to go to war was not arbitrary, in that it was in accordance with established democratic procedures.

'Terrorism' is a term that seems to pre-date any attempt at definition, and therefore it is a term that has grown up organically, without any set limits. Any attempt to put a coherent definition on it will displease certain people, but (with typical modesty!:pac:) I think my definition is fairly close to what is usually intended by the term.

Iwasfrozen

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Your sarcasm aside, the comment the other poster made is quite true.

Only to terrorist sympathizers. Morality is not conditional.

Jayop

If terrorism is an attempt to subvert the democratic will of the people, can you have terrorists in a non democratic state?

Jayop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Only to terrorist sympathizers. Morality is not conditional.

Well that's not true. There's plenty of examples of governments labelling people terrorists for trying to overturn non democratic institutions.

If you construct a democratic majority by moving borders or gerrymandering then the minority within those new borders could de described as freedom fighters for trying to elicit righteous change within.

Iwasfrozen

Jayop wrote: »

Well that's not true. There's plenty of examples of governments labelling people terrorists for trying to overturn non democratic institutions.

If you construct a democratic majority by moving borders or gerrymandering then the minority within those new borders could de described as freedom fighters for trying to elicit righteous change within.

What absolute nonsense. The Irish state created a democratic majority by constructing a border between themselves and the United Kingdom. Every state creates an artificial majority by constructing borders around itself.

Jayop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. The Irish state created a democratic majority by constructing a border between themselves and the United Kingdom. Every state creates an artificial majority by constructing borders around itself.

I hadn't referred to Ireland.

But you'd be happy then to call someone a terrorist if part of their country was invaded and was then filled with people from the invaders land who expressed a wish to remain as such?

Iwasfrozen

Jayop wrote: »

I hadn't referred to Ireland.

But you'd be happy then to call someone a terrorist if part of their country was invaded and was then filled with people from the invaders land who expressed a wish to remain as such?

Territorial desputes and common and complicated. But murder is never the answer. I condemn all forms of killing save when a person's life is in danger and he has no alternative but that would be on a case by case basis and even then the matter would need to be thoroughly investigated.

The IRA? Child murderers. Unfortunately many of them will never be brought to justice.

Jayop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Territorial desputes and common and complicated. But murder is never the answer. I condemn all forms of killing save when a person's life is in danger and he has no alternative but that would be on a case by case basis and even then the matter would need to be thoroughly investigated.

The IRA? Child murderers. Unfortunately many of them will never be brought to justice.

Again, I didn't mention NI, you did. Twice now actually.

So if you lived in my hypothetical country that was overrun and your people were being abused and shat on from a height you'd call your fellow man fighting to get justice against a corrupt illegal regime terrorists?

What's the difference between an army and a terrorist organisation then? Take the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Iwasfrozen

Jayop wrote: »

Again, I didn't mention NI, you did. Twice now actually.

So if you lived in my hypothetical country that was overrun and your people were being abused and shat on from a height you'd call your fellow man fighting to get justice against a corrupt illegal regime terrorists?

What's the difference between an army and a terrorist organisation then? Take the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan?

This "hypothetical country" is NI. Your view of it anyway.

You've been talking about NI from the start but you try to brush over your logical inconsistencies by attempting to steer the conversation towards a hypothetical you can manipulate. Sorry buddy I'm too long in the tooth for that one.

I won't answer biased questions, the IRA are no fellows of mine, and while you fail to mention the idea of peaceful resistance in your hypothetical it was an option in the real world.

IrishTrajan

Jayop wrote: »

What's the difference between an army and a terrorist organisation then? Take the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Well, by the very definition of the doctrine, the US Air Force was almost a terrorist force during the opening phase of the campaign, when it relied upon "shock and awe" to suppress the Iraqi military and its domestic legitimacy. However, it was directed against a military institution (or strikes that diminished its legitimacy, in the case of the bombings of Saddam's palace) and not a civilian populace, so there's some wiggle room as to whether they could be classified as terrorists.

So, to answer your question, in the opening phases, it's debatable (it also depends upon the theatre, for instance the Kurdish rode to the US' aid with 70000 fighters, would the US be considered terrorists for any supporting strikes they carried out in Kurdistan?). In the latter phase/insurgency, they were not.

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

Again, I didn't mention NI, you did. Twice now actually.

So if you lived in my hypothetical country that was overrun and your people were being abused and shat on from a height you'd call your fellow man fighting to get justice against a corrupt illegal regime terrorists?

I'd call them terrorists if they employed terrorism in their fight for justice, yes.

Wouldn't you?

Victor

conorh91 wrote: »

However, using my definition, the invasion of iraq, for example, would not constitute terrorism because although one might conceivably argue it was against the law of war and that it intended to precipitate political change, the decision to go to war was not arbitrary, in that it was in accordance with established democratic procedures.

Starting a war is a war crime.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Well, by the very definition of the doctrine, the US Air Force was almost a terrorist force during the opening phase of the campaign, when it relied upon "shock and awe" to suppress the Iraqi military and its domestic legitimacy.

Can you explain the underlined bit?

A Primal Nut

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It was a hate crime, it was not a terrorist attack. You can be one, or you can be the other, you can not be both.

Says who? I don't get that at all? If a sunni suicide bomber walks into a shi'a mosque in Iraq and blows himself up which is it? I would say it's both.

Maybe under the legal definition the prosecutor has to decide which to go with...most likely they will go with the one that has the harshest sentence attached.

A Primal Nut

According to google, the definition is:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In that case; that would also include violence against legitimate military targets, even from people fighting for their rights. So I can't say I agree with the official definition at all.

At the very last it should cover the targeting of civilians.

Remember that China calls the Dalai Lama a terrorist, which makes a mockery of the word and almost makes this discussion a waste of time!!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/19/dalai-lama-prayers-tibetans-terrorism

Peregrinus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

According to google, the definition is:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In that case; that would also include violence against legitimate military targets, even from people fighting for their rights. So I can't say I agree with the official definition at all.

At the very last it should cover the targeting of civilians.

That's odd. When I google terrorism, I get:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Clearly you're not getting the highlighted words. What gives?

Plus, the Google definition doesn't have any link or citation to show where they're getting it from, and we can't judge how authorative that source might be.

So I think, even if Google did offer the same definition to you and me, you'd be wrong to call it the "official definition". It's a definition offered by some completely unknown person whose reasons for offering it, and whose expertise in offering it, are completely unknown. Nothing "official" about that.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with your criticisms of the definition that google offered you. By that definition, the allied landings in Normandy in June 1944 were a clear example of "terrorism". But that's nonsense; nobody uses the word in that way.

Even the more restrictive definition offered to me is not much good. The actions undertaken by the Provisional IRA during its campaign of violence weren't "unofficial or unauthorised", they were official IRA operations, authorised by the Army Council. Yet most people would say that many of those operations were terrorist in nature.

MakeEmLaugh

digzy wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Deep.

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Your sarcasm aside, the comment the other poster made is quite true.

Not to mention blindingly obvious. It had all the insight of a Christmas cracker.

IrishTrajan

Victor wrote: »

Can you explain the underlined bit?

Saddam's power stemmed from "I'm stronger than you, if you revolt, I'll crush you". Carrying out strikes on Saddam's palace broke that facade.

Jayop

I'm no ira supporter, never have been a and never will be, bit thanks for tarring me with that brush for trying to raise some questions. The ira probably could have fought a non terrorist campaign by attacking military and state targets but once they started murdering civilians and blowing up children they lost any moral authority they may have had.

Were the ira terrorists, most definitely. Were they freedom fighters too, almost certainly.

Were the paratroopers shooting innocent civilians I'm derry terrorists? Absolutely. Were the British government guilty of terrorism when colluding with loyalist forces? 100%.

KingBrian2

Some countries call drone operations Targeted Assassinations. This is slightly different to terrorism but is does the same thing.

Jayop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Some countries call drone operations Targeted Assassinations. This is slightly different to terrorism but is does the same thing.

That's why it's such a grey area. While the traditionalist's view of a terrorist is someone who is very wrong, I'd say if you added up all the murders by every terrorist group in history it wouldn't come to a fraction of the murders from state killings for a single large country like the US or England.

That's not logical inconsistencies.

KingBrian2

Jayop wrote: »

That's why it's such a grey area. While the traditionalist's view of a terrorist is someone who is very wrong, I'd say if you added up all the murders by every terrorist group in history it wouldn't come to a fraction of the murders from state killings for a single large country like the US or England.

That's not logical inconsistencies.

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves. Today the world is different these terrorists are not in danger of death, they actively court death just for the sake of fun, warmongers not fighting wars but trying to spread a political message. Wars are regrettable but part of the human condition and indeed even in the animal world wars are common. Today's terrorists crave media attention and hype.

Jayop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves. Today the world is different these terrorists are not in danger of death, they actively court death just for the sake of fun, warmongers not fighting wars but trying to spread a political message. Wars are regrettable but part of the human condition and indeed even in the animal world wars are common. Today's terrorists crave media attention and hype.

Again I'm no IRA supporter, but do you feel it was the same in NI back in the day? Post Bloody Sunday enlistment numbers we're told sky-rocketed because catholics/nationalists genuinely feared for their lives, especially when trying to engage in peaceful resistance which I was told on the last page was such a viable alternative.

KingBrian2

Jayop wrote: »

Again I'm no IRA supporter, but do you feel it was the same in NI back in the day? Post Bloody Sunday enlistment numbers we're told sky-rocketed because catholics/nationalists genuinely feared for their lives, especially when trying to engage in peaceful resistance which I was told on the last page was such a viable alternative.

NI intercommunal warfare between two distinct communities. The IRA council was prepared to listen and talk while the loyalists acted as hit squads for MI5.

Victor

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves.

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

KingBrian2 wrote: »

NI intercommunal warfare between two distinct communities. The IRA council was prepared to listen and talk while the loyalists acted as hit squads for MI5.

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

Jayop

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

Aims of a true socialist state aren't necessarily a bad thing in theory but in reality every one of them becomes even more corrupt than your average capitalist state.

The tactics employed by the IRA after the long war strategy was employed is what makes them a true terrorist organisation as opposed to pure freedom fighters or liberators. Even the bombing campaign and efforts to take civilian life are pretty unforgivable.

KingBrian2

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality. I'm sure you would not argue that MLK was not a terrorist. Sometimes unconventional methods are required for social justice but it is always the power of the ballot box that comes ahead of confrontation.

Jayop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality. I'm sure you would not argue that MLK was not a terrorist. Sometimes unconventional methods are required for social justice but it is always the power of the ballot box that comes ahead of confrontation.

Mandela said....

“I salute the South African Communist Party,” “The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue.”

and Thatcher said just after

“A considerable number of the ANC leaders are Communists… When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life… I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practises violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO or the IRA and would not do so.”

Peaceful protests should always be a first, second and third option to try to bring about revolutionary change, but with world leaders like Thatcher still in power in most of the worlds superpowers it's little wonder so many civil rights organisations break into armed struggle to achieve their aims.

jank

KingBrian2 wrote: »

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality..

Equality for whom exactly? At the beginning they did not believe at all in the democratic process, hence they took up arms to try and force the Brits out of the North even though they did not even command the support of the majority of Nationalists. The non violent civil rights movements was pioneered by John Hume and his likes, so spare us the 'equality' narrative when the Provos were quite content in blowing people up as some movement for 'equality'

Jayop

jank wrote: »

Equality for whom exactly? At the beginning they did not believe at all in the democratic process, hence they took up arms to try and force the Brits out of the North even though they did not even command the support of the majority of Nationalists. The non violent civil rights movements was pioneered by John Hume and his likes, so spare us the 'equality' narrative when the Provos were quite content in blowing people up as some movement for 'equality'

The democratic process was a farce in the north back then so let's not bring that into it. Huge numbers of IRA members signed up with the sole purpose of protecting their community. Loads would have put the all Ireland goal as a very distant second. The non violent equality movement was he.tting nowhere and they were regularly getting beat off the streets.

I'd dispute the idea that a majority of nationalists didn't support the IRA in the beginning too.

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

The democratic process was a farce in the north back then so let's not bring that into it. Huge numbers of IRA members signed up with the sole purpose of protecting their community. Loads would have put the all Ireland goal as a very distant second. The non violent equality movement was he.tting nowhere and they were regularly getting beat off the streets.

I'd dispute the idea that a majority of nationalists didn't support the IRA in the beginning too.

All of this is highly arguable. But none of it is relevant to the question of whether the IRA was a terrorist movement, which is answered simply by looking at the tactics and strategies they employed. Did they employ terrorist tactics? Did they practice terrorism? If so, they they were terrorists. The goals which they sought to acheive through terrorism are not relevant. They may have been admirable goals, but it's perfectly possible to seek to attain admirable goals through terrorism, and if you do that you're terrorist.