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

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one condones illegal physical interrogation but it's an unfortunate consequence of war that these methods will take place under trying times.

The apartheid regime said the same thing about fighting the "Communist menace."

It's more than a little hypocritical to claim you're fighting then complain when the enemy interrogates your "troops."

Again; Republicans were fully aware of what being an IRA member entailed. The prospect of jail and death was the first thing stressed upon joining that organisation. They were under no illusions about what fighting an occupation entailed.

However there was no moral equivalency in the struggle in Ireland. The British government had no right to intern anyone here and nor did they have any right to torture anyone. Lastly, they had no right to shoot people dead, collude with death squads and then tell the whole world they were simply "policing common criminals".

This should be good. Define right wing.

Northern Ireland and South Africa would be a good start.

Nodin wrote: »

Don't mind him.


If the RA had won, do you reckon Gerry would still be in charge and it would be Marty hiding out in Mexico or the other way round......

What are you talking about? This discussion is about defining the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

I was making the point that the men of 1798 and 1916 were clearly freedom fighters - although they used terror tactics and that the PIRA were terrorists whose aims were genocidal and not at all about freedom.

What has Mexico got to do with this discussion? You've lost me.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one condones illegal physical interrogation but it's an unfortunate consequence of war that these methods will take place under trying times. It's more than a little hypocritical to claim you're fighting then complain when the enemy interrogates your "troops."

Okay, thinking about this one, why is Guatanamo an issue, why the pics and videos of US and UK army officers treating prisoners inhumanely?

There's a certain standard armies, and Governments are supposed to maintain in wars and human rights laws. You just can't discard them when it's convenient.

I always cite the Stalker inquiry and shoot to kill in N.I. for this, RUC officers gave information at great personal risk from both the IRA and internally from the RUC, their viewpoint was "we can't stoop down to their level, otherwise we are as bad as them."

The British and N.I. authorities portrayed themselves as better than the IRA, who they depicted as terrorists. When Government agencies start acting like the terrorists they despise, well, there's a huge big gaping hole in that logic.

Nodin wrote: »

...in the United Soviet Provo Republic, with the farms and the cannibalism...who would be in charge and who would end up on the wrong end of the ice pick.....

You are not making any sense whatsoever.

FTA69 wrote: »

The apartheid regime said the same thing about fighting the "Communist menace."

I'm sure they did.

Again; Republicans were fully aware of what being an IRA member entailed. The prospect of jail and death was the first thing stressed upon joining that organisation. They were under no illusions about what fighting an occupation entailed.

See I'm not so sure about this. The IRA mostly recruited young men from the lower ends of social class. Desperate kids who had no prospects in life who were told their neighbours were to blame.

However there was no moral equivalency in the struggle in Ireland. The British government had no right to intern anyone here and nor did they have any right to torture anyone. Lastly, they had no right to shoot people dead, collude with death squads and then tell the whole world they were simply "policing common criminals".

The IRA had no right to plant boms with the intention of killing civilians, they had to no right to torture informers, they had to right to kidnap people, deal drugs, kill drug dealers or rob banks.

Northern Ireland and South Africa would be a good start.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of politics. In your mind Irish = good, British = bad. Similarly left wing = good and right wing = bad.

Do you know this man is right wing and this man is left wing. Who's regime would you prefer to live under? A trivial example yes and you could easily invert it but I'm trying to show you starkly that politics is not as black and white as you think it is.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Trotsky kid, Trotsky, just look it up.

What has Trotsky got to do with this discussion?

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Terrorism

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

What about the law abiding citizens that they killed, such as Kathleen Kelly in Nenagh, who just happened to be the daughter of a retired policeman, or Kathleen Carroll from Monaghan who made a complaint about illegal alcohol trafficking in the area and as a result was taken from her bed, hands tied and marched a mile whilst she pleaded in vain that she would make no more mention of the illegal stills before being shot dead in a quiet country lane? When the Old IRA carried out a bomb attack on Amien St, Dublin, killing one young girl and injuring her sister were they just collateral damage?

When the Old IRA raided a farm in Enniscorthy in search of weapons and the wife of the farmer demanded they leave her house, do you reckon she was thus a legitimate target when they shot her dead because she was hindering the fight for independence? Was it fair enough that they threatened to execute any of family who would go to request the priest to come and perform the last rites over her now dead body?

We all know about the PIRA's execution of Jean McConville, shot after she tended to a wounded British soldier, of course that is completely different to the Old IRA's accidental shooting of Mary Morgan of Pearse Street, Dublin, and the subsequent shooting of a 22 year old ex-soldier who went to move her to safety and a caretaker who witnessed the debacle!

When the PIRA planted a car bomb without warning in a town which kills civilians they were cold blooded monsters but when the Old IRA opened fire without warning on the civilian train (which happened to be carrying some British soldiers) from Cork to Bantry killing six innocent passengers and injuring ten others they are gallant heroes who get a monument in their honour (no mention of their victims appears on this monument). How is the killing innocent civilians with shrapnel worthy of condemnation and the killing of innocent civilians with bullets worthy of praise?

I guess the men who shot Tobias O' Sullivan as he walked with his 7 year old son were heroic men? And we condemn the British for executing a wounded James Connolly yet ignore the Old IRA's execution of a cripple, John Byrne, who was taken on a stretcher out of Jervis Street Hospital and shot just outside.

I have gotten tired of this ahistorical tripe that the Old IRA were some kind of chivalrous band of cheeky, charming Irish lads being constantly bandied about. In most regards they were no different to the PIRA and in the few differences that may exist, such as the differences in devastation caused by bomb attacks, this is down explosives being harder to come by in the early conflict rather than any sense of moral superiority. The Old IRA proved itself just as willing to ignore innocent civilian casualties occurring for the sake of achieving a military objective.

You say there is no equivalence between both phases of the IRA, can you give any evidence to back this extraordinary claim up?

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The degrees of shyte vary, but it's all shyte. Picking which shyte to highlight is just factionalism.

That is my point, I'm not trying to say that the men who served in the Old IRA were worse than those in the PIRA or the British or that the crimes committed by the Old IRA deserve more attention than theirs, I'm just saying that they were no better than them and their crimes should not be whitewashed from history as they have been, a fact which an awful lot of people living in this country fail to recognise because of an ignorance of history combined with an easy willingness to accept the myth of the "Good Old IRA" which is still fed them through the media and politicians.

SamHarris wrote: »

Actually a "terrorist" group has a pretty solid definition. It has to systematically TARGET civilians with the intention of killing, it must be political in nature (whether that goal is achievable, such as al Qaeda's wish to reconquer the previously Muslim parts of Spain, is irrelevant) and has to create an atmosphere in which people believe more attacks of a similar nature by the same group will be carried out.

Have you not been reading the last few pages about "state terrorism"? Where were you, living under a rock?

IrishProd wrote: »

Have you not been reading the last few pages about "state terrorism"? Where were you, living under a rock?

Addressing the main point of the thread.

It's a thread, kid, not an international incident. Calm down.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

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.

Dear oh dear. How about googling gerrymandering, have a read and come back and explain to us why there was a Unionist majority. Your posts throughout this thread stick of plain ignorance. If you disagree with the PIRA campagin thats well and good, but don't ignore blatant facts. Catholics in the north were treated like second class citizens for many years.

If you kick a dog often enough, sooner or later it'll bite back.

And as someone else said, the British over the years in the North lowered themselves to the level of the very 'terrorists' they despised. When British soldiers are shooting innocent civillians in Derry, do they have any right to label anybody else terrorists? Was that not an act of terrorism?

FTA69 wrote: »

They did indeed. Which is why I find it pretty hypocritical the way you're lauding the "terrorist" Mandela on one thread and now trying to gloss over the torture of another state that was built on oppression.

I'm not glossing over anything. Mandela was a terrorist yes but when the terrorist hangs up his gun and promises to live by the law he should be lauded and welcomed back into the fold of society. Mandela was a changed man after prison, he held no bitterness to the people who discriminated against him and interred him. Even in jail he was given the chance for early release but he refused rather than give up his principals.

Compare him to the Republican leader Gerry Adams who doesn't even have the spine to admit he was in the IRA.

I spent ten years as a Republican activist. I've met numerous people who were at some stage involved in the IRA; whether that be people who were in jail in the 2000s or people who were involved in the Border Campaign in the 1950s.

Uh huh.

The fact that many of those who joined the IRA were working-class men and women doesn't mean they were stupid dopes who couldn't fathom what they were doing. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're an eejit like. Many of those young people grew up around internment, collusion, police brutality and a military occupation. Joining the IRA was a natural response to that for many.

They weren't stupid they were ignorant. A lack of education and opportunity combined with ignorant hatred for their neighbours and I'm talking about both sides.

Similarly the IRA had no use for anyone who would enter an armed struggle on a whim. The last thing they needed was for someone uncommitted to get arrested and spill all. The vetting process was usually very strict.

You should be careful about what you write online, it's not as anonymous as you think.

Never happened. I'm not getting into the rest of that particular debate; but it is my assertion that the British presence in this country was and is immoral, as were the means with which they maintained it.

Oh I doubt that very much.

I think the British occupation in Ireland is bad yes, but if I thought the English in general were such bastards I wouldn't be living and working here. You can try and portray my politics as some sort of green-tinted simplistic sh*te all you want, it says more about you than me to be honest.

Here we go again, "British presence is bad m'kay" (paraphrasing). Heaven forbid Britain did anything good over their 800 years of at least partial presence here. But nope everything about the British is bad and a Union with our neighbours could only ever be a bad thing. Totally forgetting of course that we are in a Union with Britain and every other former European Colonial power. It reminds me of Monty Python "what have the Romans ever done for us?!" :rolleyes: