You have just admitted terrorism is an acceptable means of waging war. You have just justified terrorists and their means. It would seem to me that the fact that you excuse the use of any means, including terrorism and war crimes, if the situation is bad enough disqualifies you from ever complaining that others use those means even if you or your family or your country are the victims. People like you are the problem the rest of us need to overcome.
So would you not consider the IRA terrorists then? After all their attacks were rarely (almost never, since the mid-1970s at least) specifically aimed at the civilian population.
That’s what Merriam-Webster says.
This is true, but a hero isn’t the same thing as a freedom-fighter. Iran, Syria, and other Arab regimes are not free countries. The terrorists they support are motivated by hatred of Israel, not love of freedom.
An more accurate slogan would be One man’s terrorist is another man’s hero. But, that wouldn’t have the same punch.
Hardly:
Warrington, Manchester, Canary Wharf, Magherafelt, Enniskillen etc etc
Pjen, the fact that civilians died does not mean they were deliberately targetted. Warnings were given in most of the above cases; in some they may have been inadequate, but that fact alone does not indicate deliberate intention to kill. Fewer than a third of the deaths caused by the IRA were of civilians, and a fair number of those were vigilante-type killings (drug dealers and the like); this would hardly be the case if the IRA was deliberately setting out to target civilians.
And Enniskillen is a different matter entirely. It was a mistimed attempt at a UDR regiment.
Placing bombs in shopping areas is IMHO targetting civilians. If an air force bombed such areas, even after warnings, it would be almost certainly outside the conventions of war and thus approaching terrorism. I wonder how you would deal with a military PR manager saying that as only a third of the casualties in an operation were civilian, and so they were not deliberately targetting civilians.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not particularly anti-nationalist, in fact I have a great deal of sympathy for the ideals of the nationalists, but I do feel a spade should be called a spade, and the IRA did target civilians after the seventies.
So what were the French Resistance then, in your eyes, avoiding the “open minded fallacy”?
IRA Support in the states was strong in Irish neighborhoods such as South Boston, minimal elsewhere (not that the rest were anti-IRA; 99.9% didn’t care). You’re dreaming while wearing a tinfoil hat and dropping acid and crack if you think that huge numbers of of non-Irish-Americans knowingly gave money to the IRA.
I have never in my life heard anyone even mention or discuss the possibility of Americans funding the IRA except 1) English 2) Irish 3) Americans on this board.
Phoning in warnings to clear these areas is IMHO trying to get civilians out of economic targets.
I am not aware of a widespread consensus that Dresden and Hamburg, for example, were terrorism.
Look at it this way. When the IRA went after military or political or paramilitary targets, there were no warnings. They just did it. So why bother with the warnings in the other cases? The only answer I can think of is they genuinely wanted to kill the non-civilians, but not the civilians. They might not have been unduly bothered if some civilians were killed anyway - as combatants in “proper” wars often seem not to be - but this does not qualify as deliberate targetting.
If they had deliberately targetted civilians there would have been a hell of a lot more dead civilians.
Phoning in inadequate warnings was an attempt to ensure that the IRA was not totally despised in Britain. Being Irish in Britain in the seventies was extremely uncomfortable- in Birmingham there were reputed to be people willing to lynch random Irish. Claiming to give warnings was a fig leaf. If they were adequate, then the bombs would be found, as they were not usually adequate, they were merely PR.
Just this week in the English papers, the reminiscences of one of the planners of Dresden were published (no cite - it was in the Guardian.) He commented that if Britain had been on the wrong (losing) side, he would expect to have been prosecuted for war crimes. And IMHO they were acts of terror.
The military bases and personnel did not need individual warnings- the IRA had already warned that they were at risk.
And the phrase ‘economic targets’ when applied to high streets and shopping centres is a case of weasel words. The aim was to try to force the British Public, by terror, to back independence for the North of Ireland.
Face it, the tactics were those of terror. The question is ‘Was it justified?’ Any attempt to pretend that the IRA was not running a terrorist campaign similar to current terrorism is re-writing history.
It may well have been a justified terror campaign, but terror campaign aimed at the British public was what it was and what it was meant to be.
There are similar weasel words used about the ANC and Nelson Mandela. In the early sixties the ANC was a terror group using terror tactics; Nelson Mandela was involved in as close a way as those currently being accused of being Al Qaeda members or supporters are today.
The question is ‘Was the terror justified?’
In these two cases I come down narrowly on the side of the ANC; and narrowly against the IRA, believing that in many ways their campaign became counter-productive.
But both were still terror campaigns aimed at terrorising the public into changing its support for the current legal status of the countries involved.
Well, I must say that’s a new one on me. And it might (might!) be conceivable for the first one or two bombings, but to suggest that 20 years on the IRA would still think British people wouldn’t hate them so much if they just phoned in a warning a couple minutes before the explosion … well … do you think they were born yesterday?
I’m curious as to your source for this theory, actually. Is it a Pjen original? I’m sure I’ve never come across it before.
Well of course they wouldn’t be adequate enough for the bombs to be found. That would defeat the purpose of planting them in the first place. But some were as adequate as could be hoped. Nobody died in Manchester, for example. And the two men who died in Canary Wharf got the warnings in time but chose to ignore them.
Fair enough. I agree. But this doesn’t seem to be a widely-held view.
The IRA warned that UK economic targets were at risk and yet continued to give warnings before attacking them.
Partially agreed. The aim was equally to make the British Government decide the cost of maintaining the Union was too high.
This and the following are good points. Please save them for re-use when somebody actually argues that the IRA were not involved in terrorism.
It’s something I’ve named as such. it’s not meant to rebut any argument based on moral relativism, although many times such statements do incorporate this fallacy. PETA is based on it. How would you like to be killed and have hamburgers made out of you? Then don’t eat cows!
it’s simply taking a situation where A does X to B, and presuming the situation is exactly the same (morally, economically, socially, etc.) if you switch it to B doing X to A. It presumes the function of the first party doing X is always relative.
Note that often times this fallacy is also employed as an appeal to emotion.
So it’s not an accepted fallacy in logic and reasoning. Fine.
Then it is open to interpretation by a social constructivist and social relativist who could shoot it down merely by pointing out that it is only part of the belief system of a moral absolutist and social realist. Fine.
So it adds nothing to an argument between you and me. I simply disagree with your contention that there are moral absolutes and decidable issues across differing societies. Mine is still a logically acceptable argument. It is only an ‘open-minded fallacy’ within your moral absolute social realist belief system. Fine.
No ‘Fallacy’. No addition to the debate. Fine.
On specifics, PETA and Peter Singer would argue that the identification with non-human sentient beings is merely an extension to the gradual process that has seen our society accept that denying humanity to women, black-skinned africans, children under a certain age, mental defectives etc. etc. is not morally acceptable in that society. So in their view, not a fallacy but an extension of reasoning.
Ok, I’ve just come up with another logical fallacy. I’ll think of a cute name later. But it is where one assumes there is a finite number of logical fallacies, all of which have been known for at least a few thousand years. No new ones can ever come into existence. 
Keep in mind, just because someone makes a statement that relies on faulty logic doesn’t mean the conclusion is necessarily untrue. you just can’t rely on the faulty logic to prove it. If i say “five people said lord of the rings is a great book, therefore it is a very popular book” i have made a hasty generalization, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion is false.
The “open mind fallacy” just means you cannot rely on “how would YOU like it if…” or similar flip-flops to make a point.
Whoa! Hold the phone, pal. I most certainly did not say it was “ok” to kill innocent people. In fact, IMO it is never OK to kill anyone. My point was that in the case of countries like the U.S and Isreal, who have powerful armies, precision-guided missiles, highly-armored assault vehicles, etc., it’s easy to pretend that we are morally superior. But the fact is that we have the capability to launch precision strikes against military targets and limit civilian casualties. But what choice do the Palestinians, for example, have? If they had the capability to take out Israeli military bases, you don’t think they would? If your enemy has missiles, and you only have a pipe bomb, what are you going to do? And do you think that if the U.S. were confronted with the real possibility of losing our way of life, that we would hesitate for a second to kill civilians? Three words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Killing is wrong. But I call bullshit on this idea that we are oh, so morally superior to the terrorists.
They have the choice not to walk into a shopping center full of civilians and set off a bomb. If they want to suicide-bomb israeli/american military targets, that’s morally acceptable in such a conflict.
But there is no such conflict, and thus it’s simply wrong to fall back on the “it’s all they can do” reasoning. Hamas, et al. have made it very clear that they will not stop until every last jew is dead. This isn’t about anything political. A palestinian state is just an excuse. Give it to them and they’ll come up with another one. Their goal is genocide, nothing more, nothing less. They are quite open about it, too. It’s sypathizers on these shores that attribute political goals to their actions. Fortunately for everyone, suicide bombers are “all they have.”
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about eradicating the world of every last japanese; they were about ending the war w/ Japan–which they did. That being said, I still have mixed feelings about our use of the bomb on those occasions.
There may be Palestinian extremists who would want to take over Israel, just as there are Israeli extremists who think that a Palestinian state should never exist, and want to take more and more land by force. But to say that the goal of every Palestinian is “genocide, nothing more, nothing less”, is utter propaganda. It’s an excuse for right-wingers to advocate total intransigence, by arguing that “the Palestinians wouldn’t EVER be happy, no matter what we offer them, so we will offer them nothing.” If this attitude continues, and becomes mainstream thinking, there will never be peace.
That’s a rather facile argument, don’t you think? First you argue that the Palestinians are morally inferior because they target civilians; when that argument fails, you quickly shift gears and create the strawman argument: “Oh well it’s not just that they kill civilians, it’s that they want to kill every last one”. I’m sorry, but that’s complete crap.
Well, the confusion with regards to the IRA is that it did not start out as a terrorist organization when it was founded, as the Irish Volunteers back in the early 1900s.
Pjen, you’re using words you heard in class but really don’t understand. A true, hard-core advocate of Social Construction has no problem rejecting all logic, including the laws of non-exclusion that form the basis of all rational thought. Furthermore, they would be unlikely to claim that that had “shot down” anything, as the term in and of itself implies an appeal to an independant standard of truth/reality that lies outside of both Kalt and yourself.