Great lengths, huh? That was mighty white of them. Did it occur to them not to plant bombs at all? That would have worked a lot better at avoiding civilian casualties.
As for what I’m saying, I’m saying A is B (terrorist rationalize their violence), not B is A (everyone who rationalizes his violence is a terrorist). Your lame attempt at reversal amuses me, grasshopper.
BTW, I’m going to state on record that I find the Loyalists equally as damning as the IRA. (What’s the name of the Loyalist terrorist group-Ulster Defense Force?)
These are terrible incidents, but it does not make the IRA a terrorist organization. The idiots that committed these acts are criminals. Remember my example of the American soldier in Japan? He was a criminal, but it didn’t make the U.S. Army a terrorist organization.
Yes, but both these incidents were ordered by high-ranking IRA men and neither of them are remote examples.
I hope so, considering they’ve killed more civilians than the IRA have.
Take your pick:
Ulster Defence Association/ Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force
Loyalist Volunteer Force
plus a few subgroupings of the above.
(PS to Ben Hicks: Amazing in all your research you didn’t notice that neither Omagh nor Darkley were IRA atrocities.)
There’s no defending Kingsmills, but the South Armagh IRA was practically an army unto itself (still is, in fact). The PIRA Army Council never approved the massacre.
As for Tom Oliver, well, he knew the chances he was taking as an informer. So did everyone else in the world who’s ever been executed for spying. And this isn’t a modern IRA tactic, either; during the Anglo-Irish War those getting cozy with the security forces did so at their own risks. I say that not as a justification but simply to point out that the distinction between the IRA then and now isn’t as clear as some people would like it to be.
There is no comparison between the UDA/UVF and the IRA.
The Loyalist terrorists primarily targeted innocent civilians. The IRA’s primary target was British security forces.
If you have the time read these:
UVF/UDA profile
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/uvf.html
IRA profile
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ira.html
You will see the primary target of these groups. Any group that primarily targets civilians is a terrorist group.
Way to go Loyalist Terrorist! Keep intimidating those schoolgirls.
Maybe you can work your way up to a Boy Scout troop some day.
So both groups are scum. What’s your point?
Didn’t civilians die in the recent Iraqi war? Does that make the USAF a terrorist organization?
I’m sure Bono supports the peace process, so I certainly agree with him.
There was no honor in that incident. Armies sometimes do stupid things. That doesn’t make them terrorist organizations.
The IRA is not a terrorist organization. That is my point. I do agree with you that the Loyalist groups are scum.
Actually in this case it would appear that the Iranian revolution was a genuinely broad-based movement. Only the upper-class stood solidly behind the Pahlavi regime - the vast majority of the middle- and lower-classes, both secular and religious, appear to have backed the Shah’s overthrow.
The continuing growth of malaise and discontent among most sections of the Iranian populace as despotism and repression increased in the 1970’s, promised political and economic decentralization failed to materialize, and economic difficulties grew in 1976 and 1977, despite huge oil income, led to an outbreak of opposition beginning in 1977.
Now the assumption of power by the Ayatollah’s faction does represent a somewhat smaller faction seizing power over various “coalition partners”, stonewalling the leftists and squeezing out more moderate secularist and non-Khomeini religious factions, sometimes roughly, sometimes carefully finessed in the first couple of years after the revolution. The Islamic Republic was overwhelmingly approved by voter mandate ( despite somew fighting and vocal opposition ), but only in the context of a stark choice between that and monarchy - the pro-Khomeini faction was able to rush the mandate out, without further options or opportunities for debate. The constituition was also strongly passed, but again was a manipulated issue:
A similar, though more complex, fate attended the republic’s new constituition; a draft less theocratic than many lay groups had feared was composed which, after disaccords on procedure, was presented in the summer of 1979 to an elected assembly of experts dominated by clerical and pro-Khomeini forces. The resultant document gave virtually all ultimate power though almost no defined duties to a faqih ( religious jurist ), that is, Khomeini during his lifetime, and either another religious leader or a religious committee in the future…The constitution also includes a prime minister and cabinet, an elected Parliament, and some libertarian and egalitarian language, but is capable of being interpreted in an authoritarian way. Despite fairly widespread opposition, including overwhelming boycott of the referendum on the constituition in Kurdistan and a heavy boycott in Azerbaijan, which contributed to much lower vote total than before, the constitution was heavily approved in late 1979.
So ultimately what you had a genuinely popular revolution that was hijacked by one faction ( not a tiny one, but not absolutely dominant either ), due in no small part of the personal charisma and status of its leader, who was seen as symbolic of the entire revolution. The result has been a lot of misery, but despite that Iran today is still somewhat more democratic than it was under the Shah and the people remain rather more modernist in outlook than a majority of those in, say, Pakistan. An improvement? In a baby-step way, perhaps. Hopefully a prelude to an eventually truly democratic state in the near future.
With any luck.
A semi-rogue operation, really, that Khomeini approved after the fact, for reasons of both external, but more importantly internal politics - helping squeeze out some of the opposition, as above:
*The November 4, 1979, taking of the American embassy and hostages by pro-Khomeini students with a go-ahead by at least one high clerical and approval at least after the fact by Khomeini was apparently only in part a response to admission of the ex-shah to a United States hospital on October 22. It also had other motives and gave clericals and radicals a means to forestall American attempts to increase military, political, and business ties to Iran and to force the resignation of Barzagan and Yazidi, who were prevented from taking action against the students. Their fall was precipitated by their being shown on TV shaking hands with Brzezinsky in Algiers, thus implying they were tools of the Americans. Although anti-imperialists and leftists may have found reason to rejoice at this and at further breaks with the United States, there seems no doubt that the hostage crisis both postponed serious dealings with Iran’s desperate unemployment and other economic problems and, at least as of the year 1981, redounded more to the benefit of Khomeini and the clericals than to either the left or the liberals. Just as imperialist and Kurdish threats were used to supress the left in the summer of 1979, so in 1980 similar threats were used to rally support around Khomeini and further put down the left, liberals, and minorities. As had already happened to Barzagan and Yazidi, pragmatic lay religious politicians were put in the line of fire; the popular Bani Sadr and his foreign minister Ghorabzadeh, had to make statements about the hostages and other matters based on guesses or hopes of what the revolutionary council or Khomeini might do; often they guessed wrong and could take no action…
This mode of government kept Khomeini above the fray…*
The hostage crisis was largely unplanned, but a gift from above for the hard-liners.
The above quotes from Roots of Revolution:An Interpretive History of Modern Iran by Nikki Keddie ( 1981, Yale University Press ).
I fully support the peace process, and I am happy that the IRA has ceased hostilities. Yes, the majority in NI want to remain in the UK, but Cathelics will be in the majority in about twenty years.
At that point, I think that the British government should set a timetable for withdrawl. I would appose this reunification of Ireland if the rights of Prodestants were not quarunteed.
Do you make the same claim for the Real IRA ( RIRA )?
I regret that this post is so long, but I’ve been saving up…
Airman:
Which country has blown up more innocent civilians than any other country? The United States of America.
Airman:
That is correct. There are terrorists within the IRA. But the IRA is not a terrorist organization.
(BTW, Airman, I am aware that you have just returned from the Middle East. I have no personal animosity against you at all. We just disagree.)
Bryan:
According to the Declaration of Independence, we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Women and African Americans were not allowed to exercise the rights which they already had. We didn’t “earn” those rights; we claimed them.
Millen:
Millen, excellent points. England, as a conquering power, forbade the Irish from even using their own language. My understanding is that until the last half of the Twentieth Century, they were not allowed to vote.
I originally objected to the term “bubbleheads” because it is an empty description. Name-calling doesn’t get very far in fighting ignorance.
Ben Hicks:
And who determines who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter? We (both of our countries) have blood on our hands and you seem to want more.
MC Master:
Get out.
MC:
When Ireland was one country the majority didn’t rule then, did it? The wishes of the majority should have been taken into account then.
If the majority of the British don’t care what happens to Northern Ireland, then why stay?
(And I say that as a Protestant.)
Tamerlane:
No matter who decided what the label would be, I think “the Real IRA” is a misnomer.
I’m sorry the IRA are terrorists, the two pubs in Birmingham were not military targets in any shape or form.
Ireland WAS allowed to decide it’s own fate in 1921 and the County of Ulster elected to join the Union.You cannot disreguard the interests of the majority of the population of Ulster (though the Protestants are now only just the majority, but contrary to what Millen says the Birth Rates are roughly the same now), they have just as much right to say who they want to be ruled by. I believ self-determination is the only factor that should decide this and not it’s geographical location.
The reason why Northern Ireland is still in the union is because it’s residents are Britsih citizens too and should be able to decide their own fate.
Also I belive that since the 19th century the Irish counties until 1921 and then Ulster have had the same voting rights as the rest of the UK.
I don’t necessarily disgree. The “No Compromise IRA” might be more accurate. However I was just curious how tight the line Millen drawing on terrorist vs. non-terrorist.
Unfortunately I’m afraid that for me the IRA in the past does qualify for the label ( and RIRA still does today ), because the “disrupting the economy” argument just isn’t quite good enough as justification. Attacks on civilian targets, even with warning given, are unacceptable. As the action at Omagh shows, warnings can bungled and civilian casualties are always a threat. Such tactics, IMHO only, cannot be fully justified. We can put aside the IRA’s known ( perhaps past ) criminal enterprises and associations with other terrorist groups. But I still think some of their past “military” actions were morally untenable.
Not that the any of the opposition is necessarily any better of course. As noted some of the loyalist groups who appeared to semi-randomly murder, were worse. And I’m big believer in reconciliation - I fully support the IRA’s involvement in peace negotiations and hope they stick with it.
No, I do not.
The Omagh bombing is a bad example, because the warning was incorrect. Either the “Real IRA” purposely killed innocent civilians or they are guilty of gross negligence.
The “disrupting the economy” strategy was used by the Allies in WW2, and many German civilians died as a result of this. Are you suggesting that the Allies were terrorists?
Unfortunately one can find other other examples like the La Mon House bombing in 1978 ( which you could perhaps put down to “gross negligence” as I believe the IRA admitted screwing up on the timing - though why that particular function was a target is hard for me to fathom ). Or Claudy in 1972. But it is sort of immaterial who has the larger list or if there is even one at all. The fact is that the potential is always there.
On those occasions when the attacks were intended as purely punitive strikes and “morale breakers”, yes, actually. At least by modern standards - As the recent conflicts have shown it is no longer considered acceptable to deliberately target civilian populaces in wartime. However much of the allied bombing was in fact aimed at industrial capacities. In such a case civilian losses are regrettable and should be minimized, but unfortunately are often unavoidable.
However I’d regard at least some of the IRA attacks through the years as not strikes against military assets or military production facilities ( though they certainly made those ), but as rather targetted at civilian facilities with the intent to sow terror and thereby put political pressure on the government. The above La Mon House strike could hardly be called anything different. That sort of “economic attack”, is in a different ( and unacceptable ) category, IMO.
Of course I realize that the IRA is an internally fragmented group, with numerous factions, some of which are far more violent than others. Nonetheless I still think it slightly disingenuous to cast the IRA as freedom fighters in a blanket fashion. I have some sympathy for both sides ( or perhaps most sides, since it certainly can be argued that there are more than two ), but the reality is that “both” sides have innocent blood on their hands and the IRA, or factions thereof, has conducted itself in a distinctly shady manner from time to time ( including those factions that have at times preyed on their “own people” in terms of criminal activities ). Enough, IMO and only MO, to label some of their past activities as terroristic. Which unfortunately made them a terrorist organization, even if there was no absolute internal consensus on such matters.
Ah, and I see elements of this very debate in going on right now in GD.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185942
Probably a better place for it. In this particular instance my opinion seems to be on roughly the same wavelength as Pjen’s in that thread. The comparison between the ANC and the IRA is an interesting one.