Actually, it probably shouldn’t include homegrown terrorits. It was a list from the US State Department, which is interested in foreign affairs. The homegrown wackos are patrolled by the FBI and the ATF, AFAIK. This was alluded to by Eva Luna.
BTW, the current hijack into Northern Irish problems has diluted the OP more than a little.
Your understanding is incorrect. Catholics in pre-independence Ireland were given the right to vote in 1793. In Northern Ireland that right was, until the 1970s, very unfairly restricted through property qualifications, but that was done by Irish unionists, not by the English.
First of all, Ulster is not a County, it is a province of nine counties, six of which were arbitrarily designated as “Northern Ireland” without any input from their population: two of the counties had nationalist majorities at the time and four of them now do. Why should those individual counties not have self-determination? Why does it only apply to this artificial unit as a whole?
As for birth rates, believe it or not they are not tabulated by religion in Northern Ireland, so it is impossible to clearly state whose are higher. However, birth rates in Catholic areas remain higher, and enrollment in Catholic schools remains higher, so draw your own conclusions. Lots of information here.
See reply to Zoe, above. The residents of Northern Ireland were given the same rights as British residents by Westminster, but the old Stormont government severely disenfranchised Catholics.
ruadh, thanks for the correction. You’ve won your “fighting ignorance” stars for the day.
I’m moving to the other thread. I apologize for my part in the hijacking.
Incidentally, with regard to the Omagh bombing, it should be noted that there are very serious allegations of security force complicity through either incompetence or collusion. There are also allegations that other bombings that could have been prevented were either allowed by the security forces to go ahead or possibly even done with their assistance, and I think the accusations of security force collusion in the deaths of innocent nationalists are well beyond the “allegation” stage at this point.
I don’t mind the term “terrorist” being applied to the IRA. It’s just a term of convenience that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Just don’t try to tell me that the paramilitaries are the only terrorists operating on this island.
You certainly won’t get any such argument from me :). Like I said, I think everybody ( at least the armed, militant everybodies ) has some blood on their hands, the British government not least of all.
Well what have we here, more I don’t know the facts but I’ll nater on regardless it would appear.
As to the underlying point, it strikes me Ekers pointless nattering about Muslim societies controling terror is really rather stupid and silly. (a) With the limited exception of Iran and Syria, no MENA government is connected now w/ current sponsorship of international terror groups (b) Most governments in the region, inc. US sponsored ones spend rather large sums trying to suppress terror groups, e.g. our dear Egyptian friends and their fine little paramilitary police w/ their big Blue Tin cans one can see riding ‘bout with the ‘disappeared’ recently rounded up. © most of these groups are underground and as the US’ own little war on terror in places such as Afghanistan has shown, bloody hard to unearth.
Add to this that genuine legal opposition in almost the entire region is effectively impossible, and one can easily see how radicalism is generated.
And yet ordinary folks suffer from both sides of the equation
This inane and fundamentally ignorant nonsense about anyone ‘winning’ respect is complete navel gazing idiocy that rather abstracts away from the actual political history of the region.
I should further add that your observation about Iraq pumping out oodles of oil and causing SA and Libya to collapse is frankly stupid. A price collapse would obviously hurt Iraq more than SA – lowest extraction cost fields in the world, among the highest quality crude – and not be in their national interests. Why Libya was thrown in there escapes me, other than perhaps some confused muddle-headedness.
Why my dear fellow should you care to trouble yourself to actually read something about the Iranian revolution, it will become quite clear to you that the majority of Iranians indeed did support the toppling of the Shah’s regime. His nasty little secret police system only fell apart after massive protests and when the security services started to defect. The Shah was stunningly unpopular.
Your “buying” this is not in the end relevant
Of course, Ekers, ever so informed, has conflated the actions of the Revolutionary Guards with the overthrow of the Shah and the both with terror – at the time sentiment in Iran re the US was none-too-positive given the support the US had provided to the rather incredibly nasty SAVAK.
And you’ve lost all credibility.
Look, it doesn’t matter that the IRA phoned in warnings. (hey, there’s a bomb that’s gonna go off in a few minutes, you’d better evacuate!). The reason the bombs are planted is to promote terror. They use terror against the civillian population as a political weapon. That is what makes them terrorists.
Yeah, they may have phoned in warnings, but they are still blowing shit up. And civillians have been killed by those bombs.
Because the rape was not ordered by, and did not further the goal of the US Army. The US Army had no conflict with Japan.
And in that case, the US gave up the perpatrators to the Japanese law enforcement and they were tried and convicted.
Dare I go back to the OP? You people seem to be getting a bit off-topic.
Yes, it might be more comfortable to rant on and on about Ireland, and just what makes a terrorist a terrorist, but, will eradicating Islam cure terrorism worldwide (I think NOT!), and whoever heard of earning one’s human rights???
Next thing you know, you’ll have to earn being labeled “human”.
Come on!
I’ve also noticed that Kalt is mercifully absent from this thread.
Atrocities committed by the Real IRA have no bearing on whether the IRA is a terrorist organization or not.
So, you think that some of the allied bombings of German cities were acts of terrorism. Would you call the Allies terrorist organizations? And if not then why?
>> I’ve also noticed that Kalt is mercifully absent from this thread
Since this thread has been hijacked from its original purpose I am waiting for someone to open another pit thread for this thread where he says
He is really one of the biggest and sickest assholes on this board.
It does matter that the IRA phoned in warnings, because if they didn’t hundreds of times more civilians would have died as a result of their attacks, and that is important to me.
Civilians, unfortunately, die in all wars. Is it your position that any army that “blows shit up” that accidentally results in civilian casualties, is a terrorist organization?
My Japan analogy was poor, and I withdraw it.
I am also moving over to the GD thread. I will check back to read any responses to my recent posts. I am sorry for the hijack.
You know, you can divert attention from the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organization by saying “Well, what about insert favorite here, why aren’t they considered terrorists” all you want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that they indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.
I guess if I’m gonna rob your house and I call ahead first it’s OK with you, right Millen?
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not personally attacking you. You’re entitled to your opinion, but for Pete’s sake, I wish you would just think for a second about what you’re really defending here.
:rolleyes:
You know what would have saved even more civilians?
NOT BOMBING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Oddly enough I caught a bit of a special on PBS this weekend. It covered a great many topics including segregation in the military and in general was a “history from below” type piece.(Note, History From Below, is a term historians use when describing a historical piece written with an emphasis on the role/experiences/viewpoints of minorities, political, racial, gender, etc.)
The piece had a minor expose on the Bombing of Hamburg. The intro they used was something like this. “The allies were disturbed by the rate at which the German people re-built infrastructure[munitions factories, bridges, etc] destroyed by bombing raids. The decision was made that it was necessary to reduce the German workforce in order to keep their ability to rebuild at a minimum.” So they killed the people. Firebombed the civilian population. Something like 60% of the city burned and the casualties in a single night were estimated ~ 40,000. Men, women, and children. Some of them undoubtedly worked making munitions and other war infrastructure. Some were undoubtedly teachers and daycare workers as well as doctors, etc. Most of the casualties that night were noncombatants.
So, was this terror? Or was this just another way of taking out infrastructure? Are human resources, civilians who may or may not work in war-infrastructure supporting capacities, just another level of infrastructure and open to targeting depending on the circumstances?
A line needs to be drawn somewhere, but defining “terrorism” has always been difficult.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, even though I can only post on weekends these days, I may as well wastie my limited Dope time on this:
a) None of them? Are you sure? And why are Iran and Syria “limited” exceptions, anyway?
b) Along the way, they spend large sums suppressing dissident groups of all kinds, including fairly benign ones.
c) So?
I can’t find anyone in this thread who’se used the word “win”, though my searched turned up those letters in the phrase “blowing up”, a few times.
The phrase I used (and Kalt used, for that matter) was “earn”. Don’t use quotes foolishly, son. In any event, you saying it is inane and ignorant doesn’t make it so.
Well, I don’t like Libya. To be accurate, I don’t like the guy who has been running Libya for the last few decades and his removal by just about any means would bother me for not a single nanosecond. It’s kind of a pity the U.S. missed him during that bombing run in the eighties. Oh, well…
Truth be told, the collapse of the Libyan and Saudi governments wouldnt bother me that much at all. It’s not like they’re doing anything really noble or productive, anyway.
That’s the common fallacy of using one evil to make another evil seem not as bad. I have no doubt that the Shah was disliked by the majority or Iran, but you’ll need some pretty compelling evidence to prove that the majority of Iranians were eager to replace a repressive secular dictatorship with an equally (if not more so) repressive fundamentalist dictatorship.
That’s that evil-justifying-evil fallacy again. Besides, I never said the Shah was involved with terrorism, but I’m pretty sure the current fundamentalist regime is.
So… you’re defending the Ayatollahs? Good for you. Everyone needs a hobby.
If you have to “earn” something, it’s really not a right, is it?
Yes, but the rights you now have automatically had to be earned by somebody. They didn’t magically appear.
Pity that.
Indeed I am. Limited exceptions as their activities revolve around one issue, Israel and are presently confined to the region. Regardless of that, the majority of states in the regoin indeed do spend serious efforts trying to control the radicals, out of self-interest if nothing else.
Indeed, many do. With US subventions to boot. Your point then is what? That you are finding ways to excuse your idiotic statements?
Well my fine dimwitted fool, the whole underground thing implies something, now doesn’t it? It says that organizations such as at-Takfire wal Hijra, al-Qaeda etc. are indeed being combatted, and your lazy sweeping statement about Muslim societies controlling terror was uninformed.
Earn, win - semantical nattering on.
It rather all comes down to the same point, you and Kalt, based on some half-baked poorly informed prejudices, advance the proposition that Muslims societies have to “earn” something, on bases of your fundamental lack of knowledge as to the actual situation.
Oh you don’t like Qadhdhafi. Well whoop-di-do-da.
That’s hardly a particularly rational position. Qadhdhafiy has been fairly harmless for the past decade, and killing the guy really doesn’t advance any interests at all.
So, in the final analysis, your inclusion of Libya on the list went along with your general muddle-headedness on the issue, and your economic illiteracy in re the market. Good a two-for on ignorance.
I don’t know any government that is doing things “really noble” and for those of us who live in the real world, the collapse of a government which controls the lowest cost oil reserves and the key swing producer in the market, and one which sells to the US at a discount (politics) and that has played a key role in moderating prices, well I would have some concern about that.
Rational interest and all that.
On the other hand, ill informed fools nattering on without an iota of understanding may just breezily babble on about what a good thing that would be because of some vague, poorly thought out dislikes.
Well there is pretty fucking compelling evidence. One need only review the scholarship on the issue to see compelling evidence that a large portion of the population at the time saw an Islamic regime as a better alternative. Tamerlane has provided a cite on that, and the counter example in regards to the necessity of mass action is seen throughout the rest of the region where Islamist movements have failed to overthorow any govenment. Algeria is a particularly compelling example of just such a failure. You can consult Oliver Roy and Giles Kepel for analyses of the same.
As to your strange and stupid use of post-revolutionary developments in Iran to comment on pre-revolutionary support, well it’s fairly idiotic and nonsensical. No one, of course, ever wants the solution to be worse than the problem – and I am not sure in fact the Islamic republic is worse than the Shah. As to it being a fundamentalist dictatorship, well it is not. What precisely one might say to describe Iran I am not always sure, a quasi-democracy living side by side with a quasi-theocratic autocracy perhaps. Dictatorship it certainly is not. Within the highly bounded field of play there are competing groups. No Sadaam figure in Iran.
However, I suppose it is fair easier for you to use scare phrases and simply dislike on some poorly informed bases.
Defending?
Well, if being accurate and precise in rebutting poorly informed distortive idipocy is defending then yes, I am defending the Ayatollahs.
However since my comment was in regards to your empty waving of the Embassy takeover incident, that’s hardly even accurate even taking your idiocy. The RG took over the Embassy to try to get our old buddy the Shah back, reprehensible move perhaps, but understandable given the role the Embassy played as base for CIA and its machinations with those fine dears, SAVAK, in the last years of the regime. Understandable that a large portion of folks might be a trifle exercised about this. Tamerlane has helpfully provided real knowledge and a citation. Perhaps you can trouble yourself to read the actual reference rather than blither on in ignorance about this and the Revolution generally.
However, neither the actions of the late 1970s nor 1979 itself are particularly helpful in understanding the present political situation of 2003 in terms of options for moving forward.