Could that possibly have been one of the splinter groups, and not the core IRA? I looked in Wikipedia, and found an article on the “Official Irish Republican Army,” which apparently was fairly left-leaning.
Anyway, sorry for the highjack; not really relevant. Feel free to let it drop.
And every time I see mention of this guy all I can do is think of Richard Jewell.
The Official IRA were more avowedly Marxist/Internationalist while the Provisional IRA while being officially Marxist were more in line with traditional Irish republicanism. Difference between extreme left and just left wing I suppose.
No, I’m not. You were the one who stupidly insisted and is stilling insisting that Muslim radicals are right-wingers.
That makes little sense and is another example of westerners trying to use their own viewpoint to categorize others.
Were I an apologist for the Iranian regime you’d have point, but I’m not so you don’t. Denying that the Ayatollah is the second coming of Adolph Hitler is not an endorsement of him.
Anyway, you have yet to show any evidence that the Iranian regime is “right-wing”. Vietnam discriminates against religious and ethnic minorities to a vastly greater degree than the Iranian regime, yet that hardly means that they’re right-wing.
Really, “the Iranians” would kill you if they found out what you believed. I’m one. Why don’t you tell me “your world view” and I’ll tell you if I thought you deserve to be strung up by your neck, or buried to your neck(I assume since you’re an expert on all things Iranian you’ll get the reference)?
And that is not why Al Quaida, Hamas, or the Hezbollah engage in the atrocities they engage in.
They attack the West because the West is attacking them and they declare war on the Jews and the Crusaders because they believe that the Jews and the Crusaders are fighting against them.
That’s not to excuse them, but it’s completely different from whatever “Christian” terrorists you’re referring to, though the only “Christian” terrorists I’m aware of are the anti-abortion whackos who do it because they have nutty ideas about when life begins.
No, the motivations of Muhammad Atta and the motivations of abortion clinic bombers are dramatically different. That doesn’t mean they’re not both horrible.
Your definition of right-wing includes Al-Fatah, Saddam’s Iraq, Nasser’s Egypt, modern day Israel, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Communist Bulgaria, the PKK, the IRA, and countless others.
Why are you bringing up Timothy McVeigh? He wasn’t in any meaningful way a Christian terrorist. He was inspired by some weird political beliefs that had nothing to do with Christianity, almost never attended church or read the Bible and up until he asked for a priest before being executed, many thought he was an atheist. He was at best nominally Catholic in the way that Abu Nidal was nominally Muslim, but certainly not comparable to Muhammad Atta.
Er…here is what you said.
It’s not my fault you didn’t realize that your definition of right-wing was so ridiculously broad that it included Mao’s China, the Soviet Union, a bunch of the Warsaw Pact, Vietnam, the PKK, the IRA, and a bunch of others.
Anyway, it’s not my fault you made some poorly thought out arguments. Next time make better ones rather than whining about “strawmen” when you’re caught making stupid arguments.
The whole Iran thing is part of your strawman, but if you insist the Islamic Society of Engineers are right wing, despite your claim that labels can’t possibly cross such a “massive” divide from one abrahamic cult to another.
My claim was about radical islamic terrorists, I don’t think most Iranians are that, even those who are right wing. That argument is purely manufactured on your part, a strawman.
What were the communists being reactionary against, what old guard were they protecting? Once again you are spewing out a strawman.
BTW, I am a non-theiest, what you would probably call an athiest, If you are going to claim that is not a lawful reason for the state to move forward with actions that could result in my death you should read up a few of your posts and see how you “handwaved” away their recent actions against a christian who had the audacity to disagree with them.
Once again, yes, my definition stands despite your attempt to spatter it across the universe of politics.
Right, OK, I know you learned your GD technique at FinnAgain’s knee, which is too bad, because he is a terrible polemicist.
Here are some pro-tips:
(1) Never do the sentence-by-sentence rebuttal. Instead, summarize the post into two to four main points your opponent is advancing, and then address those. In this case, rat avatar doesn’t really seem to have much of a coherent point, so you probably can use this as your chance to reiterate your case.
(2) “No, I’m not. You were the one who stupidly insisted and is stilling insisting that Muslim radicals are right-wingers. That makes little sense and is another example of westerners trying to use their own viewpoint to categorize others.”
This is a pretty good thesis, and one that can be defended. The Iranian Revolution is right-wing? So that made the Shah left-wing? And Mossadegh right-wing? No, none of these can be correct, and you are right to point out that the left-right spectrum is not a universal, and you cannot shoehorn the political history of all non-Western regimes into it.
The rest of your post doesn’t really move the needle on anything (I don’t care that you have a retort to every dependent clause in rat avatar’s post; and frankly, it’s hard to see what you’re driving at, which opacity renders your whole post less convincing). You could have saved yourself a lot of effort — that didn’t produce much in the way of results.
This isn’t CX debate. CX debate barely deserves the term “debate,” it is rather some weird performance art for goons.
(3) There’s not going to be a vote at the end where you get to find out whether you win or lose. You’ve got to know when you’ve made the best case that you can, when your opponents are not making convincing rejoinders, and you’ve got to be able to rely on your readers to know when that’s happening as well.
What makes a man turn moderate? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of moderation?
But his thesis doesn’t stand up when you look at the OP.
Note it was “radical Muslim terrorists” not “radical Muslim”
He has a chip on his shoulder and thinks I am calling them out in some special , when I am actually just stating that they are equals in their evilness and that their motivations are similar, similar to the motivations of the right wingers after the french revolution, where the term comes from.
If he is going to include Hamas etc…he needs to provide some “proof” that they are terrorists, same if you want to drag the Iranian revolution into this.
You’re actually bringing up a man who used 9-11 as a excuse to attack an entirely uninvolved nation as an example of how to react to terrorism? By that logic perhaps we should nuke London in response to this. England almost certainly has nothing to do with this, and a nuclear attack would be a totally disproportionate response, so that makes nuking London perfect from a Cheney point of view.
The PROVISIONAL IRA were the terrorists. The Official IRA were against armed struggle by the time of The Troubles and declared an indefinite ceasefire in 1972.
The Provo’s were Catholic nationalists. The Official IRA were of no consequence or significance by that time.
The bomb attacks in Paris during the 90s were pretty similar (crude bombs loaded with metal parts placed in crowded areas), and it was an Islamist terrorist group.
I don’t think you can deduce much from the use of crude bombs. Personnally, I’d bet on Muslim extremists, because I would expect an American right-wing group to pick a more symbolical target (a government building, a democrat gathering, etc…). Of course, I assume there could be other potential culprits than Islamists and right-wing extremists…
In Paris, they just removed all trash cans and replaced them with mere transparent plastic bagsholding from a frame (following the bomb attacks I mentioned in my previous post)
I don’t know if Kevlar trash cans are 100% bomb proof, but I suspect they’re much less costlier than plastic bags if you want to put them everywhere.
I haven’t read anything on it yet, but my roomie was watching stuff on CNN and I was listening in - I understand that the bombs hit about an hour after the first guy crossed the finish. Seeing how marathons are sort of bell curves [a trickle of faster runners, a tail end of stragglers and a large mass of people in the middle] it seems like they were timing for when a large number of people were in the finish area.
mrAru as military and medical types will do made a rather black joke about it being some retired IRA who are peeved with the politics in Ireland currently. I was thinking it is someone who wants to do the whole make a statement through terror, but as nobody has claimed it right off I have to wonder who did it. [seeing how the IRA and old school Basques, German Anarchists and Italian Anarchists usually claimed it right off with a released statement, and usually the Islamic groups more or less do the same, I think it is a home grown nutter.]
What about the placement of these bombs? Seems odd that they were placed near the finish line, not ON the finish line or the starting line. Another bomb found in a hotel near the other bombing sites and another in an undisclosed location (love to know where that one was). And since they were in the spectators area, and they went off well after the elite runners finished, it seems like a hurried and poorly planned attack.
Maybe it was just two or three people doing the whole thing. I doubt any “reputable” terror group had it planned like this if they were involved. Whoever it was, I hope we get them, like, now.
At this point it could simply be anyone. I’m just glad they didn’t have the capability to make the kind of horrible carnage seen in Iraq at the same time as this.
I’m sure they’ll be got and got good.
I agree, Sven. I see a possible Islamist modus operendi in the fact that there
were THREE bombs, one of which was set off by a bomb squad.
But otherwise I am guessing it’s the work of a lone wolf who perhaps hates
joggers, runners, marathons, and all the popular pageantry of American
traffic jamming foot races.
It’s probably the work of yet another wingnut seeking his own crazed version
of “justice.”
I have no idea about any particular group’s MO, but the current reports are that the authorities have 2 unexploded devices in addition to the two that exploded. I don’t know if the controlled explosion yesterday was confirmed to be an additional device or just a suspicious package.
I keep having flashbacks to Death of a President.
Me too…except to see whether the lefties and the MSM react like they did when that right-winger shot up Tucson a few years ago. Whoops… I think I got something a little wrong there. 
Is that what Colin Powell’s address to the UNSC was about?