I’m not trying to troll, and don’t know if this should be in GQ…
I’m a British guy and take a keen interest in politics. Most of which is taken up with the ‘War On Terror’
My question is why the hell are the Irish Republican and Loyalist groups REAL-IRA ect not coming under the mantra of gloabal terrorism…
They have killed countless soldiers and innocent people yet they are not hounded with any of the vehemonce that Al-quida (sp) and the islamic groups are…
Some people here believe Americans have apathy with the republican groups, I know this isn’t the case I wouldnt insult the intelligence of americans with a generalisation like that. I just don’t see why more isnt done to stop them!
It’s a legitimate question but really belongs in great debates. I suggest you report the post to the moderators yourself and ask them to move the threat.
It’s a legitimate question but really belongs in great debates. I suggest you report the post to the moderators yourself and ask them to move the threat.
Until and unless it’s moved, I’ll try to take a shot at some purely-factual explanations (albeit speculative as to certain facts/motivations):
It isn't really perceived as meeting the standard of *global* terror you mention. Most of the deaths (and they've been numerous, but not countless) have been in a geographically and politically confined region. The "war on global terror" in which all (civilized) nations are supposed to enlist is not really a war on the abstract concept of "global terror," but in instead a necessarily self-interested war on "terror that could just as easily be perpetrated on you next." Most Americans, or even Londoners, probably believe they have a lot more to fear from radical Islamism deciding to make a show of force in a crowded civilian spot in New York, or Leicester Sq., than from the Irish groups (who, even when they venture abroad, have shown signs of trying to diminish civilian casualties for PR purposes; such is not the al Q. way).
There seem to be a lot more realistically-possible converts to Islamic militancy than to republican or loyalist extremes, just given population numbers, distribution, fertility rates, literacy and poverty rates, in the respective "risk" areas. Again, the war on terror is motivated by a fear that particular forms of terror will spread and express themselves against local (read, "our") govts. and populaces, which Irish republicanism seems unlikely to do even in Boston.
Fitfully, the main Irish groups have in fact been ratcheting down their violence, at least at the "spectactular" level (although they appear to be continuing with rather heavy handed street-level treatment of both their own and their enemies in the neighborhoods of Belfast, and to be involved in some cases in low-level criminal racketeering in the North and Eire, but once again, the self-interested Dallasite or Mancunian probably doesn't concern himself about that level of violence, as long as they've stopped shooting at soldiers and blowing up pubs and municipal buildings for the moment). Conversely, al Q. et al. are by all accounts eager to launch bigger and bloodier attacks at a panoply of non-Islamic (or "false Islamic") governments and civilians around the world.
I’d agree with Huerta’s points, although not so much on the geographical restrictions; there have been plenty of casualties in mainland Britain over the years that these groups have been active. My own take on it, uninformed as it may be, is that current activities are less to do with terrorism and more to do with organised crime, albeit fuelled by the arms and expertise of former terrorists.
The (Provisional) IRA have been on ceasefire since 1997.
and
The State Department’s criteria for putting groups on the “terrorist list” includes that they must be a threat to the US or its interests, which means even the still-active groups technically shouldn’t be there.
Finally, Huerta 88: Eire (Éire, actually) is just the Irish word for Ireland, so saying “the North and Eire” makes as much sense as saying “the North and Ireland”. Good post otherwise though.