Terrorist or Freedom Fighter.

people attack america because of their involvement in the destruction/rape of those countries

 

i dont really get it. what we supposed to tick terrorists or freedom fighters?

 

'Slow repeal' of discrimination. Maybe the Irish didn't want it to go slow, at a snail's pace, which suited their oppressors. The Catholics have been treated like * for most of the 20th century in Northern Ireland and no amount of euphemisms from you changes that fact.

Pure guess work on your part. It also glosses over what is morally correct - that Ireland should belong to the Irish.

On both issues the Irish were mistreated. They were denied both by force. They used force to try and redress this. And had every right to do so.

 

Your simplification of a subject of debate is ridiculous. I don't believe in collective punishment, I also don't believe in targeting civilians to make a point to a government.

Your stance is pretty clear now, seeing as you see Israel, the UK and USA as the world's biggest terrorists and the IRA as some group of happy go lucky freedom fighters who justifiably bombed civilians because someone's father or grandfather was a serving British soldier posted in NI.

I honestly don't know why you didn't just line up a list of countries and ask who were the biggest terrorists, instead of twisting the question to suit your own agenda.

Why exactly is my opinion biased? What do you base that statement on? Maybe because I speak the English language? It can't be any other reason as I was born in Ireland, brought up in Scotland and come from pretty strong Republican roots....but maybe you know me better than I do!

If you'd read my posts you'll find them pretty consistent, but I'll spell it out for you. I consider ALL....ALL groups who deliberately target civilians as terrorists. My own opinion includes certaqin nation states and state sponsored groups (such as Hezbollah for example) as I clearly stated earlier. You however did NOT ask that question. Likewise you didn't include any mention of justification or what constitutes a justifiable reason for a group of people to resort to the use of force against civilians.

You're clearly heavily biased in favour of the IRA and that's your prerogative. However, I do take offence when you start to abuse and bully people just because they post something that fails to fall into your own personal world view!

There are a lot of emotive posts in this thread, likewise there are a lot of very educated posts and they've made for some very interesting reading. I'm enjoying the debate lads.

 

Read what I posted earlier mate. You won't find me arguing with your point. Some of the world's governments are the planet's biggest terrorists....but the initial question did not ask that, the debate has simply been twisted to suit a form of justification.

 

who the * the kurdistan workers party? never heard of them

 

I dont think any amount of violence in n Ireland could have brought a united Ireland and its amazing anyone actually believed that. So, for me, only the first few years of the northern Irish troubles could in any way be justified. These were the years when their was ethnic cleansing of areas, attacking of civil rights, * sunday, closing of old stormount etc. It was a defensive campaign initially of the sort that yes you can argue everyone has the moral right to. When it into an offensive campaign with no prospect of winning that was a completely different thing. I dont agree that violent struggle is some kind of moral right. Even those who condone violence for political ends usually agree it can only be justified if it stands a chance of succeeding otherwise it is just lashing out of anger.

I also think the best deal republicans were going to get was available quite early in the troubles. They pretty well had todays deal, which is acclaimed by the world as a model of political compromise and equality, on the table at Sunningdale in 1974. There were two camps on this

1. IRA and the loyalists who rejected it and brought it down
2. SDLP and UUP who accepted it and tried to run with it.

That division is the old classic one between extremists on one side and far sited people willing to compromise and able to recognise a 'best offer' deal. Its no coincidence that the prime movers 20 years later were the same two with the usual suspects needed coaxed in slowly. For me the IRA and loyalists extremism and lack of vision meant 20 more years of bloodshed for no further gain. SDLP leader John Hume (nobel peace prize) called the Good Friday Agreement 'Sunningdale for slow learners'. After Sunningdale was rejected, moral highground was lost IMO as an early chance for civil rights and political compromise was thown away. The loyalists would probably have brought it down anyway but if everyone else had remained on board you never know and it was a point of principle.

 

I re-read my post and realise I should have been clearer in that I meant targeting civilians. I honestly will never find justification for deliberate targeting of the civilian population in a fight against an occupying army/government, or a perceived enemy and I believe the minute you start killing civilians, you've lost all moral authority and legitimacy.

 

Keltoi, I'm not going to quote your posts mate, there would be too many. Just wanted to say I agree with almost everything you've said and want to commend you on the way you presented your opinions...

 

Keltoi, why are you not a Moderator on here?

I think you'd make an excellent Mod, I've never seen you attack anyone else's views & you seem to be the voice of reason on many an occasion.

 

cheers. I think the common thread among most of us is that you move from a freedom fighter to a terrorist once you start showing absolutely no regard for civilians or worse you deliberately target them to spread terror. Some organisations have had a foot in both camps or evolved. I always find it impossible to support anyone (even if the cause is a good one) in full terror mode. Killing innocents is the worst thing a human can do with their time on earth IMO.

 

Thanks but no I think the current mods are doing a good job. I couldnt be a mod - I hate those scooters and that silly target you have to wear on your parka and all that fighting in Brighton on bank holidays just isnt me. Could we ask Pete Townsend to become a mod?

 

If a people are being abused they have a moral right to fight back. I would argue that the IRA, despite not uniting Ireland yet, have had some degree of success. Adams and McGuiness being members of the parlaiment in NI for example. I do believe that the violence used by the IRA has played a part in that. Had they simply tried to change the situation with words only then I don't think the British would have listened (as they failed to do for centuries).

Who cares what you think was 'the best deal they were going to get'? They wanted their country back, united.

If the 'best offer' you are going to get is unacceptable should you just accept it to appear 'reasonable' ?

 

Are you a terrorist if your people have been terrorised for centuries ?

EDIT

What do you mean by 'innocents' ?

 

Because he is insane.

 

well said sir

 

[YOUTUBE]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUfD9190Aco[/YOUTUBE]

 

Why does it make you weaker of spirit if you target civilians when your civilians have been targeted for centuries ?

 

Hey I resemble that remark!!