What is a terrorist?

[bonoman]

Terrorist is such a word that heaves much power. I must say over the last year i think many people use it a little too losely. Is a terrorist a person or group that doesnt have the backing of a formal govt? Or is a terrorist a person(s) who kill inicent people to further there causes.

I really dont want to talk about Al-Quada because i have no question in my mind that they are a terrorist group. I posted this to talk about the IRA. Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein were founded in 1905 and continue to be a presence in Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Rep. of IRL. They have killed civialians and have killed innicent mothers and children(not intentionally, but no denying they were killed)

Many who, like myself, say the IRA and Sinn Fein are a group who many turn too in there frustration with British Rule and not being able to be a free country along with the Repbulic. The IRA has always been looked down upon until you relize what many Republicans went through. Many would say the IRA and Sinn Fein are vital and needed.

The IRA has said in the past that a majority of their attacks are counterstikes to British or RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary). This can be backed up by when during the Hunger Strikes of 1981 the IRA called a cessefire and during that time many Catholics were killed by sectrain forces while Republicans were forced to sit by and do nothing. I ask any of us to put oursleves in that postion if you were being occupied by a outside govt and not have the right that others had would you pick up a weapon and defend yourself and your country? If a terrorist group is a group that fights for something that others deam theirs then the IRA is that but if they are a group that will fight to the death to end the 84 yrs of British rule are they and army? Since 1916 when Ireland became a republic the Brits held onto Ulster, i do not think it is right and for me or anyone else to judge them is not right.

Your comments on the IRA and Sinn Fein would be welcomed.

 

[STING2]

So what was the justification for the bombing at Omagh? It appears that the IRA does target civilians. Targeting innocent civilians is what makes an individual or group, terrorist.

By the way, not all of Ulster was left in the UKs hands, 6 counties were but not the other 3. The denial of Civil rights to Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland was a serious problem, the question is was the use of indiscriminate violence an effective and moral means of dealing with that problem. I think the IRA should have taken a lesson from the African American Civil rights movement of the 1900s. It was a non-violent movement that achieved its goals against considerable odds, its means were clearly moral and effective at achieving the goal. Despite the discrimination, the United Kingdom was a democracy and not a dictatorship, and there for, very susceptible to a non-violent movement.

Of course independence and rejoining Northern Ireland with Ireland is a far different case than civil rights. The British held on to the 6 Northern Counties, because most of the Protestants did not want to be independent of the United Kingdom and a minority in a Catholic Ireland. Of course this meant that Catholics in those 6 counties, who were already a minority up there, would probably suffer discrimination and they did. But the majority were Protestants and did not want to be apart of the Rep. of Ireland. Their desires could not be ignored.

Today though, the issue of Northern Ireland being united with the Rep. is not much of one. When I was in Northern Ireland this past January, the people I talked to talked about the conflict more in the past tense and that only drug dealers or criminals were keeping the conflict barely alive. When I was there, there was a huge rally by Catholics and Protestants for peace. 90% of the people living there are sick of the violence and want to go on with their lives. I did not see a single British soldier the whole time I was there and all the guard towers were empty.

The huge difference I was told by people there was the economy now compared to the economic situation in the 60s when Unemployment both Protestant but especially Catholic was very high. The economic success from the south has spread to the North and the whole Island has been experiencing the best economic times in the history of the Island. Not that everythings perfect, but its never been better. Many said this economic improvement was a key factor in the settling down of the conflict.

Northern Ireland is so beautiful! Passing across the border, there are no checkpoints or anything. Its as if there is no border. When your out in the country and rural area's along the coast in Northern Ireland, the only way to tell it really not apart of southern Ireland is the fact that you use british pounds instead of Euro dollars. Even in some area's of Belfast, there is no sign of the previous conflict and division. Independence today? Why what for? The biggest change for the average person would simply be the currency.

 

[bonoman]

Do you believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein did not have something to do with what it like now. Without the IRA Sinn Fein is not as powerful, the IRA laid the ground work. You are right today it is as good as it's been in a long time but you might not see British Soldiers but they are there.

What was done to the Republicans in the North over the last 100 yrs is not something that the British govt can sweep under the rug. You speak of Omagh i really dont want ot get into a tit for tat fuck ups by the two of them. I could say Bloody Sunday. But where do we get then.

Internment, to me, is one of the worst things ever to happen. How in a country which, at the time, was a strong country a first world country bring internment onto their own citizens. It makes me sick. Because you were Catholic or Republican they were allowed to hold you for a week, toturing and beating and trying to get them to turn everyone of their friends over. The stuff that was done is disgusting.

Gerry Adams, just this week said he wants peace. There is no doubt in my mind that the IRA and Sinn Fein wants peace. Who doesnt? But i only think this because the people of N. IRL want it and are sick of violence. But i dont think we can forget that there isnt only the IRA that commits all the violence. The UVF, UDA, UDR, UFF, REAL IRA and many others. What about them? Does the IRA let them kill republicans, do tthey stand by?

 

[STING2]

I fully support the IRA's goals of justice and civil rights in the Northern Ireland conflict. But this could have been accomplished without murdering innocent people. I don't see how setting off bombs that indiscriminately kill people accomplishes any goal at all. "Bloody Sunday" was clearly an unlawfall act by what were supposed to be professional British soldiers. If this was a riot situation, the soldiers should have been equiped with riot gear, not weapons. But the decision to shoot with weapons was the commander's on the scene, not the policy or decision of the British government. Thats in definite contrast to the time and thought that goes into planning a bombing. But I condem all violence by all sides and every organization in this particular conflict, since in this particular case it is not an effective or moral means of accomplishing ones goals.

I'm sorry of your particular situation with internment. The British security services do have a right to question and hold individuals who they have evidence or believe were involved in terrorist activities.(I'm not in any way saying you were) That certainly does not give them the right to torture anyone. Could you show me where it lawfully says in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland itself, that British security can hold any Catholic for a full week for interigation and torture, and not Protestants.

"Does the IRA let them kill republicans, do tthey stand by?" If the IRA goes out and kills members of a Protestant organization who were not even involved in the actual murder, what does that accomplish? Its certainly not an act of self defense, because the murder of any particular individual cannot necessarily prevent other acts of violence. It is far better to influence through non-violent actions, the British government which is susceptible to such action, to arrest anyone one involved in unlawful violent actions against individuals.

African Americans in my country were often murdered and beaten by white extremist in the southern United States. But the USA was susceptible to non-violent action, just as the UK or any other democracy would be, and the African Americans succeeded in peacefully gaining their civil rights despite the abuses they suffered. Violence, in this case, would have contributed nothing to their cause, and in fact, would have been a setback.

I'm fully supportive of non-violent action by the IRA and other organizations throughout the conflict. I'd be interested if you could demonstrate to me a particular act of violence, by any side in the conflict, that was justified, and clearly contributed to the more peaceful environment we see in Northern Ireland today.

 

[Klaus]

When I take a look at the abuse of the word Terrorist in the last year(s) it seems like:
A terrorist can be anyone with a different opinion.

 

[Not George Lucas]

 

[Amna]

Terrorists are divided into 2 sects..... There is the sec. political terrorism and Divine Terrorism...

IRA: Political
In my oppinion, the IRA's goals were understandable.... Even though people see this as a Protestant vs. Catholic.... The goals are more specified through land..
IRA specifically tried to aim at British officials in N. ireland, while being less concerned with civilians and officials in England... So, basically they were trying to instill fear towards the people of England in an effort to say, is it really worth it to have N.Ireland...
And what really interests me even more is that Jerry Adams and Sinn feinn are still very prominant and protected by the British govern't....
I question myself, it must be very hard to negotiate with people who honestly believe installing fear is a way to bring peace.. At the same time I find it even more difficult to understand why people can't respect the privacy of other nations lands...

Sometimes one must wonder.... How do u bring attention to a problem without having to bring fear and chaos into the picture.... I mean, we never identify a real problem untill chaos breaks out... This really breaks my heart...

Terrorist qualities:
1. Minority, faces racism.
2. unemploid
3. international
4. middle class
5. educated- in many cases
6. faces social issues and is frusturated
7. Rational

Anyways, Divine Terrorism is more open ended, it often affiliates everything being justified by God ( God forbid).... They justify their targets by morphing religion into saying its right..... Divine Terrorism is much differnt then what u see with the IRA...

Eather way, terrorism is an extreme form of getting your voice heard... Terrorists can't get close to the state so they commits terrorsim to get attention from the state(s).
--------------------------------------
I find Mohammed Attah to be a fascinating character... He was educated, very culturally aware, came from a decent family, spoke english, lived in Germany, yet, somehting triggered him....




SORRY IF THIS IS ALL CHOPPY... I'M FASTING, THUS ITS HARD TO MAKE SENSE WHILE WRITING....
--------------------------------------------
Anyways, i have a question... I'm not sure which Irish political official said this, but he stated that he doesn't believe that the IRA will be exisitng that much longer... What do u all think of that?

peace,
amna

3.

 

[nbcrusader]

Just some thoughts:

The concept of "divine terrorist" is somewhat misleading. Does it refer to the individual who stands apart from a religion with an individual claim of a divine calling? Does it refer to the individual who is active in a religion with an individual claim of a divine calling? Does it refer to a religion that accepts terrorism as part of a divine calling?

And why restrict it to formalized religion? There are many people who resort to terrorist acts for a "higher or greater purpose". Does PETA, for example, fall into the category of ?divine terrorist??

We enter very difficult and dangerous territory when we try to find examples of justified terrorism.

Peace.

 

[STING2]

I agree with the IRA goals in regards to civil rights in Northern Ireland. But not to land and independence from the United Kingdom. The Majority of the people of Northern Ireland prefer to remain apart of the United Kingdom, and the IRA has no right to force them to be apart of the Rep. of Ireland. If partition of Northern Ireland was possible that might be a solution. Its important to realize that Protestants have rights to and do not deserve to have them trampled on either.

There are active non-violent ways to get attention. Martin Luther King and the African American Civil rights movement clearly demonstrated this. The IRA have every right to engage in active non-violent ways to gain civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland. They have no right to kill Protestants, Catholics, English soldiers, or tourist from around the world to achieve their goals since there are non-violent ways to engage the English government to achieve civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland. The IRA have no right to take over Northern Ireland and certainly no right to kill individuals in a vain attempt to do so.

Lets not forget that IRA bombs went off in Dublin to since the Irish government did not support violent action to unite the Island. A cafe that Bono would regularly eat at was blown up by a bomb one hour after he left from there eating breakfast when he was a teen.

If the IRA supposedly target English officials, who was the target of the Omagh bombblast in 1998? Who was the target of the bombing of the Cafe in Dublin where Bono would often eat? I've never seen anything that would legitamize the violent actions of the IRA.

 

[Amna]

I only hope terrorism becomes less of a resort....
It has gotten out of hand.... All over the world....

But, one way to fight terrorism is to not become ethnocentric... To realize that their is a world outside your home... A world where people are tortured and are not given the basic human rights of living.... These unlawful incidents lead to terrorism.... When people are supressed how are they going to draw attention to the problem.... They shouldn't be the ones trying to draw attention to it, we should be able to find these things out without waiting for a terrorist act commited by these civilians.....

I pray that this world becomes a more peaceful one to live in... I also hope that my brothers and sisters educate themselves more on what is going on in this world...

peace

 

[STING2]

When ones rights are surpressed, the automatic solution should not be violence to get attention, when it is clear that non-violent action will draw just as much attention and more positive attention when dealing with governments that are susceptible to such action like any democracy would be. Not all terrorism comes from the suppresion of rights or a poor background. Most of the 9/11 highjackers came from middle class well to do families and were highly educated.

 

[deep]

sting,

why do you think the well-educated saudis blew themselves up on 9-11?

 

[STING2]

Hatred of America for what they mispercieved as injustice performed by the USA in the Middle East. In reality though, their just serving Bin Ladin and his goals. The fact that they were well educated certainly does not mean that their actions were smart and rational. When I say well educated, I mean in a more general sense. Most of them had attended something on the level of University or College. Clearly that did not come from a background of poverty or were really suppressed.

 

[deep]

Hatred of America for what they mispercieved as injustice performed by the USA in the Middle East.

Ok, so what things did they mispercieve?

 

[STING2]

General hatred of American Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Specifically I can list only 3 things, but speculate about a lot of others. 1. The stationing of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia(their not an occupying force and don't effect the lively hood of anyone in Saudi Arabia. They bring security and stability to the Gulf by detering Saddam from attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia again.) 2. The Israely/Palestinian situation: They believe that Israel is wrong in its actions and has no right to exist in the Middle East. The USA sends nearly 4 Billion dollars of aid to Israel every year.(Israel has every right to exist in the Middle East and every right to defend itself as well. The USA has every right to help Israel defend itself) 3. Writings by Atta seem to indicate that he was mad about western designed buildings appearing in Muslim cities and felt they were offensive to his Religion and culture.(The man is truely insane and intolerant despite his education)

There are other specifics one could speculate about, but I think thats it in a nutshell from some of the things I read. Please don't tell me you think they had justification for their actions on 9/11.

 

[deep]

Please don't tell me you think they had justification for their actions on 9/11.

No I do not think there is any justification for 9-11.

Like most observers of that event I found it horrifying.

I am still uncomfortable watching images and video of that event, knowing thousands of lives are perishing before my eyes. And the tremendous loss that loved ones will have to live with the rest of their lives.

 

[Anthony]

There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, more dangerous in this world than an extremist - someone who believes in something so blindly, so desperately, that they are willing to kill for it, and not compromise.

More often than not, this species is at the heart of every problem, these are the ones who turn a movement into a blood-bath, a revolution into a holocaust. What's even worse, once they turn to extemism, there is usually no turning back, nothing enters their minds, and that includes our concept of morality, our concept of what is fair; this is the crucial difference between, for instance, the American revolutionaries fighting against British rule and the IRA.

People have beliefs, but how far are they willing to go to stand by them? Ravage lands, of course. Fight a war in the open air against those who oppress, most certainly. But what of the innocents, those who have nothing to do with the oppression - there is a limit and boundary, and there is such a thing as going too far.

No matter what you believe, no matter how much you may not like the idea of Northen Ireland belonging to the UK and no matter how much 'patriotism' you may feel for your country, the fact is targetting innocent civilians is going too far, especially when most of these innocent civilians don't even give a damn about your political argument or whether you like being called Irish or British - they want no part of it and aren't interested in blood spilt, they wish to go on with their lives.

Were there terrorists in the American Revolution? I imagine there must have been. Was it a terrorist movement? No. It was not. It consisted of battles fought in the plain open air, army against army, and this is how it should have been. But for every American revolutionary that raped or brutally murdered an innocent party, and there is one in every revolution, it must be said that the person crossed the line; there is such a thing as morality within war, just because murder becomes justified in the light of noble cause, it does not mean that crimes are to be unnoticed. I use the American Revolution as a mere example, for their have ALWAYS been crimes within wars, people crossing the line of morality in a war fought for nobler and higher purporses.

There is a distinction between a fighter, and a terrorist, and I do take offence of hearing the words 'IRA' and 'needed' being used in the same sentence. How were they needed? Has their existence done anything whatsoever constructive in establishing peace? Are we better off with them or without them? To use President Bush's apparently most liked way of beginning a sentence, 'make no mistake about it'; the IRA are needed as much as the ETA are in Spain, as much as hostage-taking at a theatre in Russia, as much as the New York skyline, not to mention the entire nation, being permanently scarred, as much as thousands of innocents dying.

The IRA are needed as much as a bullet to the head.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Interesting post Anthony although the Revolutionary War is not really a good analogy for the conflict in Northern Ireland in terms of terrorism.

 

[Anthony]

No, its not STING2, thats why its not an analogy; its an example illustrating how different such movements are. I have yet to see a battle fought out on the plains in Northern Ireland as they were in the American Revolution.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Sorry I miss read you there. Actually there were a few battles that were fought in or near cities in the Revolutionary War. But back then, the largest city Boston only had 30,000 residents tops compared to the Boston and metro area today that has 5 million. Back then we were a nation of rural comunities, small farm villiages.

 

[Anthony]

True, but you do agree that they were, if compared, totally different campaigns, were they not? I mean, the distinction between 'freedom-fighting' and 'terrorism' can be seen here, agreed?

Ant.

 

[bonoman]

Allright i would like to start off by saying i dont think what the IRA does is 100% correct, nor do i think they are the only reason there is a rep. of IRL.

The main factor the Republic came about is the IRA, led by Micheal Collins, Eamon De Valera. In 1919 the IRA and Sinn Fein was established and became very popular in Ireland. In the years to come the IRA were very violent towards britsh officals and police. In my opinion without the IRA and Sinn Fein the reublic would not have been established.

Now have the IRA done alot of things i don not agree with? Yes. Have the Britsh army and gov't done many things that i dont agree with? Yes. I could make the same arguement about the Britsh army using terrorist methods to rid Ireland of the IRA.

The real question comes down to if you think that the IRA is a army fighting for freedom from a occupying gov't. I personally think they are. I see the same thing happening in Israel. Do the Israelies have the same right to occupy Palestineines? The Palestinies dont have fiddlers chance to beat Israel in army conmbat so they turn to bombings and terrorist activities. This is an option that they must take in order to free themselves from occupation.

The IRA is no longer a needed establisment in Ireland. Sinn Fein does their fighting for them. Gerry Adams recently said he can see in the forseeable future a life without the IRA. But how could far could Sinn Fein and the repbulican movement come without the IRA. They forced many negotiations and broke many off. But with the message that was being sent was that 'we will not lay down and take occupation without putting up a fight'. This is a very important thing the British gov't understands, now. many Britsih politicians thought that if they steeped up the offensive they could just kill the movement but that was wishful thinking as they found out.

When you believe in your heart that you are being treated badly occupied then to pick up arms and fight againist that is the human instinct. To fight againist what you think is wrong. If you think about it many of the countries that were under British Rule were freed by violent and harsh fighting. The IRA and the irish ppl seen this and used it in their thinking. How could you say to me that you honestly think that N.I. really belongs to the Brits. Yes if there was to be a united Ireland the Prodestants would not be happy but i believe the republicans would never get a deal in which unionists were taken into consideration. I think republicans would have to make a lot of consseions to make it work. I also think they are at that point in which they would make those concesions.

I am by no streach of the imagination an full fledged IRA supporter but i do think as history shows they were a vital part of getting the 26 counties. They have not be succesful in claiming the other 6 but that is now in the hands of Sinn Fein. And i hope one day there will be a united Ireland.

 

[STING2]

Agreed

 

[STING2]

Bonoman,

Fighting injustice is fine, but terrorism is not. Terrorism is the targeting of civilians. The IRA killed far more civilians than they did soldiers. But a more important question is was violence necessary to produce the results we see today. African Americans achieved civil rights without firing a shot in anger as did Ghandi in India. Its not to say that violence is never a legitimate option, but there are sometimes more effective ways to achieve ones goals, especially when dealing with a democracy like the United Kingdom which is susceptible to non-violent action. Also, if a form of violence is necessary in fighting a dictatorship, that does not give one the right to indiscriminately kill people who have nothing to do with the oppression.

I certainly support those who fought for civil rights in Northern Ireland through non-violent action. But I believe the terrorism made the peace process more difficult and simply prolonged the conflict and the poverty level in Northern Ireland.

I certainly don't support the Palestinians terrorist actions which simply kill innocent people like the teens dancing at a club in Tel Aviv this past Spring. The Palestinians target every Israely women and child and attempt to set off bombs where the most innocent people can be killed. That is sick, and accomplishes no military or political objective. The only way the Palestinians will achieve an independent state, is through negotiation and non-violent action. Thats a fact whether they like it or not.

I question your belief that there is not a united Ireland. The 6 counties don't have a wall around them. As I said before back in January, with the exception of the currency and a few sites in Belfast and Derry, it did not feel any different than the Rep. of Ireland itself. The majority of the people of the Rep. of Ireland and Northern Ireland are not interested in seeing a union between the Rep. and the 6 counties. Its pointless to free people that are already free. There is nothing to free them from. Just currency and names and borders on a map.

 

[bonoman]

Just because now adays it doesnt seem to be as bad and NI has come into their own doesnt mean that its still not under British rule. There is a princapal here. The princapal is that there is a forigein country holding power over something that should be returned to us.

I know what you are saying when you say that its only the currency and a few sites in Belfast and Derry but its more to some ppl. Just recently the power sharing gov't was suspended. This is the decsion of the British gov't and they can do as they please. I dont think Britian really cares for NI as much as they do their own ppl. I do think if NI were to become one with Rep. they would prospere and would then be able to look after themselves and make their own decsions.

You know the best thing to come out of all the fighting is the music. I love rebel songs!!!

 

[STING2]

Remember SBS is not a rebel song.

I think most people in Northen Ireland do not consider themselves ruled by anyone. Catholics get great jobs in Northern Ireland just as Protestants do. Both can leave and move and live and work in the Rep. Of Ireland or anywhere else in the world.

When you say the United Kingdom is a foreign country, you forget that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland claim the United Kingdom as their country. The Protestant majority of Northern Ireland that has lived there for generations has every right to remain apart of the United Kingdom. Ideally back in the 1920s, the 6 counties should have been partioned somehow to allow Catholics to live in the Rep. but let Protestants living there remain apart of the United Kingdom. You have to respect the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland who may view their land in Nothern Ireland as being apart of the United kingdom.

 

[bonoman]

SBS is a nothing song compared to any rebel song. I'm talking eire og, charlie and the bhoys, wolfetones, christy moore.

I hate it when people boil it down to just religion. I know religion seperates alot of ppl but i think this is not ultimitlly about religion its about freedom from a country that has been controling us for so long.

Religion plays a part but I dont think it should. I have to go to bed but will try to respond more in depth tommorow. good night

 

[STING2]

I understand, but most people in Northern Ireland do not feel they are being controlled by a foreign country.