• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

State terror versus so called Republican terrorism.

Global Justice

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
13,240
There's always a discussion/argument about the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Ireland/O6C.

Each side trade blows and call each other the terrorist.

I would like to use this thread as an honest debate about such.

China, Kenya, India etc were treated rather badly by Britain. So why do the same Brit imperialist enthusiasts think that Britain deserved a free pass in Ireland for the same crimes?

Yes Irish Republicans committed some atrocities in retribution but as the stats and facts prove Irish Republicans killed more enemy combatants than they did Civilians whereas the unionists/loyalists and British security forces killed more Civilians than they did who they deemed republican terrorists. Why so?
 


belfast1981

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
3,592
Anyone who took innocent lives or partook in actions in the troubles that caused death, bombings or other such actions not within the law should be called terrorists. Be it PIRA/INLA/UVF/LVF or even British soldiers or Irish An Garda Síochána who acted outside the law or were involved in collusion.

Both sides call the other terrorists, Why? truthfully, because of the actions of those who were involved in the troubles are those of terrorists. Be it British or Irish. Both sides are right, the other side were terrorists, who look away from their own sides misdeeds.

There were no innocents when it came to the troubles in those groupings.. everyone of them played a part in terrorist actions.

While many on here may disagree with me. I see both sides paramilitary 'groups' as terrorists and not a 'freedom fighter' among them.

At least in the troubles era 1969-1998 of Northern Ireland.

To answer your bottom point. Anyone on the loyalist side who committed actions such as the above mentioned are terrorists, just like those on the Republican side. I see no difference between any of them.

And honestly, all the bitter attitudes about the past do is reinforce the feeling that both sides think they were 'morally justified' in their actions, but the other side was not therefore terrorists.

We've all tried to move on. It's not the 1800s. It's not a imperialist empire anymore. Time to draw a line in the past and move on. On both sides.
 
Last edited:

theloner

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,487
Martin Dillon's Trigger Men is a good start for anyone on this subject.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Anyone who took innocent lives or partook in actions in the troubles that caused death, bombings or other such actions not within the law should be called terrorists. Be it PIRA/INLA/UVF/LVF or even British soldiers or Irish An Garda Síochána who acted outside the law or were involved in collusion.

Both sides call the other terrorists, Why? truthfully, because of the actions of those who were involved in the troubles are those of terrorists. Be it British or Irish. Both sides are right, the other side were terrorists, who look away from their own sides misdeeds.

There were no innocents when it came to the troubles in those groupings.. everyone of them played a part in terrorist actions.

While many on here may disagree with me. I see both sides paramilitary 'groups' as terrorists and not a 'freedom fighter' among them.

At least in the troubles era 1969-1998 of Northern Ireland.

To answer your bottom point. Anyone on the loyalist side who committed actions such as the above mentioned are terrorists, just like those on the Republican side. I see no difference between any of them.

And honestly, all the bitter attitudes about the past do is reinforce the feeling that both sides think they were 'morally justified' in their actions, but the other side was not therefore terrorists.

We've all tried to move on. It's not the 1800s. It's not a imperialist empire anymore. Time to draw a line in the past and move on. On both sides.
The IRA are not terrorists, they are patriots.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
13,795
The modern definition of 'terrorism' is a corruption of the original meaning. Today it means using violence to achieve political ends.

That would mean those fighting in 1916 in the GPO or the Somme were terrorists as both were using violence to achieve political ends.

The original meaning of 'terrorism' was the arbitrary use of violence to achieve some goal ie selecting one in ten of a village to execute in order to subdue the village.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
44,682
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, terrorist or freedom fighter? I mho as far as the troubles go you cannot pick one set of paramilitarys as one and the other set as another. So I view UDA UVF LVF etc exactly the same as I view PIRA, INLA, RIRA etc... Terrorist's, simples...
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,151
What's all this outbreak of reason and common sense. FFS stop it...
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,270
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, terrorist or freedom fighter? I mho as far as the troubles go you cannot pick one set of paramilitarys as one and the other set as another. So I view UDA UVF LVF etc exactly the same as I view PIRA, INLA, RIRA etc... Terrorist's, simples...
The obvious difference is that the UVF, LVF etc. had no reason to exist save to terrorise Catholics and Nationalists given that the State represented "their side". The State and the law were geared to uphold the status quo, which is what Loyalists, by definition, sought to preserve. The armed instruments of the State: the RUC and the Army worked to defend that status quo. Therefore, the justification for armed groups outside the State's authority working to do the same can only find its basis in other areas.

Republican terrorists (or whatever other term you want to use) were outside the law from the start as they wanted to upend the Northern state and the status quo. Their aim (whatever they might say now) was to remove British rule from Ireland and found a socialist Irish Republic. That's not an excuse for violence in any form (I don't believe that violence in pursuit of constitutional change was justified for non-violence, aside from the moral abhorrence of killing other human beings, would have been far more effective and led to far less communal division) but there is a difference between the two groupings.
 
Last edited:

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
17,099
Anyone who took innocent lives or partook in actions in the troubles that caused death, bombings or other such actions not within the law should be called terrorists.
The worst acts of terrorism often take place because of some law.

For example would you agree Internment was legal terrorism.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
The IRA are not terrorists, they are patriots.
Do you mean the ones running around now trying to murder prison officers or the ones who now work for the Brits?
Both are terrorists. Any unelected gang who murder human beings to try and achieve power are terrorists.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
The modern definition of 'terrorism' is a corruption of the original meaning. Today it means using violence to achieve political ends.

That would mean those fighting in 1916 in the GPO or the Somme were terrorists as both were using violence to achieve political ends.

The original meaning of 'terrorism' was the arbitrary use of violence to achieve some goal ie selecting one in ten of a village to execute in order to subdue the village.
The definition says "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

That means those fighting at the Somme were not terrorists.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
There's always a discussion/argument about the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Ireland/O6C.

Each side trade blows and call each other the terrorist.

I would like to use this thread as an honest debate about such.

China, Kenya, India etc were treated rather badly by Britain. So why do the same Brit imperialist enthusiasts think that Britain deserved a free pass in Ireland for the same crimes?

Yes Irish Republicans committed some atrocities in retribution but as the stats and facts prove Irish Republicans killed more enemy combatants than they did Civilians whereas the unionists/loyalists and British security forces killed more Civilians than they did who they deemed republican terrorists. Why so?
If your OP is to have any credibility you need to provide links to the "stats and facts" which corroborate your assertions. You can't expect people to just take your word for it, even if what you have stated is accurate.

This topic relates to the old adage of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. If you google the term "terrorist", the standard definition is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims". By that definition all paramilitary groups, both republican and loyalist, are/were terrorists. But there are revolutionary "terrorists" (if you wish to use that term) who use violence to force political change, and state terrorists who use violence to maintain the status quo.

There is rank hypocrisy within both loyalism and republicanism in relation to the trite and cliched term "terrorist", a term which has become meaningless with over-use by politicians, the media and mainstream social and political commentators. As a child, teenager and young adult I heard the term "terrorists" being used by these people every night during the troubles, and these same "terrorists" now jointly govern the 6 county colony known as "NI".

It's safe to brand all paramilitary groups who used violence to further their political objective as "terrorists", just as it is hypocritical for republicans to brand loyalist paramilitary groups as "Loyalist death squads", whilst deliberately refusing to recognise the PIRA and INLA as republican "death squads" to their victims, and equally hypocritical of unionists/loyalists to consistently refer to republican paramilitaries as "terrorists", whilst refusing to recognise that Loyalist paramilitary groups were also "terrorists", and that British state forces also committed many acts of gratuitous state sponsored terror.

The leaders of the 1916 rising were viewed as "terrorists", and their rebellion was deeply unpopular among Dubliners. It was the executions which followed, and the manner in which they were executed (Connolly - chair) which changed public opinion and led to their martyrisation. These 1916 "terrorists" recently received a massive state funded state organised commemoration parade through the streets of Dublin. If you travel around the RoI you'll find commemorative artefacts and symbols in their honour. These "terrorists" are officially exalted by the Irish state, and the British Queen paid her respects to them at the Garden of remembrance in 2011.

So, yesterdays and today's demonised "men of violence" are tomorrow's respected patriots and martyrs. The PIRA committed outrageous atrocities, many of them distinctly sectarian (La Mon, Enniskillen, Kingsmill et. al.) in the name of Irish freedom, and Loyalist groups, which were deeply, nay, exclusively sectarian, committed equally horrendous acts of violence in defence of the union. I'm not getting into quantitative and qualitative data ....if you lived through it, you know what I'm talking about.

If you are going to refer to republicans as "terrorists", apply that terminology to Loyalists also, and vice versa. Alternatively, if you choose to refer to the PIRA as patriots and "freedom fighters" who committed violence in pursuit of a political objective, then recognise that Loyalism's violence was also political (and retaliatory) in nature, and many within the Loyalist community look upon Loyalist paramilitary dead as patriots and martyrs, however ill-conceived and offensive to many this notion may be.

Double standards and hypocrisy are commonplace, and not positive assets. The NI state under Stormont unionist misrule 1921-72 could not have expected to perpetrate discrimination against the CNR minority without a violent response from militant republicanism, and militant republican's could not have expected to perpetrate what they did in the name of "Irish freedom" without experiencing a violent response form Unionism/Loyalism. That's what happened, and we're still attempting to rebuild from the fall-out.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
Its sad that the Troubles have been over effectively for over twenty years and yet still most Ulster folk have difficulties discussing them in a dettached and objective manner.
 

Se0samh

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
15,929
Its sad that the Troubles have been over effectively for over twenty years and yet still most Ulster folk have difficulties discussing them in a dettached and objective manner.
True, but there is a world of hurt out there............on all sides...............:(
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

This means a lot of British people carried out acts of terrorism.
Just Brits? The USA, the British and several other countries and nationalities took part in the Iraq War.
The UN says it was illegal , yet it passed a vote in parliament by our elected representatives and successfully removed a dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
 

Ó Ghabhainn

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
3,120
Any unelected gang who murder human beings to try and achieve power are terrorists.
Elected by who? How do you want to apply that? To where and in what time?

The definition says "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"
Conveniently legislated by those who legislate.

I'll go further, and this is objectivity whether you like it or no: nobody here elected the British to come over here and go on the rampage. Nobody from here asked hem to change the system in favour of those favourable to them. Nobody here asked for the beginnings and the process up until the present moment.

So my point is that those in power are favoured by those who were unelected (Cameron's family riches, Bullingdon, Villiers, history, etc). Why then is it deemed unacceptable to challenge an ultimately unelected status quo? Why are those who seek to remove power from the acquired centre deemed the bad guys? Why does the centre have such power over public opinion?

The political centre should have no right to brand those challengers on the outside 'terrorists' while their own soldiers and indeed their commanders engage in terrorising.
 

cut the begs

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,036
we all know what happened its time to draw a line.
theres people getting wages of the back of this keeping it up,theres no money in peace for them.
 

Se0samh

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
15,929
we all know what happened its time to draw a line.
theres people getting wages of the back of this keeping it up,theres no money in peace for them.

You appear to be making an accusation of some sort, I may agree with you or I may not. Perhaps you would elucidate............who exactly are you accusing and what are precisely are you accusing them of? A little evidence to back up what you are saying would also be helpful.

:confused: :)
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Just Brits? The USA, the British and several other countries and nationalities took part in the Iraq War.
The UN says it was illegal , yet it passed a vote in parliament by our elected representatives and successfully removed a dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
And Tony Blair has just been smashed to smithereens by the Chilcot inquiry, which found that the Iraq war was illegal, avoidable and unnecessary, that there was insufficient evidence for the existence of WMDs, and that there was no justification for war as the peaceful means to resolving the situation had by no means been exhausted.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top