Terrorism

[Steezie]

The idea of "terrorism" seems to be dependant on how you look at things.

For instance, I am an IRA supporter. I support the push to remove the British from Ireland no matter the cost. However some consider the IRA to be terrorists because of thier use of violence. On my side of the coin, I see the use of violence as necessary in thier particular case. It worked well in the past and there isnt much else in the way of options.

America's presensce in Iraq wouldnt be considered terrorism by (most) Americans. However if we lived in Iraq, where US forces are kicking down doors, raiding newspapers, and engaging in firefights with insurgents, we might feel a little differently.

So can we rightly call ANYTHING terrorism? Aside from situations such as serial killers.

 

[Futuwwa]

Can we rightly call anything terrorism? Yes, we can, if we stop throwing it around like a generic word for bad people who kill civilians.

What is originally meant by terrorism is the use of terror attacks to put societies under duress, and force said society to accept the political demands of the terrorists. Kinda like nation-scale blackmail, except that it is done with an ideological purpose rather than one of self-interest.

If you ask me, terrorism is neither necessarily always good or evil, commendable or condemnable. It depends on the cause fought, and the means, and to a large extent who they decide to target.

Few people would consider Nelson Mandela to be an evil terrorist, but he was at one point in his life involved in a militant civil rights group involved in blowing up South African governmental buildings.

 

[Verv]

The idea of "terrorism" seems to be dependant on how you look at things.

For instance, I am an IRA supporter. I support the push to remove the British from Ireland no matter the cost. However some consider the IRA to be terrorists because of thier use of violence. On my side of the coin, I see the use of violence as necessary in thier particular case. It worked well in the past and there isnt much else in the way of options.

But it is who the violence is directed against. If the violence is directed against civilians then it is terrorism. If it is directed against military or police forces it is not. Pretty simple.

If you support violence that kills soft targets or endangers them, you are certainly a supporter of terrorism.

BTW, the whole Irish question is so ridiculous if you ask me... They lose the elections and it does come out that the Protestants have their majority necessary to keep Ulster loyal. You're trying to force something on people who have been living on that land for 500 years.

America's presensce in Iraq wouldnt be considered terrorism by (most) Americans. However if we lived in Iraq, where US forces are kicking down doors, raiding newspapers, and engaging in firefights with insurgents, we might feel a little differently.

I do not know what you are talking about 'raiding newspapers,' and kicking down doors is not terrorism if there is reasont o suspect you are engaging in certain behavior.

It can't be called terrorism.

Can we rightly call anything terrorism? Yes, we can, if we stop throwing it around like a generic word for bad people who kill civilians.

Are you implying that it is pretty generic to target civilians, and it is counterproductive to call some people who murder civilians terrorists?

Few people would consider Nelson Mandela to be an evil terrorist, but he was at one point in his life involved in a militant civil rights group involved in blowing up South African governmental buildings.

Yep, and he personally signed off on an attack that massacred dozens of civilians.

He was a terrorist. His wife was even worse, so I hear. Allegedly she engaged personally in torturing someone of a rival civil rights group.

Like most people in life... He is overhyped.

 

[Steezie]

But it is who the violence is directed against. If the violence is directed against civilians then it is terrorism. If it is directed against military or police forces it is not. Pretty simple.

Police and military are still civilian members of that particular country or society

If you support violence that kills soft targets or endangers them, you are certainly a supporter of terrorism.

All military action has the possibility to kill or endanger non-combatants

BTW, the whole Irish question is so ridiculous if you ask me... They lose the elections and it does come out that the Protestants have their majority necessary to keep Ulster loyal. You're trying to force something on people who have been living on that land for 500 years.

They are trying to legitimize forcing themselves uppon other people's homes by saying "Well we've lived here a while." Doesnt work that way, theres no statute of limitations. Ireland belongs to the Irish, not to the British.

I do not know what you are talking about 'raiding newspapers,'

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1564/US_Forces_Storm_Newspaper_Office

and kicking down doors is not terrorism if there is reasont o suspect you are engaging in certain behavior

Certain members of the armed forces in Iraq have behaved in a less than honorable fashion befitting a warrior. There are several videos on YouTube, one of which showing US soldiers in a truck making native children chase after them for bottles of water.

 

[Tyndale]

The idea of "terrorism" seems to be dependant on how you look at things.

For instance, I am an IRA supporter. I support the push to remove the British from Ireland no matter the cost. However some consider the IRA to be terrorists because of thier use of violence. On my side of the coin, I see the use of violence as necessary in thier particular case. It worked well in the past and there isnt much else in the way of options.

So can we rightly call ANYTHING terrorism? Aside from situations such as serial killers.

I'm afraid that you have been listening to IRA propaganda Steezie. If you were older and knew the History of the Island, which once was called Scotia, you wouldn't believe Irish propaganda concerning it being their island. You say your an IRA supporter, well I've had family slaughtered by the people you support. Men and women have been savagely tortured by the people you support.

You also say that you support the removal of the British You obviously haven't the slightest idea what your on about. Are you telling me, a British Ulster-Scot that I'm not welcome to live in N.ireland or the Republic? Are you telling me that the ethnic cleansing of the British Protestant in the island of Ireland must continue for the sake of an all-Irish identity and control?

You obviously haven't heard that the Irish were the invaders, not the original settlers. Do you know that the Gaels are the Irish and they invaded in the 5th century AD. They drove the Brythonic Pics up into Ulster and settled in the Southern part of the Island Scotia [Ireland].

Learn some real history here before believing propaganda that leads you to support murderers, robbers, torturers, global terrorists.

 

[Rorshack]

The Provos are a terrorist organisation as are the UDF. Both use terror as a political tool.

The US is an occupying force in IRAQ. So they could be considered oppressors but not terrorists.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The idea of "terrorism" seems to be dependant on how you look at things.

Certainly

For instance, I am an IRA supporter.

I'd be very interested to know whereabouts in the world you live, because the majority of people in Britain and Ireland who have actually lived through and seen the effects of terrorism due to the conflicts in Northern Ireland do not support it.

Bombing, stabbing and torturing innocent people is not the legacy of the Easter Rising or any other legitimate attempt to fight the occupying British, no matter what the terrorists say. The IRA are terrorists and murders...they target civilians and their actions cannot be justified.

I believe as adamantly as you do that the British should not be in charge of any part of Ireland. But there has been too much innocent blood shed and I don't think anyone that has lived through it could say it was worth it.

So can we rightly call ANYTHING terrorism? Aside from situations such as serial killers.

The deliberate targeting of civilians in order to scare a nation/people/organisation into a specific course of political action is terrorism. Just because the terrorism is being committed by a recognised, official military or government establishment, it is still terrorism.

Are you telling me, a British Ulster-Scot that I'm not welcome to live in N.ireland or the Republic?

No-one is saying that. But you have no right to expect that just because you live in Northern Ireland and are British the British government should continue its occupation of the six counties.

Are you telling me that the ethnic cleansing of the British Protestant in the island of Ireland must continue for the sake of an all-Irish identity and control?

Ethnic cleansing? Let's talk about 400 years of brutal occupation, mass killings of innocent Irish, prohibition of practising your own religion, owning land, owning property, getting a decent wage or having an education.

The British Protestants are not the oppressed victims in Ireland. They are the oppressors.

peace

 

[Tyndale]

Are you telling me, a British Ulster-Scot that I'm not welcome to live in N.ireland or the Republic?

No-one is saying that. But you have no right to expect that just because you live in Northern Ireland and are British the British government should continue its occupation of the six counties.

Your telling me that I have no right to expect that my government governs me?? Please, If your going to get into this debate at least consider the democratic wishes of the majority. Remember, not everyone on the island changed their identity and allegance to being Irish

Are you telling me that the ethnic cleansing of the British Protestant in the island of Ireland must continue for the sake of an all-Irish identity and control?

Ethnic cleansing? Let's talk about 400 years of brutal occupation, mass killings of innocent Irish, prohibition of practising your own religion, owning land, owning property, getting a decent wage or having an education.

The British Protestants are not the oppressed victims in Ireland. They are the oppressors.

peace

You only want to talk about 400 years now. The Irish claimed it was 800 years of English oppression, a more exact definition without the propaganda is 800 years of Vatican oppression, to which the Irish turn a blind eye and maintain the blame upon the Normans / English Read Wylies: 'history of the Scottish Nation' to understand the real truth.

We British Ulster-Scots [Uliti] know that the Irish [Gaels]derived from the old British "Guidel" (modern Welsh "Gwyddel"), means "raider" or "bandit", invaded our British Isles nearly 1600 years ago. The Isles were inhabited by different tribes who were of Germanic descendancy and were called the British Isles since the first Roman explorers recorded it. Plotomy's maps of the British Isles have no mention of any Gaelic name or place, they are truely Germanic in origin. The Gaelic element arrived with the Gaels/Celts. Ireland, as we know it today, was called Britania minor. These Germanic / Brythonic / Pict tribes traded and mingled with each other. So, for the Irish to claim anything British has to be removed from 'thier' island is pure bigotry and deceit.

The Irish themselves, have also become its most tragic victims; for the fusion of history and legend in the Irish mind has led to misidentification of the oppressor as the British Protestant "Plantation" in the seventeenth century and the failure to recognise that the real bondage of the Irish was imposed upon them in the twelfth century when the light of unadulterated Christian doctrine was corrupted by the forced colonialism of the Roman Catholic Church.

So, if you don't mind Robbie let's start back 800 years ago when the 'Irish' claimed the English Normans invaded.

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." Luke 8 v 17

 

[kopilo]

ok time to clear up on the symantics.
(dictionary.com)

Terrorism : The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(I did the underlining)
Simply put violence or threats against a society or government with intention of intimidating is terrorism.

 

[Allister]

I do not support the IRA but I support the view that Ireland should govern its island, the scots should govern scotland, the weslh should governt wales, the cornish should govern cornwall and the english should govern england. I do not support the idea that people cannot live in other nations, such as the idea Steezie put forward.

I do not think that the ends justify the means, such as when steezie mentioned removing the british no matter what the cost.

A nation or society built through violence will govern by violence.

 

[Tyndale]

I do not support the IRA but I support the view that Ireland should govern its island, the scots should govern scotland, the weslh should governt wales, the cornish should govern cornwall and the english should govern england. I do not support the idea that people cannot live in other nations, such as the idea Steezie put forward.

I do not think that the ends justify the means, such as when steezie mentioned removing the british no matter what the cost.

A nation or society built through violence will govern by violence.

A very diligent and well constructed post. If self devolution is what a country wants and as long as it's on a democratic basis, no one could disagree with that.

The Ulster-Scots in Ulster have considered Ulster becoming independent, self governed for a long time now. Our history has been one where we have been the last to defend our separation from the rest of the island. Firstly from Brian Bora who subdued us into an all-Ireland unity for a few decades, and secondly by the Normans.

Ulster might just become separate like Wales, Scotland, England and Eire.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Steezie, I would like to know, if we all gave the other cheek, tried to love each other and even prayed for each other, what would be the outcome?? I believe I can tell you, it would be Heaven on Earth. Unless we have learned to live with each other in love and forgiveness, we will NEVER be ready for Heaven, where Love, Joy and Peace awaits us. From the replies you had, it is a highly subjective and explosive topic, and certainly not LOVE. I say this humbly and sadly, Steezie, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Maxwell511]

The Ulster-Scots in Ulster have considered Ulster becoming independent, self governed for a long time now. Our history has been one where we have been the last to defend our separation from the rest of the island. Firstly from Brian Bora who subdued us into an all-Ireland unity for a few centuries, and secondly by the Normans.

Just out of curiosity who were these Ulster Scots that fought against Brian Boru and the Normans. Family names would be great if you got them.

Yours,

A Norman and not one of those fake ones like the Fitzpatricks.

 

[Allister]

If self devolution is what a country wants and as long as it's on a democratic basis, no one could disagree with that.

Unless the English (Westminster) refuse to listen to the calls for self governance and instead propose a "regional assembly". Yes, I refer to Kernow (Cornwall). for years and years we have been demanding the right of self governance but Westminster will not listen.

Ulster might just become separate like Wales, Scotland, England and Eire.

I hope it does, if that is what the people want. With Kernow as an example, the cornish people as a majority support the idea of self governance, but the English immigrants now hold a large percentage of the population and would not support self governance. I personally do not know how to reconsile this problem. I personally would love to see the English removed from Kernow but in reality i could not allow this breach of human rights.

 

[Tyndale]

Just out of curiosity who were these Ulster Scots that fought against Brian Boru and the Normans. Family names would be great if you got them.

Yours,

A Norman and not one of those fake ones like the Fitzpatricks.

Hello Maxwell,

I must make a slight adaption to my post you quoted. Brian Boru only united the island for a few decades, not centuries. It was through the British that it was united for a few centuries. Sorry about that.

Anyway, these Ulster-scots were the original inhabitants of Ulster and as such are its rightful historical owners.

The earliest settlement on the island of Ireland is located at the head of Strangford Lough on theArds Peninsula in the ancient land of Ulster. The name "Ulster" is derived from the ancient tribe of the Uliti who inhabited the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland in the early centuries of the Christian era. The Utili, a British people, were first recorded by the geographer Ptolemy on the earliest known map of the British Isles made in the second century A.D.
The map records that other British tribes such as the Pretani, from which the term "Briton" is derived, formed the bulk of the population of both Ulster and Northern Britain (hence the "British Isles") in these ancient times. There is not a single Irish name on that map; all settlements, ports, rivers and hills have British names; and the Romans, who had been trading with these islands for centuries, also called them the "Britannic Islands" because their inhabitants were all British. The Island of Ireland in fact was known as "little Britain", and the Uliti, called in modern English the Scots, inhabited its north-eastern part before the Irish ever set foot on any part of it.

These Ulster-Scots [Uliti] built built the defensive structure called Black Pigs Dyke (the remains of which still stands today) along the southern border of Ulster to halt the advance of the Gaels.

The Ulster-Scots are the people descended from the mainly Lowland Scots who settled Ulster (the northern most province of Ireland) in the 17th century and today make up the majority Protestant population of Northern Ireland.Ulster-Scots, whether born in Northern Ireland or the descendants of those who left the north of Ireland for Britain's former colonies are ethnically linked to Scots (a mixture of Pict, Norse and Saxon) as opposed to Gaelic Irish. They are the decendants of the pre-celtic Uliti who lived in Ancient Ulster.

 

[Maxwell511]

The Ulster-Scots are the people descended from the mainly Lowland Scots who settled Ulster (the northern most province of Ireland) in the 17th century and today make up the majority Protestant population of Northern Ireland.Ulster-Scots, whether born in Northern Ireland or the descendants of those who left the north of Ireland for Britain's former colonies are ethnically linked to Scots (a mixture of Pict, Norse and Saxon) as opposed to Gaelic Irish. They are the decendants of the pre-celtic Uliti who lived in Ancient Ulster.

It took me awhile to figure out who you were talking about. Do you mean the Ulaid?

Were you talking about the Dál Fiatach being attacked by the Normans? Dál Fiatach is a rather Gaelic name for supposed descendants of Pict, Norse and Saxon, don't you think?

 

[WalkingforHim]

Police and military are still civilian members of that particular country or society

They are also legit targets. Otherwise, everyone, in every war is a terrorist and the word loses all meaning.

 

[WalkingforHim]

Certain members of the armed forces in Iraq have behaved in a less than honorable fashion befitting a warrior. There are several videos on YouTube, one of which showing US soldiers in a truck making native children chase after them for bottles of water.

Is this a surprise to you? Not like it matters, you can't take those incidences and point the finger at the rest of our troops and blame them. What's your point?

 

[Tyndale]

It took me awhile to figure out who you were talking about. Do you mean the Ulaid?

Were you talking about the Dál Fiatach being attacked by the Normans? Dál Fiatach is a rather Gaelic name for supposed descendants of Pict, Norse and Saxon, don't you think?

Yes the Ulaid / Uliti. I hope you see were I'm coming from and I know where your coming from. The problem I have with the Uliti / Pict people being named as Dál Fiatach is the fact that it's using modern Irish. These peoples language wasn't ancient gaelic. Those who didn't move over to the highlands/lowlands of Scotland when the Gaels arrived eventually become accustomed to their new rulers and aquired their language. It's the same old story of the loosers loose everything and have to submit.

You see Maxwell, if it wasn't for the plantations in the 17th century of the lowland Scots into their homeland of Ulster, the Ulaid/Uliti people could heave been permantly known as Dál Fiatach and their British/Germanic heritage lost forever.

Good Chat.

 

[Tyndale]

They are also legit targets. Otherwise, everyone, in every war is a terrorist and the word loses all meaning.

read Romans 13