A terrorist is usually associated with committing criminal acts of a generally violent nature against civilians. We would think of hijackings, taking hostages, blowing up buildings, and the like. Now, if you look at the history of the IRA, we would see that they primarily target British and Loyalist military personnel and installations. Granted there have been cases where civilian buildings were targeted, but almost all if not all of which were targeted at a time where the population of that building was virtually nill. This does not show the intent to actually do harm to civilans directly.
I have to disagree with this point. There have been numerous cases where the IRA have directly targeted civilians - Omaugh being the prime example (30 killed, 300 injured - all civilians). The bombing of the Rememberance Day ceremony at Eniskillin (11 killed) hardly classes as a military target either. Canary Wharf (a tower block in London - hmm!) was also targeted.
Admittedly the most recent of these was in 1998.
But this doesn't alter the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organization which has targeted innocent civilians.
Yes, they are currently under a ceasefire (though this does not appear to prevent punishment beatings, kneecappings and the training of foreign terrorists), but they have yet to give up a single bullet or grain of explosive in terms of decommissioning, so forgive me for being rather sceptical about their sincerity.
Money you give them today may be used for a valid political function, but it may equally go into a bank account to be spent on a shiny new rocket launcher if the peace process breaks down.
Did you know that because of the IRA, we don't have trash-cans on our railway station platforms. The IRA put nailbombs on timers in them an then strolled off an waited for them to blow up. Think about that next time you see a NorAid collector shaking his tin on a street corner.
And now I come to think about it - are you saying that it's only terrorism if it's against a civilian target? So the Pentagon attack was a legitimate act? Or rather, it would have been had the plane not had any passengers? By that definition, OBL could hire a 747, stuff it full of explosives and crash it into the Pentagon and not be considered a terrorist. If only he'd known!
Look forward to your reply
General point to all you flag-wavers who want to bomb something:
When does a 'terrorist' become a 'freedom fighter'?
When you agree with his politics!
It seems to me that if we are truly going to wage war on terrorism then we have to be consistant in our definition of what a terrorist is. It's easy for GWB to stand up and declare war on terrorism, but that means pretty much anyone who has a gun.
The Kosova Liberation Army were fighting against the Serbian government - technically they were terrorists. NATO helped them and bombed the shit out of the Serbian army. Doesn't that make NATO guilty of supporting terrorism.
Life ain't black and white - the good guys aren't all blond haired and blue-eyed with clean shiny teeth.
Think about it
The artist formerly known as email@example.comThis comment was edited on Sep 19, 06:38.