Are the IRA Terrorists or Patriots

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We view the Founders of this country as Patriots but, were they differn't than the Sinn Fein and the IRA of today? I suppose if you're Catholic in the North of Ireland you'd say yes and if a Protestant you'd say they are terrorists... what makes one either or is it just what you support..?
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Just cuz the British gave in doesnt make their tactics right. The IRA are the original terrorists. They went around the world to the British colonies and trained locals in terrorism to use against the British and they are still doing it today. Not too long ago they caught them training FARC in Columbia. Those groups evolved into the terrorist groups we see today. I hope the UK grows a spine and hunts them down to last person and kills them in the most painful way possible.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Christoph
They're both. Being a patriot doesn't mean you're not a terrorist.
A terrorist is defined by their actions - not their motives. You can have sympathy with their arguement but that doesn't excuse their actions.

The IRA/PIRA/Real IRA as well as the UDF/UVF/etc are ALL terrorists.

Andy
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Just cuz the British gave in doesnt make their tactics right. The IRA are the original terrorists. They went around the world to the British colonies and trained locals in terrorism to use against the British and they are still doing it today. Not too long ago they caught them training FARC in Columbia. Those groups evolved into the terrorist groups we see today.
No one "gave in". What has been demonstrated is that for a lasting and real peace their have to be concessions on both sides.

I hope the UK grows a spine and hunts them down to last person and kills them in the most painful way possible.
And then we'll have another few decades of violence.... to quote moonbeam (which I don't do very often!):

an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye...

Andy
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
The IRA are the original terrorists.
Not to advocate terrorism, but the English have been terrorizing the Irish for the better part of four centuries.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
You fall in the terrorist category when you purposely kill innocent civilians.
That may be a little broad.

I'm just thinking that there have been times where we have done just that, but I wouldn't call us terrorists.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Just cuz the British gave in doesnt make their tactics right. The IRA are the original terrorists. They went around the world to the British colonies and trained locals in terrorism to use against the British and they are still doing it today. Not too long ago they caught them training FARC in Columbia. Those groups evolved into the terrorist groups we see today. I hope the UK grows a spine and hunts them down to last person and kills them in the most painful way possible.
Well... One has to consider the history of that little Island... If one starts with 1798 and the efforts of Wolf Tone Story worth reading You can see the way even the prisoners were treated... after a battle in which 2000 Irish and Frence battled 30000 Brittish troops the surviving French were sent home but the Irish were killed... Here is where it started... Tone, known as the Father of Irish Republicanism sought Freedom for his country... although a protestant, he wanted freedom for his country.. Is this not the same as the Founders of this Nation...
This is where the notion of a free Ireland really got going.. The Brittish always considered the Irish to be sub human... they tend to still think that way...
Where we are today is the result of being always out manned, out gunned and under a designed effort to rid the place of any trace of the Irish... Would this not raise the dander of an American even today under similar history and current events... the Britts don't always tell the truth, ya know...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Ornery
You fall in the terrorist category when you purposely kill innocent civilians.
By that definition we would be terrorists with all our collaterial damage to the Iraqi folks.. no?
Civilians cease being civilian when they adopt the mantle of the oppressor... I'd venture?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Christoph
They're both. Being a patriot doesn't mean you're not a terrorist.
I'd agree with that.... it the tactic.... If you dress in bright red uniforms and shoot 200 civilians in Concord you'd be a soldier and if Francis Marion from the woods shoots at them(the Red Coats) he'd be a terrorist... probably.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Christoph
They're both. Being a patriot doesn't mean you're not a terrorist.
A terrorist is defined by their actions - not their motives. You can have sympathy with their arguement but that doesn't excuse their actions.

The IRA/PIRA/Real IRA as well as the UDF/UVF/etc are ALL terrorists.

Andy
Well.... My Brittish Scot.... Yes... indeed the tactic is the definer... to use terror is the weapon of the terrorist... the M1 tank does not cause terror in the heart of the T79..? or is the MOAB not terror inducing? Me wonders about that... do you?

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Andy

No one "gave in". What has been demonstrated is that for a lasting and real peace their have to be concessions on both sides.

I hope the UK grows a spine and hunts them down to last person and kills them in the most painful way possible.
And then we'll have another few decades of violence.... to quote moonbeam (which I don't do very often!):

an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye...

Andy[/quote]

How about all the Britts go home with their eyes and let the Irish be Irish if they choose and see how that works for awhile... They are better off now then when in 1845 the Brittish chose to let half the population die rather than ship food to them... they were under the Brittish flag at that time.... remember...

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Ornery
You fall in the terrorist category when you purposely kill innocent civilians.
That may be a little broad.

I'm just thinking that there have been times where we have done just that, but I wouldn't call us terrorists.
If the shoe fits... no?

It's hard to use a negative term to describe ones own action... ya lose support at home and all... What did we call the Viet Namese in the south who tried terror on us during those 10 years of freedom fighting... oh yeah "Charlie" and "beloved patriot" how dare they use terror tactic against the mighty armada arrayed against their sticks and stones and Soviet rifles and missles... Seems everyone is a terrorist if they fight against superior odds in the only way they can win...

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The father of the US Navy John Paul Jones is a hero and the British call him a terrorist.

"Jones understood and practiced what is formally known as ?asymmetrical warfare? but is more commonly regarded as terrorism. Jones was no Osama bin Laden in knee britches; he did not set out to kill civilians. But he did mean to terrify them. He understood that the tiny, feeble navy patched together by the Continental Congress in 1775 was no match for the Royal Navy. By raiding English coastal towns, burning shipping, taking high officials and even whole towns hostage, he meant to create a public panic. If the Royal Navy?the ?wooden wall? that had protected the British people from invasion for centuries?could not stop the Americans from attacking British citizens in their own homes, Jones correctly figured, perhaps the cost of keeping the American colonies would seem too high"

I like NOC monkeys definition and Onereys.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The answer will be determined by whoever eventually wins.
This is the most sublime of comments....

He who wins writes the history... Sure others write a version too.. but, the winner is seen as having overcome much and sacrificed much for the cause of Freedom... Billy Wallace is seen as a hero by many... (the movie was not factual except for the battles fought)... he was a terrorist and Long Shanks was a despot... a typical English King... who sought to Plantaginize all about him... FREEDOM..... When in the course of human events....



 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Perhaps it's deciding upon whether you use terror which determines if you are a terrorist? ;)

Were we terrorists when we dropped the 2 bombs on Japan? How about when we bombed Iraq...what was the name of the bombing campaign again, Shock and Awe? I guess I've changed my mind...we are terrorists. At least we've used terror tactics.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
The father of the US Navy John Paul Jones is a hero and the British call him a terrorist.

"Jones understood and practiced what is formally known as ?asymmetrical warfare? but is more commonly regarded as terrorism. Jones was no Osama bin Laden in knee britches; he did not set out to kill civilians. But he did mean to terrify them. He understood that the tiny, feeble navy patched together by the Continental Congress in 1775 was no match for the Royal Navy. By raiding English coastal towns, burning shipping, taking high officials and even whole towns hostage, he meant to create a public panic. If the Royal Navy?the ?wooden wall? that had protected the British people from invasion for centuries?could not stop the Americans from attacking British citizens in their own homes, Jones correctly figured, perhaps the cost of keeping the American colonies would seem too high"

I like NOC monkeys definition and Onereys.
Carbonyl, I had planned on this argument at the appropriate time... but, you beat me to it.. Your post is typical of the notion spouted by many who find the game has been switched against their favor... Washington crossing the Delaware with his rag tag crew could not hope to defeat the superior Hessian and Brittish army with out stealth... and a bit of terror...

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Gaard
Perhaps it's deciding upon whether you use terror which determines if you are a terrorist? ;)

Were we terrorists when we dropped the 2 bombs on Japan? How about when we bombed Iraq...what was the name of the bombing campaign again, Shock and Awe? I guess I've changed my mind...we are terrorists. At least we've used terror tactics.
I venture the use of the term "terrorist" will, in time, evolve to a new meaning assuming we always win and employ terror as part of warfare... or if not, then we are being a bit hypocritical... me thinks...

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Your post is typical of the notion spouted by many who find the game has been switched against their favor...
? I'm not sure if I get your meaning. I understand people are people generally and anyone who has hard faught technological superirity will call the otherside dishonerable or even terrorists when they use ?asymmetrical warfare? against this superior force. Longbowmen, the trebuchet, pikemen were all called terrorists.

Google for things like the "britsh irregulars" in WW2 who practiced terror tactics and were fully inplenmented and funded to a tune of 3000 individuals to take out thier own people who would have fratenized with the germans or given up key info about the country.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Your post is typical of the notion spouted by many who find the game has been switched against their favor...
? I'm not sure if I get your meaning. I understand people are people generally and anyone who has hard faught technological superirity will call the otherside dishonerable or even terrorists when they use ?asymmetrical warfare? against this superior force. Longbowmen, the trebuchet, pikemen were all called terrorists.

Google for things like the "britsh irregulars" in WW2 who practiced terror tactics and were fully inplenmented and funded to a tune of 3000 individuals to take out thier own people who would have fratenized with the germans or given up key info about the country.
What I mean is; even when both sides start out using similar tactics and even if it could be classified as terrorism... neither side will term it such (the semantics of violence) until one side adopts a strategy differn't than the other in an attempt to outwit through stealth or cunning.... "they don't play by the rules of decent warfare...their actions are beyond the pale..."
"Into the valley rode the 600... " Where was that again? and why did they hide in the hills and fire cannon shot from seclusion... those terrorists...

 

Cesar

Banned
Jan 12, 2003
458
0
0
The IRA are patriots because they are fighting for their rights just like the palestinians.
I don't care what people say about them because they know nothing about what is going on.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,618
5,126
126
My buddies and I often employ bananas of mashed destruction against hapless leopards that chance under out tree. Terrorists are those who are hard to defeat cause they don't let you kill them easy and use your weaknesses against you. Terrorists are unfair about not losing easily. A worthy opponent is a dead one.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY