• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bloody Sunday deaths to be ruled unlawful at last

You decared a new criteria for who is a terrorist, like it or not one which I have seen from your other posts supports your views in world issues. Again, there is no agreement worldwide on what is terrorism.

What "new" criteria have I declared?
 
What "new" criteria have I declared?

It does appear that I was reading between the lines and you did not say words which I believed you had. :3oops:
 
There you have, in one, the entire point of the word.

"Terrorist" is an absolutely meaningless label, as is "freedom fighter". They are labels applied to the people we disagree and agree with.

I would agree that is the way in which they are applied.

However I would say that a terrorist is generally a group who uses terror to achieve a political goal. As such the IRA was possibly such an organisation par excellence.

They didn't kill that many people but some did die, so we always knew we could. For instance in the shop that was bombed the day after I was in it, one person died. Only one person, but nonetheless someone died.

Another example they said they had left bombs in the underground. Now I can't remember if they actually had or not - just saying was enough to get the underground closed but I think they also said there would be m ore in the next two weeks. Now I had always found it frightening and had only recently got over this fear. As you can imagine this brought it back.

Similarly Hamas uses Terror. It has only ever killed about 20 people but it's bombs terrified everyone as they didn't know if this day they might be the one.

terrorist uses terror for their aims.

If we use the strict definition of the word, the people who rebelled against the British in the not-yet United States could be called terrorists. If we use a strict definition of the word, the Afghani insurgents could be called freedom fighters. Although ironically enough, whatever label we choose for either group, the opposite label is also true.

Did they use terror? I am not an expert on US history, from the little I have seen, it seemed us Brits were worse at the terror! Had we won, no doubt the others would have been called whatever was the nasty term of the day.

So to me a terrorist is a group that uses terror for a political cause. You either think it is a valid cause or not. In addition people do talk about State Terrorism as well and I think that is viable.
 
I would agree that is the way in which they are applied.

However I would say that a terrorist is generally a group who uses terror to achieve a political goal.
Then that label would have to apply to stand-up armies as well because terror is certainly a weapon that regular armies employ during war.

The label is so broad as to encompass anything and anyone that carries a gun and as such it has no validity.

As such the IRA was possibly such an organisation par excellence.
That depends on which permutation of the IRA you're talking about. The original IRA (1916-1930ish) generally didnt, they employed irregular warfare, but their targets were rarely civilian.

Did they use terror?
Look up "tar and feather." Loyalists were also frequently attacked, their homes and businesses burned. Oh yeah, the American Revolution employed terror on both sides.
 
Then that label would have to apply to stand-up armies as well because terror is certainly a weapon that regular armies employ during war.

as I said, yes

The label is so broad as to encompass anything and anyone that carries a gun and as such it has no validity.

The IRA were the first people I knew who were called terrorists. Their were gurillas beforehand. I think they may have been the same thing. I possibly should add to this definition people who are politically impotent and whose cause is in relationship to that impotence.

It might mean people needing to look at greater depth than just label.


That depends on which permutation of the IRA you're talking about. The original IRA (1916-1930ish) generally didnt, they employed irregular warfare, but their targets were rarely civilian.

I was talking about the PIRA in the 'troubles' in Ireland.


Look up "tar and feather." Loyalists were also frequently attacked, their homes and businesses burned.

Yes, I remember the tar and feathering. It might surprise you but the side which I felt the more inclined towards was the Catholic. I also think that the 'Irish Troubles could have ended years earlier saving countless lives if it had not been for the collections of money for it from the USA.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom