IRA are not al-Qaeda says Blair

[emad]

IRA are not al-Qaeda says Blair

Al-Qaeda terrorism is not on the same par as the IRA, Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested.

He said IRA political demands or their previous atrocities could not be directly compared to fundamentalists who carried out the 9/11 US attacks.

It was invidious to make comparisons because "terrorism is wrong", he said.

"I don't think you can compare the political demands of republicanism with the political demands of this terrorist ideology we're facing now."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4718223.stm


BUT the bent spooks and politicians who have protected them are the same.

[Pirate Smile]

1. "IRA are not al-Qaeda" - No shit. I can't believe he would even

have to say that but I'm glad he did if people were trying to act like they were the same.

[K-W]

2. Nobody acted like they were the same, that is Blaire's strawman.

He wants to avoid anyone putting Islamic terrorism in historical context, because Islamic Exceptionalism is the lynchpin to his evil ideology bullshit.

[StrafingMoose]

3. Regarding London..

"He is just pushing his "evil ideology" malarcky, trying to whitewash the fact that Islamic militants have political demands every bit as real and serious as any other terrorist organizations"

Difference is that, at least for the London bombings, there's no real claims (internet claiming is BS if you ask me) let alone the political demands.

[K-W]

4. Well, we shall see how it shakes out,

but if it is an Al Queda inspired attack, there is a stated political motive.

[StrafingMoose]

5. Yeah, and

if I see many of those unclaimed bombs going off in different countries, I think I'll raise an eyebrow.

[Henny Penny]

28. I think you are correct....

the new evil is always unique, unprecedented and consequently cannot be addressed in the normal rational way.

I worry that this kind of thinking means that they will take a generation to resolve the issues leading to Islamic terrorism.

[bennywhale]

33. Thats what angers me. Because of the incompetence and arrogance of

Bush and Blair we are stuck with the consequences for a generation.

This wasn't in my life plan. I didn't want this to be in my life or my children's life and you only get one.

Those bastards i hate them all.

[Henny Penny]

35. just picture them in the Hague...

I know it seems like a fantasy but it helps me!

fixed typo.

[CJCRANE]

39. I agree

I mean, what did they expect? The Middle East is one of the most volatile regions in the world, yet they go in there blowing shit up and torturing people. Of course there's gonna be blowback.

[RogueTrooper]

72. Blair is right

I don't think PIRA were quite the plague upon their own community as "Al Qaeda" are. The IRA were ( and, for the most part ) are a homogeneous, hierarchal organisation.

Still, full marks to Tony for pissing off the UUP and the DUP...

In response, Ulster Unionist Party leader Sir Reg Empey said he had warned Mr Blair against "creating double standards between terrorists".

"There is no point in using the numbers killed to distinguish between terror groups as the prime minister seems to be implying," he said.

"However, if Mr Blair wants to use a crude stratification process in order to establish a hierarchy of terror, he will find that the number of those murdered and maimed in Northern Ireland is greater."

DUP MP Sammy Wilson said Mr Blair's comments were an "insult to every victim of terrorism".

[bennywhale]

26. Well they both still blew innocent people to pieces randomly and they

both did for political reasons and are both terrorist groups.

I think they compare

[jsamuel]

6. so one kind of terrorism is not as bad as another kind of terrorism?

[1932]

10. Republicanism is fundamentally just & IRA rarely killed innocent people

Is there anything just about 9/11 terrorism. Those terrorists apparently want power concentrated in their own hands and don't care about democracy or justice.

[K-W]

11. Apparently want power concentrated in thier own hands? Huh?

You have an odd definition of the word apparent.

And how is wanting the US out of the middle east any less just than wanting Britain out of Ireland?

[patcox2]

14. well, one difference is that the US wasn't "in" the middle east.

Yes, the IRA wants Britain out of Ireland. And britain was in fact in Ireland, occupying it, controlling its government, etc.

Whereas the US is not "in" the middle east. Before 9-11 we did not occupy or control any nation in the middle east (I know, we had been in Lebanon and Iraq, but we never invaded and colonized any middle eastern nation, as we now have).

Al Qeada hates us for supporting Israel, pure and simple. We are not even their target, though they hope that by inciting us they'l ignite a shitstorm that will destroy Israel.

There is no comparison between the two. The non-religious IRA (condemned by the church years and years ago) fought for their own country against the actual country that had invaded them. They are more like revolutionaries or a resistance movement.

Al Queada is a military-religious sect of sorts, it fights not FOR anything, but rather against one thing, Israel. Its members mostly come from Arab and Muslim states who don't have any direct history of US invasion, aggression, or interference. The majority, prior to 9/11, were apparently Saudi, and they seem to hate their own Saudi government as much as us. They are "exceptional." They almost appear to be transferring their problems with their own governments to us.

[K-W]

15. So the US bases in Saudi Arabia dont count as the US in the middle east?

Im not sure how that works.

Al Qeada hates us for supporting Israel, pure and simple. We are not even their target, though they hope that by inciting us they'l ignite a shitstorm that will destroy Israel.

Al Queda's beef with the US is partly due to support of Israel, but also due to US occupation of Arabia, US support of tyranical regimes throughout the middle east particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the first gulf war, and Iraqi sanctions. Also they point to US commercialism as corrupting thier society.

And no, while Im sure they wouldnt mind seeing Isreal go, they know as well as everyone else that Isreal isnt going anywhere. Their immediate goal is to bring Muslim nations under the rule of Islam. Im sure they think that once that happens Isreal's days will be numbered though.

Al Queada is a military-religious sect of sorts, it fights not FOR anything, but rather against one thing, Israel. Its members mostly come from Arab and Muslim states who don't have any direct history of US invasion, aggression, or interference. The majority, prior to 9/11, were apparently Saudi, and they seem to hate their own Saudi government as much as us. They are "exceptional." They almost appear to be transferring their problems with their own governments to us.

You need to learn a whole lot about the House of Saud if you think there is no direct history of US intereference there.

Al Queda does not center thier policy around Israel and never has, although it is certainly an issue they have a great deal of interest in. Al Queda is the name given to those Jihadists who are focusing on the US and its allies for a number of reasons.

[patcox2]

19. Are there any non-tyrannical muslim states in the Middle East?

If Britain merely had "bases" in Ireland for the last 500 years, things would be awfully different there.

So they hate us for opposing the tyrannical Hussein, but also hate us for supporting the tyrannical house of Saud? And I am sure they also hate us for not giving a crap one way or another over the other NE countries that don't have oil. They must also hate us for the neglect and disinterest we show towards Yemen.

Seems they hate us for anything and everything.

But its not because this particular branch of wahabbism is a fanatical religious-military cult, really much more analogous to the Crusaders of the middle ages and groups like the knights templar, than we are, even though they like to call us crusaders.

I guess its politically incorrect to say that they do indeed have religious motivations, huh? They say so, of course, they state why they hate us all the time, but we intellectuals must say "no, no, you don't know why you hate us, let me tell you why you hate us."

They resent the US bases in Saudi Arabia, I always thought, because infidels should not be there on the soil sacred to the wahabis.

[K-W]

22. They attack the US because they see our interference as an obstacle

to thier largely theological goals within the muslim world. (although thier support in the muslim world comes largely because of thier political goals, not thier deeper theological goals)

So they hate us for opposing the tyrannical Hussein, but also hate us for supporting the tyrannical house of Saud? And I am sure they also hate us for not giving a crap one way or another over the other NE countries that don't have oil. They must also hate us for the neglect and disinterest we show towards Yemen.

No they dont hate us for opposing Hussein, where did you get that idea? They hate us for wanting to control Iraqi oil. No they do not hate us for disinterest, they like it when we are disinterested.

Seems they hate us for anything and everything.

No, it doesnt seem that way at all. It seems as though they hate us for everything we do that involves meddling in Muslim nations.

I guess its politically incorrect to say that they do indeed have religious motivations, huh? They say so, of course, they state why they hate us all the time, but we intellectuals must say "no, no, you don't know why you hate us, let me tell you why you hate us."

Nobody suggested that it was politically incorrect to say they have religions motivations. And everything I have said is directly based off the statements of the Jihadists, so what are you talking about?

[patcox2]

74. Okay, you have explained and you are right about their motivations.

And I think that their situation is distinguishable from the IRA, based largely on the facts you lay out.

[Stella_Artois]

18. A small point

Ireland has been an independant country for decades, its the northen counties that are still British.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. bin Laden and his ilk

view the air bases in Saudi Arabia as "occupation".


That is true, but they also hate US for all the sins we have committed against the Middle East in the last, oh, 60 years.

[bennywhale]

30. This is the era of neo-colonialism whereby the US has its empire in a

subtle way but it still has it.

The US has supported (and does support) some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet incuding the house of Saud. The original enemy was unislamic and brutal regimes like Egypt and Saudi arabia.

It was then the occupation of Islamic lands by the Soviet Union.

It was then the quasi-occupation of holy lands in Saudi by the US plus the snactions that killed allegedly a million Iraqi children plus the unquestioning support for Israel.

The attention was turned to America because they saw her hand behind every curtain. She pulled every string across the Muslim world.

Now we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and have killed up to 100,000 Muslims. Then there is Chechnya. that is why the Soviets are attacked. The jihadists have infiltrated that countries fight and our support of the abuises and mass murder there.

This is not to justify mass murder i think these are warped twisted fucks, like i do anyone who kills innocent people deliberately, its just to put into a global context why we are where we are.

"They hate us for our freedom" Fuck off. Why don't they attack Sweden.

[1932]

44. According to some, Al-Q is fighting to re-establish the Caliphate.

Afghanistan was supposed to be the seed government, and neighboring countries were supposed to follow suit: depose their secular democracies or quasi-democracies and put into power undemocratic religious governments. Things were going according to plan in Afghanistan, so they threw it up as a sacrificial lamb in order to encourage the US to start a war in the ME which would become a lightening rod for Islamists, and become a faster way to recruit and spread rebellion against secular governments in the former Caliphate.

[K-W]

47. Yes, but it is more a belief than a goal.

They believe that Allah is God and that the Koran is the word of God. They believe that if something wasnt standing in the way, Muslim people would embrace the true faith, and this would then trigger a social revolution that would allow Muslims to bloom into a devine empire.

So it is misleading to say that they are fighting to create a muslim empire. They arent literally trying to construct an empire. They are trying to destroy the things they think are holding back muslim society from embracing true Islam.

This is why there is some truth beneath thier madness. And why people who arent mad support thier goals and some even thier actions. It is true that the US is propping up tyrants, it is true that the US occupying muslim lands and has every intent to controling them as long as they are useful. It isnt however true that if the US werent in the Middle East the people would embrace insane fundementalism creating some Koran based utopia.

[1932]

49. My understanding is that they're spending their time and money trying

to create and actual muslim empire -- nation after nation of Taliban-style governments as far north, south, east and west as the Caliphate was at its maximum size.

Religion is a part of it, but I think it is a drive for empire that is similar to Roman, Napoleonic, etc. empires of the past. Saying it's just about religion doesn't explain the full picture. They want an empire of governments that agree with them philosophically from central Africa, across the Middle east and to the Pacific, regardless of what the people of those countries want.

I don't think that it is misleading at all to point this out.

I think it's misleading to frame Islamism as a response only to American Imperialism. Islamists are opposed to Pan-Arabism too, and the US opposed Pan-Arabism as well because it was anti-Western imperialism. There's a real triangulation of interests and if their were no US in the Middle East the Islamists would still be attacking governments for which the US has no love -- specifically, the socialist secular democracies and near-democracies.

For example, they would hate Mossadegh if he were alive today.

Islamists are not a democracy movement, and they're not anti-imperialists. They're pro-imperialism. They're pro-their own empire.

[K-W]

53. Well your understanding is something of a fantasy.

Yes, they are trying to recreate the caliphate by creating Koran based societies in the muslim world, but to compare them to the romans and napoleon is fantastical. As I explained, they believe that if they can take down the governments, and remove corrupting western influences, people will see the truth and overthrow their governments and enthrone the clerics, thus creating the caliphate. Then they would get the wonderful society they know Allah designed for them and an empire that might very well conquer the world.

Islamists are not a democracy movement, and they're not anti-imperialists. They're pro-imperialism. They're pro-their own empire.

Nobody ever claimed they were a democracy movement. But they are anti-american-imperialism, which puts them on the same side of the empire issue as true anti-imperialists for the moment, because right now there is no muslim empire but there is a an American empire.

They aren't pro-all empires, which should be obvious.

think it's misleading to frame Islamism as a response only to American Imperialism.
Nobody framed it that way, so rest easy.

if their were no US in the Middle East the Islamists would still be attacking governments for which the US has no love
Huh? If there were no US in the Middle East the Islamists would be attacking the non-islamic governments in the middle east like they are still doing. There just wouldn't have been the branch of them attacking the US because they think the US has to go before they can defeat the non-islamic governments.

-- specifically, the socialist secular democracies and near-democracies.

That is ludicrous. There are no socialist secular democracies that the Jihadists have any innate interest in at the moment. They have their sights set primarily on Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Neither of which are socialist secular democracies.

[1932]

59. How are Syria and Egypt not democracies?

Egypt is not a perfect democracy, but they do have elections, political parties and universal compulsory suffrage. They outlaw religious parties (but tolerate them, although less and less) and therefore are, by law, secular.

Syria also popularly elects its president to a 7 year term. They have a unicameral legislature with 4 year terms. Their major political parties are: the Arab Socialist Unionist Movement, the National Progressive Front (which includes Arab Socialist Renaissance (Ba'th) Party, the governing party), the Socialist Unionist Democratic Party; the Syrian Arab Socialist Party; the Syrian Communist Party; the Syrian Social National Party; and the Unionist Socialist Party.

Egypt and Syria, by the way, united as the United Arab Republic briefly as a Pan-Arabist (socialist, secular) nation. They were early pan-arabist movers and shakers.

Syria is heavily pan-arabist now.

The Taleban did not have elections of any form and was anti-socialist and anti-secular.

[K-W]

62. Becauase they dont fit the definition of a democracy.

Which is rule by the people.

Elections and parties dont a democracy make.

[1932]

67. You are wrong on a couple counts.

They have elections and their major parties are socialist.

That's why Islamists don't like them, no matter how imperfect their democracies are. They want to replace those governments with governments like the Taliban: no elections, no socialism. They want countries where a few religious leaders have all the cultural, political, and economic power. This is very different from the direction countries like Syria and Egypt are trying to go.

Another thing I should note. You've tried to make the Islamist movement out to be anti-American, primarily, yet you identify the main battlegrounds as Syria and Egypt -- two governements of which the US isn't so fond.

Islamism's major political and philosophical opponent in the Middle East is pan-Arabism -- it is secularism and socialism. Yes, America has a lot of weight in the Middle East, but making this out to be a purely anti-American thing doesn't give you enough of a picture to actually understand what's going on.

Also, I think your post above is both rude and uninformed. That's a really bad combination.

[K-W]

69. Edit: just to wind this down.

I suppose its agree to disagree time.

[1932]

41. I say "apparently" because islamists speak through actions and not words.

They don't have a Che or an MLK telling people what they working towards. So, I have to rely on interpretations by, for example, authors like George Friedman, whom, I can't really say I respect. But George Friedman paints this picture of Islamists: they're anti-panarabism and they want to impose a sort of Islamo-fascism, which is undemocratic and would concentrate power in the hands of a few religious leaders.

What do you think they're working towards?

[K-W]

48. Umm, actually, they do have Che's and MLK's

Well, not so much MLK's. But those are bad examples, those are largely political leaders. This is a religions movement. You need to go back further in our history to find parrallels.

We are talking about a theological movement with ideological leaders.

You dont have to rely on interpretations, they spread thier views far and wide, that is how they recruit people.

These people arent evil geniuses sitting in a volcano plotting Islamo Facism.

These are religious fanatics. They believe that Allah exists and spoke the Koran through Mohammad. They believe that the true nature of humanity is to live by the Koran. They believe that deep down inside muslims want to live by the Koran.

So you can politically analyze what type of government would match the Koran all you want, but it completely misses the point. They believe that if something wasnt wrong with Muslim society, muslim society would embrace the Koran. And right now they think America is what is wrong with Muslim society.

[1932]

50. Who is their MLK? Their Che? If I read what they have to say,

will I come to a different conclusion?

Your second last paragraph doesn't tell me anything about their political philosophy. There are many muslims who are not Islamists who believe those same things.

Many muslims who believe deeply in the Koran did not believe the Taleban was a legitamate form of government.

And I'm not reading tea leaves (unless George Friedman and all the scholars and intelligence people on Newshour are reading tea leaves). Islamists are fighting to create a string of Taleban-style governments across the Caliphate. That's their political goal. Like I said in my last post, if the US didn'ty exist or weren't in the M.E. at all, they'd still be fighting against secular governments and against socialist governments and pan-arabist governments (and many of these governments are governments the US doesn't totally support either).

[K-W]

54. Any basic article on the movement will give you names of thier leaders.

And of course you will come to a different conclusion if you looked at the real evidence.

Many muslims who believe deeply in the Koran did not believe the Taleban was a legitamate form of government.

We arent talking about the majority of muslims are we? No we are talking about extremists who do in fact believe the Taliban was on the right track.

And I'm not reading tea leaves (unless George Friedman and all the scholars and intelligence people on Newshour are reading tea leaves). Islamists are fighting to create a string of Taleban-style governments across the Caliphate. That's their political goal. Like I said in my last post, if the US didn'ty exist or weren't in the M.E. at all, they'd still be fighting against secular governments and against socialist governments and pan-arabist governments (and many of these governments are governments the US doesn't totally support either).

Right, thier political goal, as they have publically stated many times, is to overthrow the governments that refuse to embrace Islam to convert muslim nations into a Koran based society. And they would be fighting against any government that didnt embrace the Koran no matter what the nature of the government yes.

But they wouldnt have any support in a democratic country. Because there wouldnt be people with non-insane beliefs agreeing with them that the government was a problem, so they would have a harder time attacking such a nation, if one existed in the muslim world.

You are right on the fundemental beliefs you are just off base in how you think those beliefs are motivating them and also the fact that the people supporting them dont share those beliefs, but do share certain immediate goals with them, like the removal of brutal governments and the end to colonialism.

[1932]

56. I think that saying it's just about religion oversimplifies the issues.

Yes, they want a religious government. But their ideas about religion aren't abstract. They have a concrete political vision of what they want to happen: Taleban-style governments from Africa to the Pacific.

Incidentally, it's not just removing "brutal" governments that they want. They want to remove good secular, democratic governments too, or governments that are moving in that direction -- which is why they assassinated Anwar Sadat.

And they aren't against colonialism and imperialism, since they want to revive the Caliphate, which was a form of empire and colonialism in itself.

I believe that Mossadegh was going in the right direction. He was moving towards justice. The US derailed that movement, and the Islamists want to derail it too -- that's what empires do, and that isn't good.

[K-W]

57. Nobody said that. What are you talking about?

Yes, they want a religious government. But their ideas about religion aren't abstract. They have a concrete political vision of what they want to happen: Taleban-style governments from Africa to the Pacific.

Close. They want Koran based governments throughout the current muslim world. Im sure they would then want expansion, but at the moment they are focused on the places they live.

Incidentally, it's not just removing "brutal" governments that they want. They want to remove good secular, democratic governments too, or governments that are moving in that direction -- which is why they assassinated Anwar Sadat.

Incidentally, I never said it was just removing brutal governments. I said it was about removing any government that wouldn't embrace the Koran. So what are you talking about?

And they aren't against colonialism and imperialism, since they want to revive the Caliphate, which was a form of empire and colonialism in itself.

I never said they were. I said that they were against foreign colonialism and imperialism. So what are you talking about?

I believe that Mossadegh was going in the right direction. He was moving towards justice. The US derailed that movement, and the Islamists want to derail it too -- that's what empires do, and that isn't good.

The Islamicsts don't have an empire, so what are you talking about?

[1932]

60. The Islamists WANT an empire. They want the Caliphate back.

[K-W]

63. Indeed, and I have said that over and over again. EOM

[1932]

68. I know. I don't know why you keep disagreeing with me.

We're not saying things that are very different, but you keep posting replies challenging me and trying to make it sound like I'm wrong.

???

[K-W]

70. Edit: Im comfortable ending this discussion here. EOM

[jsamuel]

13. so one kind of terrorism is not as bad as another kind of terrorism?

[displacedtexan]

16. Rarely killed innocent people list...

This list includes only SOME of the IRA attacks.

February 1974 - Coach carrying soldiers and families in northern England is bombed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Twelve people killed, 14 hurt.

October-November 1974 - Wave of IRA bombs in British pubs kills 28 people and wounds more than 200. Several people are convicted but cleared almost two decades later.

July 1982 - Two IRA bomb attacks on soldiers in London's royal parks kill 11 people and wound 50.

December 1983 - IRA Bomb at London's Harrods department store kills six.

October 1984 - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's cabinet narrowly escapes IRA bomb which kills five people at hotel in English resort of Brighton during the Conservative Party's annual conference.

September 1989 - Bomb at Royal Marines Music School in Deal, southeast England, kills 11 and wounds 22.

February 1991 - The IRA fires mortar bomb at Prime Minister John Major's London office. No one is injured.

April 1992 - Huge car bomb outside Baltic Exchange in London's financial district kills three people and injures 91.

March 1993 - Bombs in two litter bins in Warrington, northern England, kill two boys aged three and 12.

April 1993 - IRA truck bomb devastates Bishopsgate area of London's financial district, killing one and injuring 44.

February 1996 - Two people die when IRA guerrillas detonate large bomb in London's Docklands area.

March 2001 - A powerful car bomb explodes outside the BBC's London headquarters. Police say the Real IRA, a republican splinter group opposed to the IRA's ceasefire, were behind the blast. One man was injured.

I fully expect George W. to distinguish between the Terry McVeighs of our country and his Al Qaeda bogeymen, too.

Terror is a tactic. Al Qaeda doesn't hold the damned patent.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Terrorists are terrorists

though one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

In the end, it means squat to the families of the dead.

That said, terrorism ultimately works because the only way to end it is either to give in to the demands and grant political equality to the oppressed or exterminate them. The latter action tends to cause problems these days (though some people still try).

When you have pushed a group of people to the point of terrorism you have lost. People only resort to terrorism because all other avenues have failed.

[1932]

40. I see it a different way. Tyranny always loses. When the "terrorism" is

resistance to imperial terrorism, it will win. When the terrorism is itself an attempt to impose a tyrannical rule, it will lose. The arc of human history tends to bend towards justice. Sometimes people resist that path, which causes needless bloodshed.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Semantics

I agree with your point, but we have to be careful of terminology.

Generally, states can commit terrorist acts, but they usually do so with deniablity (by supporting other groups to commit the acts, such as Libya) or under cloak of legal fictions (Bush). It is not quite correct to call state actions "terrorim", as this is usually applied to indescriminate illegal acts by political groups.

Illegal acts by governments in the course of a war are "war crimes", not terrorism. Illegal acts without declaration of war would probably be treated the same, or as "crimes against humanity".

[K-W]

55. that really isnt how terror is generally defined

Terrorism is any violence directed at civillians with the purpose of causing them to change thier behavior, usually in order to create some political change. (as opposed to for the sake of killing them which is genocide)

Terrorism done during a war is a war crime, but it is also terrorism.

"indescriminate illegal acts by political groups"
Terrorism is not indescriminate and need not be done by a political group.

[bennywhale]

27. "IRA rarely killed innocent people" Which planet are you from?

[1932]

38. The IRA are/were engaged in a anti-colonial rebellion against England.

The attrocities went both ways, but the IRA goals were always political and had a logic to them that I just don't see with Islamists.

Furthermore, Republicanism is a just goal and an inevitable counterargument to imperialism and colonialism. Were the Algerians who fought French imperialism terrorists on a level with today's Islamists? How about the French and Italian resistance during WWII? They used terrorist techniques. But certainly you would say there's a qualitative difference between what they fought for (and against) when you compare it to McVeigh or the Unabomber or Islamists, right?

Islamo-fascism is not a just, logical, inevitable counterargument to the world today. They don't like US imperialism, sure. But they don't like secular pan-arabism which is a poliical systems that is exceedingly legitimate. In fact, they seem only to care about the US insofar as attacks on the US help to bring down pan-arabist governments in order to give rise to islamist goverments.

If the IRA weren't interested in Republicanism, but were, say, interested in imposing some kind of Opus Dei fascist government in NI, then I would disagree with Blair. However, Blair is trying to bring something to people's attention that you'd think LIBERALS would understand. He's trying to explain the difference between NI, Philippinos fighting the US in the early 20th century, Algeria, and Nazi reistance on the one hand, and 9/11 on the other hand.

I'm not trying to make apologies for the IRA, but there are two important points here: (1) it's hard to criticize asymetrical resistance to fascism, and (2) if liberals can't understand the difference between the IRA and 9/11, then we're in big trouble.

[bennywhale]

42. For you to compare the IRA with the French resistnce is to compare the

British government with the Nazis.

This is ridiculous, not least because the IRA actively supported the Nazis and previously actively supported Kaiser Wlhelm and the Ottoman empire, so the anti-fascism and anti-colonialism is questionable.

I accept that Al qaeda are on a different level, however i won't accept any defence of ANY deliberate killing of ANY innocents.

Its cowardice and to be despised even if the myth is enticing.

[1932]

46. No. It's to set on one side of the equation

imperialism, colonialism and fascism as forms of government that are all tyrannical and unjust, and it's ridiculous to think that people will simply accept them.

I wasn't equating the British with Nazis.

I'll equate the British with... the British.

Do you think American colonial resistance to British Imperialism was terrorism on the same level as 9/11? Or do you see that there is qualitative difference between being on the side of justice versus the side of tyranny?

As I said in my first post, Republicanism is a just goal.

(And just because a few monarchies helped the colonies fight their common enemy doesn't make American independence unjust.)

[bennywhale]

75. American independence was neither just

nor righteous at the time.

Half the people fighting didn't even set out to berak from Britain (because they were British) and they were fighting (often for greed )over land that was not theirs and whose independence precipitated genocide of the natives.

So no i don't view it as just.

Also ask the Northern Irish protestants if they believe republicanism to be just.

[Henny Penny]

29. That is a ridiculous post, on a number of different levels. n/t

[terrible beauty]

58. Rebel song

There is a line from a rebel song called Joe O'Donnell.He was one of the hunger strikers.
It says "You dare to call me a terrorist as you look down your gun"
Yes I have had a brits stick their rifles in my face and lost friends killed by British run death squads.
Bennywhale you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[Pirate Smile]

61. Welcome, terrible beauty. Thanks for the rebel song and your input.

:hi:

As in so many issues, it all depends on who you relate to and I've heard a lot of stories from my Irish-American relatives.

[bennywhale]

76. Yes i do. It is you who is blinded by your experiences not me.

I merely add some rationality to any debate on the IRA or Northern Ireland so everyone can see through the moist eyed myth making of the glorious Irish and the devilish Brits.

Rational debate and truth is what i deal in friend, not propaganda and legend.

[Vickers]

7. White terrorists always get special treatment

:eyes:

[ConfuZed]

12. Exactly

If white terrorist pulled off the attacks in london would Jean Charles de Menezes be dead I doubt it.

[Rich Hunt]

25. erm, no

White people who are slandered as terrorists do not in fact get "special treatment". If you were Irish, you might have some inkling of this, but maybe you do anyway.

[fricasseed_gourmet_rat]

31. I'm Irish.

While my family and friends, both in the US and Ireland, don't come anywhere close to condoning the IRA's tactics, they are willing to acknowledge that the group had their reasons. Irish history is full of direct atrocities on the part of the British government and citizenry to deliberately belittle and marginalize the Irish people. Yes, things got a lot better over the course of the 20th century, but the scars are still fresh, and American discrimination against American Muslims or Arab nations really can't compare to what the British did to the Irish for centuries.

There's a line in Bend It Like Beckham (a great movie, by the way) where a British girl of South Asian descent is upset because a girl on a rival soccer team called her by an ethnic slur. Her coach is trying to calm her down, and she tells him he couldn't possibly understand, and he replies calmly with "Yes, I do. I'm Irish."

The IRA, particularly the splinter "Real IRA," is a terrorist group, but it is NOTHING like Al Qaeda. Not at all.

[bennywhale]

34. Deliberate murder of innocent people is

deliberate murder of innocent people.

Whatever reasons the IRA had they murdered people (children included) who had nothing what so ever to do with it.

That is how they compare.

[fricasseed_gourmet_rat]

43. then you can also compare them to the British government

who sat back and ate fish and chips while they let thousands of Irish children starve to death in the 19th century.

[Pirate Smile]

65. They exported food out of Ireland while the Irish starved. Anyone

claiming clean hands is full of shit.

[Guy_Montag]

73. Yeah because you can hold us culpable for the action

or inaction of a small group of our countrymen over 150 years ago.

That's fair.

Incidently the Scots have been treated pretty badly too over the years, don't see us killing children in the name of freedom.

[bennywhale]

81. Who's claiming clean hands? Your post should have a

myth alert on it.

ever hear the one about the landed Irish during the famine?

[allemand]

45. Al-Qaeda would use a nuke without hesitation, while the IRA would have no

use for it. That is the difference.

[bennywhale]

78. Thats true and i've accepted it in another post. but

dead children are dead children.

[two gun sid]

64. And that would apply to the Paras too...

and so would killings of innocents by the RUC, UDA, UVF, UFF, RHC, etc. I don't condone the PIRA, RIRA or INLA bombings or killings but, I think Blair is correct in his statement.

I also see Blair's statement as a message to PIRA to let them know that if they do disband HM's government is not going to go after any of the volunteers with charges of terrorism. It might be it is meant as an inducement for PIRA to disband and decommission.

[bennywhale]

79. As i said ALL INNOCENTS. Every time

i criticise the IRA on DU people assume i support all the actions of the British government.

I do not. I'm from Britain and have a very low view of them. But i still like t deal in facts and in rational debate. i have to contest any lip quivering myth making about glorious freedom fighters blowing young children to peices.

[two gun sid]

83. bennywhale, I appreciate you making that clear to me...

The point I was trying to make was, Blair's statement is meant to help the Peace Process along. Not "Up The 'Ra". Like I said in the post I do not condone the actions of PIRA.

Just as HMG has come to terms with PIRA so will the US and HMG have to come to agreement with AQ. We will not defeat them and they will not defeat us.

I am sorry if you took offense at my post. Please feel free to place me on your ignore list.

[bennywhale]

84. Naaaa. I never have and never will

i like to speak to people i don't agree with. Otherwise we never learn aNYTHING.

[bennywhale]

80. "American discrimination against Arab nations" isn't the point

its the support for the most brutal rulers on the planet in Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships (now including central Asia). And the unquestioning financial, moral and political support for Israel.

Many muslims view the US therefore as responsible for hundreds of thousands of muslim deaths and the oppression of millions. IOn saudi for example people are still stoned to death, lashed to death beheaded in public and crucified.

You may hate English people but you can't let that cloud the fact that the treatment didn't amount to this.

[Vickers]

32. "slandered as terrorists"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[BrightKnight]

8. ...but broad over simplifications are so popular.

People don't want to hear any of that nuanced crap. Define the enemy as simply as possible and hit it with a big stick.

He obviously doesn't understand the Bush doctrine.

[Rex]

9. Not the same but both use terror tactics, same as the UK & US.

Blair is a fucking hypocrite - he sides with Bush and is a war criminal. We do terror on a daily basis in Iraq. Haven't heard anything from the IRA but talks of peace lately. Al Qaeda probably grows by leaps and bounds thanks to Bush & Blair.

[bpj1962]

23. IRA is not Al Qaeda

Here is some historical perspective. My grandfather fought in the war of indepedance. He was a freestater and to his death he beleived that Ireland should one country. Although the current IRA has engaged in terroristic activities over since 1969 its primary goal has simply been to get the British out of the six counties of Ulster. The IRA today operates more like the mafia. They run protection rackets as well as the drug trade. This is primarily due to their source of funds drying up after 9/11.

[CONN]

87. links?

My grandfather and his brother (OC 4th N. Div) fought in the war of independence. They were were initially neutral when the civil war broke out, but after being double-crossed by the freestaters (Dundalk jail break-out) they joined with the rebels.

Anyhow I'd to see some supporting, reliable documentation on the IRA being involved in drugs. It's not my understanding of the reality.

[NNN0LHI]

17. Don't want to be shooting any suspected Catholic bombers in the head

There would be hell to pay.

Don

[LisaM]

24. Maybe the rumors that he is converting to Catholicism are true

which would explain his statements. I did hear quotes from many Londoners after 7/7 saying, "oh, we're used to terrorism", as if the two things were remotely equitable.

[bennywhale]

37. Bombs are bombs. No matter who plants them and no matterc which

particular innocent person is blown up. That makes them remotely equitable.

[CONN]

51. bombs are bombs...

And the USA sure makes and uses more than anyone else. Talk about terroizing innocent people - seems US had no problem taking out a residential block in Bagdad because they thought Saddam was there.

I also believe the IRA was out to hurt British economically - gave warning so that authorities could clear the targeted area.

[bennywhale]

77. Sometimes gave a warning often didn't

[CONN]

82. And you know?

Quantify often... back it up. I think yer speaking out ye arse

[bennywhale]

85. Birmingham Bull Ring for a start. 27 people

mainly young out for a drink on a Friday night. In three pubs, similtaneous bombs exploded spreading body parts of groups of friends across the bar.

Warrington = two young boys killed 12 and 7 i think. (90s) No warning of bomb in litter bin in shopping street. Boys off to buy trainers (sneakers) they had saved with their pocket money.

Omagh (RIRA) high street 29 killed without warning. Including 4 generations of one family.

Also see posty 16 "rarely killed innocent people list" for more

You, my friend are speaking out of your arse. Don't be tempted by myth. (i know its exciting but..) Always look for facts

[CONN]

86. Hmmm

There was a warning for Omagh - in that case it probably made matters worse. Don't know about others.

Warrington -- there was a warning according to the BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm

That's more than Rosemary Nelson or Patrick Finucane got from the Royal (and loyal) Ulster Constbulary

[bennywhale]

88. I see. So Pat Finucane being murdered (which, if you read my other posts

i would never dream of defending) is worse than 29 people being massacred on a shopping street in Omagh.

I notice you didn't mention the Bull ring massacre in Birmingham. That was a particularly pleasant result for those righteous Irish warriors.

It would probably wise if you stopped defending the slaughter of innocent people straight away before you say something you regret about the IRA and reveal something nasty about yourself

[Puzzler]

36. Has anyone thought that...

... the British government may have actually turned to some people in the IRA for help? I know it sounds odd... but it's possible.


-P

[Matilda]

66. Seems he's differentiating solely on the grounds that the IRA

doesn't engage in suicide bombing.

The causes are the same, and so are the results - the colonial
mentality, the belief that powerful countries have a right to reshape
the world in their own image, and the result is the pent-up rage
and frustration of those who want control over their own countries.

If Iran can be taken as a guide, it is worrying that the end result
could well be extremist regimes taking power in the ME, country by
country. It was Britain and the US who removed the democratically
elected socialist Mossadegh from Iran, and installed the Shah in
his place. When the people had finally had enough of the Shah's
brutal regime, they threw him out and brought in Khomeini. So you
could say that by their interference, the US and Britain made Khomeini possible. And the current regime is only marginally less
hardline than Khomeini.

It mystifies me why we can't just do business with these countries -
why the need to have total control?

[emad]

71. Poodle getting desperate.

Don't think anyone trusts him any more.