Terrorists - Drawing Parallels.

Terrorism didn't start on Sept 11th 2001. Its not just carried out by Muslims.

I'd like readers to take a look at this;

Wikipedia - Chronology of Provisional IRA actions

I'm going to draw a parallel here, between the actions of the IRA in Ireland and the actions of Hezbollah in Palestine.

Some, but not all, of the Irish people supported the IRA, as some of the Palestinians may support Hezbollah.

The Provisional IRA stored arms, and had its bases in civilian areas.

The Provisional IRA carried out cross border attacks on security installations, and shot and killed troops stationed in a soverign nation (Northern Ireland) and also on the UK mainland and in other countries as well.

The IRA killed civilians indiscriminately, and had no regard for life or property.

They very nearly assassinated the entire British Government the Brighton bomb attack.

These are valid parallels, and speaking as someone who was evacuated from the centre of Manchester when it was bombed, and had also been in Warrington on the day of the bombing just prior to the explosions there, I can speak for the part of the person who experienced the "terror" I can tell you that it was not pleasant wondering if I was going to be blown to pieces.

Now, given current thinking and current rhetoric about terrorism, am I right in thinking that a large chunk of the posters on ATS would have backed Britian bombing sections of Dublin, and other parts of Ireland, and carrying out a limited invasion to ensure a "safety buffer". This bombing would have, of course, included bombing some civilian areas because the IRA cowards (they never appeared in public without having their faces masked) mixed with civilians.

Of course, it would go without saying that the Irish government would have had no right to complain about Vulcans and Tornados levelling parts of their nation because although they didn't actively support the terrorists, they tolerated their open presence in their country,

Am I also right in the assumption that had someone in the UK - given the actions of the IRA - said "whilst its true that not all Catholics are terrorists, all terrorists are Catholic", that it would have been lauded by a large section of the ATS community?

And please don't tell me the IRA were/are different than Hezbollah. A terrorist scumbag is a terrorist scumbag.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by neformore]

I heard that at some point in the IRA terror era, only seven people were involved in terrorist activity. It shows how hard it is to fight terrorism. It was only in dealing with the root cause that Britain were able overcome this threat.

Personally I like to draw parallels with the west spreading democracy throughout the middle east and the old classic of the crusades.

Your post certainly deserves applause, neforemore. Excellent paralells, although a few minor and trivial corrections.

Hammas is the Palestinian terror organization. Hezbollah are the Shia Lebanese/Iranian group that were formed to drive the Israelis out of southern Lebanon years ago.

Anyway, here is my take on your post.

First off, I want to establish something. Did the Irish government either support, secretly or openly, the IRA, or did they tolerate them and do nothing to crack down on them? If so, Britian would have, in a neutral stance, been in its right to bomb the hell out of Dublin if its government was basically giving the IRA a green light.

However, we come to the success of the bombings. Would they wipe out the IRA? No. But they would drive those Irish who didn't support the IRA in the first place over to the other side. Great recruitment tool.

So yeah, Britian would have had a right to bomb, but bombing would have achieved the opposite effect, and thus, would be pointless and costly.

You don't hit a fly with a sledgehammer, you delicately smack it with a swatter. Its the same with terrorism. You dont send in full military assaults on places where terrorists might kick it. Terrorists live in the shadows, and those shadows are where special surgical strike teams of assassins should be sent to slowly and relentlessly hunt them down with precision and equal ruthlessness, if the government harboring them wont do anything about it.

Covert Ops: They just aint for smuggling drugs into the country anymore.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
First off, I want to establish something. Did the Irish government either support, secretly or openly, the IRA, or did they tolerate them and do nothing to crack down on them? If so, Britian would have, in a neutral stance, been in its right to bomb the hell out of Dublin if its government was basically giving the IRA a green light.

Whilst the Irish Government did not openly support the IRA, you can be sure that certain sections of it had sympathy to the cause. Of course, the "official" stance was against it. Its what we see in Lebanon now in effect with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

I am suprised no one has challenged my post though. To suggest such an action was justified even 10 years ago would have been met with outrage I'm sure. Times sure have changed.

Originally posted by neformore
Whilst the Irish Government did not openly support the IRA, you can be sure that certain sections of it had sympathy to the cause. Of course, the "official" stance was against it. Its what we see in Lebanon now in effect with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

I am suprised no one has challenged my post though. To suggest such an action was justified even 10 years ago would have been met with outrage I'm sure. Times sure have changed.

Well not really. There is political and social justification and moral justification.

Politically such a bombing would have been justified. However, like I said, the effects would have been the opposite. Thus, bombing Ireland would have been a bad call anyway.

Moral justification would not fit here. There is no morality and randomly bombing a country.

But Im sure you have figured out, morality and politics are as opposite as day and nite.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Well not really. There is political and social justification and moral justification.

Politically such a bombing would have been justified. However, like I said, the effects would have been the opposite. Thus, bombing Ireland would have been a bad call anyway.

Moral justification would not fit here. There is no morality and randomly bombing a country.

But Im sure you have figured out, morality and politics are as opposite as day and nite.

The thing is that - with certain sections of the ATS community - there seems to be a considered moral AND political justification for such actions, and this is what I'm driving at.

If the IRA became active again and broke their ceasefire now, and the UK decided to take such actions as Israel has done, would we see a groundswell of support for it?

Originally posted by neformore

The thing is that - with certain sections of the ATS community - there seems to be a considered moral AND political justification for such actions, and this is what I'm driving at.

If the IRA became active again and broke their ceasefire now, and the UK decided to take such actions as Israel has done, would we see a groundswell of support for it?

I agree. There are individuals with a twisted sense of morality that would find such a thing moral and justified. A dangerous mindset when combined with political doctrine. Because ultimately, morality dies when joined with such a companion.

But I highly doubt there would be any support, or at least widespread support, for such a thing in the UK. Hell, there is barely any support for Iraq here either.

Personally, like I said before, I favor undercover black ops deposited in the country that harbors the terrorists. Snuck in and then left to hunt down the individuals, whether the host country approves or not. They need not be told.

Sure, its controversial. But in my opinion, is alot better and more effective to surgically hit and kill individuals responsible than it is wiping out entire neighborhoods and cities full of people who have nothing to do with it.

I would guess a major stumbling block to British action against the Irish Republic would have been the powerful Irish lobby within the US.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
I would guess a major stumbling block to British action against the Irish Republic would have been the powerful Irish lobby within the US.

Yes. The same Irish Lobby in the US who used NORAID to fund the IRA while the US government left legal loopholes open to allow them to do it. Imagine that - sections of the US supporting terrorism - hard to believe huh, given the current stance.

Maybe Britian should have considered hitting sections of America as well.

You see- thinking with these parralells suddenly undermines a whole way of thinking and this is whats wrong with the way the world is today.

As far as I recall:
The IRA never used rockets against British residential areas. Or any rockets for that matter.
The IRA never denied the UKs right to exist in the UK.
The IRA did not have support from bordering nations who supplied them high-tech arms.
The IRA was not a proxy army for an enemy of the UK.
I could be wrong but was the UK ever condemned for defending itself against Irish aggressions in the UN?

There may be a parallel but this parallel is very small. Hezbullah has weapons which the IRA never had and if they did they would have never used (like rockets which they had but did not use).

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
As far as I recall:
The IRA never used rockets against British residential areas. Or any rockets for that matter.

No. They just bombed malls and residential areas randomly and killed alot of people. Women and children included.

The IRA never denied the UKs right to exist in the UK.

No. They denied the UK's right to exist in Northern Ireland, even though the majority of Northern Irish want to be part of the UK. The goal of the IRA is a totally united Ireland under one flag.

The IRA did not have support from bordering nations who supplied them high-tech arms.

They got most of their support from a very rich nation called the U.S. They also trained and did weapons deals with the Libyans, the PLO, and other assorted reprobates. And they did have their share of high tech stuff.

The IRA was not a proxy army for an enemy of the UK.

One can argue against that.

I could be wrong but was the UK ever condemned for defending itself against Irish aggressions in the UN?

No. It instead recieved condemnation from alot of other people.

There may be a parallel but this parallel is very small. Hezbullah has weapons which the IRA never had and if they did they would have never used (like rockets which they had but did not use).

No, the paralell is striking. You downplay the role the IRA once had, but you are incorrect. The IRA hadc the weapons and would have used them when the time was right.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
As far as I recall:
The IRA never used rockets against British residential areas. Or any rockets for that matter.

The IRA did posess and use rockets both in Northern Ireland as well as the mainland UK and elsewhere in Europe.

members.tripod.com...
www.emigrant.ie...
www.sundaylife.co.uk...

amongst others...

You may also wich to consider the mortar bomb attack on 10 Downing Street
irelandsown.net...

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
As far as I recall:
The IRA never used rockets against British residential areas. Or any rockets for that matter.
The IRA never denied the UKs right to exist in the UK.
The IRA did not have support from bordering nations who supplied them high-tech arms.
The IRA was not a proxy army for an enemy of the UK.
I could be wrong but was the UK ever condemned for defending itself against Irish aggressions in the UN?

There may be a parallel but this parallel is very small. Hezbullah has weapons which the IRA never had and if they did they would have never used (like rockets which they had but did not use).

Your ignorance is almost as blinding as your apparent hatred for all things Muslim and your need to spout Israeli propaganda.

Did you actually read my original post, and follow the link to the Wikipedia page that detailed every single IRA action? Obviously not.

Good post (I followed your link from Judah's 'salute the baby-killers' post).

The parallels are obvious as are the different reponses from the target countries: one sought a measured proportionate response with the aim of ending terrorist activity, the other takes a nazi 'collective punishment' model as its base and accomplishes a bit of lebensraum along the way.

What is startling is the astonishing hypocrisy of successive US administrations - truly one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

The failure to close down NORAID while squaddies were being shot and 10 YO kids never came from shopping trips was truly galling.

To then demand our help in their holy war against Islam just shows what America actually means by friendship

Following the logic of many posters on ATS we would have been entirely justified in bombing Dublin and Boston - oh wait, if we did the UN would have suddenly found no bar to stopping us.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Strangerous]

I still stand by what I said.

IRA did not indiscriminantly rocket attack British residential areas. Their attacks concentrated on the Military. Hezbullah's primary attacks are against Israel's residential areas which provides no military benefit. Hezbullah's support of Palestinians in bombing Malls and Cafes may be a parallel as you talk about.

More significantly is the the IRA never claimed right to the entire UK or denied the UKs right to exist in all of the UK as Hezbullah does. This issue itself makes any negotiation impossible.

In addition, Hezbullah acts under the service of Syria and Iran. Iran claims time and time again that Israel must be destroyed. How does this parallel IRA.

If the UK withdrew from Ireland the issue would be closed. Israel withdrew from Lebanon to the full extent of the UN's requirements.
THERE IS NO PARALLEL - Only a tactical one. On a strategic level this is one of the stages in the Islamifacist quest to destroy Israel.

I see clear parrallels here. All of them no, no 2 situations are ever the completely the same.

What's the beef Judah? Is Israel the only target for terrorism in the world?

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
IRA did not indiscriminantly rocket attack British residential areas.

Rocket attacks were largely aimed at police and military - but many bombs were indiscriminate both in NI and on the mainland - the fact that there was no rocket engine attached is of limited comfort to those involved.

Or any rockets for that matter...

...Their attacks concentrated on the Military

Clearly you do not stand by what you said

the IRA never claimed right to the entire UK or denied the UKs right to exist

True enough but it did deny the right of the province of Northern Ireland to exist - furthermore, Eire maintained a constitutional claim to the territory until very recently. If you were a loyalist/protestant citizen of NI that amounted to exactly the same thing.

Hezbullah acts under the service of Syria and Iran

Also true but hardly relevent. Members of Eire's government covertly assisted the IRA as did many of its citizens. The IRA was also funded and armed by the likes of Lybia and the good citizens of the USA.

If the UK withdrew from Ireland the issue would be closed.

Sorry, but you really let yourself down here - the majority protestant/loyalist population of NI would never accpet unification. The issue would be anything but closed as the loyalist paramilitaries were in many cases more brutal and indiscriminate than the IRA itself - the problem would simply be refocussed with the violence continuing.

THERE IS NO PARALLEL - Only a tactical one.

Look, either there is a parallel or there isn't, please make your mind up.

What is the problem in accepting the obvious? There are parallels and differences, nobody suggested that the two situations were identical. Does Israel have some kind of monopoly over the concept of being victimised?

I'll say it simply:
ON A TACTICAL LEVEL THERE IS A PARALLEL BUT NOT ON A STRATEGIC LEVEL.

This mid-east conflict is not about christians vs christians shiites vs sunnis or alawis vs druze. It is a conflict of Muslims against Jews. While the Irish and some US private citizens were against the British does not compare on a strategic level to that of Syria and Iran as well asAL-qaida, Hamas, Palestinians. Iran can provide high quality intelligence, training, equipment and logistical support. Lybia is a joke.

Therefore on a strategic level there is no parallel.

Too symplistic Judah. It was not Christian vs Christian, it was Catholic vs Protestant(been going on for centuries). The Catholic side getting MAJOR funding from Irish and their decendants living elsewhere. I don't get your problem with accepting this.

A good point timeless test - the point of victimhood.

The UK saw it simply as a fight between two opposing forces, we adapted our tactics and military stance and defeated PIRA (thanks, bizarely to John Major changing the SAS's ROE), once that was done we were also big enough to seek a political setlement - ie our sole objective was to end the killing and let people get on with living their lives. We also proscribed nationalist terror groups where previously (it has to be said) there had been collusion and tacit support between UDR forces and UVF, UFF etc.

FWIW the NI Nationalists seem, to me, very similar to hard-line Israelis (often recent immigrants from countries with a history of terrible racism). The trick is not to listen to your own extremists either. As I understand it it's entirely legal for all Israeli jews to have and carry assault rifles but any Arab with a gun is a terrorist.

Israel does seem addicted to playing the victim and unfortunately this plays very well in the US. The nazi death camps were over 60 years ago, the allies stood well back rather than taking any preventative action, and many other groups suffered in them too (some proportionally more than the jews). These are facts rarely mentioned by Israel. History is played for its maximum impact to suit their current agenda.

Only today we had Nettanyahou (sp?) on BBC radio who insisted on bringing the nazi actions into the current debate about Lebanon and used this deflection technique to wind down time on the interview and stall him answering for the IDF's excesses in the current campaign.

There is another path if only Israel could see it / was made to choose the harder road