Current events have started me thinking about the general public’s perception and opinion of paramilitary organisations and terrorist actions. In particular, I started wondering:

a) How public opinion towards paramilitary organisations and terrorist action is determined.
b) Whether public opinion is less outraged/more understanding about terrorist activity when they support/have sympathy with the organisation’s core cause.

Before I explain the rationale on which my queries are founded, I think it’s important to address any erroneous implications sooner rather than later:

• I do not believe that the fact any group is considered a terrorist faction/paramilitary organisation, nullifies their core belief. I do however believe that the utilisation of terrorist actions reduces the impact of any core belief.
• I do not equate supporting a core cause to supporting any terrorist action utilised to sustain that cause.
• I understand that a paramilitary organisation can also be the recipient of unacceptable action. Whilst I believe that necessary force is sometimes required, I do not believe that “two rights make a wrong”.
• My queries are not necessarily concerned with the “rights” and “wrongs” of any parties, but more with the perceptions involved when a party is considered a paramilitary organisation.

Now that’s cleared, please find the basis for my queries below:

Growing up in the UK, I was aware of the IRA, their actions and their cause. However, I was raised without judgement of the actual cause, having only an innate natural judgement of the physical actions that caused harm and chaos. When I was old enough to research things for myself, I understood and appreciated the core cause of the Provos. I do not understand the many violent things they have done.

However, as you know, this intolerance for violence was not echoed everywhere. In the US, NORAID – an Irish American fundraising organisation – provided funding to the Provos. The weapons acquired by the Provisional IRA in the early 1970’s were procured from supporters in the USA. Other supporters also provided funding and arms; however, the majority were also considered paramilitary organisations. It is well documented that the American support was diluted by the events of 9/11 and America’s War on Terrorism.

Obviously the majority of the USA – and the world – were devastated by the events of 9/11. When Al-Qaeda was identified as perpetrator, resolution was naturally sought and the War on Terrorism ensued. Again, whilst appreciating the core belief of Islam, I am unable to understand the subsequent extremist beliefs and actions. I assume I would be correct in concluding that only extremist followers of Islam were supporters of these extremist beliefs and actions.

In terms of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the PLO is considered to be a terrorist organisation. This includes the USA, who most recently declared the PLO a terrorist organisation in 1994. The PLO has perpetrated multiple terrorist acts. They have also been subject to non-terrorist attacks.

IMO, much of the news about the recent activities in the Israel-Palestine region have demonstrated a compassion for the Palestinian cause. There has been a significant reporting of the destruction caused to, and atrocities faced by the PLO and its supporters. There have been demonstrations in the UK, defending the PLO cause. There has also been a reported increase in anti-Semitic crime. At the same time, IMO, there has been negligible coverage of the background to the actions of the Israelis. Such reporting could be considered inequitable and certainly, IMO, appears to represent a bias towards the PLO cause. I would hasten to add that I am not stating support for either “side” – I am simply “saying it as I see it”.

[edit on 7/1/09 by lizziejayne]

Continued:


So there we have it - three different terrorist/paramilitary organisations, all perpetrators of heinous acts and crimes. And yet, here we are today, with seemingly different public opinion regarding their acts and welfare:

• The IRA – apparently opposed in the UK and accepted by certain non-paramilitary groups elsewhere.
• Al-Qaeda – apparently supported by only extremist followers of Islam.
• PLO – Media exposure suggests defence by the “majority”.

So – genuine question - why is this? Is public opinion of terrorist action influenced by their support of the terrorists’ core cause/ perceived validity of the core cause? Is it unconsciously influenced by their perception of the “recipients” of the terrorism? It is concerned with how retaliation/resolution impacts on non-combatants/non-militants?

Personally, I believe if there is a level of consensus in what influences public opinion, then I there's every possibility to consider that this is already being utilised by "the powers that be" to mould our perception and reactions.

I welcome your discussion – to both resolve these queries and to correct and/or further my knowledge in this area.

I am willing to accept that my logic and/or understanding might be flawed. I only ask that you explain why (hopefully nicely ) – after all, we’re all here to DENY IGNORANCE.

[edit on 7/1/09 by lizziejayne]

Its a combination of things. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

The media has a huge impact on this.