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.
|
reply to post by FredT
I agree with you regarding one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter.
However, I must admit that public opinion regarding when terrorist actions are considerd reasonable/excusable/passable still stumps me. I had thought
that there may be some underlying complex rationale or psychology behind this - but the more I read, the more I start thinking that the key factors
are as simple as whether (a) they agree with the underlying principles and (b) whether it's affecting them in any way. Of course, I'm willing to be
corrected and pointed in the right direction if my thinking is erroneous 
If that assumption is correct, then it's a case of killing/maiming/devastating is excusable to some extent as long as it doesn't impact me and mine,
and I agree with the core cause. But when you kill/maim/harm me and I don't agree with your core cause, it's wrong. Ah, hypocrisy... 
I agree with you too regarding the media. Although I'm not well versed on the US general public opinion of the IRA during the troubles, it would be
interesting to ascertain what the degree of support was, for as I understand there was a sigificant amount of provo propaganda reported at the time.
From a more personal perspective, most of the people I am talking to at the moment are declaring a support for the PLO - support which they openly
admit they have based on the reports they have read or watched in recent days. As I stated earlier, IMO there seems to be a bias in the UK media on
this issue at the moment. It could therefore be possible that such bias is significantly influencing personal opinions regarding terrorist
activity.
If media bias does significantly influence public opinion on these matters, it would be very interesting to establish why the bias is loaded where it
is. Ah, conspiracy... I love it
|
