- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Religious fanaticism, Islam and the IRA
Posted on 12/19/14 at 10:36 am to trackfan
Posted on 12/19/14 at 10:36 am to trackfan
quote:
Pubs are civilian targets, regardless of who happens to be in them. If you want to kill soldiers, you should target military bases, which is what Nidal Hasan did, lest you think it was okay for Al Qaeda to bring down the WTC because there were some federal agencies housed there.
Dude I'm not justifying what the IRA did, I'm differentiating. I believe there is a level of hatred and a different worldview that leads to dehumanization in the eyes of Palestinian terror groups that is greater than that of the other entities. The nature of attacks by the respective groups generally supports that premise.
0
Posted on 12/19/14 at 11:10 am to TrueTiger
quote:
IRA was more political than religious.
There just isn't that much difference between the Catholic v. Anglican Church.
The stupidity on this board is just shocking.
To the OP: you complain after insulting Muslims that you got a bit of your own medicine? Grow up.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 11:27 am to Bayou Sam
Posted on 12/19/14 at 12:42 pm to Iosh
Man, I had no idea that there was a feeling of kinship between the Palestinians and the Irish republicans. Strikes me as incredibly bizarre. Just goes to show that liberals are retarded the world around.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:39 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Man, I had no idea that there was a feeling of kinship between the Palestinians and the Irish republicans. Strikes me as incredibly bizarre. Just goes to show that liberals are retarded the world around.
The IRA were/are some pretty sick fricks. They exported a lot of their knowledge, equipment, and people to all sorts of shady groups (FARC, Khaddafi's Libya, etc, etc).
They were largely able to do it because Seamus McPaddyPants in New York and Boston thought it was super cool to give money "for the old country" and get shitefaced in pubs and sing bad songs without realizing who exactly they were actually supporting.
A not insignificant amount of Petraeus' strategy in Iraq was based off what the British Army did in Ulster during the Troubles (also what they did in the Malay peninsula). A significant chunk of methods, strategy, and so forth can be directly traced from modern Islamist groups (of all stripes) back to the old IRA (also to the FLN during the brutal French-Algerian War - pretty underrated conflict considering importance in its own right).
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:14 pm to constant cough
quote:
Right. Areas that have high concentrations of diversity are also areas have have high levels of ethnic and religious strife.
Yet the people all look the same
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:18 pm to AbuTheMonkey
True, the French-Algerian war is a bizarre chapter in history. Speaks volumes to the bankruptcy of liberal academia liberal that Jean-Paul Sartre is still commonly studied and respected as one of the great minds of the 20th century after his involvement with the FLN.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:24 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
If you watch that old movie The Battle of Algiers you will be amazed.
You can see the same fight that's going on now. It's the same old meat grinder with a new generation being processed by it.
You can see the same fight that's going on now. It's the same old meat grinder with a new generation being processed by it.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 3:51 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The religious undertone will always be there as it dates back hundreds of years.
The Irish had been singing drinking songs about robbing and killing English landowners for generations before Henry VIII was born.
The strict division along religious lines is new.
Charles Stewart Parnell was a Protestant.
Wolfe Tone was a Protestant.
William Butler Yeats was a fricking wizard.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 5:01 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
My head is most definitely not in the sand. Also, civilians and innocents aren't necessarily the same thing.
Mohamed would be very proud of you
The attitudes on display here trying to whitewash the killing of over 650 civilians by a campain of indiscriminate bombings is EXACTLY what is going on in the Arab Muslim world. Somehow people are supposed to forget bombs in busses, supermarkets, cars parked randomly on the side of the road etc.
The " My side only kills the bad guys so it is ok" shite is the exact same thing as Al Queda supporters in the middle east. Let us not also forget the IRA ties to Kaddafi and his bunch in Libya. There are quite a few people who have tied the IRA to the downing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland LINK
Here are a few of their actions
1973, March 8: two IRA car bombs in London explode outside the Old Bailey and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one person and wounding more than 150
1974, October 5: two IRA bombs explode in pubs in the London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured
November 21: two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180
1982, July 20: two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilian onlookers
1983, December 17: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrods department store, killing six people and wounding about 100
1984 October 12: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher
1989, September 22: the IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30
1991, February 7: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No 10 Downing Street, the British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries
1992, April 10: a massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of pounds worth in damage
April 24: an IRA truck bomb in London's financial district, killing one and causing heavy damage
1996, February 9: IRA ends a 17-month ceasefire with a third massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two
February 18: an IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured
June 15: for the first time, the IRA targets a different English city - Manchester - with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200
Great buch of guys
Posted on 12/19/14 at 6:05 pm to Bayou Sam
It's hard to read this and think anything except: you havent studied terrorism or its origins very strongly. To be fair, the OP admitted as much.
First off--the guy saying "The 6 counties said no thanks". That's a, uhhh, curious? way to describe what happened. The British sold land that didn't belong them to people loyal to the crown in Ireland so that they could subjugate the populace. Those people's descendants were understandably not terribly pro-Independence for Ireland. With that said, there was no vote on what should happen with the 6 counties. Rather, there was a Treaty. Signed by Michael Collins, it ensured independence for the other 26 counties, but left the 6 predominantly Protestant counties in British hands. There was no vote, never has been. That's part of why people are so annoyed. It is very similar to what has happened in Russia, where they intentionally (and often forcibly) moved ethnic Russians into the peninsula and later took de-facto control of it in order to "protect" said Russians, while funding militant groups to scare/intimidate native Ukrainians.
Secondly -- Let's not pretend the IRA was the only terrorist group operating during The Troubles. There was also the INLA (Pro-Irish), the UDA (Loyalist), UVA (Loyalist), Red Hand Army (Loyalist), and numerous others. The Loyalist factions often received either direct or tacit support from British military forces in the 6 counties.
Thirdly -- that tacit support was only necessary, of course, when the British military wasn't actively murdering innocent civilians, such as at the Bloody Sunday massacre.
Fourthly -- The IRA was far from monolithic. There was considerable disagreement within the rank and file about what the strategies, goals, and methods should be. Some internal groups fiercely disagreed with killing of any civilians, others wanted to kneecap anyone who even spoke to a Protestant.
Lastly, I'll say this--in his book Dying to Win, Robert Pape analyzes extensively the reasons why suicide bombers (and other terrorists) do what they do. His conclusion (And the conclusion of most experts) is that the religious angle is a recruiting tacit and a genuine feeling, but that the violence originates from a feeling of injustice over the *perceived* occupation of a homeland.
This is true of the Irish in the IRA, the Basques in the ETA, the Tamils in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam--and yes, it's true of the Muslim extremists as well. This does *NOT* mean that I think it's okay to kill innocent civilians, it is abhorrent! It's just as abhorrent when the USA drone strikes a Yemeni village and kills civilians, though, the distinction is moot. Terrorism, be it State or otherwise, is disgusting.
First off--the guy saying "The 6 counties said no thanks". That's a, uhhh, curious? way to describe what happened. The British sold land that didn't belong them to people loyal to the crown in Ireland so that they could subjugate the populace. Those people's descendants were understandably not terribly pro-Independence for Ireland. With that said, there was no vote on what should happen with the 6 counties. Rather, there was a Treaty. Signed by Michael Collins, it ensured independence for the other 26 counties, but left the 6 predominantly Protestant counties in British hands. There was no vote, never has been. That's part of why people are so annoyed. It is very similar to what has happened in Russia, where they intentionally (and often forcibly) moved ethnic Russians into the peninsula and later took de-facto control of it in order to "protect" said Russians, while funding militant groups to scare/intimidate native Ukrainians.
Secondly -- Let's not pretend the IRA was the only terrorist group operating during The Troubles. There was also the INLA (Pro-Irish), the UDA (Loyalist), UVA (Loyalist), Red Hand Army (Loyalist), and numerous others. The Loyalist factions often received either direct or tacit support from British military forces in the 6 counties.
Thirdly -- that tacit support was only necessary, of course, when the British military wasn't actively murdering innocent civilians, such as at the Bloody Sunday massacre.
Fourthly -- The IRA was far from monolithic. There was considerable disagreement within the rank and file about what the strategies, goals, and methods should be. Some internal groups fiercely disagreed with killing of any civilians, others wanted to kneecap anyone who even spoke to a Protestant.
Lastly, I'll say this--in his book Dying to Win, Robert Pape analyzes extensively the reasons why suicide bombers (and other terrorists) do what they do. His conclusion (And the conclusion of most experts) is that the religious angle is a recruiting tacit and a genuine feeling, but that the violence originates from a feeling of injustice over the *perceived* occupation of a homeland.
This is true of the Irish in the IRA, the Basques in the ETA, the Tamils in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam--and yes, it's true of the Muslim extremists as well. This does *NOT* mean that I think it's okay to kill innocent civilians, it is abhorrent! It's just as abhorrent when the USA drone strikes a Yemeni village and kills civilians, though, the distinction is moot. Terrorism, be it State or otherwise, is disgusting.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 6:08 pm to cave canem
I hope no one in here is defending the actions where the IRA killed innocent civilians. That's asinine. With that said, at least apply consistency and also take aim at the various drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan we've conducted lately. Or the dropping of the Nuclear Bomb on a civilian populace. And I dont want to hear "That was war!"--these groups think they are at war too. We should be better than that.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:00 pm to AmericanHoop
quote:
With that said, at least apply consistency and also take aim at the various drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan we've conducted lately
I truly do not beleive they are targeting the civilian populations, yes there are and will be casulties but they are kept as low as possible.
Setting off a bomb in front of the worlds largest department store during rush hour is intending to kill civilians, there was no other reason to do it. I am sorry if you are unable to discern the difference.
quote:
Or the dropping of the Nuclear Bomb on a civilian populace
We should be better than that.
Agreed and do not think it will ever happen again after the world saw the aftermath
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:30 am to cave canem
quote:quote:
My head is most definitely not in the sand. Also, civilians and innocents aren't necessarily the same thing.
Mohamed would be very proud of you
The attitudes on display here trying to whitewash the killing of over 650 civilians by a campain of indiscriminate bombings is EXACTLY what is going on in the Arab Muslim world. Somehow people are supposed to forget bombs in busses, supermarkets, cars parked randomly on the side of the road etc.
The " My side only kills the bad guys so it is ok" shite is the exact same thing as Al Queda supporters in the middle east.
Well said. George Orwell summed up this mindset perfectly in his Notes on Nationalism:
"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.... A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind."
The truth of the matter is that we don't despise groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS because of how they kill, we despise them because of who they kill and what they kill for. If Al Qaeda acquired a fleet of fighter jets, tanks and battleships and pledged to adhere to the Geneva's Convention, only attacking military targets, we would still despise them, because we reject what they stand for, not how they kill. Nidal Hasan only killed active duty soldiers on a military base but he's held in the same contempt as the folks who are beheading journalists in Iraq. On the other hand, many folks on this board believe the U.S. was morally justified in incinerating 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima in Nagasaki, because it was done for "the right cause". Similarly, torture under W's administration is also condoned because of who we do it to and why we do it to them.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:59 am to TrueTiger
quote:I can see the equation though.
IRA was more political than religious.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 8:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I can see the equation though.
Thank goodness.
You would have thought I said religion had nothing to do with it. Clearly I did not.
If they had been left alone, no one would have heard a peep from the Irish Catholics, but the British went and kicked the ant pile.
The muslims on the other hand, are hell bent on spreading Islam. No need to go around kicking, that ant pile will come to you.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 8:38 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Thank goodness.
You would have thought I said religion had nothing to do with it. Clearly I did not.
If they had been left alone, no one would have heard a peep from the Irish Catholics, but the British went and kicked the ant pile.
I agree with this, but my point is that the British were motivated by religion, and the Irish-Catholics just reacted to the way the British treated them.
quote:
The muslims on the other hand, are hell bent on spreading Islam. No need to go around kicking, that ant pile will come to you.
When you use phrases like "the Muslims" in this context, it sounds like you lumping all Muslims, or at the very least all Muslim political movements and terrorist groups together, which I think is misguided. Some Muslim groups are analogous to the IRA and some aren't.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 8:45 am to trackfan
quote:
it sounds like you lumping all Muslims
I agree with you.
Therefore I am reviving an old english term, "Mohammedans".
I will use this term refer to the subgroup of radical muslims who are hellbent on religious conquest using terrorism and subjugation.
So, when you see this term from me, I don't mean the muslims who don't give a damn about all that and are happy to join me in eating bacon and drinking booze. (I've hung out with those kind, they are OK)
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News