4 ms·

Why do you assume that all terrorists live in places with caves and goats? The CIRA, RIRA, Irrintzi, and many other such organizations are still active. Assumi

Why do you assume that all terrorists live in places with caves and goats? The CIRA, RIRA, Irrintzi, and many other such organizations are still active. Assuming the big risk of terrorism is Islamic extremism (and originating from the Middle East) is a naïve, American-centric view: plenty of us live our lives more threatened by local separatist groups than by Islamic extremism. The big risk in the UK today is still Irish separatist groups, likewise in the Basque country. Ignoring all that: I still don't think attacking terrorists relentlessly is ever beneficial. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the saying goes: they are driven not to destroy, but to get their aims. The IRA were never going to be defeated by force: by killing the nationalist freedom fighters you inherently radicalized more, and the same is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq to an even bigger degree. To many, it's not a case of evil infidels attacking, but rather the evil foreign aggressor killing their friends and family — if a foreign country attacked yours, claiming to rid you of evil and imposing their morals on you, would you stand by as they killed people you knew, under the promise of a better land? This is how the coalition forces are seen by many, especially in Iraq. Defeating terrorism by force is like defeating the Hydra by force: everyone you kill radicalizes two more.

anu_gupta 14y ago
I think the IRA and the ANC are great examples to suggest that violence and "relentless attack" aren't necessarily the best options when trying to combat "terrorism".
- gsnedders 14y ago
  The IRA are a brilliant example of this in how they became popular: they had very little support when they took (British) Dublin, by force, in Easter 1916. Yet, after the execution (for high treason) of the leaders, when some were still badly wounded from the British counter-attack, turned far more against the British than had ever been before: the British turned those freedom fighters who few supported into martyrs for their cause.
anigbrowl 14y ago
As an Irish person, I disagree. The IRA had a very specific territorial objective: ending British rule in Northern Ireland. The Taliban are not articulating an alternative approach to Afghan nationalism, they're religious radicals that think it's OK to assassinate 12 year old girls, stone unmarried lovers to death, and behead their political opponents. When the freedoms you're fighting for consist exclusively of oppressing other people, then your cause is bankrupt. Pull out a map of the region. The main reason the taliban got to be so powerful is that Pakistan's ISI (intelligence agency) considered a Taliban-run Afghanistan strategically useful in the ongoing struggle between Pakistan and India over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. PS don't assume that because I'm Irish I supported the IRA's objective - quite the opposite, in fact.
- blibble 14y ago
  no, instead the IRA were religious radicals that thought it was OK to place car bombs in Central London, Manchester, and countless other cities, murdering hundreds of innocent people going about their daily business. The Taliban have a clear military objective too: remove the infidels and their supporters from the country that was formerly theirs. quite how this is any different from the IRA, semantically or morally, I'm really not sure.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    The IRA were not religious radicals. You had a Protestant population whose loyalties lay with the government of the UK and a catholic one whose loyalties lay with the Irish Republic, but this was nothing more than a side effect of Britain adopting a different state religion several centureis ago. Nobody ever solicited or repeated IRA opinions on religious dogma, because they didn't have any. For that matter the IRA wasn't in the habit of bombing Protestant churches in Northern Ireland, but generally attacked military bases and police stations. One Catholic priest was directly involved with the IRA bombing campaign, but this was exceptional, out of hundreds of churches in the region. The Taliban have a clear military objective too: remove the infidels and their supporters from the country that was formerly theirs. They were stoning and beheading people and generally running Afghanistan as a medieval hellhole when they were in charge of the place without any miitary opposition, back in the 1990s.

anu_gupta 14y ago

I think the IRA and the ANC are great examples to suggest that violence and "relentless attack" aren't necessarily the best options when trying to combat "terrorism".

gsnedders 14y ago
The IRA are a brilliant example of this in how they became popular: they had very little support when they took (British) Dublin, by force, in Easter 1916. Yet, after the execution (for high treason) of the leaders, when some were still badly wounded from the British counter-attack, turned far more against the British than had ever been before: the British turned those freedom fighters who few supported into martyrs for their cause.

anigbrowl 14y ago

As an Irish person, I disagree. The IRA had a very specific territorial objective: ending British rule in Northern Ireland. The Taliban are not articulating an alternative approach to Afghan nationalism, they're religious radicals that think it's OK to assassinate 12 year old girls, stone unmarried lovers to death, and behead their political opponents. When the freedoms you're fighting for consist exclusively of oppressing other people, then your cause is bankrupt. Pull out a map of the region. The main reason the taliban got to be so powerful is that Pakistan's ISI (intelligence agency) considered a Taliban-run Afghanistan strategically useful in the ongoing struggle between Pakistan and India over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. PS don't assume that because I'm Irish I supported the IRA's objective - quite the opposite, in fact.

blibble 14y ago
no, instead the IRA were religious radicals that thought it was OK to place car bombs in Central London, Manchester, and countless other cities, murdering hundreds of innocent people going about their daily business. The Taliban have a clear military objective too: remove the infidels and their supporters from the country that was formerly theirs. quite how this is any different from the IRA, semantically or morally, I'm really not sure.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  The IRA were not religious radicals. You had a Protestant population whose loyalties lay with the government of the UK and a catholic one whose loyalties lay with the Irish Republic, but this was nothing more than a side effect of Britain adopting a different state religion several centureis ago. Nobody ever solicited or repeated IRA opinions on religious dogma, because they didn't have any. For that matter the IRA wasn't in the habit of bombing Protestant churches in Northern Ireland, but generally attacked military bases and police stations. One Catholic priest was directly involved with the IRA bombing campaign, but this was exceptional, out of hundreds of churches in the region. The Taliban have a clear military objective too: remove the infidels and their supporters from the country that was formerly theirs. They were stoning and beheading people and generally running Afghanistan as a medieval hellhole when they were in charge of the place without any miitary opposition, back in the 1990s.