Were the I.R.A. Terrorists?

[Soviet Catalonia]

This is a very interesting, and for some, sensitive topic. The Yes people say, "Of course they were terrorists - they killed innocent civilians".
The 'No' People say "They weren't because civilians die in all wars, and if the I.R.A. were terrorists the British Army must be too."

My own position is that the Provisional I.R.A. were not terrorists as they wanted a United Ireland, and they tried doing that peacefully, but as we see on Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy, they were shot, murdered and harrassed.

They had no option.

So in this Forum, we will debate, Were the Provisional I.R.A. Terrorists?

[Salus Maior]

Inb4 "One man's Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter"

The IRA and the events surrounding them are very complicated, and I'd say you can't really make a clear-cut definition for everything they did and intended to do.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, they were terrorists.
Terrorism is a tactic, is all.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

They used violence to try and achieve a political goal.

Textbook definition of terrorism.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

This is a very interesting, and for some, sensitive topic. The Yes people say, "Of course they were terrorists - they killed innocent civilians".
The 'No' People say "They weren't because civilians die in all wars, and if the I.R.A. were terrorists the British Army must be too."

My own position is that the Provisional I.R.A. were not terrorists as they wanted a United Ireland, and they tried doing that peacefully, but as we see on Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy, they were shot, murdered and harrassed.

They had no option.

So in this Forum, we will debate, Were the Provisional I.R.A. Terrorists?

Ask the dead civilians both sides killed. They will give your answer.

[Ifreann]

We just did this.

[Soviet Catalonia]

They used violence to try and achieve a political goal.

Textbook definition of terrorism.

Well so did Britain, when they invaded all the countries they invaded, slaughtered their people, bombed their cities.

Is the British State a Terrorist?

[Insaeldor]

did they use terror as a tactic to forward a political goal? Oh they did! That's the textbook definition of terrorism.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck than it's probably a duck.

[Old Tyrannia]

They used terror as a method of achieving their political goals. By definition, they were terrorists.

[Soviet Catalonia]

did they use terror as a tactic to forward a political goal? Oh they did! That's the textbook definition of terrorism.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck than it's probably a duck.

Oh, well apparently Mandela was a terrorist too - he used violence to gain a political goal. So did the men of 1916, George Washington, Michael Collins, The French Revolutionaries.

Are they terrorists?

[Lancaster of Wessex]

did they use terror as a tactic to forward a political goal? Oh they did! That's the textbook definition of terrorism.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck than it's probably a duck.

Oh, well apparently Mandela was a terrorist too - he used violence to gain a political goal. So did the men of 1916, George Washington, Michael Collins, The French Revolutionaries.

Are they terrorists?

What are you trying to achieve in this thread? Are you trying to change people's opinions? You know the opinion of most people will be: yes they were terrorists. You clearly think otherwise. So what's there to discuss?

[Ifreann]

did they use terror as a tactic to forward a political goal? Oh they did! That's the textbook definition of terrorism.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck than it's probably a duck.

Oh, well apparently Mandela was a terrorist too - he used violence to gain a political goal. So did the men of 1916, George Washington, Michael Collins, The French Revolutionaries.

Are they terrorists?

did they use terror

he used violence

[Old Tyrannia]

did they use terror as a tactic to forward a political goal? Oh they did! That's the textbook definition of terrorism.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck than it's probably a duck.

Oh, well apparently Mandela was a terrorist too - he used violence to gain a political goal. So did the men of 1916, George Washington, Michael Collins, The French Revolutionaries.

Are they terrorists?

Yes on all accounts.

[Soviet Catalonia]

Oh, well apparently Mandela was a terrorist too - he used violence to gain a political goal. So did the men of 1916, George Washington, Michael Collins, The French Revolutionaries.

Are they terrorists?

What are you trying to achieve in this thread? Are you trying to change people's opinions? You know the opinion of most people will be: yes they were terrorists. You clearly think otherwise. So what's there to discuss?

I, along with people who have brains, want to show the other side, the yes side, that the I.R.A. were not terrorists.

No please read my above post and reply to that.

[Konarus]

They WERE terrorists? No.

They ARE terrorists now? Yes.

[Ostroeuropa]

What are you trying to achieve in this thread? Are you trying to change people's opinions? You know the opinion of most people will be: yes they were terrorists. You clearly think otherwise. So what's there to discuss?

I, along with people who have brains, want to show the other side, the yes side, that the I.R.A. were not terrorists.

No please read my above post and reply to that.

the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

How don't they fall under this?

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

Yes they were terrorists. They employed terrorist tactics in pursuit of political goals.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

What are you trying to achieve in this thread? Are you trying to change people's opinions? You know the opinion of most people will be: yes they were terrorists. You clearly think otherwise. So what's there to discuss?

I, along with people who have brains, want to show the other side, the yes side, that the I.R.A. were not terrorists.

No please read my above post and reply to that.

The bolded just disqualified your opinions or any respect that you may have had going into this thread, at least from myself.

I think I'm done here.

[Soviet Catalonia]

I pose a new quesrtion:

Were the British Forces, in the Occupied Six Counties of my Country, Terrorsits?

[Esgonia]

Did they use terror to gain political goals?
If they did, yes.

[Fascist Empire of Great Britain]

They used violence to try and achieve a political goal.

Textbook definition of terrorism.

Well so did Britain, when they invaded all the countries they invaded, slaughtered their people, bombed their cities.

Is the British State a Terrorist?

While I will not go into the in's and out's of British History:

Imperialism and war, in general, are not the same thing as terrorism.

[Vordania]

This is a very interesting, and for some, sensitive topic. The Yes people say, "Of course they were terrorists - they killed innocent civilians".
The 'No' People say "They weren't because civilians die in all wars, and if the I.R.A. were terrorists the British Army must be too."

What legal framework did the IRA fight under, did they respect the Geneva Conventions, or the Laws of Armed Conflict? Did they pursue their political objectives in a legal manner, or by resorting to illegal and criminal activity (murder, arson, destruction to property etc)? The answer to both is no. On the other hand the British Army did operate within the framework of both British domestic law and recognised international law. Yes the British Army made many mistakes and killed innocent civilians, but that was never the official policy of the British Army or the UK government, whereas the plan of the IRA to get the British out of Ireland basically consisted of murdering as many people as possible so that the British government/population/military became sick of the situation and withdrew from Northern Ireland.

My own position is that the Provisional I.R.A. were not terrorists as they wanted a United Ireland, and they tried doing that peacefully, but as we see on Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy, they were shot, murdered and harrassed.

What? Do you know anything about the modern history of Northern Ireland? Are you confusing the Provisional IRA for the various peaceful civil rights groups in existence in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles? Are you confusing the Provisional IRA for the Official IRA which decided it wasn't worth pursuing armed methods for achieving a United Ireland? What did PIRA have to do with Bloody Sunday? So because they wanted a United Ireland they couldn't possibly be terrorists? How does that work, murdering and maiming people doesn't make you a terrorist as long as you have the right political aims?

They had no option.

The achievement of the Social Democratic and Labour Party in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement would suggest that there were other options. As you'll know throughout history using violence generally leads to the other side using violence against you. Look at how Gandhi or Martin Luther King succeeded in achieving their aims. Have the IRA achieved a United Ireland...

So in this Forum, we will debate, Were the Provisional I.R.A. Terrorists?

At the end of the day there isn't a debate. If you use criminal methods to achieve political goals, you're a terrorist. If you aim to achieve your political goals by terrorising a civilian population and you can't even pretend that you're adhering to the rule of law or international laws, then you're a terrorist, even if your aim is a United Ireland.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I pose a new quesrtion:

Were the British Forces, in the Occupied Six Counties of my Country, Terrorsits?

Then start a new thread. Please label clearly in your new op:

ONLY THOSE WITH BRAINS WHO AGREE WITH ME NEED DISCUSS.

[Ifreann]

What are you trying to achieve in this thread? Are you trying to change people's opinions? You know the opinion of most people will be: yes they were terrorists. You clearly think otherwise. So what's there to discuss?

I, along with people who have brains, want to show the other side, the yes side, that the I.R.A. were not terrorists.

Are you? Thus far you have put forward no argument on that point. "Well what about the British?" isn't an argument that the PIRA were not terrorists. "Well what about Mandela?" isn't an argument that the PIRA were not terrorists.

[The Great Devourer of All]

This definitely depends on the definition of 'terrorist' we're using here. They could be considered terrorists, insurgents (which is often used in the same context as 'terrorists'), or freedom fighters, not that that means much. I mean, if you really want to stretch some meaning here, you could consider the Taliban or even ISIS 'freedom fighters', and their foreign militant fronts as bands of 'religious pilgrims' seeking the freedom to practice their religion by inspiring lone wolf attacks and setting off car bombs.

Everything's a matter of perspective.