Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
| From | Russ |
| Date | 2002-04-17 22:35 (2002-04-17 22:35) |
| Message-ID | <20020417163536.05173.00000788@mb-md.aol.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | TradeSurplus |
| Followups | TradeSurplus (13m) > Russ paulh (5h & 31m) > Russ |
In article <%Dkv8.13077$wr5.3832104025@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, "TradeSurplus" <tradesurplus@hotmail.com>writes:
TradeSurplusI was positing something a bit different. That the IRA are not a terrorist group* at all but that their use of force has been unjust (or immoral) since not later than c. 1974.
In fact, you appear to have defined terrorists in this and other recent posts as: Persons engaging in combat without uniforms AND (without government backing OR without a popular mandate). Where AND and OR are logical operations and ( ) indicates priority.
And that's fair enough, if that's your definition. You can't necessarily expect other people to subscribe to it though. Russ's claim that the IRA were not terrorists before 1975 may well be valid according to his definition of terrorism but invalid according to yours.
*Merely committing terrorist acts does nto make one a terrorist group. Virtually all armed organizations have committed terrorist acts. The issue, for me, is whether terrorism is their usual method.
In effect, you are both using the same word to describe different phenomena so it is only to be expected that the application of that word will differ.The definition you ascribe to Paul has some problems. I'm sure we all agree that the Palestinian groups who do homicide bombings are terrorist groups, yet they have a popular mandate and they are fighting on their own land.
Russ
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
