That describes virtually every world war 2 resistance group.

And quite frankly, I've never seen anybody but you define terrorists that

paulh
way.

Most people, for example, reconize that there can be perfectly legitimate non-terrorist guerilla groups.

Quiet possibly... but none of the ones in NI are that...

Russ
So you say, but you haven't provided an analytical framework to support that conclusion.

banner of terrorism. Since then you have retreated from that strict stance.

Ultimately, what you have to provide is a definition of terrorism that would include the modern IRA but also exclude such groups as the French Resistance.

In the early part of the 'Troubles' the IRA was very much supported by the Catholic population and was even sent arms by the Irish Republic. They

paulh
almost

exclusively fought in defense of their own towns and neighborhoods against invading forces (whether loyalist paramilitary or police and sometimes both together). Were they terrorists then?

Probably, they just wheren't performing Terrorists acts when fighting against the Paramilitaries to defend themselves...

Russ
So a group can go from non-terrorist to terrorist?

Terrorism is just that.

Boy, that's a stunning piece of logic: terrorism is terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

paulh
Well you seemed to be struggling with it..cos to you Terrorism is freedom fighting...unless its not the IRA...when they're terrorists again...

Russ
Actually, I've provided a definition. You have not. All you keep saying this that IRA are terrorists but not provided a workable definition of terrorism.

OK, so if an IRA unit ambushes a British Army patrol, they are terrorists.

paulh
Yes

Russ
OK. Why?

Were the Nazi SS terrorists?

paulh
No. Although you confuse the terms somewhat. What some of themy did was a crime against humanity, but not Terroris, You can't just fling the word around to try and divert attention against your pet love...

Russ
OK, so you've at least now created a class that are 'not-terrorists', which basically includes uniformed troops of recognized states. That's a start but you still need to provide an affirmative definition.

paulh
Well I defined it a number of times, but you chose to dismiss them and use this false argument instead.. I can't help that, must be a weakness on your behalf perhaps..

Russ
Humor me and repeat your definition again. You backed off the original one you gave so I might have missed it if you slipped a replacement in there.

paulh
almost all of them, but the one you're obviously aligned with..' oh no.. THEY'RE an exception.. see... I drew a bar graph proving they're innocent brave freedom fighters...' bah

Russ
You've still failed to answer the simple question "Why?"