Yesterday in my history class, a guest speaker came to talk about GRCC’s program to study in Ireland for three weeks in the summer. One of the many features of this trip is that we would be allowed exclusive access to the glorious IRA members, even commanders of large “units” who talk to very few people. This was supposedly exciting because these were the people who bravely fought against the diabolical English oppression of the poor helpless Irish.
I was shocked. It took a while for it to truly sink in that we would actually be talking to terrorists and even terrorist leaders. I mentioned this to a classmate afterward, and he said he supports the IRA as he has much Irish pride. I protested that they are terrorists, and he said that they are not terrorists but “freedom fighters”. This reminds me of the relativistic saying “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”. Like most relativistic sayings, this is crap.
I don’t like the term “freedom fighter” because it tends to be applied to terrorists that the liberals want to justify. They are the “good guys” among terrorists. The idea is that they are bravely fighting a just cause to gain “freedom”. Here’s the problem. Butchering civilians with no attempt whatsoever to fight honourably against the actual army is terrorism. Murdering people because they are Protestant, is terrorism. Terrorising the English is obviously terrorism. This was a religious war in which the Catholics were dedicated to the murder of as many Protestants as possible. That is terrorism.
Now some people complain that the English were brutally oppressing the Irish which led them to drastic measures. Frankly I know nothing about the truth or falsity of English oppression of the Irish. It could have been horribly brutal for all I know. What I do know is that this does not affect the tactics that are okay for “freedom fighters” Let us assume for the sake of argument that England was every bit as brutal as they are accused of being. This still does not justify the murder of civilians. The civilians had nothing to do with it. They are not acceptable targets of aggression. Let me give you a hypothetical
Let us assume that I am in Germany under Hitler’s oppression back in the thirties and forties. Hitler is now butchering millions upon millions of people, the total of which will eventually reach 11 million souls murdered. My reaction is to butcher innocent Germans who have nothing to do with Hitler. I have no clue who they are, but they are German and are therefore the enemy, so I blow them up. Am I justified? Of course not. I’m every bit as evil as Hitler is, except that I’m killing on the scale I can rather than the scale that he can. Both are contemptible. Even against Hitler, terrorism is wrong, for it does not target the enemy but rather helpless civilians.
Needless to say, I shall not be going to Ireland to talk with the terrorist dogs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I'm curious - do oppose Israel's punitive bombing of the civilian populations in the Gaza Strip in attempt to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas government (or in the case of Lebanon in 2005) as terrorist acts given that they fit the US military's definition of terrorism;
"...the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."
They are no longer considered terrorists. Get your information straight.
V1: Oh, father why are you so sad
On this bright Easter morn’
When Irish men are proud and glad
Of the land where they were born?
V2: Oh, son, I see in mem’ry's view
A far off distant day
When being just a lad like you
I joined the IRA.
Chorus: Where are the lads that stood with me
When history was made?
A Ghra Mo Chroi, I long to see
The boys of the old brigade.
V3: From hills and farms a call to arms
Was heard by one and all.
And from the glen came brave young men
To answer Ireland’s call.
V4: T'was long ago we faced the foe,
The old brigade and me,
And by my side they fought and died
That Ireland might be free.
Chorus: Where are the lads that stood with me
When history was made?
A Ghra Mo Chroi, I long to see
The boys of the old brigade.
V5: And now, my boy, I’ve told you why
On Easter morn’ I sigh,
For I recall my comrades all
And dark old days gone by.
V6: I think of men who fought in glen
With rifle and grenade.
May heaven keep the men who sleep
From the ranks of the old brigade.
Chorus:Where are the lads that stood with me
When history was made?
A Ghra Mo Chroi, I long to see
The boys of the old brigade.
You article shows your profound lack of knowledge on the subject.
SETH:
Israel never punitively bombs civilian populations. They bomb the terrorists where the terrorists are, which is always among the civilians. The terrorist dogs make it virtually impossible to kill them without killing civilians, although Israel does accomplish this task on occasion.
Israel usually warns civilians of the bombings before they happen. The missiles are always guided to minimize collateral damage. Compare this to the unguided rockets simply shot from lebenon to Isreali cities with the actual intention of murdering civilians.
It amazes me that Israels mistakes are considered horrific, while everyone ignores the fact that terrorists never even pretend to be fighting anyone but innocent civilians
JOE:
You attempt to refute me with a song?
I recognize that the IRA decided to stand down when they got what they wanted as a reward for the butchering of protestants, but I hold evil killers responsible for their crimes even now. It is not as though they have repented or seen any error in their slaughter. They simply got what they wanted.
As I said to seth earlier, insults don't get you very far. All you did was make an unsupported statement, quote a song, and insult me.
Fortunately Seth has been more polite recently which I appreciate. Thank you Seth
There was no insult...please show me where I insulted you.
You use anti Catholic rhetoric.
What came first to Ireland...
Catholicism or Great Britain?
Secondly, do you just choose to disregard Catholic Church fire bombings because you are Protestant?
Ireland is a Catholic Country. Great Britain has a long history of being anti Catholic (Executing Priests in the Elizabethan era)
Please, do some reading on the subject.
God save Ireland for the Irish!
I oppose murder, not Catholics. You ask me if I ignore the British oppression of the Irish, and I addressed that in my post. There is never an excuse for the murder of civilians, even if civilians on the other side were murdrered first. As I mentioend in my hitler analagy, Hitler's slaying of the jews would not ever justify the murder of an innocent German. Now I ask you, do you ignore the bombs of the IRA because you disapprove of the Protestants?
Also, most of the priests in the Elizabethan era were conspiring to kill the Queen. Treason is a perfectly valid reason to execute someone. Perhaps she took it a bit far, but it's hard to make an anti protestant point with Elizabeth while trying to ignore her sister who reigned before her. Like I said, I'm not defending the English, I am simply condemning terrorism where I see it and I saw it in the IRA. To be quite honest I am entirely shocked that this is being disputed. I am entirely amazed at what people will defend these days.
Israel continually punitively bombs civilian populations (which is one of the reasons it been sanctioned by the UN Security Council dozens of times), and Israeli officials openly discuss their strategy of collective punishment (which extends not only to military campaigns, but to other measures like withholding the funds that rightfully belong to the Palestinians, or cutting off fuel shipments, or closing the borders, etc.).
Even if Israel didn’t openly recognize its use of collective punishment, the fact that it dropped cluster bombs on heavily-populated civilian areas of Lebanon is a perfect example of its intent to kill civilians to punish them for the terrorists living among them. The tens of thousands of bomblets dispensed by those cluster bombs are still around Lebanon today, two years later, killing innocent civilians who happen across them. Collective punishment is a war crime.
Everything you’re saying is just regurgitated propaganda. Israel uses the same methodology for justifying its collective brutality that the US government uses (and has historically used); virtually anyone who is killed in indiscriminate bombing campaigns is considered a terrorist to justify the action.
The actions of the terrorists are horrific – but the actions of the Israeli government are more horrific, not just because Israel kills larger numbers of Palestinians but because Israel precipitates the terrorist attacks (through its long-standing policy of annexing resource-rich areas of the Mideast like the West Bank, Golon Heights and Gaza Strip – another action for which it has been continually sanctioned by the UNSC). That’s why the US doesn’t have an official peace treaty with Israel; it would require Israel to officially declare its borders, and it has no intention of giving those areas to the Palestinians (in spite of signing agreements to do so). That’s why it continues to pay Israelis to settle in those areas; it intends to occupy and absorb them.
The real entity to blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, is the US government; we want Israel to keep doing our dirty work for us (like funneling arms to terrorist states and groups we support) and as a strategic base of operations for our campaign to control the oil reserves of the Mideast, so we keep them in a perpetual state of peril.
I’m always polite, and I’ve not used insults, as I very clearly explained in my previous post.
Another question; given the reference to Germany under Hitler, would you then agree that the United States government committed war crimes when it firebombed Dresden in 1945, and when it dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that same year?
That's a grossly broad statement. "Priests were trying to kill Elizabeth."
In those days heretics were killed. She clearly met the criteria of a heretic.
Catholics committed terrorism just the same as the Protestants did. You are trying to paint a different picture which you know is a lie.
SETH: The answer to your question about the atomic bombs would be a lengthy and detailed one, but the short answer is that I do not approve of America's actions in those two specific instances. Please note that I don't pretend to speak for all Republicans at GRCC in this statement. I would add two things to this statement. 1) Americas atrocities in no way compare to the atrocities of the Japanese and German governments at the time. And 2) We have come a long way since then and no longer commit such crimes, despite liberal accusations to the contrary.
JOE: I wonder if you are an anti-Protestant Catholic. I myself am Protestant, but I view myself as Christian first and formost, believing strongly in the need for unity among all branches of Christianity.
I am not anti Catholic in any way, but I do condemn one particular group of people who proclaim Catholicism. Truly, I have a hard time believing that murderers could be true Catholics anyway. I condemn the supposedly Protestant KKK every bit as much as the supposedly Catholic IRA. Every terrorist group is eqally evil no matter what faith they profess.
Remember that I am not defending any Protestants, nor am I attacking all Catholics. My condemnation rests solely on the terrorist dogs, whatever they call themselves religiously.
I must say I am confused by your stated desire to point out all the flaws of the left, while you attack this blog for a very conservative position. Which leftist views do you oppose?
I am not anti Protestant at all, but I do recognize that their customs and doctrines are inferior to Roman Catholicism.
Again, the IRA is no longer a terrorist organization and the KKK is no longer a Protestant organization.
If you are objective you would condemn the terrorism on both sides. The overall feel of your article is that the problem is "Catholic terrorists."
If a foreign country invaded the US, I would participate in guerilla warfare as I am sure patriots from the East to West coast would.
You said: "I must say I am confused by your stated desire to point out all the flaws of the left, while you attack this blog for a very conservative position. Which leftist views do you oppose?"
First off the purpose of my blog is to point out the flaws of the right, you should read it more carefully. This is an example of the flaw of a self proclaimed conservative.
In response to "What leftist views do I oppose?" Read my blog, I pretty much cover most of them.
http://bconservatives.blogspot.com
Corwin –
Fair enough – there’s no inconsistency in your stance regarding what is defined as “terrorism” then. For any who would disagree (and it appears that there are some, as you hinted) – they would be hypocrites in condoning some forms of terrorism but not others.
As to your other assertions, the US’s atrocities during WWII were comparable to Japan at least (if not Germany). During the Nuremburg trials, many war criminals were acquitted if they could demonstrate that the United States had engaged in the same conduct during the conflict.
Predictably, I would disagree that we’ve come a long way since then. We continue many of the same practices (collective punishment, terrorism, etc.) but unfortunately the distance we’ve come is that we are savvy enough now to commit these acts through third parties as opposed to engaging in them directly. It’s interesting that you characterize these accusations as “liberal” given that many conservatives (who are noninterventionalist as a matter of course) also readily concede that they are legitimate and condemn them (for different reasons than a ‘liberal’ might; they tend to see them as a waste of US blood and treasure).
Post a Comment