September 26, 2005

• Generally it doesn't.
• It depends on the terrorists. It depends on their goals.
• Unarguable. The only way to beat terrorists is to talk to them.
• I'd be tempted to say that the IRA's decommissioning is their recognition that terrorism doesn't work and that negotiation IS the only way forward. After all, terrorism didn't help them achieve their goals but they think that diplomacy will. The main problem with the decommission is that there is no firm evidence that everything has been given up, other than the three statements of the observers.
• The counter argument is, of course, that the IRA had no intention of decommissioning before Tony Blair agreed to enter into dialogue with them.
• I'd be tempted to say that the IRA's decommissioning is their recognition that terrorism doesn't work and that negotiation IS the only way forward. After all, terrorism didn't help them achieve their goals but they think that diplomacy will. But they only got a position where negotiation would be considered by blowing people up, shooting people and kneecapping people.
• The only good terrorist is a patriot.
• What Chyren said. I happen to think that there is a qualitative and profound distinction between terrorists the likes of the IRA and terrorists the likes of the various and numerous Al-qaeda franchises.
• Not much...neither has the balls to face their real enemies, so they cowardly target innocents.
• I happen to think that there is a qualitative and profound distinction between terrorists the likes of the IRA and terrorists the likes of the various and numerous Al-qaeda franchises. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". But who decides the designation - the perpetrator or the victim?
• I should probably clarify what I meant. There is a profound and qualitative distinction in their aims. The IRA's goal was not to put an end to secular societies and create a global caliphate under sharia law, thereby their aims were conceivably possible through, if not negotiation, at LEAST dialogue. I fail to see how dialogue or negotiation can be fruitful against someone who has no goal other than your complete destruction.
• But who decides the designation - the perpetrator or the victim? Neither...Rupert Murdoch does.
• The IRA's goal was a united Ireland, they don't appear to have got that, yet they are still at the negotiating table and their weapons have been decommissioned. The IRA and Al-Qaida were/are both a bunch of murdering scumbags, let's not romanticise either of them to be anything other than that. The only qualitative difference I can see is that the Irish situation changed to be potentially solvable. The Al-Qaida/islamist global terrorist issue is considerably larger than the Irish situation which seems likely to mean it is a lot further from a negotiable situation, especially with so many on both sides so irrevocably opposed to non-violent resolution.
• The IRA's goal was a united Ireland and to defend catholic communities in northern ireland from attack by loyalists.
• Generally it doesn't. It's had a better track record in the past 5 years than "target rogue states" or whatever you're calling it these days. But hey, I'm no terrorism expert. I bow down to your superior knowledge in the field, which you clearly demonstrated by your ability to write this all off with 3 words posted to an internet forum, troll.
• I fail to see how dialogue or negotiation can be fruitful against someone who has no goal other than your complete destruction. Well that maybe Al Qaeda's goal now, but their initial goal was trying to get the US out of Saudi Arabia.
• Correct me if I'm wrong, kamus, but my understanding is that Al-qaeda started as an outgrowth of the fighters in Afghanistan and very early on adopted a goal of the "restoration of the Caliphate," which quite easily grew into an ambition for the Caliphate to be world-spanning, long before the US troops were in Saudi Arabia. However, it was definitely the presence of troops (particularly women troops) on SA's "holy" soil that was a big recruitment tool.
• and to defend catholic communities in northern ireland from attack by loyalists. Murdering women and children is not a defence tactic.
• Rocket88, I know you're not so silly as to think that your two-cent statements ("Murdering women and children is not a defence tactic") contribute anything of value to this discussion. Please do better, or stop posting to this thread. (Yes it is mine, dammit!)
• rocket88, i suggest you read up on the history of the pira and why they mobilized/rearmed in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
• smallish bear, take your medicine.
• Well, not that I'd direct such a... uh... direct charge, but Rocket88 is either lazy, shallow, or trolling. I'm just saying.

• The IRA and Al-Qaida were/are both a bunch of murdering scumbags, let's not romanticise either of them to be anything other than that. The only qualitative difference I can see is that the Irish situation changed to be potentially solvable.

  <disclaimer>i acknowledge that the ira acted as a bunch of murdering scumbags.</disclaimer> nevertheless, i can see a number of very important differences: 1. the ira was acting within a community and frequently in defense of that community. 2. the northern irish context does not feature only nationalist terrorists. there are many loyalist terrorists as well, and they're just as brutal. 3. the political wing of the ira, provisional sinn fein, has been a very effective populist political party in northern ireland. 4. in the absence of an effective police force in nationalist areas, the ira took on a community policing role. aside from the killing of innocents, al qaeda, to date, shares little with the ira. if you want a parallel with the ira, look to fatah and hamas.
• Skrik: In future, please append your posts with the following text: "Opinions contrary to mine are not welcome". I think you'll generate a more favourable discussion. On preview: Lazy? - Guilty as charged. Shallow and/or trolling? - not at all. I totally sympathise with the nationalist cause, and agree that loyalist murderers are and were just as bad, but when the PIRA tactics moved from defence to deliberate targeting of civilians they lost all sympathy and support from me. Women and children were murdered, and there's no excuse for that.
• Agreed. I was one of the people targeted. Thanks for your amplification.
• But on the other hand, the targeting of everyone has stopped now we're talking to them.
• In the short term: no. In the long term: depends on the terrorist and their goals and ideology. I don't see negotiation with Al Quaeda as having any positive effect - the ideology does not seem to allow for it in any way. The IRA wasn't about forcing conversion to a different religious ideology, though, so negotiation seems to have worked a little better.
• It's good to know that peace has been achieved with the IRA and UK. Hopefully it lasts. It seems to me that one reason for terrorism is that the demands of the potential terrorists are considered unreasonable and non-negotiable by the other side. Also, the potential terrorists are not usually recognized as legitimate by the opposition. When they commit a terrorist act and a government chooses to negotiate, it gives them legitimacy. The problem that I see is that negotiating with terrorists breeds more terrorism. Clearly not negotiating also breeds more terror. Catch-22. In discussions like this it's always easy to point out flaws and failures in logic and practice. It's much more difficult to arrive at a pragmatic solution. I think I've exceeded my recommended daily use of the word terror. Perhaps the words of George W. Bush can explain it more ineptly; "Quack weapons quack war against terror quack we were attacked quack every threat quack events of 9/11 quack every potential harm to America quack war on terror quack weapons quack suicide bombers quack funding terrorist groups quack dangerous man quack stockpiles of weapons quack capacity to produce weapons quack rogue nations quack capacity to make weapons quack Osama Bin Laden quack dangerous with weapons quack Saddam Hussein quack dangerous with the ability to make weapons quack dangerous man quack dangerous quack a madman quack imminent tax cuts quack quack new kind of war quack no doubt in my mind quack Axis of Evil quack danger to America."
• I don't think we need to get into specifics to see why the IRA is different from most terrorist groups. It comes down to goals, as Chyren mentioned. The IRA was/is attempting to achieve goals embraced by the majority of the citizenry in question. One could even characterize the IRA as acting on the will of the majority, though that is probably too strong. Most terrorist groups, including Al Qaida, have goals that are not embraced by the majority, and even if the majority is partially sympathetic, the terrorists' methods are generally deemed wholly unacceptable by the majority. The terrorists have nowhere close to majority support amongst the citizenry. The IRA can be negotiated with because they have goals that the majority consider reasonable (we're arguing goals, not methods). As a majority movement they must have reasonable goals or become a minority movement, since appeal to a majority of any population generally demands reasonableness. Negotiating with terrorists who have goals the majority deems unreasonable amounts to imposing the whims of the minority on the majority, something no culture generally considers at all just. When those terrorists also embrace generally unacceptable methods, capitulation in any significant form becomes wholly unacceptable to the majority.
• Actually the issue with the IRA was that they were never representative of, or arguing the case of, the majority ... Catholics are still in the minority in Northern Ireland ... hence the troubles etc etc etc. Due to the polarisation of Northern Ireland society it's probably arguable that a majority never wanted to see either union with the south or equality of opportunity among the two communities ... What fuelled the IRA was decades (centuries?) of persecution of the Catholic community and the feeling that the only way to achieve their version of justice was through violence. And I'm not sure I agree with the sentiments expressed here about Al Qaida as well. I thought it was generally accepted that the lack of a viable Middle East Peace Plan and the West's unstinting support for Israel were strong drivers for recruitment to Al Qaida. People join terrorist groups because they're angry and they feel they have no other outlet for their feelings. As far as they're concerned their beliefs are reasonable and rational, regardless of what a putative 'Majority' may say (To a Palestinian, Arial Sharon is the terrorist, not Yasser Arafat) It's hard, when people are that angry, for them to define their aims exactly. However discover what's fuelling their anger, engage with it, and you might find that recruitment to terrorist groups falls away sharply. Also, who exactly is the majority???? has such a thing ever existed???
• who exactly is the majority???? has such a thing ever existed??? The majority are those who hold to a common opinion and outnumber the combined total of others who hold significantly different opinions. Majorities are highly prone to fluctuation and manipulation, but exist constantly. I'm surprised at the question. Catholics are still in the minority in Northern Ireland You are correct. I misstated the demographic data. However, due to the dual nature of the Irish as a whole (Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland), with the character of the republic affecting the nature of the debate in NI, I think that the central thrust of my thesis still holds. Note that Catholics do constitute the largest single block in Northern Ireland. feeling that the only way to achieve their version of justice was through violence However, the acts of violence were not primarily meant as justice redress. They were meant in the furtherance of the IRA goal of achieving a social state in which their version of justice would commonly prevail. viable Middle East Peace Plan and the West's unstinting support for Israel were strong drivers for recruitment to Al Qaida Those are drivers, (and I think you could argue that the Middle East Peace Plan is in many ways a western desire) but the tenets of core Al Qaida are shaped around a version of Islamic religious thought that the majority of muslims, and middle-easterners, would reject. There might (highly doubtful) be a majority of muslims as fundamentalist as Al Qaida, but they would never agree with the Al Qaida view for Islam. As far as they're concerned their beliefs are reasonable and rational, regardless of what a putative 'Majority' may say You are inverting my argument, though I was perhaps confusing in my elaboration on the unusual nature of Northern Ireland. Of course most people think individually their beliefs are reasonable and rational. My argument was that the beliefs of a terrorist group must be acceptable to the majority of the citizenry for there to be any meaningful dialogue. It's hard, when people are that angry, for them to define their aims exactly Any remotely successful terrorist group must have carefully defined aims, even if new recruits or 'cannon fodder' members are not wholly indoctrinated as to those aims. People may join terrorist groups because of anger, but terrorist groups survive by channeling that anger into concrete goals and methods.
• At risk of getting into a philosophical debate which I might struggle to sustain, I'm not sure I can agree with this simple definition of the majority. In an increasingly globalised world, the boundaries between communities are becoming increasingly blurred and as a result it becomes harder and harder to define the community within which you are trying to define the majority. There then also exists the possibility that several competing majorities might occur. With relation to your concept of citizenry, which citizenry do you refer to? In relation to Northern Ireland and Israel there are competing groups of citizenry, Ulster prods think that Gerry Adams is a terrorist and Ian Paisley a hero, Northern Irish Catholics think Ian Paisley is a terrorist and Gerry Adams a hero. There are two majorities here, in two communities in one geography. Neither are right, neither are wrong. It's not that different a picture from other terrorist conflicts. And while I agree with Nal's arguments about the core tenets of Al Qaida are valid, that probably accounts for a few dozen/hundred people at the heart of the organisation. However many more people who are supporters and who provide the footsoldiers (and maybe even the suicide bombers) are less motivated by a fundamentalist view of Islam, than by a hatred of the West which is less well-defined and fuelled by our adventures in middle-eastern foreign policy. Arguments about legitimacy (your point of view is rubbish so I'm not going to talk to you) are what fuels terrorism, if dialogue is possible than you have to accept that the person with whom you are trying to engage in dialogue believes that their point of view is legitimate. You also have to make the mental leap that engaging in dalogue with someone whose point of view you don't agree with is better than sitting next to them in a crowded tube train when they're carrying a rucksack full of explosive.