In my opinion peace in northern Ireland happened because young people there don't give a shit about religious arguments and national borders.
Sent from my GT-S6102 using GeoClicks mobile app
The very sensible response of an Iman on Sky News. Now you can't accuse him of being racist!
Last edited by jaykay; 25-05-2013 at 01:56 PM.
Given the riots earlier this year about the british flag I think there is a way to go before you can assume it's all ok.
9/11 had a big effect: wealthy americans with irish ancestry stopped being so willing to donate to sinn fein after that - suddenly blowing stuff up for political reasons didn't seem quite so justifiable.
Indeed Usehername, there's still not "peace" in Northern Ireland and the problems certainly have not been resolved.
Correct.
You will note, as has Glenn Greenwald, that the same reasoning would also exempt, for example, US drone strikes against specific, known enemy combatants from the definition of "terrorism". However, Mr Greenwald certainly would not like that result, so he had to reject the terrorism definition I have described. I should point out that "intending" to do something (and not some other thing, such as killing civilians) is generally not conclusive in law. If the US drones were dropping small nuclear bombs, rather than using advanced technology to attempt to limit collateral damage, then the US' reckless disregard for civilian casualties would tend to override any moral defense based on intent it might have otherwise had. Governments at war do sometimes "cross the line", and it is fair to question whether drone strikes and other acts are defensible in every case. Obama seems to be pulling back on this a bit, perhaps for that reason.
No definition is perfect, but I still think mine is the best...
I agree completely that religion is fu**ing things up in a big way.
Saying that, I find it pretty hard to deny that, currently, the biggest and most brutal terrorist organisation is probably the US army. Read the following discussion regarding the definition of terrorism:
Effectively then, if you or I don't identify with some of the reasons given for military combat, and especially if we feel sympathy for the victims, many of whom are civilians, then from our point of view, they may indeed be labelled acts of terrorism."terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."
Last edited by justjoe86; 26-05-2013 at 11:29 AM.
If this had happened in a street in afghanistan noone would be calling it terrorism, it would just be another soldier killed by muslim extremists and the vast majority of the british public wouldn't have given it a second thought.