September 16, 2001

11:52 PM

It's not just Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that are scared.Sinn Fein publishes an attack on US antiterrorism policy. Perhaps they fear they might be up against the wall eventually themselves, especially since they have steadfastly refused to even pretend to start decommissioning as per the peace agreement?
posted by aaron (18 comments total)

So how come we haven't bombed Japan recently? They have fanatic terrorists with active, funtioning nerve gas. So why not?
Oh, that's right, because the Japanese ARE seeing to the destruction of their own fanatic elements.
So it goes for Islam. THEY need to eliminate these terrorists themselves. Lip service doesn't cut it! Else someone else will do it....
posted by HTuttle at 12:36 AM on September 17, 2001

It's all about laws, rights and policies. And those things are changing rapidly. Hence the post. What anyone has or hasn't done to Japan recently is irrelevant.
posted by Kino at 1:15 AM on September 17, 2001

The IRA (in its Sinn Fein cloak) has shown, regrettably, that terrorism can work. Terrorism has also worked for the Palestinians. Instead of being ignored, these groups are (or were) being heard, being brought to the negotiating table. Anti-globalization protests are another form of terrorism that has had some success recently.

> So how come we haven't bombed Japan recently? ...
> Oh, that's right

Internal terrorism is mainly an internal problem; international terrorism is mainly an international problem. If Japanese terrorists start attacking other countries and Japan does nothing about it, you can be sure other countries will consider stepping in.
posted by pracowity at 1:25 AM on September 17, 2001

Anti-globalization protests are another form of terrorism that has had some success recently.

Yeah, it's always annoying when the slaves start getting uppity.
posted by Optamystic at 1:32 AM on September 17, 2001

Sinn Fein won't get a mention from the Bush administration. Americans gave a lot of money to the IRA, and meddled in UK affairs on their behalf for years. We allowed members of Sinn Fein to travel here for fundraising events despite British complaints. Since we aren't going to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them... Well, you know the rest of the obvious rant so I'll skip it. I'm probably wrong anyway. Hypocrisy never seems to be much of an impediment to politics.
posted by hwright at 2:08 AM on September 17, 2001

Thanks for posting that link. In the UK, the activities of NORAID infuriated us. Now that America finally understands that terrorism isn't remote, and it isn't glamourous and it's not about "freedom fighters" then finally the IRA will get the reception that it deserves.
posted by salmacis at 3:35 AM on September 17, 2001

Thanks, hwright. I've served in the UK armed forces and therefore enjoy the rather odd position of having once been "a legitimate target" of a partly-US funded terrorist organisation. It lends the current debate a certain piquancy, as I'm sure you will imagine.

I don't think you are wrong. (You also stopped me launching into the obvious rant, and therefore probably did MeFi a service today.)
posted by RichLyon at 4:07 AM on September 17, 2001

Couldn't agree more salmacis. As much as I sympathise with the USA, I can't help but feel annoyed at the hypocrisy knowing that the US support of the IRA has caused many needless deaths in the UK.

But then, I'm sure many countries around the world would share similar grieviances.

Perhaps now there will be a global effort to eliminate ALL terrorism. It's just a real shame that there had to be a disaster of such proportions. My thoughts are with those who have suffered
posted by twistedonion at 4:09 AM on September 17, 2001

Remember that urban myth here when people thought a percentage of American wages automatically went to the IRA because of something resembling that acronym on American payslips? It still occasionally gets mentioned by nobheads in pubs who believe it to this day. People can be so fuckin thick sometimes. I think it's because of widespread public knowledge of the romanticism and subsequent support based on false nostalgia for a place they'd never lived in fueled by a search for identity and heritage by a certain section of our forever hyphenated long lost cousins that exists/ed that people fell into believing such a crock of crap in the first place.
posted by Kino at 4:27 AM on September 17, 2001

One person's terrorist is always another person's freedom fighter. Many Americans supported the IRA, although fewer do now. The American government supported the Contras and the mujahideen. Many people (including here on metafilter) still support the PLO. The KLA was little more than a bunch of drug-runners when the United States needed a government to recognize in Kosovo.

It's always easy to romanticize events that don't directly effect you, to say "I disagree with their means, but at least they're fighting the good fight." Or, "Yes, I'm against terrorism. But what else can they do?" Americans do seem to be more prone to this than most.

Perhaps one good thing to come from 9.11 is the realization aronud the world that killing lots of innocent civilians, be it with a car bomb or a cruise missile, is not an acceptable means of political discourse.

One can always hope.
posted by jaek at 6:15 AM on September 17, 2001

The support for the IRA in America is small, to say it is the US as opposed to a few confused naive people is a gross misrepresentation.

The IRA are evil thugs who enjoy violence, if it wasn't for unification they would find another excuse for their barbarism.
posted by Mick at 7:40 AM on September 17, 2001

One person's terrorist is always another person's freedom fighter.

The former attacks civilians while the latter attacks military targets?

There is a recognised distinction: no need to make a word salad out of the two terms ...

Attacks against civilians are always acts of pure cowardice.

Attacks against military targets are sometimes justifiable, though rarely IMO.
posted by walrus at 11:32 AM on September 17, 2001

Attacks against civilians are always acts of pure cowardice.

This kind of thinking strikes me as archaic and dreamy. How do you justify it?
posted by rushmc at 5:53 PM on September 17, 2001

This kind of thinking strikes me as archaic and dreamy. How do you justify it?

I think we have an interface problem: I believe what I said to be self-evident.

Tell me how you counter it, without using ad hominem arguments.
posted by walrus at 5:20 AM on September 18, 2001

Are you using "self-evident" to mean that you can't justify it?
posted by rushmc at 8:59 PM on September 18, 2001

Oops ... missed your reply. Are you using "justify" to mean you disagree with it?
posted by walrus at 11:15 AM on October 23, 2001

> This kind of thinking strikes me as archaic and dreamy.

Like Sean Connery.
posted by pracowity at 10:56 PM on October 23, 2001

posted by walrus at 1:10 AM on October 25, 2001