11–20 of 69 posts
ETA in Spain only disbanded when the government stopped banning political parties linked to ETA.
IRA in Ireland managed to give the Irish people their independence.
FARC in Colombia pushed the government to allow a vote on a truce, a truce so bad the people voted against it.
Terrorism doesn't work? ETA in Spain only disbanded when the government stopped banning political parties linked to ETA. IRA in Ireland managed to give the Irish people their independence. FARC in Colombia pushed the government to allow a vote on a truce, a truce so bad the people voted against it.
In this light it must be regarded as a great success, not a failure, especially since the self bleeding politics continued without much opposition long after 2004.
So, the US bombing of TV stations in Yugoslavia or Al Jazeera in Baghdad would definitely qualify.
Yes. So tired of this word being used to describe attacks on soldiers. It might be bad (depending on what side you're on), but it's certainly not terrorism.
This assumes that these groups believe their actions will lead to a direct outcome. What if these groups are acting in order to force their adversary to change via dealing with less violent but equally reactionary forces. For instance would the Irish people have their independence from the UK if there was no IRA? If there was no violence why would the UK give them something they;re not willing to take, especially whe…
> For instance would the Irish people have their independence from the UK if there was no IRA? Depends which movement called the IRA we're talking about and (more generally) what's meant by "terrorism". There's a degree of a difference between the tactical approach of IRA that won the independence of the Irish Free State in the early twentieth century through classic guerrilla warfare tactics aimed at weakening Briti…
There were also immediate wins, particularly dismantling the RUC which performed attacks against civilians and colluded with unionist terror groups.
(disclaimer: I believe attacking civilians is awful and god isn't real)
There were even cases where English and Irish cities were plundered and all inhabitants forcefully taken as slaves.
People from this culture always used these kind of guerrilla tactics to slowly bring their enemies down.
As far as I see it still works today just as well as it did back in the old days.
"The most workable definition of terrorism that has been published is 'the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims'" So, the US bombing of TV stations in Yugoslavia or Al Jazeera in Baghdad would definitely qualify.
> the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims Yes. So tired of this word being used to describe attacks on soldiers. It might be bad (depending on what side you're on), but it's certainly not terrorism.
Terrorism doesn't work? ETA in Spain only disbanded when the government stopped banning political parties linked to ETA. IRA in Ireland managed to give the Irish people their independence. FARC in Colombia pushed the government to allow a vote on a truce, a truce so bad the people voted against it.
The Basque country is not independent. This was the goal of ETA in the first place, and it was not accomplished. After the success of the parlamentary catalan independence movement, the violent ways of the ETA had just no justification anymore.
> IRA in Ireland managed to give the Irish people their independence.
The 1920s IRA was a complete different organisation than the 1970ies provisional IRA. You can hardly call them terrorist by todays standards.
> FARC in Colombia pushed the government to allow a vote on a truce, a truce so bad the people voted against it.
The FARC did not accomplish to install a communist regime in Columbia, so their goal was also not accomplished.