36 2 mins 9 yrs

king

IRA man Peter King is pained, but I can’t think why. When Irish and British men, women and children were butchered by exactly the kind of terror which came to Boston yesterday he wasn’t so troubled. In fact he promoted it, defended it and worked to fund it.

No wonder this great warmonger wants Wikileaks classified as a terrorist organisation. One document it published – a February 2010 CIA “Red Cell Special Memorandum” – recounts how “Some Irish-Americans have long provided financial aid and material support for violent efforts to compel the United Kingdom to relinquish control of Northern Ireland…. The US-based Irish Northern Aid Committee (NORAID), founded in the late 1960s, provided the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) with money that was frequently used for arms purchases.”

NORAID was designated a terrorist organisation decades ago by the US Justice Department, which also won a legal case forcing NORAID to register P-IRA as its foreign principle. King was a prime and enthusiastic fundraiser and one of the IRA’s staunchest supporters in North America.

This is not a regretful Peter King today either. As recently as July 2011 he appeared before a Parliamentary committee and defended his 1982 comments at an IRA rally, that: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”

So what troubles him now? It can only be distance, because violence against innocents does not trouble him in principle. And that’s the problem with defending evil, because when it comes home, your words of denunciation sound hollow.

You can’t denounce evil in Boston and defend it somewhere else.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

36 thoughts on “THE PROBLEM WITH DEFENDING EVIL

  1. Pete,

    Hypocrisy and attitudes to terror go hand-in-hand. Just witness unionists attitudes to terrorism when it comes from the State.

    Surely you of all people would recognise that state terrorism is worst of all?

  2. Peter King was and is a reprehensible man who had no problem with the death or British (and a couple American) deaths when caused by the IRA.

  3. “Surely you of all people would recognise that state terrorism is worst of all?”

    Are you saying that about Great Britain? That we were sponsoring State terror in Northern Ireland?!
    I hope not.

  4. IRA man Peter King

    I’d imagine that David hopes Peter King doesn’t hear of that accusation.

  5. The IRA did some atrocious deeds in its day, but otherwise any comparison with AQ or other loose Jihadist groups operating in the West reveals more the differences than the similarities IMO.
    The IRA’s campaign was based on a well-defined political goal, one that’s shared by broad popular opinion in Ireland, and to an extent also in the US and even Britain.
    It was focussed on one clear territory. It defined a specific enemy for a specific reason. A simple political decision – right or wrong – would have ended that campaign overnight.

    None of these is true for AQ. It has no political movement anywhere that can be negotiated with, or even understood. It’s aims are hazy and differ from place to place, it seems. Because it has no defined goals, it can never be satisfied, so no political settlement is possible.

  6. The only possible ‘winner’ in this atrocity is old Troll. If the 8 year old who was murdered (as it was a terrorist attack McMahon will probably say assassinated) has a father who was a Sinn Fein supporter, then Troll has a victory as the child was killed.
    Let’s hope the people of Boston are happy that they’ve seen what they’re money paid for for all those years. Karma.

  7. Noel – the IRA terror campaign during the Troubles did not have broad political support in Ireland (The Irish Government to their credit boycotted the St. Patrick’s Day Parade when King was Grand Marshall).

  8. Mahons

    That pre-suposes that the Irish government represented the peoples position in regards to the PIRA and not a politically expediant position in agreement with their only and much bigger neighbour

  9. Will

    What percentage of population of Boston do you think gave money to the IRA back then?

    .000001%?

    Or some percentage much smaller than that?

    The comment on the unclean one tends to truth but Boston ( or Bronx / NYC ). Is not what you think it was or is

  10. //the IRA terror campaign during the Troubles did not have broad political support in Ireland //

    Of course, but I never said that.

    I said it was its goal (a united Ireland) that had broad political support.

    And that’s true enough. During the IRA campaign, a united Ireland was the policy of every political party in the Dail, i.e. representing everyone in Ireland except, ironically enough, the editorial staff of the Irish Independent.

  11. Noel – The IRA’s political excuse for their terror campaign, sorry I mean goal, was some ill-defined quasi-Marxist state that was not exactly embraced by one and all. In fact they tried to use a broader desire for a united Ireland to justify their criminal activity.

  12. Mahons, do you think that all along the IRA’s goal was the campaign itself?
    In that case, they realised their goal back in 1970, but were then denied it with the GFA when they had to abandon it.
    That should make it into the next edition of Unionism Decayed.

    Actually, if we are to believe SF’s statements over the past three decades (although they do say more than their prayers), the sole goal of the IRA’s campaign was obtaining a declaration of intent to withdraw by Britain. Not a Marxist state. The Marxism bit was supposed to be achieved by political means after British withdrawal (this was at a time when you could hardly get Irish people even to vote for the Labour Party.)

    //because violence against innocents does not trouble him in principle//

    Being against violence inflicted on innocents is a lonely business. There are few people, few politicians and even fewer folk on this site who are not prepared to take the deaths of innocents into account in pursuance of some political goal.

  13. I really shouldn’t feed trolls but some comments are too idiotic to ignore.

    If the 8 year old who was murdered (as it was a terrorist attack McMahon will probably say assassinated)

    Very nice of you to try to put metaphorical words in my mouth Will but I’m afraid you’re talking absolute spools.

    Let’s hope the people of Boston are happy that they’ve seen what they’re money paid for for all those years. Karma

    Generalising a whole city based on the alleged actions of a section of it’s Irish – American community?

    True compassion.

    The IRA’s political excuse for their terror campaign, sorry I mean goal, was some ill-defined quasi-Marxist state

    Sorry Mahons but that quasi-Marxist state that speak of had its basis in the Easter Proclamation & the Democratic Programme of the first Dáil Éireann. Political opinion which had widespread support.

  14. Paul – the terror campaign had widespread condemnation. Whatever reform folks like Adams have now achieved does not mask the fact that they previously supported terrorist acts.

  15. There were plenty of people in Belfast and London who supported terrorism, and who funded it ( both the state terrorism and the other kind )

    By the ” logic ” of these geniuses, Belfast and London should be subject to renewed bombing.

  16. Indeed, Phantom.

    Where the phrase “terrorism” goes, so hypocrisy normally follows.

    The focus should be primarily on the acts themselves. If they are acts of terror against civilians (or in places where civilians will inevitably be victims) then they are “terrorist acts”.

    It shouldn’t matter who carries them out or why or whether it is a state or non-state actor or whether you agree with that actor’s ultimate goals. A terrorist act is a terrorist act and must be condemned.

  17. Well we also can’t render the definition of terrorism so overbroad as to render it meaningless. Might as well just say violence. The D-Day Liberation of Europe necessarily and inevitably resulted in civilian deaths. Only a sophist would call that an act of terrorism.

  18. If they are acts of terror against civilians (or in places where civilians will inevitably be victims) then they are “terrorist acts”.

    As mahons says, this definition is very wrong.

  19. The D-Day attacks were not directed at civilians, which is clearly what FO was talking about.

    I think it doesn’t matter if we call an act terrorist or something else. Words are only labels, and “terrorist” has been so abused for propaganda purposes that it’s now effectively useless.
    We all know what, say, a certain bomb attack involved. Calling it a terrorist act doesn’t make it any worse or better.

  20. //which is clearly what FO was talking about.//

    Ooops . should be “which is clearly what MR was talking about.”

  21. What about the bombings of German and Japanese cities?

    Are these to be seen as terrorist incidents now?

  22. //Are these to be seen as terrorist incidents now?//

    Phantom, what difference does it make if someone calls them “terrorist” or not?

    He and you and I will generally agree on what those bombing attacks entailed, so we all know what’s intended by whatever word someone uses. All will be just different words for the same thing: sort of like “morning sun” and “evening sun” and Venus. Different senses, but the same meaning.

    It seems to me that part of the need for the word “terrorist” is getting other people to use it for the same things too.

  23. Noel – I think MR was quite clear, which I why I took issue with the definition proposed.

    And I don’t think we have to abandon the word terrorist which in fact has clear meaning. It is part of terrorist propaganda to dilute the word and to have their acts associated with “freedom fighting” or “liberation”. Words have meaning, and if others wish to consider them meaningless then they are making a mistake.

  24. My definition is best if I say so myself.

    Terrorism is an attack on exclusively civilian targets, in order to terrorize a population, and not to obtain any conventional military objective.

    Under my definition, the WW2 bombings are not seen as terrorism, but General Sherman’s attacks on Southern civilians would be state terrorism.

  25. Paul McMahon – there’s no comment floating around, do you have the right thread?

  26. //which in fact has clear meaning. It //

    A clear meaning? That’s one thing it definitely does not have. If it had, people would agree on what it refers to, and as we see here every day, they certainly don’t. In fact, there are often heated arguments – maybe even on this thread – about what the word means. Also: many people have been challenged to give a definition, and they were hard put even to define what they themselves mean by the word.

    Words do indeed have meaning, sometimes so many of them that they are practically useless in a conversation between people with different ideas.
    Generally “terrorism” and its derivatives are used too much in a normative and too little in a descriptive sense, and for that reason alone are to be shunned IMO.

  27. There is legitimate debate about things that are hard to define exactly, and there is the bad faith aspect of some – terrorists will never want to call themselves terrorists.

    We can agree I hope that blowing up subways and school buses, or flying jumbo jets into office buildings are acts of terrorism.

  28. Noel – IMO the fact that people disagree doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a clear meaning.

  29. It was a response to your 2.51 Mahons. If you want I’ll knock it out again but I think it’s kinda lost the momentum.

  30. Paul – Entirely up to you. But I must say I get so many compliments here that one more won’t be missed…..

  31. To be honest, I only inserted the bit in parentheses as an afterthought! It was intended to capture, for example, the reckless bombing of what the IRA used to call “financial targets” but where civilians would inevitably be caught. But now that it was mentioned, it also covers Hiroshima etc.

Comments are closed.