There is no need for a history lesson on the IRA from me. Opinion can generally be summarised along two distinct lines. Either, you support the cause of the IRA and have no problem in vocally supporting them. Or, you hold them in the same regard as Al Qaeda. Meaning that they are terrorists who purposely target innocent civilians and thus are lowest of the low, scum of the earth and anyone who supports them is guilty by association.
The second opinion highlights a glaring lack of understanding of the definition of “terrorism”, which is defined as – ‘the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal’ (Merriam and Webster: 2014) However, definition varies from government to governement, and from organisation to organisation.
If we use the above definition, then all governments have been guilty of this. However, as they are recognised as legitimate sovereign states, then most people accept their actions as justified. What should be noted is that State sponsored terrorism, in my opinion, is no better than radical groups using terror to achieve a political goal.
Next I shall highlight two examples which could be classified as a terrorist act and as a justified military target. I shall leave the deciding up to the individual reader. However, my opinion is that both are acts of terrorism due to the loss of civilian life.
The first example is the bombing of a recognised civilian shelter during the Gulf War in 1991 by US-led Coalition forces. On February 13, 1991 the US-led Coalition military dropped a precision bomb on a civilian shelter in Al Amiriya. Brent Sadler, reporting on ITV stated that ‘Al Amiriya is a middles class residential area with no military or strategic targets in the vicinity’. (Andrew Hoskins, Televising War, 2004) Inside the shelter were several hundred Iraqis, ‘around 400 Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, were killed in a direct hit by the coalition’. (Richard Keeble. Secret State and Silent Press, 1997)
Inside the Al Amiriya civilian bomb shelter.
Accusations from the US that Saddam Hussein purposely put civilians in harm’s way were completely unfounded. From the point of view of the Coalition, the shelter was potentially being used as a military bunker and so justified in their eyes. However, practice in the Gulf War was to deliver a warning before any military structure was targeted, this did not occur on this occassion.
The aim of the Coalition was not to kill the enemy soldiers with these strikes, but to disable military infrastructure. Does this constitute terrorism? I certainly believe that it falls within the parameters of the definition set out above. Nonetheless, I shall leave that up to you to decide. However, there are several definitions of terrorism, so readers beware.
The second example is of the M62 coach bombing by the IRA ‘killing nine soldiers and three civilians’. (Tony Geraghty The Irish War, 2000) Members of the IRA and supporters of the IRA would argue that this was a legitimate military target despite the death of civilians. ‘West Yorkshire police said tonight that an anonymous telephone caller had persuaded them that the M62 coach bomb which killed 11 people early on Monday was placed by representatives of Saor Eire, a splinter group of the IRA’. (The Times, Thursday, February, 1974)
Wreckage of the M62 coach blown up by the IRA.
It is my opinion that this is also an example of terrorism. I do not hold one in lesser regard than the other, both are despicable acts. If you disagree then you should do some reading on the definition of terrorism.
I would recommend Noam Chomsky’s International Terrorism: Image and Reality http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112–02.htm
If you judge an individual, group, or government with a moral truism or principle, such as what terrorism is, then you must be prepared to apply that truism to yourself, your own section of society, and your own government. Failure to do so will render your opinion as less than credible.
Ignoring the actions of your own social group, government, or military, whilst condemning the same actions by others, adds nothing to the debate. Please do not rely on any jingoistic sentiment to justify your condoning of the deaths of innocent lives.
Peace and love fellow human.
James Owens 