The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

[Vladimir]

Karen Armstrong
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.

Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up against.

We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

read rest at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1525714,00.html

a very good case, I find, for not referring to this as Muslim, or Islamic, terror.

[Briar]

1. Yes, and if anyone does

remind them it was good Christians who dropped weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and who firebombed the tinder-box towns of provincial Germany.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Ooooohhhh, Dresden.....

Take the tour at the library of Congress here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dresphot.html

[Briar]

3. Or you could read

Slaughterhouse Five.

[SweetLeftFoot]

17. True

And my grandad flew some of those missions - but let's not forget Guernica, Rotterdam, Belgrade, Coventry, the Blitz on LOndon, the bombings of the Glasgow slums --- all came first.

[AirForceof1]

4. Terrorist Labels

Now I could be wrong on this but I believe that the IRA never tried to warp Catholic teachings to justify their actions. As to the Middle Eastern terrorist I don't believe I have ever heard of them not justifying their actions with warped Islamic teachings.

[SweetLeftFoot]

18. Catholics

With very, very limited exceptions, IRA men through the whole struggle were routinely condemned by the Catholic Church. In fact, you'll find that the IRA has always regarded itself as very secular organisation. The ancient heroes of Irish nationalism Wolfe Tone, Parnell etc - were all Protestant.

[Demeter]

5. Catholic Terrorism Was So Much Wider and All-Encompassing

Think the Crusades. Think the Inquisition. Think bombing women's clinics and shooting doctors. The IRA was merely a political brawl--no "morality" involved.

[Rich Hunt]

13. excuse me...

But I don't remember Catholics bombing clinics and shooting doctors.

Now let's talk about Protestant terror, then....

[sophist]

16. Sometimes

A rosary can be mistaken for a gun.

[HereSince1628]

6. Maybe I am not so sure

I seem to remember news that spoke of Protestant and Catholic violence, but then I'm as old as dirt.

What were sentiments of Americans and Canadians who donated money to support "the cause?"

[Vladimir]

7. I do too, but I think that is a minor part of

the article - it just makes for a catchy and provocative headline.

[Bassic]

10. The root of the problem indeed seems religious

because as a matter of fact this is a case of protestants and catholics fighting. The reason they fight, however, is not so much religious as political. What the catholics are pissed off about is that, as they see it, the protestants have all the power and refuse to give the catholics their fair share.

[Bridget Burke]

8. Actually, some have used the phrase "Catholic terrorism"...

www.ivanfoster.org/page.asp?ira

This lovely site includes that exact phrase. "The Burning Bush: A Protestant Witness in a Day of Apostasy" is definitely on the fringe--is Ian Paisley too liberal for them? However, "mainstream" sources fling about the phrase "Islamic terrorism" with impunity.

Religion has often been used as an excuse for war or terrorism--but has rarely been the root cause. And there has never been a shortage of ignorant fools eager to vent their spleen--whether against "Papists" or "ragheads"--with a desire for peace as their excuse.

[Rich Hunt]

14. of course...

In fact, they're subtly (oh ha ha) using it on this thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But it was often known as 'republican terrorism'

('republican' being, of course, the R of IRA). Their objective was a republic, though the principles of a republic, whether the Irish one or others, would preclude terrorist bombings. Bin Laden and his predecessors and followers have specific demands to do with Islam, and what they see as the natural territory of an Islamic caliphate, which stretches beyond an national boundaries that have ever existed.

'Islamist' terrorism would be more accurate, with 'islamist' defined as an islamic theocracy, but the distinction will be lost on many (it used to be on me). 'Qutbist' would require extensive explanation, and just won't fly. 'Bin Ladenism' seems to be gaining ground as a term recently, and I suppose it could outlive him, just like 'Stalinist' etc.

[Vladimir]

11. Hmm, maybe

I don't, I must say, quite know what we should call this - and your last suggestion has a certain resonance to it. But what I do emphatically feel, even if it is only an instinctive thing, is that we must cut this off from religious conotations. If Muslim youth feel like we equate Islam with bin Laden, we are going to lose in the long run.

[Rich Hunt]

12. because....

I agree with you about the term "Muslim terror", but if you use the term "Catholic terrorists", you are misrepresenting the situation - it is not a theological conflict.

You excised the chief point of the article, which is in the sub-heading:

Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SweetLeftFoot]

19. Sure?

Mu undertstanding is that the Marxist Official IRA saw the rising violence of the late 60s and early 70s as a precursor to sectarian conflict, hence their ceasefire and the split, which gave rise to the current Provo and Sinn Fein movement, which, while certainly left of centre, is by no means Marxist. Many old "hardliners" - think Joe Cahill - were disturbed by the rising Marxism of the Stickies and quick to join the Provies.