Thursday, September 21, 2006

Comparing IRA Terrorism with Islamic Terrorism: Another Canard

IRA terrorism is not comparable to Islamic terrorism, and shouldn’t be mentioned by any intelligent person in that context, except as a contrast. Note: all the contrasts listed below apply also (with only superficial differences) when comparing the terrorism of the Basques in Spain or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka with the terrorism emanating out of the Muslim world.

Differences between IRA terrorism and Islamic terrorism:

Islamic terrorism: global

IRA terrorism: extremely localized—the IRA terrorists kept their violence “in the hood” and for the most part, the furthest afield they wreaked their violence was in London

Islamic terrorism: based in hatred of all non-Muslims, making it a global threat

IRA terrorism: based in specific localized political grievances (with a dash of anti-British hatred)

Islamic terrorism: Imperialistic, with designs on restoring a pan-Islamic Emperor (the Caliph) and conquering the world

IRA terrorism: based on limited political objectives

Islamic terrorism: eschatological, with an eye to transforming the world and making it ready for the Last Days

IRA terrorism: based on limited political objectives

Islamic terrorism: egregiously barbaric, including the beheading of children and shooting children in the back

IRA terrorism: less barbaric by a relevant degree

Islamic terrorism: part of a wider culture of pathological savagery that includes honor killings of women and girls; brutal clitorectomies of little girls; gang-rapes of women who either do not wear the proper Islamic garb or who are an affront by simply being Infidels; violent and hateful anti-Semitism; fascistic censorship of expression; fascistic threats of death to those who leave Islam; and much more.

IRA terrorism: part of a wider culture that contains far less pathological savagery than does Islam, and in fact is relatively normal and healthy by comparison.

3 comments:

RevWolf said...

Nice blog, I hope some leftos read it.
I read an interview with a IRA leader who said they never used suicide bombers because it would undermine their support base - the catholics, who would never agree with suicide in any form. But he also stated there were 'quite a few' willing to carry one out. These 'willing' guys received 'counselling'.

Ex-Centrist said...

Thanks revwolf. Even if the IRA might have had among its members some fanatic (or desperate) enough to be suicide bombers, there still would be differences contrasted with Islamic terrorism:

1) sheer numbers of willing suicide-bombers

2) the religious motivation, which profoundly and directly colors the Muslim's suicide, but would be only a peripheral, or probably non-existent factor for the IRA terrorist, whose sheer desperation (perhaps also affected by personal circumstances such as relative poverty) and hatred of the British for political grievances (including perhaps the fact that the British tortured a cousin, or happened to kill, through collateral damage, a daughter or sister or mother) would move him that far. These kinds of non-religious factors, of course, also exist among many of the Muslim terrorists; but they are neither the sole cause, nor even the primary cause: the primary cause is the Islamic agenda to spread its supremacist system over the entire world, and its hatred and intolerance for all who resist and frustrate this.

Blode0322 said...

Excellent stuff. My nitpick is with the first word: you seem to have used "comparing" to mean "equating", or more precisely, "treating as morally equivalent and/or sharing an overwhelming number of similarities".

What you have done with your list of paired statements about Republican and Islamic terrorism is, in fact, nothing but a cogent and terse comparison.

Rehabilitate "compare"!