Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Terrorism and other homicide are not the same animals under different names, though. No more than a lynching is the same as, say, a murder during a mugging. That graph is all well and good but I think even the statement “Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims" makes the point that the two aren't particularly comparable.
As for the Northern Ireland thing, what exactly is the argument here? We now have occasional brutal mass-murders in the UK based on religious grievances, but thirty years ago we had even more of them, so... no worries? Even if you want to compare the troubles to the current jihadi insurgency (and there are lots of reasons for distinguishing them that have been discussed), well, everyone seemed to want to understand and eliminate the source of the violence 30 years ago. It was possibly the most pressing and substantial issue of domestic policy for years. Why wouldn't this new flavour of violence provoke a similar motivation? Why would people care any less about it?
|
With respect it wasn't, N Ireland was just a long running conflict that everyone accepted, including the bombings over there and the Christmas bombings on the mainland, neither party was seen as being able to stop it as the demands of the IRA were utterly at odds with what the protestant majority wanted, the UK just accepted we were stuck with it, it was never an electoral issue because of that