Something I’ve wondered for a while and the recent arrest of Gerry Adams has highlighted;
Why do all stories about Muslim terrorists make a mention of them being Muslims, with frequent references to “radicalised Muslims” and so on, yet the IRA are never described as Catholic terrorists and I’ve never heard of a “radicalised Catholic” ?

I’ve never heard of a “radicalised Catholic”

Really? We burn an effigy of one every November!

Errr……..cos they’re Irish nationalisits not ‘fundamentalist catholics’?

It was commonplace up to the New York plane attacks.
Sue Lawley was a major offender, never letting an opportunity to mention it pass her by.

“We burn an effigy of one every November!”

That is exactly my point.
The annual celebration of the defeat of possibly the biggest attempted terrorist act in the UK rarely mentions the Catholic connection.

Errr……..cos they’re Irish nationalisits Republicans not ‘fundamentalist catholics’?

It may be mere semantics, but nomenclature is pretty important when describing such folk.

Because in the case of the Irish terrorist the motivation is the unification or not of Ireland and there are terrorists on both sides of various religions. The IRA have never as far as I’m aware ever fought with the motivation of making Ireland a Catholic only country.
The motivation for some terrorists who are muslims appears to be to create a country or even a world that is run according to religious doctrines.
If their religion is their motivation then it is relevant. The fact that a member of the IRA is Catholic is not really relevant, they are still fighting to live under a secular Government.

Oh right, I’m more wrong than the OP? Thanks. 🙄

It was as ignorant and offensive when applied to Catholicism as it is when applied to Islam.

Isn’t the whole ulster issue more of a republican – loyalist issue rather than Catholic – Protestant?.

Edit – was typing at same time as avdave, would agree.

I don’t think the IRA were ever trying to establish a Catholic Caliphate across the world. The fact they were catholic was incidental. The cause was entirely political

Whereas the beardy, shouty, explodey types are forcing their religious beliefs on the world. There is no political agenda more nuanced than that. So the only thing they’ve got in common is a liking for balaclavas, and Kalashnikovs and big bangs (though one group has at least got the sense to stand well back from them)

Perhaps if the Muslamics had the odd pint of Guiness and listened to some fiddle-de-dee music from time to time, they’d be a bit less mental?

I wouldn’t worry about the catholic terrorists it’s more the tendency towards kiddy fiddling that bothers me.

Boom.

Oh right, I’m more wrong than the OP? Thanks.

Not intended to annoy, I assure you. But you’re welcome all the same.

binners – Member
I don’t think the IRA were ever trying to establish a Catholic Caliphate across the world. The fact they were catholic was incidental. The cause was entirely political

Whereas the beardy, shouty, explodey types are forcing their religious beliefs on the world. There is no political agenda more nuanced than that. So the only thing they’ve got in common is a liking for balaclavas, and Kalashnikovs and big bangs (though one group has at least got the sense to stand well back from them)

Perhaps if the Muslamics had the odd pint of Guiness and listened to some fiddle-de-dee music from time to time, they’d be a bit less mental?
😆 and I had a mouthful of tea hovering over the keyboard…

Also important to note that many of the original fighters for irish freedom were from the Protestant community.
Wolfe tone, Parnell etc. worth doing some research before accusing a section of Christianity. It was never a fight to prove who’s religion was right, it was a fight to free an area of Ireland from British rule, or vice versa. It was a fight over land not over religion.

What about all the radicalised Protestants that were involved with the uvf, uda etc.

binners – Member

Perhaps if the Muslamics had the odd pint of Guiness and listened to some fiddle-de-dee music from time to time, they’d be a bit less mental?

Now that is why I think you should be a UN negotiator 😀

I dont think they are often called “Muslim terrorists” more often its “Islamic Terrorists” or radicals or extremeist or whatever, rarely Muslim anything.

Not sure the difference, something PC presumably.

It was never a fight to prove who’s religion was right, it was a fight to free an area of Ireland from British rule, or vice versa. It was a fight over land not over religion.

What proportion of “Islamic terrorism” , or “Muslim terrorism” occurred before foreign armies occupied land in Islamic countries?

MrOvershoot – Its funny you should mention that. I’m presently in the Ukraine. I reckon I’ll have this sorted in a few days. I’ve got to the root of the problem. You just can’t have 2 groups of balaclava-clad nutters with guns drinking that much vodka of an evening when their isn’t a ready supply of donner meat and chilli sauce.

I’ll have this thing resolved in no time

All thats needed is a few of these on their way home from the pub…..

The idea that Islam is the main motivation for “islamic terrorists” is utterly ridiculous also. It’s a convenient excuse to mask social and politic realities.

Muslim denotes a person whos religion is Islam

Islamic of or pertaining to Islam

IslamIST a person who holds a belief that society should be based upon (selective and usually conservative extracts from) the Quraan

(where’s deadlydarcy when you need him?)

Binners – be careful with that “THE” Ukraine thing, it’s not acceptable to Ukrainionoins – Ukrainies – Ukrainists – Ukrainites
😀

MidlandTrailquestsGraham – Member
Something I’ve wondered for a while and the recent arrest of Gerry Adams has highlighted;
Why do all stories about Muslim terrorists make a mention of them being Muslims, with frequent references to “radicalised Muslims” and so on, yet the IRA are never described as Catholic terrorists and I’ve never heard of a “radicalised Catholic” ?

Btw don’t kid yourself that catholics where never demonised, it may be a thing of the past these days, and only the bastion of cretins, but it was fairly prevalent not so long again.

No dogs, no blacks, no irish. What school did you go to etc….

(where’s deadlydarcy when you need him?)

I’m here. Are you ok? Do you need some help again?

The fact they were catholic was incidental. The cause was entirely political

That’s too reductionist. Religion was more than incidental to partition and the reunification movement.

No dogs, no blacks, no irish.

That’s a load of old bollocks, too. Those signs never existed – the whole thing was a creation of an American song. Think about it – how many black people were in Ulster, or Scotland, or anywhere else with religiously segregated schools before Windrush let alone “not so long ago”?

Binners perhaps you could start a chain of food shops out there, I’m alway more mellow when full of satisfying food.

How about a chain of oh I don’t know pastrys filled with meaty goodness outlets, perhaps call it GREGSKI’S

The signs may not have existed but the mindset most certainly did in some parts if the UK.

No dogs, no blacks, no irish.

That’s a load of old bollocks, too. Those signs never existed – the whole thing was a creation of an American song. Think about it – how many black people were in Ulster, or Scotland, or anywhere else with religiously segregated schools before Windrush let alone “not so long ago”?

Whether those signs existed probably not, but similar did exist at various times and racism directed at the Irish is commonplace even today, not as bad as it was. I can remember getting various taunts about my surname growing up.

As for institutional abuse, i give you the Act of Settlement.

That’s a load of old bollocks, too. Those signs never existed – the whole thing was a creation of an American song.

Yes they did exist.

So did “Irish need not apply”.

The signs were in London and other cities, in areas where they had boarding houses for travelling workers, builders and the like.

konabunny – Member
The fact they were catholic was incidental. The cause was entirely political

That’s too reductionist. Religion was more than incidental to partition and the reunification movement.
No dogs, no blacks, no irish.

That’s a load of old bollocks, too. Those signs never existed – the whole thing was a creation of an American song. Think about it – how many black people were in Ulster, or Scotland, or anywhere else with religiously segregated schools before Windrush let alone “not so long ago”?
Aye ok… 😕

Mr Overshoot – a fine idea sir.! Its sobering fact, that no 2 countries where there’s a ready supply of Steak Bakes have ever gone to war with each other! The sooner the UN recognise this, and concentrates its efforts onto the worldwide supply of pasties, then at last we can achieve our dream of global peace (and expanding waistlines) 😀

yep no blacks in the UK before Windrush

The Central African Republic is seeing some brutal christian/muslim attrocities committed at the moment in the name of God

http://www.globaljournalist.org/stories/2014/04/03/christian-muslim-fighting-leads-to-ethnic-cleansing-in-central-african-republic/

I dont think relgion makes people kill each other, but it can be used as a powerful tool to convince people to do some terrible things

I blame the Germans.

yep no blacks in the UK before Windrush

I didn’t say there were no black people in the UK before Windrush, you clod, I intimated that there were so few of them that it was hardly likely that “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish” signs would have been put up by bigots who would infrequently or never see a black person. A bit like the way London Underground doesn’t feel it very pressing to put up “no durian” signs.

I notice that no evidence of the signs has been produced but there has been a lot of sarcasm.