Sinn Fein had the IRA. The Republican Party has their own "IRA" (militias, ProudBoys, Boogalloo, etc.)

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I think the legitimization of violence mixes up the right/left continuum. Irish Republicanism need not be leftist. The American war of independence against the British was a bourgeoise revolution.

The UDA and the RUC (elements anyway) were terrorists too, but my point is the use of a major political party and their 'wink' to their violent counterparts and "plausible" deniability. Although, I think even Gerry Adams hard a hard time keeping a straight face.

@Human1000 Violence is apolitical. But keeping things straight when making comparisons is important. There is no comparison between the American revolution and Irish republicanism except for the superficial technicality of being against the same entity. So I am not sure why you draw the comparison

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Violence can be political, which is an essential point of terrorism. I simply am using the Sinn Fein/IRA analogy to help describe the utter insanity happing in the US. The yoke of colonialism under the Crown is why the IRA was never really hated in the US (and our huge number of Irish Catholic immigrants, of course).

@Human1000 Violence is a tool and is apolitical. If I defend myself that is not a political statement.

I don't care about the on paper definition. It is completely silly anyway if you really think it through. But terrorism is a political label and PR more then anything. Not unlike enemy of the state.

Again that is a simplistic analysis that ironically completely ignores the politics and motivations of the groups you are comparing. Especially since the right in America are very fond of colonialism and empire.

@Human1000 American support for the IRA in Irish communities was all about a perceived ethnic duty to "the old country" and had nothing to do with domestic American attitudes.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Sure, one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist. It's terrorism when you don't like it, and legitimate violence when you do. The UDA thought their cause was righteous too.


The current American right is actually more isolationist which goes back to their roots. Our empire was never that big, actually.

@Human1000 You are right both sides think they are right. And that was my point that it is usually the government opposed that slaps the labels on things.


To call the right in America isolationist is a bit of a stretch. Trump himself bragged about seizing Syrian oil and feeling perfectly entitled to do so even though that is literally an act of war called pillaging in international law. The US empire is bigger then the British Empire. The US is trying to tell China what they can do in their own backyard. 1000 military bases is not exactly tiny.

By comparison Russia has like 10 foreign bases and China has 3 if I recall. And NATO is effectively US client states.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I agree to a large extent, but Americans never really gave too close of a look at Gerry Adams.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow True, about the oil. That would definitely be colonialism. The whole "American First" ethos of Trump has its roots though in the right wing isolationism of say Charles Lindbergh.

The economic system of colonialism and exploitation of labor is not the same as military bases which are there by invitation and have proscribed role. France a US Client state? Hmmm, we may be reaching the part of needing to agree to disagree, but I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

@Human1000 "America First" on the right is much like British colonialists back in the day. Then it was "Britain first" but in both case "America" and "Britain" meant they could take from anywhere on the globe to support the empire and they both felt entitled and justified to do it in both cases. See the Suez Canal.


Just because the US uses bases as colonial outposts doesn't make it different. And to claim they are there by invitation is just laughable. Kind of hard to say no when you are already occupied.

France like a teenager acting out asserts token acts of independence but push comes to shove they fall in line like everyone else in NATO.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Europe sure seemed nervous when Trump threatened to leave NATO. I don't think the American bases are even close to an actual Empire, but perhaps these are semantic differences. If you want to oppose American military bases as exploitative and domineering by all means. I'm not much of a Chomsky guy.


FYI, Eisenhower wanted no part of the Suez fiasco, but if you want to criticize American's current unflinching support of the right wing Israeli government I'm right there with you.

I'm told there is no agreement for American bases in Britain by the way. We just stayed!

@Human1000 NATO is a relic of the past and should have been tossed on the dustbin of history almost 30 years ago. The only people nervous were the political class. Chomsky is not the only one who has made this observation.

I mentioned Suez to illustrate how both the US and British Empires both felt entitled to resources in foreign lands thousands of miles from their home country yet then consider them as their property. Even Obama in a speech once referred to Alberta oil as as part of American domestic oil. Completely ignoring the fact Alberta is in a different country.



Actually that is how it is in most countries. Most US bases are in place the US effectively conquered. And the only places the US has ever left are places they were kicked out of.

And because of "agreements" signed at the end of WW2 Germany, Japan, and Italy will probably never be free of occupation.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow While I don’t share all these opinions, I wanted to thank you for sharing them. There are dark forces afoot, and we stand opposed to the new march of fascism. It is time to take sides, and while there never will be total agreement, we must keep an eye to the larger goal of defeating these dark forces. Take care, and stay safe...

@Human1000 On that we absolutely agree.