The IRA

[MCFCinUSA]

This is a pointless thread with about 90% of the people on it having no knowledge of the troubles at all. Just making sweeping pointless generalisations.

Yes the IRA committed attrocities, so did the British Army.
Lets not forget Bloody Sunday in Derry.
Lets not forget the Shankill Butchers.
Lets not forget the Omagh Bombing.

All sides committed attrocities! End of thread.

I'm not sure if you missed Toma's riposte to the OP then?

 

[ob]

-That's a lad with a semi automatic rifle who is part of a unit on a deadly hunt for the enemy?

-If I was the enemy he was after, I'd probably be as scared as him, know fuck all about him, but I'd definitely shoot him.

You can attach the label of British soldier or IRA volunteer to either or both of the above.

can you bollocks.a British soldier would not deliberatley target an innocent child whilst aiming a semi automatic rifle at the enemy unless he or she was mentally unstable or a low life scumbag.

And the IRA deliberately shot innocent children with semi automatic weapons now did they?

No but blew them up in bombs,omagh,warrington etc<br /><br />-- Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:42 am --<br /><br />

I've not made a thread to respect any atrocities of the British army john.

And warrington was nothing but a soft cowardly target.

I'd swing for those cowards.

Yes, I know you haven't. This isnt a thread I started nor would have started either.

The Warrington bombings, omagh all of them were attrocities. Not excusing those that planted the bombs by any means as if you plant a bomb the potential for it to kill is always there. However warnings were given. I am not saying that this makes it acceptable before you accuse me of that - just saying that it says to me that the people werent the primary target. Now Warrington police would never expected such an attack and probably werent capable of dealing with it anyway- which is why I presume you have singled out that in particular - and id agree with you.

But does that mean London and Manchester bombings are acceptable as warnings were given and therefore loss of life was avoided. Not at all as the potential for innocents dying was possible. I am possibly coming across as an IRA supporter and have been accused of that already, which im most certainly not, im just not a fan of the British army either

Omagh warning sent people in direction of the bomb,innocent civilians not army or police,similar thing happened in coleraine one bomb went off n police escorted people to other end of high street where another went off 10 minutes later, 6 dead,i was at school in town centre aged 11

 

[mammutly]

Let me just catagorically state before I begin that I am not comparing anything to anything here. Really I'm not. I'm not saying one is the same as the other, or better or worse. They are entirely different things. Yet I am about to write them to illustrate why I think the OP has possibly just produced the most stupid and obvious point since I found out about this forum. Obvious because his point is....well, fucking duh. And stupid because of the needless offense he knew he might cause to fellow blues.

Here goes......say what you like about the Yorkshire Ripper but its incredible really that he managed to avoid capture for so long. A bad man sure but there's no doubt he was very talented at being a serial killer.

The Nazis....how did one country do that?! Fair play to them. Credit where its due. Some of the things they did were way ahead of their time.

Breivik....a sick indivual but it was quite ingenius how he used the bomb to distract the police and then disguised himself as a police officer in order to be let onto the island with weaponary. People will be just remembering him for the bloodshed no doubt but its worth pointing out the method to the madness.

interesting thread to read - and clearly a 'no win' for anyone on this subject area in general, especially for those who have been caught up in anything like this no matter which side they've suffered (and I'm talking about the victims of violence - not the perpetrators of it)

as for your posting, I think you totally owned the OP and did so with aplomb and humour - to you the spoils.

So actually making a value laden comparison between two completely different things, whilst saying you are not actually comparing them, is a way of winning an argument in your opinion?

The association between crime and war is played out daily, with the victors usually acting as judge and jury. Saddam Hussien was hanged against the wishes of half the population of Iraq - was it for having WMDs?

One countries crime is another's fight for freedom. The coalition forces recently bombed women and childen in Libya. Are they just fighters or vile murderers? I suppose it depends which end of the bombsight you look at it from.

 

[metalblue]

@mammutly, I'm sure there are stories of individuals at a given moment being "brave". I spoke with me mam about this (ROI catholic, lost her uncle, unarmed man, shot by IRA) and her words were that they were more like warlords than freedom fighters, running whole communities in fear and anyone who dared speak up? well her uncle did and examples made.

The expression "two wrongs don't make a right" was written for this thread

 

[SWP's back]

Fair enough, I guess you'd be happy enough to roll over and accept that, but it's not something I would be able to do.

But you're a rag and I couldn't do that.

 

[Anonymous]

For the one's bleating about how callous the British Army was in N.I, can you answer me this question?

It's common knowledge that the British knew exactly who the players were in the IRA, if the British were so evil and callous why weren't all these known terrorists just taken out?

The SAS did plenty of that thank fuck.

You know it's a little known fact that Gerry Adams was actually saved from assassination by the British Army.

The British could have took the lot of them out, but didn't.

Funnily enough, the reason Adams has a beard was because in attempt on his life he was shot in the jaw. His driver was killed in the process of saving him. It was blamed on Loyalist paramilitaries, but two separate ex forces people both indepently told me it was the army who carried out the attack. Apparently the squadron was sat round the telly waiting for the news that he'd been killed so they could start the party.

All apropos of nothing of course, as Adams chose his path and knew that would be an occupational hazard too.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The SAS did plenty of that thank fuck.

You know it's a little known fact that Gerry Adams was actually saved from assassination by the British Army.

The British could have took the lot of them out, but didn't.

Funnily enough, the reason Adams has a beard was because in attempt on his life he was shot in the jaw. His driver was killed in the process of saving him. It was blamed on Loyalist paramilitaries, but two separate ex forces people both indepently told me it was the army who carried out the attack. Apparently the squadron was sat round the telly waiting for the news that he'd been killed so they could start the party.

All apropos of nothing of course, as Adams chose his path and knew that would be an occupational hazard too.

I see what you did there.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I would have imagined by virtue of the fact that I was making the other two jobs analogous with the army that you would have realised that I wasn't trying to say that.

What about aid workers that get murdered?
Construction workers crushed by faulty machinery?

They know the risks. Tough shit for them too I guess?

What about CSO's who refuse to save a drowning member of the public because it's not in their job description. Presumably you are happy to defend them because they are exercising their free will and have evaluated the risks involved.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I asked a question and made no defence of any position. For the examples given, it is an occupational hazard, but certainly not "tough shit" if that hazard came upon them; that's just adding emotion into the debate.

To my mind in those situations saying 'it's an occupational hazard' and 'tough shit' are equivalent to each other and equally lacking in empathy.

And to be fair I don't think I've added any more emotion to this debate than was already present.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest you added emotion into the debate as a whole, just the "occupational hazard" bit - I could have and should have been clear; apologies :-)

As for them being equivalent in your mind, I can well understand that. To me though, they are separate. Whilst I do see it as an occupational hazard, it doesn't stop me getting genuinely choked up seeing images from Wooton Bassett and the thought of the loss of life and devastation to families.

The whole NI issue as we know is extremely complex, both sides as bad as each other and neither side willing to meet the other in the middle.

Any loss of life in a conflict is usually needless.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I asked a question and made no defence of any position. For the examples given, it is an occupational hazard, but certainly not "tough shit" if that hazard came upon them; that's just adding emotion into the debate.

To my mind in those situations saying 'it's an occupational hazard' and 'tough shit' are equivalent to each other and equally lacking in empathy.

And to be fair I don't think I've added any more emotion to this debate than was already present.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest you added emotion into the debate as a whole, just the "occupational hazard" bit - I could have and should have been clear; apologies :-)

As for them being equivalent in your mind, I can well understand that. To me though, they are separate. Whilst I do see it as an occupational hazard, it doesn't stop me getting genuinely choked up seeing images from Wooton Bassett and the thought of the loss of life and devastation to families.

The whole NI issue as we know is extremely complex, both sides as bad as each other and neither side willing to meet the other in the middle.

Any loss of life in a conflict is usually needless.

Fair comment and the penultimate paragraph pretty much echoes what I've said previously.

 

[kinkysleftfoot]

It seems to me that a number of people think the suffering and horror of war is a one sided affair. Innocent men, women and children die in wars, through bombings, shootings, and in some cases bloody, targeted brutality. The troubles were no different.

If an Irish child was killed by a British bullet were they any less of a victim than a British child killed by an IRA bomb? And don't say, the RUC and the army never deliberately targeted civilians because that is a ridiculously naive position that show's complete ignorance of the reality of the conflict in Ireland.

One poster has asked for clarification of why I would say the IRA deserved respect as a fighting force. I have already posted the link to the British goverment sponsored enquiry into the military operation in Ireland which concluded that PIRA were a "resilient, effective and determined force".

More than 150 IRA volunteers were killed on active service during the troubles, many more were arrested, tortured and imprisoned - so I think portraying them as cowards is much more a value judgement than a realistic opinion.

The fact is that that the IRA operated under the most intense state security regime ever established in Europe with constant multi level surveillance, routine arrest and interrogation proceedures, and a pretty much shoot on site policy for known suspects. Despite this they continued an effective guerrilla war against majority military, security force and political targets. They also acquired weapons, orchestrated high security prison escapes and, thanks largely to the continued brutality of the RUC and the British Army, built up widespread community support.

The suggestion made by another poster that the IRA declared a ceasefire from the brink of defeat is not supported by any of the available evidence.

I'm curious mate, can I ask you a question?

Just wondering if you support all terrorist organisations or just the IRA? Do you support AL-Qaeda? Do you admire the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks?

I'm not sure he's supporting them!........difference between admiration and supporting!<br /><br />-- Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:01 am --<br /><br />

If 6 counties of England, lets says Cornwall, Devon and a few others around there we're occupied by let's says France and around half the people lived there wanted to be English would you rebel?

I know I would.

Do you think it would be ok for the Scottish nationalists to take up arms against the UK? The Welsh too for that matter.

If the British army was killing Scottish nationalists on a civil rights march then yes. But that's an entirely different situation altogether.

tell me......why were the British army in Northern Ireland and at a civil rights march?........just passing by on Sunday stroll???