Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'
Options
Comments
-
And they also produce large amounts of metal shrapnel when exploded...Bombs are placed in litter bins as they are effective places in central business districts (CBDs) to utilise. They hide the bomb and the person placing it looks like they are simply disposing of rubbish.
If the goal was simply to conceal the bomb there are plenty of other ways to do that. They were placed specifically in these large metal bins to produce shrapnel.
Not the types of bombs the IRA use, which are much more powerful than a standard anti-personal device and are designed to damage buildings as well as injure civilians.Anti-personnell devices are usually wrapped with corrogated cardboard with nails taped to the indents, that or smarties tubes filled with ball-bearings.
Are you serious? Are you just making this nonsense up as you go?the majority of IRA bombs went off without injuring anyone due to warnings issued.
Out of the years of IRA bombings there have only been a handful that resulted in no injuries or deaths, such as the bombing of the Stock Exchange. The vast vast majority of them either killed or injured scores of people.
How can you be so ignorant of this subject that you discuss all the time?
No its ok, the IRA give me plenty of examples to pick from.If you want an example of bombing with a view to civilian massacres have a look at Hamas or Al Qaeda.
So I ask the question again, what is the military significance of Argos ...Those sort of bombs were placed with a view to damage CBDs through structural damage as well as the revenues lost and insurance paid out.
You seem to be admitting that there was one, which is a start.
There was no military significance of these targets, the point of these attacks was to injure and kill English civilians with the aim of terrorizing the population through the threat of random attacks, into granting the demands of the IRA.
It was terrorism, pure and simple. They might have been shooting children in the middle of the street.
Pretty muchYeah, that's right, a shower of illiterate, estate-bred eejits devoid of humanity...0 -
against the wishes of the Irish people
Ah yes, this magical "Irish people" who don't actually exist except in the heads of Republicans. Forgot about them.
The Irish people, through their representatives in the Dail, accept the Treaty.
The most ironic thing about the entire Republician/Nationalist (both terms that are rather insulting to people like myself who actually believe in the principles of democracy and republics) movement is how quickly these people are prepared to balk at the principles of democracy when it actually works against their goals.0 -
If the goal was simply to conceal the bomb there are plenty of other ways to do that. They were placed specifically in these large metal bins to produce shrapnel.
How else do you conceal a bomb? Put it in a hold all bag and leave it on the footpath? In the middle of a bombing campaign? Bins were the most effective place to conceal devices, that was all there was to it.Not the types of bombs the IRA use, which are much more powerful than a standard anti-personal device and are designed to damage buildings as well as injure civilians
Bombs can be made to target buildings or else they can be made to kill people, when targeting soldiers etc the IRA used the latter, they used the former when striking CBDs.Are you serious? Are you just making this nonsense up as you go?
Out of the years of IRA bombings there have only been a handful that resulted in no injuries or deaths, such as the bombing of the Stock Exchange. The vast vast majority of them either killed or injured scores of people.
How can you be so ignorant of this subject that you discuss all the time?
The vast vast majority? Is that why out of the thousands of devices they exploded in England they killed around 80 civilians in the space of 30 years? Nearly all of the time a warning was given, the place was evacuated and the device exploded without causing casualties. If the IRA had wished to kill civilians it could have done so on a massive scale, but it didn't, because it knew full well that targetting civilians would have been counterproductive for its own cause.So I ask the question again, what is the military significance of Argos ...
I answered your question, but obviously you didn't bother to read what I said and instead are simply regurgitating flawed and tired generalisations on a subject which you obviously haven't the best grasp of. I pointed out to you that the IRA targetted CBDs in Britain with a view to elevating the economic cost of the British government to remain in Ireland. The likes of Warrington, Coventry etc were hit in order to demonstrate the IRA's capacity for operations outside London.It was terrorism, pure and simple. They might have been shooting children in the middle of the street
They might have, but as I said they never did target civilians at all; if they were engaged in the bloodlust slaughter you say they were engaged in they certainly would have killed a lot more than they actually did.Pretty much
The IRA were actually one of the most sophisticated guerilla armies in the world, likewise even a famous internal British Army memo contradicts the lazy stereotypes you are putting across.Ah yes, this magical "Irish people" who don't actually exist except in the heads of Republicans. Forgot about them
No, these are the Irish people who voted for a 32 County Irish Republic, before that decision was overturned by the British government in 1920 and again in 1922.0 -
So, that's democracy.So what?
No disrespect to anyone who lives in, or hales from Mayo, but I couldn't give a flying **** if the people of Mayo decide to join the UK.If a 60% majority of people in Mayo decided to affiliate to the UK would that be acceptable to you?
Anyway, that's a poor analogy. Northern Ireland is a separate state, whether ye lads care to admit to it or not. Arguing that it was "artificially created" nearly 100 years ago is pretty irrelevant at this stage. Time to stop living in the past.
Exactly. They CHOOSE to live there. If they were that repulsed at living within the UK, I'm sure they would have left by now.As I said, they live in Tyrone and South Armagh because those areas are their homes and as such they wish to remain there...
Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe some do wish to live under British rule, I don't know. However, Irish unity is not the default option for someone who does not wish to live under British rule. According to a 2005 survey, only 50% of Catholics wanted a United Ireland.Do you believe that people in Crossmaglen or Strabane oppose Irish unity and wish to live under British rule?
Acknowledging that all IRA members are sub-human? I would have thought that is the popular viewpoint.That's simply deranged.
I would have thought the aim would be quite clear. If someone's going to blow up a building, then there aim is most likely to blow up the building. Anything else that happens to be rattling around in their stone-age skull (and I very much doubt there is anything else) is totally irrelevant.but that depands on what your aims are. do you want a huge loss of life??? or do you want to make a statement???
Anyone who thinks that blowing something up is a viable means of making a statement should be in a psychiatric hospital beside the pyromaniacs ward.
NO! :mad:...you accept that some innocent people are going to die and iff your a decent person you will try and reduce the innocent deaths as much as possible.
If you are a decent/sane person you look for an alternative to violence and if you can't find one, you look harder.
Oh, is that all. Only eighty? So what's all the fuss about, eh? :rolleyes:Is that why out of the thousands of devices they exploded in England they killed around 80 civilians in the space of 30 years?
Starting to detect a hint of admiration...The IRA were actually one of the most sophisticated guerilla armies in the world...
Most of whom would be long dead by now, I would imagine.No, these are the Irish people who voted for a 32 County Irish Republic, before that decision was overturned by the British government in 1920 and again in 1922.0 -
Put it some where else out of the way.How else do you conceal a bomb? Put it in a hold all bag and leave it on the footpath? In the middle of a bombing campaign? Bins were the most effective place to conceal devices, that was all there was to it.
The reason to put it in a large iron bin on a front street is to kill the people on the front street. And that is all there is to it
And bombs that are used to target buildings can also be effective anti-personal devices when put in large metal bins because the explosion creates shrapnel that travels at fast speed great distances away from the initial bomb blast.Bombs can be made to target buildings or else they can be made to kill people, when targeting soldiers etc the IRA used the latter, they used the former when striking CBDs.
Thousands of bomb attacks? What are you talking about? :rolleyes:The vast vast majority? Is that why out of the thousands of devices they exploded in England they killed around 80 civilians in the space of 30 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_IRA_Actions
Go through that list and can you tell me how many of those bomb attacks didn't either injure or kill someone. I'll give you a hint, not that many ....
Er, no that actually hardly ever happened. There have been only a handful where no one was injured.Nearly all of the time a warning was given, the place was evacuated and the device exploded without causing casualties.
As opposed to what, killing children on busy shopping streets? :rolleyes:If the IRA had wished to kill civilians it could have done so on a massive scale, but it didn't, because it knew full well that targetting civilians would have been counterproductive for its own cause.
You do understand that that means these "CBDs" had absolutely no military purpose and were not legitimate military targets.I pointed out to you that the IRA targetted CBDs in Britain with a view to elevating the economic cost of the British government to remain in Ireland.
Hopefully that will be remembered the next time someone claims the IRA only went after legitimate targets. :rolleyes:
So Central Business Districts are full of legitimate military targets are they. Oh silly of me.They might have, but as I said they never did target civilians at all;
One does wonder what those two children in Warrington were doing on a military base dressed up as an Argos though ....The IRA were actually one of the most sophisticated guerilla armies in the world, likewise even a famous internal British Army memo contradicts the lazy stereotypes you are putting across.
What, thugs and murderers can't be sophisticated? I'm pretty sure the IRA spend a great deal of time and effort developing better ways to be thugs and murderers.No, these are the Irish people who voted for a 32 County Irish Republic, before that decision was overturned by the British government in 1920 and again in 1922.
Your history is astonishingly bad (tell me again about the thousands of IRA bomb attacks in England) ...
The Dáil voted 64 to 57 in favor of the Treaty, that treaty that recognized Northern Ireland and gave it the right to withdraw from the Irish Free State should it so wish to.
Or was the Dáil, mostly made up of members of Sinn Féin, actually the British government?
Because I must have missed that page in the history books ....0 -
Advertisement
-
So, that's democracy.
No it isn't, its simply Unionists having a veto over the national aspirations of this country. When this country voted to establish itself as a Republic, that was a democratic expression, the Brits annexing one fifth of the national territory in order to create a majority based on sectarianism is far removed from democracy.No disrespect to anyone who lives in, or hales from Mayo, but I couldn't give a flying **** if the people of Mayo decide to join the UK.
So you think it is grand for any small part of Ireland to simply break off and remain a part of the UK despite the majority disagreeing with it?Exactly. They CHOOSE to live there. If they were that repulsed at living within the UK, I'm sure they would have left by now.
By your logic anyone living in South Africa pre-1990 was confortable with apartheid, sure wouldn't they have left if they had a problem with it? :rolleyes: The above is one of the silliest points I have heard advanced on this site to date. The fact the British Army couldn't even use the roads in South Armagh demonstrates clearly that the local population weren't to enthused about their area being in the UK.Acknowledging that all IRA members are sub-human? I would have thought that is the popular viewpoint
Popular viewpoint amongst arseholes maybe, most people while disagreeing with the IRA had no trouble acknowledging them as human beings. In your view would the likes of Bobby Sands be "sub-human"? To be honest I'm a bit wary of those who seek to dehumanise others.Oh, is that all. Only eighty? So what's all the fuss about, eh?
You're taking my point out of context, I cited that figure in order to demonstrate how the IRA didn't seek to purposely target civilians en masse.Starting to detect a hint of admiration...
Detect what you want, I have no qualms in stating I supported the IRA campaign. And yes, I do have admiration for a working-class, volunteer organisation which took on one of the world's most sophisticated armies for 25 years.0 -
Thousands of bomb attacks? What are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronol...al_IRA_Actions
Go through that list and can you tell me how many of those bomb attacks didn't either injure or kill someone. I'll give you a hint, not that many ....
The IRA detonated thousands of devices in England and Ireland I meant to say. That wikipidia list simply cites the most notable IRA operations, do you think that is a complete catalogue of their activities or something?Er, no that actually hardly ever happened. There have been only a handful where no one was injured.
Really? Because my own aunt was involved in two incidents where she was evacuated prior to an explosion due to a warning being delivered, as was a fella I work with from Barbados when he was working in a bank. As I said, if they were pursuing the strategy you claim they were pursuing there would have been a lot more civilians casualties than there actually were.You do understand that that means these "CBDs" had absolutely no military purpose and were not legitimate military targets.
When did I claim they were military targets? I said they were economic targets, in fact I mentioned that twice already.What, thugs and murderers can't be sophisticated? I'm pretty sure the IRA spend a great deal of time and effort developing better ways to be thugs and murderers.
Whatever, even General Glover wrote an internal circular in 1978 (later intercepted by the IRA and published) in which he dispelled the notion of the IRA as being thugs etc and instead admitted they were politically-motivated individuals with considerable support. To be honest the notion that Republicans are simply the unemployed and unemployable is fallacious in the extreme, and ignores the fact that its members were prepared to starve to death for an ideal; hardly the behaviour of an elevated criminal.Your history is astonishingly bad
Is it? So the Irish people didn't elect 73 Sinn Féin MPs out of a possible 105? The TDs may well have accepted the Treaty but the subsequent election was held on a partitionist basis in the context of a threat of "immediate and terrible war"; the fact was the Republic was generally overwhelmed by British blackmail and threats.0 -
As has already been pointed out, the treaty was accepted by the Dáil; again, democracy....the Brits annexing one fifth of the national territory in order to create a majority based on sectarianism is far removed from democracy.
Again, this was nearly 100 years ago - there's no point dwelling on it.
In the incredibly unlikely event of some part of Ireland deciding it wants to secede and join the UK, I wouldn't really give a toss, no. But it’s so ridiculously far-fetched there’s no point considering it.So you think it is grand for any small part of Ireland to simply break off and remain a part of the UK despite the majority disagreeing with it?
So we're comparing present-day Northern Ireland to South Africa under apartheid? :rolleyes:By your logic anyone living in South Africa pre-1990 was confortable with apartheid, sure wouldn't they have left if they had a problem with it?
Slightly different situation, I think most would agree. People in the North are free to live and/or work wherever they want in the EU - this was not the case (and is still not the case) for the people of South Africa.
You mean the way the IRA do?To be honest I'm a bit wary of those who seek to dehumanise others.
They still did a pretty good job of killing and maiming a large number of civilians....I cited that figure in order to demonstrate how the IRA didn't seek to purposely target civilians en masse.0 -
The IRA did not detonate "thousands" of bombs in England, Ireland or Scotland Wales or Kathmandu.The IRA detonated thousands of devices in England and Ireland I meant to say.
Stop making things up.
Oh your aunt. Well then, clearly I'm mistaken ... :rolleyes:Really? Because my own aunt was involved in two incidents where she was evacuated prior to an explosion due to a warning being delivered, as was a fella I work with from Barbados when he was working in a bank.
That is ridiculous logic.As I said, if they were pursuing the strategy you claim they were pursuing there would have been a lot more civilians casualties than there actually were.
If the IRA weren't pursing civilian casualties there wouldn't have been civilian casualties because they wouldn't have been blowing up civilian. Saying they weren't pursing civilian deaths or injuries because they phoned in the bomb 3 minutes before it blew up is an utter insult
I'm not pursing a campaign of civilian casualties and amazingly I've some how managed to not accidentally kill anyone in my 28 years on this Earth. Astonishing I know ... :rolleyes:
I originally asked what was the military legitimacy of these targets. I think we can both agree there wasn't one.When did I claim they were military targets? I said they were economic targets, in fact I mentioned that twice already.
I don't remember mentioning anything about being unemployed.To be honest the notion that Republicans are simply the unemployed and unemployable is fallacious in the extreme,
And what ideal did Bobby Sands die for? The right to blow up furniture shops?The TDs may well have accepted the Treaty but the subsequent election was held on a partitionist basis in the context of a threat of "immediate and terrible war"; the fact was the Republic was generally overwhelmed by British blackmail and threats.
Oh for Christsake ... so when the Irish people vote a way you don't agree with they are being "blackmailed" by the British government so its ok to ignore that because they don't really know what they are doing you and you do.0 -
Opinion polls mean not a jot. People say things in an off the cuff manner. It will take the economies of the 26 counties to converge once again with that of the 6 before any real notions of unity could be entertained by all but the most fanciful people. I personally do not believe that will happen any time soon.The two are not synonymous but the fact remains the vast majority of Catholics vote for two parties which hold Irish unity as one of their main goals, Sinn Féin being the larger of the two. Likewise countless opinion polls have show that a majority of people in Ireland profess to support Irish unity, albeit not as a priority. The notion that most Catholics are somehow implicitly opposed to unity is completely fallacious.
Maybe they wouldn't like to hear the truth but oten the biggest mouth piece republicans (not you) are the very ones making a tidy living from the border itself. They know deep down that the RoI cannot offer them the same spending levels they receive from Westminster via Stormont. If they felt really oppressed in the "statelet" they'd leave, just like so many refugees from around the world leave and come to the RoI. They could leave with relative ease, but they didn't and they still don't because having a Northern Ireland adress is more beneficial than one on the other side of the border.With respect that point is simply idiotic. People remain in Tyrone and South Armagh because those areas are their homes, not because they prefer living in the UK. The border areas are actually the most vociferous in their opposition to British rule in this country. I'd love to hear you tell people in Crossmaglen or Cappagh that they know which side their bread is buttered on.
To be frank, I barely consider anyone who leaves bombs in public places to be human.I don't know, but you are the one gloating like a child over the death of another human being. My opinions as a militant Republican are well known, but I haven't once took pleasure or joy in the death of anyone.
I predict an upsurge of Ulster nationalism in the future, an identity which will be taken on by both sides. Paisley is barely a unionist-he's an Ulster Nationalist and don't be surprised if SF continue to get their arse kicked down south when they join Paisley's DUP as Ulster Nationalists and move to set up their own state, independent of either GB or RoI.0 -
Advertisement
-
True. The Balcombe Street Gang admitted they used letter boxes as the cast iron structure shattered and caused masses of flying shrapnel. A cast iron litter bin would be identical.The reason to put it in a large iron bin on a front street is to kill the people on the front street. And that is all there is to it0 -
How are they being forced? The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK – you seem to be having a whole lot of trouble accepting this.
No I don't actualy Mystic Meg. Sure didn't the people of Derry with a large nationalist majoirty always like voting those unionists thanks to slighlty helpfull electoral boundaries if you want to use an argument like that :rolleyes:
The maority of the complete island of Ireland wish for re0unification, do you have a problem accepting that??
So what, all those years of masses being banned, pro Irish rallys being crushed and banned, all those years and events have slipped your mind??Don't play dumb if you don't want to be talked to like it.I don’t ever recall having my culture (whatever that is) “oppressed, outlawed or purposely diminished”.
No they aren't thankfully. Read the dumb point I made above again.Yeah, the vast majority of people in Ireland are quizzed about their religion on a daily basis :rolleyes:.
Third time lucky with the dumb point.It isn’t.
No, one man’s terrorist (i.e. someone who imparts terror) is most likely a terrorist.
Going on your rational, the US army and all armys around the world inolved in military actions are terroirsts. They partake and spread terror among the people their actions are against.
So would you like to give a straight yes or no answer on that point??Why does he need to justify his reasons to you? You believe that if I were to blow up the British Embassy, that’s just fine, as long as I have a good reason, even though the overwhelming majority of the population of this country would be opposed to such a move. Why does your opinion (or the opinion of a minority) count more than theirs?
Time to go for fourth time lucky with the dumb point eh....
You are trying to say its OK to commit an act like rape,murder, or arson for no reason at all?If you are then you should really check yourself into the local ward and ask for help.
You will have to try and provide some justification at least trying to make the point in any way slightly relevant.
On the minority point again.
Say Yes or No
Do you support the actions of the Easter Rising 1916????
Give your answer first then an explaination if you wish(just so you don't sidestep the question)
[/quote]0 -
I have a brain, ta. And I don't give a damn what you or anyone else claims was the "deliberate intent" of the bomb. If you put explosives in a car and park it on a busy street, there's a good chance civilians will be killed. Crying like a little girl after the fact that the nasty policemen didn't clear people away from the big fúcking bomb you just left on the street doesn't wash - not with people who have any shred of human decency.How does it further anything by deliberatly killing civilians???It just alientes any suport that could have been recieved...
You have seen the fallout it has resulted in so if you have a brain you will realise that this was not the deliberate intent of the bomb......
It's getting close. How people can be so goddamn blasé about the bloody murder of innocent human beings is beyond me.Sure you're always going on about how things "sickens me", I'd say you need to keep a bucket handy everytime you log in here.
No, they just planted a great big fúcking bomb on a busy shopping street.I'm not justifying the Omagh bomb at all, neither am I a supporter of the RIRA or armed struggle in general. My only point is that the Reals didn't sit around one day and come up with a scheme to see how many Nationalists they could kill.
If they didn't want to kill civilians (nationalist or otherwise), they wouldn't have made the bomb. The fact that they made and planted it makes them not the tiniest bit less guilty than if they had worked out in mathematical detail just how many people they could kill. They're disgusting, cold-blooded murderers either way.0 -
The maority of the complete island of Ireland wish for re0unification, do you have a problem accepting that??
The majority of the "complete island" recognize Northern Ireland as a separate state with the right to determine their own identity based on the democratic wishes of the population of Northern Ireland alone.
Seriously, what part of that is causing people problems?0 -
To reiterate what Wicknight just said, Northern Ireland is recognised as a separate state by the majority in the Republic and, according to a 2005 survey, only 23% of the North's population want a United Ireland.The maority of the complete island of Ireland wish for re0unification, do you have a problem accepting that??
Can you provide specific references for these events (assuming they have occurred since 1922)?So what, all those years of masses being banned, pro Irish rallys being crushed and banned, all those years and events have slipped your mind??
I've absolutely no idea what this means.Don't play dumb if you don't want to be talked to like it.
Broken record. I'm not a fan of the US military either if that's what you're asking, but that's a matter for another thread.Going on your rational, the US army and all armys around the world inolved in military actions are terroirsts.
Back on-topic, the IRA are terrorists, plain and simple. Comparing them to other bad people doesn't make them look any better.
Eh, no. You've totally missed the point.You are trying to say its OK to commit an act like rape,murder, or arson for no reason at all?
You have stated that it would be perfectly justified for me to blow up the British Embassy, as long as I have, what is in your opinion, a good reason (whatever that is). By extension of your logic, it is perfectly justifiable for someone to blow up the Irish Embassy in London (or any other building, anywhere for that matter), as long as they have a good reason.
Nope, but it's irrelevant seeing as how I wasn't around at the time. Neither were my parents. Neither were my grandparents. See where this is going?Do you support the actions of the Easter Rising 1916????0 -
The IRA did not detonate "thousands" of bombs in England, Ireland or Scotland Wales or Kathmandu.
Stop making things up.
So you are saying the notion that the IRA planted an average of 35 bombs a year (factor in the massive amount of activity in the early 70s) is inconcievable?That is ridiculous logic.
Ridiculous logic is when you claim the IRA sought to kill as many civilians as possible despite them killing a relatively small amount considering their capability. People who want to kill civilians don't bother leaving warnings at all. In fact I'd say Kingsmills and Birmingham are the only examples of the IRA deliberately killing a large amount of civilians.I originally asked what was the military legitimacy of these targets. I think we can both agree there wasn't one.
I never once claimed that there was a military significance in the bombing of town centres, rather bombs were placed there in order to cause economic damage.And what ideal did Bobby Sands die for? The right to blow up furniture shops?
Not really, the right of Republicans to be recognised as politically-motivated insurgents as opposed to criminals. Would you believe a man like Bobby Sands to be nothing else but a thug and a murderer?Oh for Christsake ... so when the Irish people vote a way you don't agree with they are being "blackmailed" by the British government so its ok to ignore that because they don't really know what they are doing you and you do.
So Ireland wasn't partitioned against the wishes of the majority and Lloyd George didn't threaten an "immediate and terrible war"?0 -
Actually, you said "The IRA detonated thousands of devices in England and Ireland". For this to be true (i.e. for a minimum of 2,000 detonations), they would have had to detonate over 66 bombs per year, on average (if we take the length of their campaign to be 30 years).So you are saying the notion that the IRA planted an average of 35 bombs a year (factor in the massive amount of activity in the early 70s) is inconcievable?
Wait now; I thought you said that:In fact I'd say Kingsmills and Birmingham are the only examples of the IRA deliberately killing a large amount of civilians.
Consistency?they never did target civilians at all
So now you admit that the IRA ARE in fact murderers, after all?
I don't know if he ever successfully killed anyone, but if he was a member of the IRA, then he was a thug and an accessory to murder, at the very least.Would you believe a man like Bobby Sands to be nothing else but a thug and a murderer?0 -
Can you give facts the the majority of the Republic regognise the NI statelet??I must have missed the questionaire which was passed around to every household. Are you trying to use the GFA as a example??To reiterate what Wicknight just said, Northern Ireland is recognised as a separate state by the majority in the Republic and, according to a 2005 survey, only 23% of the North's population want a United Ireland.
And it's laughable you are trying to use a variable survey for you points. Surveys are unrelaible of the true proportion unless extremly well distrubted in terms of people...do you think the thoughts of a minimal amount of people account for all of them??What areas were questioned??
Why assuming since they have happened since 1922? It has been going on for years and the point you don't understand I'll make it simpler for you. Don't act stupid if you don't want to be talked to stupid.Can you provide specific references for these events (assuming they have occurred since 1922)?
I've absolutely no idea what this means.
Some of your arguments are like broken records too but....Broken record. I'm not a fan of the US military either if that's what you're asking, but that's a matter for another thread.
You failed to answer the question. Do you classify any army involved right now in miltary operations as terrorists yes or no, quite simply to answer I think.Eh, no. You've totally missed the point.
You have stated that it would be perfectly justified for me to blow up the British Embassy, as long as I have, what is in your opinion, a good reason (whatever that is). By extension of your logic, it is perfectly justifiable for someone to blow up the Irish Embassy in London (or any other building, anywhere for that matter), as long as they have a good reason.
How totally missed the point??
What you are trying to compare is idiotic.
You are trying make similar points between reason and having none.
Yes, if the British Embassy which represents its government, has over years opressed,murdered tortured,deceited ( seems familiar doesn't it??Maybe should read points already made) etc in clear violation of the peoples rights any actions against it will be justified.
I have already said this so please read before continuing to make baseless points.
IF the Irish nation has acted in the way the Englsih one has, then YES actions against it would be justifiable. The difference is THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED so you have no reason to!!It's quite simple!Nope, but it's irrelevant seeing as how I wasn't around at the time. Neither were my parents. Neither were my grandparents. See where this is going?
Neither were your grandparents grandparents?? makes no difference really does it?
Basically what you are saying is you don't support the actions taken to gain us 'our freedom'.
You don't support the actions that helped make the state you support.....see where this argument is falling through???
On the issue yet again on IRA bombs being deliberatly targetted at civilians, YES THIS UNFORTUNATLY HAPPENED AT SOME FEW POINTS AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
These actions are against all proncaples being stood by.
BUT if this falseity of the IRA deliberatly targetting civlians was the case...
Why were there no buses blown up in London?
Why were there no trains...aeroplanes...even taxis blown up??
Why wasn't there bombs place in Londons busiest streets and no warnings given???
Why were the bombs placed a night time and exploded?
Why were bombs placed and given warnings to??
TO MINIMISE OR TO CUT OUT COMPLETLY THE POSSIBILITY OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
This is not Al Qeada. The aim was not to kill as much people as humanly possible. This should be a largely known fact based on the simply details.
Again (as I said before) you can all see the fallout civilian deaths have from Omagh, so why is the point still argued that this was the case the whole time???0 -
Can you give facts the the majority of the Republic regognise the NI statelet??I must have missed the questionaire which was passed around to every household. Are you trying to use the GFA as a example??
And it's laughable you are trying to use a variable survey for you points. Surveys are unrelaible of the true proportion unless extremly well distrubted in terms of people...do you think the thoughts of a minimal amount of people account for all of them??What areas were questioned??
Why assuming since they have happened since 1922? It has been going on for years and the point you don't understand I'll make it simpler for you. Don't act stupid if you don't want to be talked to stupid.
Some of your arguments are like broken records too but....
You failed to answer the question. Do you classify any army involved right now in miltary operations as terrorists yes or no, quite simply to answer I think.
How totally missed the point??
What you are trying to compare is idiotic.
You are trying make similar points between reason and having none.
Yes, if the British Embassy which represents its government, has over years opressed,murdered tortured,deceited ( seems familiar doesn't it??Maybe should read points already made) etc in clear violation of the peoples rights any actions against it will be justified.
I have already said this so please read before continuing to make baseless points.
IF the Irish nation has acted in the way the Englsih one has, then YES actions against it would be justifiable. The difference is THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED so you have no reason to!!It's quite simple!
Neither were your grandparents grandparents?? makes no difference really does it?
Basically what you are saying is you don't support the actions taken to gain us 'our freedom'.
You don't support the actions that helped make the state you support.....see where this argument is falling through???
On the issue yet again on IRA bombs being deliberatly targetted at civilians, YES THIS UNFORTUNATLY HAPPENED AT SOME FEW POINTS AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
These actions are against all proncaples being stood by.
BUT if this falseity of the IRA deliberatly targetting civlians was the case...
Why were there no buses blown up in London?
Why were there no trains...aeroplanes...even taxis blown up??
Why wasn't there bombs place in Londons busiest streets and no warnings given???
Why were the bombs placed a night time and exploded?
Why were bombs placed and given warnings to??
TO MINIMISE OR TO CUT OUT COMPLETLY THE POSSIBILITY OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
This is not Al Qeada. The aim was not to kill as much people as humanly possible. This should be a largely known fact based on the simply details.
Again (as I said before) you can all see the fallout civilian deaths have from Omagh, so why is the point still argued that this was the case the whole time???
The IRA were not ruthless enough to go to the lengths Al Qeada do, I'll agree that, but why attack Harrods in the run up to Christmas, why attack an army band, why attack Warrington? The IRA bombing campaigns became as synonymous with Christmas as the wizard of oz.
The IRA deliberately targetted civilians and created an environment where the majority or people in England did not care what cause they were fighting for, they did not want them get it. If the people of NI followed the same policies as the people of Poland, there would probably be a united Ireland today, but instead they created the same spirit in London as Hitler did and there was no way people would be defeated by them.
In fact, I would go as far to say if Sinn Fein changed their name and got rid of the old guard, they would make even more ground as people see McGuinness and Adams as murderers. Get rid of them and remoce once and for all the link with the IRA and their support would increase. Trouble is, do Adams and McGuinnes want a united Ireland or do they want power?
I know what I think.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombingRidiculous logic is when you claim the IRA sought to kill as many civilians as possible despite them killing a relatively small amount considering their capability. People who want to kill civilians don't bother leaving warnings at all. In fact I'd say Kingsmills and Birmingham are the only examples of the IRA deliberately killing a large amount of civilians.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do the two republicans believe Al Qaida to be an army like the 'RA?
To dav32cs:
You state that a majority on the island wish for unity therefore we should have unity. Now, assuming this is even the case (which I don't believe anymore) then what's the difference between that and the entire pre-1922 UK taking a vote on a fully United Kingdom once more, that is to re-absorb the 'abandoned 26' into the fold of Britania's bosom. We'd be obliged to go along with the wishes of the majority of these island's, right?......<stands to attention and sings God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen etc>0 -
on this page it says "After planting the bomb, the IRA members attempted to issue a telephone warning but the public telephone box had been vandalised"0 -
SuperSean11 wrote: »on this page it says "After planting the bomb, the IRA members attempted to issue a telephone warning but the public telephone box had been vandalised"
just like Birmingham.
bloody BT must be to blame then.:rolleyes:0 -
As posted by fta69
Ridiculous logic is when you claim the IRA sought to kill as many civilians as possible despite them killing a relatively small amount considering their capability. People who want to kill civilians don't bother leaving warnings at all. In fact I'd say Kingsmills and Birmingham are the only examples of the IRA deliberately killing a large amount of civilians.Fratton Fred wrote: »just like Birmingham.
bloody BT must be to blame then.:rolleyes:
Not really the link to wikipedia was being given as another example of the IRA not giving a warning. But it says the IRA tried to give a warning but they couldnt "After planting the bomb, the IRA members attempted to issue a telephone warning but the public telephone box had been vandalised" the one in Birmingham was mentioned in the original quote
Ok:)0 -
SuperSean11 wrote: »As posted by fta69
Ridiculous logic is when you claim the IRA sought to kill as many civilians as possible despite them killing a relatively small amount considering their capability. People who want to kill civilians don't bother leaving warnings at all. In fact I'd say Kingsmills and Birmingham are the only examples of the IRA deliberately killing a large amount of civilians.
Not really the link to wikipedia was being given as another example of the IRA not giving a warning. But it says the IRA tried to give a warning but they couldnt "After planting the bomb, the IRA members attempted to issue a telephone warning but the public telephone box had been vandalised" the one in Birmingham was mentioned in the original quote
Ok:)
they "Tried" to give warnings many times and didn't manage it and when they did, it was quite often a misleading warning.
You are obviously less cynical than I am.0 -
British Telecom you see :rolleyes:Fratton Fred wrote: »just like Birmingham.
bloody BT must be to blame then.:rolleyes:
I didn't post the LaMon link in reference to the IRA not phoning warnings. I posted it because FTA reckons the PIRA only deliberately targetted large numbers of civilians twice. A bomb in a popular restaurant, regardless of what warnings are sent (remember the bomb could detonate prematurely anyway!) is an attack on a large number of civilians.0 -
Well I've never heard that statistic before and I would be interested to see where you got it, but you may also realise that if the IRA planted 35 bombs a year, over a space of 30 years of the Troubles that is 1,050 bombs. You may also notice that 1,050 bombs is not "thousands" :rolleyes:So you are saying the notion that the IRA planted an average of 35 bombs a year (factor in the massive amount of activity in the early 70s) is inconcievable?
So here is hoping the IRA are active for another 30 years, you might get your "thousands"
I never claimed they sought to kill as many "as possible". They sought to kill enough to terrorise the English people while being able to maintain the PR back home that they were fighting the good fight. You introduced the "as possible" bit when you realised you couldn't defend the ridiculous idea that the IRA never meant to kill civilians. So now you are saying they did mean to kill civilians, but not that much :rolleyes:Ridiculous logic is when you claim the IRA sought to kill as many civilians as possible despite them killing a relatively small amount considering their capability.
So again, we agree, there was absolutely no military significance to those attacks.I never once claimed that there was a military significance in the bombing of town centres, rather bombs were placed there in order to cause economic damage.
Politically motivated insurgents who blow up furniture shops? Yeah, you can see why the British were confused ....Not really, the right of Republicans to be recognised as politically-motivated insurgents as opposed to criminals.
Well as far as I know he never killed anyone, so I would settle with thug, though you seem to have a peculiar definition of that term.Would you believe a man like Bobby Sands to be nothing else but a thug and a murderer?So Ireland wasn't partitioned against the wishes of the majority and Lloyd George didn't threaten an "immediate and terrible war"?
Ireland was partitioned against the wishes of the majority and Lloyd George did threaten a "terrible war"
Perhaps you might now explain why that justifies ignoring the democratic wishes of the people the IRA claimed to represent?
Again, is democracy something that should only be respected when people vote the way you want them to vote?0 -
Can you produce evidence that they don't? You're the one who said that "the majority of the complete island of Ireland wish for reunification".Can you give facts the the majority of the Republic regognise the NI statelet??
I don't think it's laughable that I'm basing points on something other than my own gut feeling, as you seem to be.And it's laughable you are trying to use a variable survey for you points.
The technical notes on the survey state that:do you think the thoughts of a minimal amount of people account for all of them??What areas were questioned??The 2005 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey involved 1200 face-to-face interviews with adults aged 18 years or over.
...
The survey was designed to yield a representative sample of men and women aged 18 and over living in Northern Ireland. The Postal Address File (PAF) was used as the sampling frame for the survey and a simple random sample of addresses was obtained after stratification into three geographic regions (Belfast, East of the Bann and West of the Bann). This was done to ensure the adequate representation of areas of lower population density and is standard practice in Northern Ireland social surveys.
Not in my life-time it hasn't.It has been going on for years...
I already answered this. No.Do you classify any army involved right now in miltary operations as terrorists yes or no.
So as long as someone believes that their actions are justified, they can blow up anything they want? Or do they have to justify their actions to you to?IF the Irish nation has acted in the way the Englsih one has, then YES actions against it would be justifiable.
Please explain how the 1916 rising made me "free"?Basically what you are saying is you don't support the actions taken to gain us 'our freedom'.
If that was their aim, then they failed miserably and they're obviously not nearly as sophisticated an organisation as some people would have us believe.TO MINIMISE OR TO CUT OUT COMPLETLY THE POSSIBILITY OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.0 -
So, that's democracy.
No disrespect to anyone who lives in, or hales from Mayo, but I couldn't give a flying **** if the people of Mayo decide to join the UK.
ok there you go you dont give two rats so maybe thats why you seem to be so anti republican you dont care about irealnd and its people.Exactly. They CHOOSE to live there. If they were that repulsed at living within the UK, I'm sure they would have left by now.
so they should leave their homes. but why should they have to choose???? would you leave our home if your didn't like the state you were living in even though you and your family and ommunity have lived teir for years and years???? if you say you would then again you would be saying the differences between you and the great people of those areas
and i do understand your argument about not all catholics want to live in a UI but that is a task we republican must address and convice those people that their better future lies in a UI.
well popular doesn't always mean right. a popular view in nazi germany was that jews were sub-human. and because of apolitical view you call someone sub human??? ok if i was to say to you i was an IRA member, does that make me sub-human???... all IRA members are sub-human? I would have thought that is the popular viewpoint.Anyone who thinks that blowing something up is a viable means of making a statement should be in a psychiatric hospital beside the pyromaniacs ward.
NO! :mad:
If you are a decent/sane person you look for an alternative to violence and if you can't find one, you look harder.
but that is the point they looked hard and came to a conclusion violence needed to occur.
all you have to do is to look at appeasement in pre ww2 europe and even in pre 1920 ireland.
violence has an import role in society. its not pretty and its not the best option but if it has to be done then so be it.0 -
Advertisement
-
so they should leave their homes. but why should they have to choose???? would you leave our home if your didn't like the state you were living in even though you and your family and ommunity have lived teir for years and years???? if you say you would then again you would be saying the differences between you and the great people of those areas
are you talking about republicans or loyalists ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement