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
1…1415171920…33

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you view the Omagh bomb as "legitimate resistance"?

    I view it as botched, misguided, and inappropriate.


  • Options
    #483
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    Seems you dont undestand or dont want to know how the british worked in the north why did they use the sas if not for terror

    Firstly terror is not in of itself terrorism. I've explain this point about 100 times. Every military action involves some level of terror because it involves violence and all humans (the sane ones at least) are afraid of physical harm or death. Terrorism is a specific use of terror in the general population for the purposes of political manipulation.

    Secondly why on Earth would they use the SAS for terrorism?

    The SAS were a covert military unit. If the SAS had their way no one would ever know about anything they did. They acted in secret, or tried to, which goes against to whole point of terrorism, to inflict a state of fear in as wide a population through the threat of random violence, so that the population will do what you want.

    If as many people as possible don't know you are doing it then it is pointless. It would be like the IRA blowing up a shack on some small Scottish Island and then trying really hard to make sure no one found out about it, and then sitting back expecting the British to leave N.I.

    If the British wanted to use terrorism they would have carpet bombed Belfast, loudly with lots of fan fair, and then said they were going to do it again next Tuesday, and every Tuesday after than, unless they got what they wanted.


  • Options
    #484
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I view it as botched, misguided, and inappropriate.

    What was the correct way, the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh?


  • Options
    #485
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I view it as botched, misguided, and inappropriate.
    Not evil? Not reprehensible? Not an affront to everything that decent human beings ought to stand for?

    What about forcing Patsy Gillespie to drive a car bomb to an army checkpoint while holding his family hostage? Was that "legitimate resistance"?


  • Options
    #486
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    It could be argued that collusion by the British forces equates to terriorism.
    Not really. The Loyalist forces certainly used terrorism, but that doesn't mean the British Army did. It does mean the British Army supported groups that did use terrorism, but sure what is new with that? They have been backing terrorist groups around the world for years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I view it as botched, misguided, and inappropriate.
    Not one police man had a scratch in the Omagh bombing did you ever take the time to ask why as it seems they knew all about this Bomb


  • Options
    #488
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not evil? Not reprehensible? Not an affront to everything that decent human beings ought to stand for?

    What about forcing Patsy Gillespie to drive a car bomb to an army checkpoint while holding his family hostage? Was that "legitimate resistance"?

    Not everything that is done during a legitimate campaing is legitimate, and I don't believe I ever suggested that. There are always bulldogs in every war that want to take it farther than it should go, who lose sight of the goal, and become lost in the violence. It's unfortunate that that happens, but understandable given the level of violence that Britian has subjected Ireland to for the last 800 years.


  • Options
    #489
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What was the correct way, the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh?

    Select a target where valuable symbols, or resources of the state can be targeted. Whether it's financial or military damage would be a strategy decision.

    I suppose you might as well ask what an valid target is for a British fighter jet. I can't believe you don't understand the nature of war.

    Just because you might think the Brits have a right to be there, doesn't make it so.


  • Options
    #490
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Not everything that is done during a legitimate campaing is legitimate, and I don't believe I ever suggested that. There are always bulldogs in every war that want to take it farther than it should go, who lose sight of the goal, and become lost in the violence. It's unfortunate that that happens, but understandable given the level of violence that Britian has subjected Ireland to for the last 800 years.
    I'll take that as tacit acceptance that proxy bombing was wrong, although I'm still confused as to whether it was wrong because it was morally evil, or wrong because it was an ineffective tactic.

    I sometimes wonder whether IRA apologists would consider slowly barbecuing live babies an acceptable tactic, if it were a successful one.


  • Options
    #491
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What was the correct way, the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh?

    (hope no one will find out) Ask the british who bombed Monaghan and Dublin


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll take that as tacit acceptance that proxy bombing was wrong, although I'm still confused as to whether it was wrong because it was morally evil, or wrong because it was an ineffective tactic.

    I sometimes wonder whether IRA apologists would consider slowly barbecuing live babies an acceptable tactic, if it were a successful one.

    I think that's just hyperbole. I'm not sure if you really can't understand the Republican position, or if you're just playing devils advocate. How long must a people be occupied before they say Enough!


  • Options
    #493
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Just because you might think the Brits have a right to be there, doesn't make it so.
    94% of the people of this republic voted to relinquish our territorial claim on Northern Ireland.

    They have a right to be there. We cemented that right in 1998.


  • Options
    #494
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    94% of the people of this republic voted to relinquish our territorial claim on Northern Ireland.

    They have a right to be there. We cemented that right in 1998.

    No you voted to stop talking about or claiming it. You don't have the power to give them the right to be there.


  • Options
    #495
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    [quote=oscarBravo;I sometimes wonder whether IRA apologists would consider slowly barbecuing live babies an acceptable tactic, if it were a successful one.[/quote]

    The freedom fighters on the british side did just that in Ballymoney 3 little boys
    wonderful how this type of terror is over looked by british apologists


  • Options
    #496
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    It could be argued that collusion by the British forces equates to terriorism.



    It leads to a bigger question, How should the state deal with a group hellbent on overthrowing democracy through violence, if the normal civil powers and criminal justice system can't deal with it.

    I believe the British secret service and army intelligence using counter gangs to take out terrorists was simply used as a last resort. It also brought the PIRA into compromise mode.

    The difference being the PIRA objective was to increase the violence and conflict, the British armies role was to quell it so democracy could prevail.


  • Options
    #497
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    (hope no one will find out) Ask the british who bombed Monaghan and Dublin

    Are you seriously suggesting that the 1974 bombings were legitimate?

    I find that highly offensive knowing people injured in them. :mad:


  • Options
    #498
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    It leads to a bigger question, How should the state deal with a group hellbent on overthrowing democracy through violence, if the normal civil powers and criminal justice system can't deal with it.

    I believe using counter gangs to take out terrorists was simply used as a last resort. It also brought the PIRA into compromise mode.

    There was a legitimate government there before the ethnic cleansing..


  • Options
    #499
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Not everything that is done during a legitimate campaing is legitimate, and I don't believe I ever suggested that. There are always bulldogs in every war that want to take it farther than it should go, who lose sight of the goal, and become lost in the violence. It's unfortunate that that happens, but understandable given the level of violence that Britian has subjected Ireland to for the last 800 years.

    The loyalists use 1641 as an excuse for their actions. Does that explain away Bloody Sunday as easily?

    To broaden things a bit, does the massacre of French protestants explain someone walking into a bookies and killing five people?

    every violent action can be explained away if you look back over 800 years of history, but that never resolves anything, it just creates more excuses.


  • Options
    #500
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    It leads to a bigger question, How should the state deal with a group hellbent on overthrowing democracy through violence, if the normal civil powers and criminal justice system can't deal with it.

    I believe using counter gangs to take out terrorists was simply used as a last resort. It also brought the PIRA into compromise mode.

    The difference being the PIRA objective was to increase the voilance and conflict, the British armies role was to quell it so democracy could prevail.
    There was no democracy in the north how do you overthrow what dosent exist
    I believe using counter gangs to take out terrorists (so are you admittin that the british were terrorists)


  • Options
    #501
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that the 1974 bombings were legitimate?

    I find that highly offensive knowing people injured in them. :mad:
    read the post


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    No you voted to stop talking about or claiming it. You don't have the power to give them the right to be there.

    the people who live there have an undeniable right to be there, more so than most Americans.


  • Options
    #503
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I think that's just hyperbole. I'm not sure if you really can't understand the Republican position, or if you're just playing devils advocate. How long must a people be occupied before they say Enough!
    With respect, I've lived in Ireland all my life, and have had family whose job it was to defend me and others from the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the IRA and their ilk.

    You're right about one thing: I have trouble understanding the Republican (defined as "nationalist prepared to commit murder to further his political views") position.


  • Options
    #504
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Select a target where valuable symbols, or resources of the state can be targeted. Whether it's financial or military damage would be a strategy decision.

    Omagh main street was neither of these things.

    So how was the Omagh bombing a "botched" version of a legitimate bombing attack?
    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I suppose you might as well ask what an valid target is for a British fighter jet.
    Er, you should ask what a valid target for a British fighter jet is. You should ask it about every single attack run.

    An enemy tank depo is a legimate target for a fighter jet. A enemy school playground isn't.

    If Omagh was in Iraq the main street would not be a legitimate target for a British Fighter Jet.

    Do you even understand what "legitimate" means?

    It doesn't mean "contains people I want to kill" :mad:


  • Options
    #505
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The loyalists use 1641 as an excuse for their actions. Does that explain away Bloody Sunday as easily?

    To broaden things a bit, does the massacre of French protestants explain someone walking into a bookies and killing five people?

    every violent action can be explained away if you look back over 800 years of history, but that never resolves anything, it just creates more excuses.

    If any of the actions in the past 800 years that have led to the presence of brits in the North was legitimate, than the Unionists would be entitled to their opinion.

    As it is, they are trying to confer legitimacy on a string of illegitimate actions, and suggesting that we should not look on the entire period of violence, aggression, and occupation, but rather look only at the people who resisted it, as somehow justyifying occupation! that's circular logic, and unnaceptable.


  • Options
    #506
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Omagh main street was neither of these things.

    So how was the Omagh bombing a "botched" version of a legitimate bombing attack?


    Er, you should ask what a valid target for a British fighter jet is. You should ask it about every single attack run.

    An enemy tank depo is a legimate target for a fighter jet. A enemy school playground isn't.

    If Omagh was in Iraq the main street would not be a legitimate target for a British Fighter Jet.

    Do you even understand what "legitimate" means?

    It doesn't mean "contains people I want to kill" :mad:

    I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding my point. I said that you might as well ask what a valid target for a British jet is, because that's the same sort of thinking that should go into choosing a target for any resistance organization.

    Are you resorting to ad homonym attacks because you're out of arguments, or do you really think I don't know what the word legitimate means?


  • Options
    #507
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    read the post

    I, unfortunately, did read the post.

    I asked how Omagh was a legitimate target for a R-IRA bomb, and you (rather shockingly) replied saying that it would be legitimate if the R-IRA had manage to not get caught, stating that Dublin and Monanagh were legitimate targets for the Loyalists because they got away with it

    Which I find horrific and offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself. :mad:


  • Options
    #508
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    No you voted to stop talking about or claiming it. You don't have the power to give them the right to be there.
    Two states claim sovereignty over a place. One of those states, having consulted the people in a plebiscite, formally relinquishes its claim of sovereignty.

    Leaving aside that the other state's claim of sovereignty was already internationally recognised as the valid one, the relinquishing of a claim of sovereignty does, indeed, confer the right to be there.


  • Options
    #509
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    the people who live there have an undeniable right to be there, more so than most Americans.

    From which power was this undeniable right derived?


  • Options
    #510
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    There was a legitimate government there before the ethnic cleansing..



    You are aware the British army was deployed to stop mostly the ethnic cleansing of Catholics ? Which it did and got no thanks. Rather after regrouping it was attacked by the PIRA, in an orgy of psychopathic and mindless bombings and shootings, which also killed hundreds of Catholics.


    Also in places like Londonderry, 13,000 Protestants were ethnically cleansed.

    There was/is sectarianism on both sides, its not as black and white as you believe over there in Boston :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    With respect, I've lived in Ireland all my life, and have had family whose job it was to defend me and others from the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the IRA and their ilk.

    You're right about one thing: I have trouble understanding the Republican (defined as "nationalist prepared to commit murder to further his political views") position.

    I've lived in Ireland all my life and was terrosied by the family and friends whose job it was to defend you no one but the IRA stood up to these defenders


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement