Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

gandalf

Well then report my comments, I have reported your posts for taking the thread off topic.

You use the same language that many apologists have used in the past and I moderated this forum for 7 years up until a few months ago so I have seen them all.

You say you are decent and moral, tbh I have no idea if you are.

BostonFenian

gandalf wrote: »

Well then report my comments, I have reported your posts for taking the thread off topic.

You use the same language that many apologists have used in the past and I moderated this forum for 7 years up until a few months ago so I have seen them all.

You say you are decent and moral, tbh I have no idea if you are.

I find it interesting you choose to believe whatever your mind comes up with that is negative, but not what you have evidence for.

I also find it interesting that you believe your attack posts are 'on topic'.

It's not worth my time to report your comments, though if I was a seventh grader, I probably would.

Ah, authority, the last refuge of the closed minded.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian, if it's not worth your time to report posts, it shouldn't be worth your time to complain about them in-thread.

Gandalf, behave yourself.

It wasn't me!

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Why are calling me Crow? No need to be aggressive, you seem rather annoyed. Thank you for saying it is opinion, that is that. Opinion is not very useful when we discuss history because it makes us learn nothing new. We should let the facts and the ACTUAL history be written. We do not want to end up like Eoghan Harris now, a big fat joke of a man.

Well, you say someone shot at the soldiers, the witnesses, the journalists, the inquiries and the history says otherwise. But I think you do not really care about that, you seem to be just really willing to defend the army blindly and not admit that can be in the wrong sometimes. A mature person is able to admit that its soldiers can sometimes act like murderous bigots, punish those bigots and move on. We do not have the power to justify everything. So you should not try to justify this murder.

I did not call you crow, I asked how that crow you were tasting was. Well-known phrase, look it up it you're still confused. Opinion is all there is with political history. No point even talking if we can't discuss what likely would have happened had not those clowns started stirring shíte.

Riddle101

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Then you should do it, but prepare for major backlash, and a campaign that may well kill more of your people than the missile strike. You have to make that call, whether to accept the strike and appeal for international help, or make your own strike and accept that you're going to get rode dry for it.

Major Backlash? Who cares about the political backlash if it means you're trying to save your people, what person in their right mind wouldn't try that. It would be pure cowardice to worry about what the political outcome is over your own people.

It wasn't me!

Um, having international sanctions imposed? Potentially a police action? Deposed government? You can protest all you want, but attacking a military target in a foreign country is asking to be screwed, so yes, there will be major backlash if you attack. Your people are going to die either way in this case, little you can do to stop that. What you can do is be a politician, take the hit, claim it was out of the blue and you knew nothing about it so you don't lose face with the people, while you then complain to an international policing body and the sanctions and police actions are imposed on the country that attacked you and your own people suffer limited casualties. See? Politics.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

Repeling invaders is a very specific concept, and you can't repel an invader in THEIR country.. seriously.

So why did the IRA plant bombs in England?

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

What if he's a murderer, and he has a human shield, and is about to kill two people. yes, you risk killing one, but for the purpose of saving two.

Groan ... Boston you can keep changing the goal post as soon as someone give you an answer that you can't use to trap them with the charge of hypocricy, but this is getting rather stupid at this stage.

What next ... ?

Do you think shooting a child is wrong

Yes

Would you shoot a child?

No, I wouldn't

Well what if the child had a nuclear weapon and was about to set it off?

Well I might then

You just said shooting a child is wrong and you wouldn't do it. Man you are such a hypocrite.

This kinda of nonsense :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that you have gone so far away from what the IRA were actually doing that none of these theoretical that you keep coming up with actually have any bearing on what the IRA actually did.

PaintingMedium

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I did not call you crow, I asked how that crow you were tasting was. Well-known phrase, look it up it you're still confused. Opinion is all there is with political history. No point even talking if we can't discuss what likely would have happened had not those clowns started stirring shíte.

Um I do not really see the point in talking about fictional histories but if thats what you think is correct, then I will humour you.

Might as well mention the alternative history where planters and english all decided that they had caused enough bloodshed and misery on our island, packed up their bags and set sail home to britain. The king and future heads of monarchy in england apologise every six months for the hundreds of years of ethnic cleansing and the stealing of a nation. Then they apologise to every other colony past or present with a specific mention to Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Ah its dreamy! Britain finally apologies for the misery it spread over the world, and asks forgiveness, the world accepts this apology, and a new stronger relationship is born where britain becomes a beacon of forgiveness and good will amongst men!

You are right, talking bo**ocks is much more fun then talking reality!

PaintingMedium

djpbarry wrote: »

So why did the IRA plant bombs in England?

To bring attention to the situation in Ireland. Since the majority of British press would never report or report accurately the situation in Ireland and then Northern Ireland, it was felt that by bringing the war to England, the people would have to realise the mess that their leaders and armies had caused elsewhere and ask for the situation to be resolved.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

So why did the IRA plant bombs in England?

Again, there are a ton of IRA tactics that were not in line with an ethical resistance. I've never said otherwise.
That doesn't mean the entire resistance was unethical, just that some things went way too far.

Of course, since England is so close that does present an interesting opportunity of attacking the invading army at home. As long as you were attacking military targets, I think that would be productive and in line with what a reasonable person would consider legitimate resistance.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan ... Boston you can keep changing the goal post as soon as someone give you an answer that you can't use to trap them with the charge of hypocricy, but this is getting rather stupid at this stage.

What next ... ?

Do you think shooting a child is wrong

Yes

Would you shoot a child?

No, I wouldn't

Well what if the child had a nuclear weapon and was about to set it off?

Well I might then

You just said shooting a child is wrong and you wouldn't do it. Man you are such a hypocrite.

This kinda of nonsense :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that you have gone so far away from what the IRA were actually doing that none of these theoretical that you keep coming up with actually have any bearing on what the IRA actually did.

If someone says there are no circumstances that they would do something, it's impossible to argue with them.

If they later respond to a question, saying yeah there are circumstances, it changes the nature of the argument.

I did not call you a hypocrite, and that wasn't my intention. My intention was to get you to admit that grey areas exist where absolutes have no place.

The fact that you were confident enough to state an absolute of that nature, and then after coaxing admit it wasn't absolute belies the nature of this debate.

Now that we've finally gotten over this silly violence is never acceptable notion, the debate can actually move on, which was the whole point.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Um, having international sanctions imposed? Potentially a police action? Deposed government? You can protest all you want, but attacking a military target in a foreign country is asking to be screwed, so yes, there will be major backlash if you attack. Your people are going to die either way in this case, little you can do to stop that. What you can do is be a politician, take the hit, claim it was out of the blue and you knew nothing about it so you don't lose face with the people, while you then complain to an international policing body and the sanctions and police actions are imposed on the country that attacked you and your own people suffer limited casualties. See? Politics.

I can't believe anything would be going through your ahead except ****, there's a frigging ICBM about to hit us!

djpbarry

PaintingMedium wrote: »

To bring attention to the situation in Ireland. Since the majority of British press would never report or report accurately the situation in Ireland and then Northern Ireland, it was felt that by bringing the war to England, the people would have to realise the mess that their leaders and armies had caused elsewhere and ask for the situation to be resolved.

HORSE-****.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Again, there are a ton of IRA tactics that were not in line with an ethical resistance.

Pretty much all of them, I think.

BostonFenian wrote: »

As long as you were attacking military targets, I think that would be productive and in line with what a reasonable person would consider legitimate resistance.

But of course, they did nothing of the sort.

It wasn't me!

BostonFenian wrote: »

I can't believe anything would be going through your ahead except ****, there's a frigging ICBM about to hit us!

Then I really hope you're never in charge of governing anything bigger than an ice cream stand.

It wasn't me!

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Um I do not really see the point in talking about fictional histories but if thats what you think is correct, then I will humour you.

Might as well mention the alternative history where planters and english all decided that they had caused enough bloodshed and misery on our island, packed up their bags and set sail home to britain. The king and future heads of monarchy in england apologise every six months for the hundreds of years of ethnic cleansing and the stealing of a nation. Then they apologise to every other colony past or present with a specific mention to Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Ah its dreamy! Britain finally apologies for the misery it spread over the world, and asks forgiveness, the world accepts this apology, and a new stronger relationship is born where britain becomes a beacon of forgiveness and good will amongst men!

You are right, talking bo**ocks is much more fun then talking reality!

Good work. You've managed to make yourself look foolish once more. Here's what just happened:

I gave the opinion that the IRA campaign was a waste of time and indeed set back its own causes.

You then asked me for proof of this.

I gave comprehensive historical evidence to support the notion that the outbreak of violence immediately cost this country what the IRA have spent forty years attempting to win, again with violence, again alienating its aims.

You then said there was no point speculating anyway, when, yes, there is.

When I said there was, you spewed out a hysterical, completely irrelevant post, which had nothing to do with anything I in fact said.

Is it nice, acting like a twelve year old? Debate like an adult if you can.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Then I really hope you're never in charge of governing anything bigger than an ice cream stand.

Right, because any responsible leader would let a missile hit his country for fear of political repercussions. Oh Boy.

There's such a thing as moral courage, and sheltering behind, jeesh I didn't know there was a missile coming, is cowardice.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

HORSE-****.
Pretty much all of them, I think.

I certainly would not go that far.

But of course, they did nothing of the sort.

Well, I did say above that not all of their tactics were acceptable, so we don't really need to rehash that.

It wasn't me!

There's also such a thing as political savvy, as I said.

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

HORSE-****.
Pretty much all of them, I think.
But of course, they did nothing of the sort.

read a hell of a lot of HORSE-****. reply s on this tread and make it up as you go along scenarios on the bogeyman IRA,and as I said earlier the whiter than white brits who 'can and have done no wrong' at any stage over the centuries 'anywhere'

It wasn't me!

Maybe you should note that nobody, at any stage, has said that, bar you and the other reactionary IRA supporters. If only the IRA could be chased into caves and then the mountain ranges could be leveled, the world might be a better place.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There's also such a thing as political savvy, as I said.

sure there is, but letting your people die because you don't want to face political repercussions is not an example of that.

It wasn't me!

See, while unconscionable, it is. By doing this, the good politician

*limits his civilian casualties
*removes international political consequences for his nation
*portrays the attacking country as the aggressor

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

See, while unconscionable, it is. By doing this, the good politician

*limits his civilian casualties
*removes international political consequences for his nation
*portrays the attacking country as the aggressor

Hmm, it's conceivable that there would be 0 casualties if he hit the missile. What if they were only attacking because of surprise, and world attention prevented something awful from happening.

Wars have been prevented in this way in real life.

The attacking country doesn't need to be portrayed as an aggressor, because they ALREADY are!

I still don't see how this politician is anything but a coward.

TOMASJ

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If only the IRA could be chased into caves and then the mountain ranges could be leveled, the world might be a better place.

might the brits have started with Derry after 1972

It wasn't me!

Because if you make the first military action, destroying a military target and killiing civilians into the process, you're the aggressor, you lose face internationally and have perpetrated an act of war, which will probably result in far greater civilian death than one missile. He's a clever politician.

What's worse? One missile strike or an extensive bombing campaign?

And accepting the missile strike means you have international force on your side.

Accepting the strike is the most likely way to avert a war.

It wasn't me!

TOMASJ wrote: »

might the brits have started with Derry after 1972

Absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Try to keep up. I'm not rising to such crude baits.

PaintingMedium

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Good work. You've managed to make yourself look foolish once more. Here's what just happened:

I gave the opinion that the IRA campaign was a waste of time and indeed set back its own causes.

You then asked me for proof of this.

I gave comprehensive historical evidence to support the notion that the outbreak of violence immediately cost this country what the IRA have spent forty years attempting to win, again with violence, again alienating its aims.

You then said there was no point speculating anyway, when, yes, there is.

When I said there was, you spewed out a hysterical, completely irrelevant post, which had nothing to do with anything I in fact said.

Is it nice, acting like a twelve year old? Debate like an adult if you can.

Ah god you are annoying, what is with you and twelve year olds?

Anyway, I really do not care for anything fictional and what ifs, you have a very selected memory and a very distorted view on events. Yes we can all point to things that didnt happen and harp on about what if they did happen, but in my view that is not history but idle chat.

Comprehensive historical fact??
We were not given home rule, it was shelved, in the mean time soldiers and thugs came to Ireland destroying business, killing civilians and wreaking havoc. It is a lot more probable that we would not have gotten home rule since if they were so keen to give it, they would not have fought us in the War of Independance.

You also have lied about bloody sunday and distorted the facts which no book or any sane person would do, except eoghan harris probably. So fact, NO, biased views, yes!

Also the aims when the PIRA began was not the same as the old IRA, it was created to defend its communities which it felt had not been defended by the OIRA, the whole get rid of British people and 32 republic, came later. So another fact which is in fact, false

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

My intention was to get you to admit that grey areas exist where absolutes have no place.

There aren't grey areas, there are different circumstances. A child without a bomb is not the same as a child with a bomb.

You seem determined to attempt to generalise things out and then attempt to hold general rules over specific events.

I can say with certainty that there was never any circumstance with any of the known IRA attacks that justified the bombing of civilians.

You can invent all the hypothetical of where you think killing a civilian might be justifiable (what if he had a black hole making machine!!), but you are only do this to deflect from having to look at the specific circumstances of the specific attacks that the IRA carried out.

BostonFenian wrote: »

The fact that you were confident enough to state an absolute of that nature, and then after coaxing admit it wasn't absolute belies the nature of this debate.

But that is the whole point you are missing. I can state an absolute (for my morality) for the circumstances. You try to get around this by removing the circumstances and trying to generalise. You then try and show that one cannot apply general rules to multiple situations. I agree entirely, but that isn't what I'm doing. I am appling morality to specific circumstances and say This was immoral

This is why I tire so much of these "Oh, what about Mandela" or "Oh what about Israel" questions, not because I don't wish to judge these or apply the same standards, but simply because they are different circumstances.

People seem to think it is a weakness to assess each and every circumstance on its own. I see it as the only fair way of doing it.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Now that we've finally gotten over this silly violence is never acceptable notion, the debate can actually move on, which was the whole point.

I've never claimed violence was never acceptable.

That is simply what you wish people were saying because it is an easy stick to beat someone with because it is not hard to find examples where violence is acceptable

The issue you are voiding is that simply because violence is acceptable in some circumstances doesn't mean it is acceptable in others.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because if you make the first military action, destroying a military target and killiing civilians into the process, you're the aggressor, you lose face internationally and have perpetrated an act of war, which will probably result in far greater civilian death than one missile. He's a clever politician.

What's worse? One missile strike or an extensive bombing campaign?

And accepting the missile strike means you have international force on your side.

Accepting the strike is the most likely way to avert a war.

If they are planning on starting a war, and starting with a missile, what makes you think the bombing campaign isn't happening anyway?

This way you have a chance to take out their capability and draw attention to it, thus PREVENTING all that violence.

Your scenario would just allow it. You won't make an active decision that might kill people, but you'll passively sacrifice thousands.