Would you like to see a united Ireland?

Otacon

dante18 wrote: »

They did aim to instill fear in the civilian population in Britain...

The above equals terrorism, no matter what the motive.

dante18

Otacon wrote: »

The above equals terrorism, no matter what the motive.

I'm not saying that the IRA weren't involved in terrorism. They clearly were involved in terrorism. It's just that they didn't have a policy of killing innocent civilians, unlike the loyalists who did have a policy of killing innocent civilians.

Fratton Fred

dante18 wrote: »

They didn't target innocent civilians. They targeted members of the security forces, British army and high-ranking members of the British establishment but they didn't target innocent members of the public.

They did aim to instill fear in the civilian population in Britain in order to bring the political pressure on the British government but I don't believe they had a policy of killing them. They always tried to give warnings in advance of any bombing.

The cabinet always nips out to Birmingham for a swift pint on a Thursday night i suppose?

The two bombs in Warrington were planted at either end of the high street because? who the **** were they after, did they think the Warrington high street is the home of the SAS.:rolleyes:

get real, you sound like you have brainwashed.

Fratton Fred

dante18 wrote: »

Because it's true. The IRA did not as a rule target innocent civilians because of their religion.

So its ok for me to kill you, as long as i don't do it because of your religion:rolleyes:

LordSutch

dante18 wrote: »

Well maybe you can give me some examples then of when the IRA abducted innocent protestants, tortured them and then killed them?

There are countless examples over the last 35 years of people being held hostage by the IRA (Police or Civilians) while a 'loved one' has been strapped to the seat of a Lorry or some such vehicle containing a Bomb & then Blown to Kingdom Come whild being forced to take 'said Bomb' to a destination where other innocent people would also be murdered!
The IRA have been involved in any number of Atrocities of the worst kind (maybe you are too young)? but for you to sit there and pontificate that 'Loyalists' were a worse type of terrorist, is just childish, ill informed & fatuous - Terrorists are Terrorists Loyalist or Republican, and the IRA/INLA certainly did their fair share of torture - thats for sure.

dante18 wrote: »

I never supported the IRA and I think they were wrong to do what they did. At the same time though I think they at least operated according to a higher moral standard than the loyalists. Targeting innocent civilians because of their religion was not one of the things the IRA was known for. The loyalists on the other hand...

. . . Or on the other hand you could read-up on what the IRA actually did to people

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

They didn't target innocent civilians ... they didn't target innocent members of the public.

dante18 wrote: »

It's just that they didn't have a policy of killing innocent civilians...

Absolute horsebollocks of the highest order; you just keep repeating that and maybe history will re-write itself.

For an organisation that did not have a "policy of killing innocent civilians", they certainly developed quite a knack for it, didn't they?

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by djp barry: Not quite, but not far off; I would condemn the use of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary, generally to advance the cause of peace.

No good. You ARE advocating the use of force here, with all its resulting consequences.

Therefore,

No, that statement is just plain stupid

I reject this completely.

getz

reading this thread you would think that all people living in the irish republic ==do not like the british--i have news for you--over 500;000 to 600'000 people living in the republic most of them born in ireland have british passports dose not sound like hate to me---- more like love---see reform.org

dante18

Fratton Fred wrote:

So its ok for me to kill you, as long as i don't do it because of your religion

No, it isn't. The intentional targetting and killing of innocent civilians is not justified, whether for reasons to do with religion or anything else.

Camelot wrote:

There are countless examples over the last 35 years of people being held hostage by the IRA (Police or Civilians) while a 'loved one' has been strapped to the seat of a Lorry or some such vehicle containing a Bomb & then Blown to Kingdom Come whild being forced to take said Bomb to destination!

I've only ever heard of one case of that happening. If you say there are countless examples then I'll just have to take your word for it. If you could point to more than one case I might be more likely to agree with you.

Camelot wrote:

but for you to sit there and pontificate that 'Loyalists' were worse

And I will continue to pontificate because I believe it's the truth. Loyalists were much worse than the republicans because the loyalists deliberately targeted innocent civilians for murder. Most civilian deaths resulting from the IRA's actions were accidental.

djpbarry wrote:

For an organisation that did not have a "policy of killing innocent civilians", they certainly developed quite a knack for it, didn't they?

No, they didn't. Very few civilian deaths caused by the IRA were intentional. Most were accidents to do with inadequate warnings. It was different with the loyalists. Most civilian deaths that they were responsible for were intentional.

Fratton Fred

dante18 wrote: »

No, it isn't. The intentional targetting and killing of innocent civilians is not justified, whether for reasons to do with religion or anything else.

on that I am sure we all agree

dante18 wrote: »

No, they didn't. Very few civilian deaths caused by the IRA were intentional. Most were accidents to do with inadequate warnings. It was different with the loyalists. Most civilian deaths that they were responsible for were intentional.

lets get this straight. If you place a bomb in a shopping centre, or a train station, a hotel or a pub and it kills people it is not an accident. If you want to avoid killing civilians, then don't bomb places where 100% of the people there are civilians, its not ****ing difficult.

I suggest you check up on the IRA bombing campaign, in particular such events as Bloody Friday and the Le mon bombing. You are under the impression the IRA were a cuddly bunch of civil rights activists, when in reality they were prepared to kill innocent people to get their way.

djpbarry

dante18 wrote: »

No, they didn't. Very few civilian deaths caused by the IRA were intentional.

Perhaps you might explain how they managed to chalk up 738 civilian deaths (source) during their campaign of terror?

By comparison, I have a policy of not directly targeting civilians and, so far, the number of civilian deaths directly attributable to my actions stands at a grand total of zero.

LordSutch

I have decided that its no good arguing with you anymore dante18 as you have your 'Republican' mind made up, you admire the IRA, you excuse their murdering of Civilians, you understand them, you argue on their behalf, you refuse to condem them, you refuse to admit they are scum, maybe you quite like them? and for all I know you are one of them!

And just for the record dante18, as well as mourning the Civilian victims of the IRA, I will never forgive the IRA for what they did to the Security Forces, who, by & large are good honest people (bad apples aside), and had the Army & Police not been so successful in keeping the IRA at bay, then 'The Troubles' might have been a whole lot worse ........

'NO' to the Republican version of a so called 'United Ireland'.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

No problem, oscarBravo. I can't be any other way. But do you think that ALL (states/paramilitaries etc. doesn't matter who) who support force/violence (past, present and future) to achieve their aims, beliefs etc should be similarly up-front about it?

I can't see why not.

TOMASJ wrote: »

Do posters who support the british army SAS UDR murderers ect also earn the scorn of yourself OB,and if not why so, is it the case that the brit murderers were good murderers and the IRA murderers were bad murderers,

Murderers are murderers. Anyone who expresses support for murderers earns my scorn. I'm equal opportunity like that.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Question for oscarBravo? You use the term, murderers in your reply to me. Are you saying all the Provisional IRA are murderers, or just some of them?

I'm saying anyone who commits murder is a murderer. Any member of the Provisional IRA who murdered another person is a murderer.

Applying equal standards here: are all the British Army murderers or again, just some of them? Same scenario for members of the RUC, UDR etc.

Any of them who commit murder.

My scorn extends to those who tacitly or explicitly support murderers. Not everyone in the PIRA has actually committed murder, but by their membership of the organisation have effectively sanctioned murder. By the same token, Sinn Féin's wholehearted embracing of Gerry McCabe's murderers means that they will never, ever enjoy my support, until such time as that position changes.

If a gun battle breaks out between the two sides and the British kill an IRA man, I won't call it murder. Will supporters of the British army admit likewise?

The phrase "supporters of the British army" is a straw man. Armies are mandated and empowered by sovereign states to protect and defend them from invasion and insurrection. The IRA do not have, nor have they ever had, such a mandate, and as such can not be compared as equals in such situations.

dante18

Camelot wrote:

I have decided that its no good arguing with you anymore dante18 as you have your 'Republican' mind made up, you admire the IRA,

I'm not a 'Republican' and I've never supported or admired the IRA. I just don't think they should be compared to the loyalist scum who intentionally targeted and murdered innocent civilians. I don't accept that both republicans and loyalists were just as bad. The loyalists were worse because they deliberately targeted and killed innocent civilians.

Camelot wrote:

you excuse their murdering of Civilians, you understand them, you argue on their behalf,

I don't excuse their murdering of civilians and I don't know what gave you that impression. Saying that civilian casualties are the result of an accident is not to condone the operations that led to those casualties. I just think a distinction should be made between the deliberate and the accidental killing of civilians. People responsible for the former are more contemptible than people responsible for the latter.

Camelot wrote:

you refuse to condem them, you refuse to admit they are scum, maybe you quite like them?

You took me up wrong. I condemn all of their actions. I was just replying to a point someone else made comparing the IRA to the Shankill butchers. I don't think it's a fair comparison because whatever else you say about the IRA you can't deny that they operated according to a higher standard than the sectarian murderers in the loyalist terrorist groups. They didn't always live up to that standard but they at least had standards which is more than could be said for the loyalists. The IRA never did anything as depraved as the Shankill butchers.

Otacon

dante18 wrote: »

I just think a distinction should be made between the deliberate and the accidental killing of civilians. People responsible for the former are more contemptible than people responsible for the latter.

Was it ignorance on the IRA's part then, to bomb locations such as Omagh, La Mon restaurant and Harrods, and somehow expect no civilian casualties? Or did they not care about that?

In either case, I don't see why they are any less contemptible.

dante18 wrote: »

The IRA never did anything as depraved as the Shankill butchers.

Murder is murder, torture is torture...

oscarBravo

dante18 wrote: »

Saying that civilian casualties are the result of an accident is not to condone the operations that led to those casualties. I just think a distinction should be made between the deliberate and the accidental killing of civilians.

That sort of sophistry won't wash. If you leave a bomb in a civilian area and civilians are killed when it explodes, then you are every bit as morally culpable as if you broke into those civilians' homes and stabbed them in their beds.

dante18

Otacon wrote:

Was it ignorance on the IRA's part then, to bomb locations such as Omagh, La Mon restaurant and Harrods, and somehow expect no civilian casualties?

I don't know. I don't believe they intended to cause civilian deaths but I don't know what motivated the people behind those bombings so I can't say for sure. My understanding is that the IRA always issued warnings before bombings. That indicates that they wanted to avoid civilian casualties.

Otacon wrote:

Murder is murder, torture is torture...

I don't know what that's supposed to mean but my point still stands. The IRA never did anything as depraved as the Shankill butchers and at least tried to operate to a higher moral standard than loyalists in general.

oscarBravo wrote:

That sort of sophistry won't wash. If you leave a bomb in a civilian area and civilians are killed when it explodes, then you are every bit as morally culpable as if you broke into those civilians' homes and stabbed them in their beds.

Can you honestly not see the difference between the two? In one case you're intentionally endangering lives and in the other case you're intentionally murdering someone. There's a massive difference. Even if the end result is the same and people end up losing their lives, there is still an attempt to prevent the loss of life in the former case.

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo, I'm not sure if you are being entirely consistent in your reply to me.

When I asked of you: "if ALL (states/paramilitaries etc. doesn't matter who) who support force/violence (past, present and future) to achieve their aims, beliefs etc should be similarly up-front about it?", you replied with the following:

I can't see why not.

Then this is your last paragraph:

Armies are mandated and empowered by sovereign states to protect and defend them from invasion and insurrection. The IRA do not have, nor have they ever had, such a mandate, and as such can not be compared as equals in such situations.

I ask you this then: if you want to live in that sovereign state and support all it's institutions, and the army mandated and empowered by that state goes to war, will YOU defend ALL of its operations, (deliberate, mistakes etc.) no matter WHAT the consequences of them? Missiles, bombs, bullets etc. do the exact same things to people no matter whose stamp of ownership is on them.

Otacon

You said "do you think that ALL (states/paramilitaries etc. doesn't matter who) who support force/violence (past, present and future) to achieve their aims, beliefs etc should be similarly up-front about it?"

Armies act on the part of their government. Their government should always be up-front about their aims and reasons for force. Why do you think people look down on the US after Iraq?

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Otacon: You said "do you think that ALL (states/paramilitaries etc. doesn't matter who) who support force/violence (past, present and future) to achieve their aims, beliefs etc should be similarly up-front about it?"

Armies act on the part of their government. Their government should always be up-front about their aims and reasons for force. Why do you think people look down on the US after Iraq?

Exactly what i'm on about. Then those very same people are aware of the consequences of waging war. But then does EVERYBODY who uses force to implement policies/beliefs etc defend ALL of their actions? I think you will find that they don't.

Otacon

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Exactly what i'm on about. Then those very same people are aware of the consequences of waging war. But then does EVERYBODY who uses force to implement policies/beliefs etc defend ALL of their actions? I think you will find that they don't.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't!

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Otacon: That doesn't mean they shouldn't!

Apologies in advance Otacon if you take offence, when I query that you may have not fully understood my last post.

It's what I want too! I want EVERYBODY to stand up and take responsibility for ALL OF THE ACTIONS of the armies/armed groups that they support. I don't care if they are the forces of a state or not.

Sand

It's what I want too! I want EVERYBODY to stand up and take responsibility for ALL OF THE ACTIONS of the armies/armed groups that they support. I don't care if they are the forces of a state or not.

Most western armies adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and usually expand upon them with rules of engagement and other regulations on their troops. They investigate and punish breaches of the above regulations and conventions by their troops.

State armies gain the support and respect of their citizens due to those soldiers taking risks and making sacrifices to defend the interests of the state as determined by the elected representitives of those same citizens. Part of that support is dependant on those regulations being upheld. Any soldier who breaches the standards the state expects of its troops forfeits the support of those citizens.

The Provos, and other terrorist groups, deliberately target civillians and completely breach the Geneva conventions. Regulations on their membership simply extend to the typical code of organised crime - dont co-operate with the police and dont steal from the organisation. Thats probably the only two things you could do to get in trouble in the Provos. Absolutely anything else was fine - christ, I even remember reading that the Provos intimidated a teenage girl who was raped by her uncle [ a Provo ] from going to the police, to protect their man.

As such, a supporter of Provo terrorism must support attacks on civillians. Thats what the Provos do. They sometimes launch the odd attack on a policeman or a soldiers, but their stock in trade is bombing shops, pubs and high streets trying to kill civillians. Provos who murder civillians are not investigated or punished, by the Provos as they approve and encourage such attacks.

A supporter of military action doesnt support attacks on civillians, as practically by definition militaries are bound by the GC and rules of engagement. Its understood that should a soldier in that military attack civillians in breach of those rules, he will be investigated and punished as appropriate.

Are YOU a pacifist of the Mahatma Gandhi standard? If you are NOT, have YOU ever supported ANY cause that might involve the use of force etc?

No, far from Ghandi. Have and will support use of military force where I think its appropriate. However the important phrase there is military force. I have not and will not support terrorism. Whilst some civillian casualties are practically inevitable in war due to lots of firepower in urban areas, I will not support the deliberate attempt to target and murder civillians.

tv3

Why does everyone keep saying about the IRA killing civilians...What about the brittish army,uvf,etc etc..SCUM directly aiming to kill civilians without warning and for protecting there land??????I think the people who are trying to protect the scum brittish army are just as much scum as the paras:D
They should read about the cathoilc farmers who were pushed out of there land because the brittish army etc wanted to take control of the north!
I ask one simple question...What ****ing got in there tick heads THINKING they could take over the north????
Im glad it is over but im even more happy to know that the scum who were trying to push catholics out of the north were defeated by the catholic people who did not and were not going to allow a 100% takeover by the brits etc!:D

tv3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting. you agree 100% with a campaign of terror against innocent people then call other people scum.:rolleyes:

I call the brittish army SCUM as they have and ARE NOW killing innocent civilians in iraq etc etc so thats what you call a campaign of terror!The brittish army have killed hundreds of civilians in iraq and you call the ira scum:DIm sure you meant the brittish army were nothing but scum in the northern troubles,and still they go on years later killing innoncent civilians around the world still to this day! ! !
Thank god they left the north:rolleyes:

dante18

Sand wrote:

The Provos, and other terrorist groups, deliberately target civillians and completely breach the Geneva conventions.

The Provos didn't deliberately target civilians. You're thinking of the loyalists or the RAF Bomber Command in the second world war.

And if targeting civilians is in breach of the Geneva convention does that mean that the British committed war crimes when they bombed Dresden?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

Snip

= I don't 'support' the slaughter of innocents but......

Dangerous_Dave

I personally like the idea of a having a little piece of Britain on the same island as Ireland. It makes Irleand an even more fascinating and interesting place. I think it would be a little boring and inward looking if the island consisted of just one nation for one people.

TOMASJ

Sand wrote: »

Most western armies adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and usually expand upon them with rules of engagement and other regulations on their troops. They investigate and punish breaches of the above regulations and conventions by their troops

In the case of the british army I can name a few cases where after they murdered innocent civilians, the not only got off Scott free but were promoted, but then,
It was only Irish people that were murdered.

tv3

Dangerous_Dave wrote: »

I personally like the idea of a having a little piece of Britain on the same island as Ireland. It makes Irleand an even more fascinating and interesting place. I think it would be a little boring and inward looking if the island consisted of just one nation for one people.

What a stupid thing to say...but then again only a nob head would say that! ! !