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
Civilian targets
Options
Comments
-
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »The Kingsmill massacre was carried out by the South Armagh Reaction Force.
Presumably the local reaction to the massacre was the reason we saw no other actions from this group.
which came first, the public outcry, or the name "South Armagh reaction Force"?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »which came first, the public outcry, or the name "South Armagh reaction Force"?
Nah, you are mixing them up with the Reactionary Force of South Armagh.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Rearrange the words a bit more, folks - you'll get the phonetic equivalent of "FARCE".OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »The Kingsmill massacre was carried out by the South Armagh Reaction Force.
Presumably the local reaction to the massacre was the reason we saw no other actions from this group.
Or, since you've suggested we now talk in presumptions - "presumably the local reaction to the massacre was the reason someone came up with a name in order to absolve the IRA from any perceived damage to their otherwise immaculate reputation" ?
"Hi officer, sorry I crashed into you"
"Name, please ?"
"Supermaaaaaa....aaah sorry - it's Clark Kent"
"Very realistic outfit, Mr Kent. Fancy dress party tonight ?"
"Er, yeah - imagine the headlines if the REAL superman wrecked your car, eh ?"
Are either of us right or wrong ? I dunno......but as "presumptions" go, they're both equally valid.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I was only quoting you, and since you used the "every army makes mistakes" as part of the reason why the IRA makes mistakes, it's actually completely illogical to then say something else about "every army" and say that THAT statement DOESN'T apply to the IRA.
Either both rules apply or neither; if not every army kills deliberately [and you used that to conclude that the IRA didn't ], then maybe not every army makes mistakes that result in deaths [ so you could then use THAT to conclude that the IRA didn't ].
I'm somewhat confused here.
Is it that you genuinely cannot understand the meaning of a simple sentence or is this some weak attempt to baffle me with logic?
Let's look at the sentence.
"Every army in the world that engages in armed conflict kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said."
I'll break it down for you as simply as I can.
In all likelihood, every army that has engaged in armed conflict has killed civilians.
Out of this set we have two subsets.
Subset A - civilians killed accidently
Subset B - civilians killed intentionally.
A way of rewriting the sentece would be that sometimes armies engaged in armed conflict kill civilians intentionally.
Obviously this isn't to say that all armies that engage in armed conflict kill a certain amount of civilians intentionally.Liam Byrne wrote: »So that's a "Yes", then. QED.
Certainly not, a one off by people who weren't operating in accordance with the wishes of the IRA as a whole is not enough to make a sweeping statement that the IRA targetted civilians per se.
Going back to the Bloody Sunday example, nobody can deny that Brisish Soldiers intentionally targetted civilians but at the same time I don't think a sweeping statement can be made that the British Army had a policy of targetting civilians.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »A way of rewriting the sentece would be that sometimes armies engaged in armed conflict kill civilians intentionally.
Obviously this isn't to say that all armies that engage in armed conflict kill a certain amount of civilians intentionally.
Agreed. but my point is that you earlier used the fact that "sometimes other armies killed innocent civilians unintentionally" as the basis for giving the IRA the benefit of the doubt; whereas I am saying that - if you're following that logic - it would be equally valid to use the fact that "sometimes other armies kill them intentionally" as the basis for judging the IRA.
Essentially, I'm saying that what other armies do is irrelevant; OR if you're using them as the basis, then you can't select the ones that HAVEN'T killed intentionally and say "that must be what happened, accidental - because it's often the case" ... it would be equally valid to say "that must be what happened, intentional - because it's often the case".Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Certainly not, a one off by people who weren't operating in accordance with the wishes of the IRA as a whole is not enough to make a sweeping statement that the IRA targetted civilians per se.
Firstly, the "per se" caveat is irrelevant and a cop-out; the question is whether the IRA targetted civilians. "We didn't do it EVERY TIME" is not a valid argument.
Likewise, no-one here KNOWS whether they were or "weren't operating in accordance with the wishes of the IRA as a whole". That's a chicken-and-egg scenario as described above, where no-one knows whether it was decided AFTER a - let's be generous and give the benefit of the doubt and say - "mistake", whether to disown a particular operation. You seem OK with giving them the benefit of the doubt; I'm not.
So we're asked to believe (1) that it was a mistake, or that (2) it was a mistake by someone doing their own thing, or (3) both.
As you said yourself, almost all armies "make mistakes" but if you look at the IRA's "official" record, they've made NONE, because all the ones that murdered civilians were "unauthorised" :rolleyes:.
So that's two caveats in one sentence in order to justify saying "no". Doesn't wash with me.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Going back to the Bloody Sunday example, nobody can die that Brisish Soldiers intentionally targetted civilians but at the same time I don't think a sweeping statement can be made that the British Army had a policy of targetting civilians.
??? Did you mean "deny" ?0 -
Advertisement
-
But the only action that was 'unauthorised' was Kingsmill. Whoever carried out this outrage did so under a name of convienience because they knew the IRA would not sanction that type of attack.
As you like to say yourself, QED. Republicans who wanted to target civilians could not do so under the flag of PIRA.0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »As you like to say yourself, QED. Republicans who wanted to target civilians could not do so under the flag of PIRA.
but they did target civilians, otherwise they wouldn't be putting bombs in shops would they.
you argue that the IRA would give a warning, but it very very rarely worked. Therefore they were either targetting civilians knowing full well there was a high probability innocent civilians would be killed, or they were ****ing stupid. or both.0 -
It's probably a largely semantic point, but one that Provo apologists still trot out. That the IRA did not 'target civilians' insofar as they were not the primary targets of their actions, but any danger to civilians was weighed up and discounted (bombing crowded areas, trusting a corrupt police force to relay warnings etc) in favour of successful urban guerilla warfare.
Basically pursuing successful urban guerilla warfare was more important than any possible civilian deaths that might accrue.
Not that I accept this line an inch of course.
Anybody that actually believes that you can plant a bomb in a crowded urban area and trust the very police that you know to be corrupt and sectarian to relay conflicting warnings to the public are either liars or imbecilic.0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »But the only action that was 'unauthorised' was Kingsmill. Whoever carried out this outrage did so under a name of convienience because they knew the IRA would not sanction that type of attack.
How do we know this for a fact ? Plus, you're (at the risk of converging two threads) the murder of Jerry McCabe was "unauthorised"; not a civilian, as such, but another example of how something "went wrong" and the word "unauthorised" was immediately trotted out.
So that seems to have been the tactic.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »As you like to say yourself, QED. Republicans who wanted to target civilians could not do so under the flag of PIRA.
"As I like to say myself" ?? I only said it once, and your post above is very clear that once isn't enough to show a preference.
And again, who says or believes that ? Maybe the official line was "Go ahead, and if you pull it off it's 'ours' but if you screw up you're on your own" ?
How do we know ?
I don't, but loads of people seem to gladly accept it as if it were fact or part of the ten commandments.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Agreed. but my point is that you earlier used the fact that "sometimes other armies killed innocent civilians unintentionally" as the basis for giving the IRA the benefit of the doubt; whereas I am saying that - if you're following that logic - it would be equally valid to use the fact that "sometimes other armies kill them intentionally" as the basis for judging the IRA.
You need to stop inferring things from my posts that I'm not saying.
The point about other armies was used merely to point out that in almost every armed conflict, unfortunately, innocent civlians get killed.
It's a given effect of war.
Regarding me saying that "sometimes other armies kill them intentionally",
this was included to qualify the sentence.
This has no bearing on the argument about the IRA.
Also, as pointed out previously, most examples of civilians being killed intentionally have occured when troops acted of their own accord.
Obviously this excludes cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing which is a whole different ball game.
How about saying it like this?Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, the "per se" caveat is irrelevant and a cop-out; the question is whether the IRA targetted civilians. "We didn't do it EVERY TIME" is not a valid argument.
We never do it but there has been extremely rare, isolated incidents of our members doing it.Liam Byrne wrote: »Likewise, no-one here KNOWS whether they were or "weren't operating in accordance with the wishes of the IRA as a whole". That's a chicken-and-egg scenario as described above, where no-one knows whether it was decided AFTER a - let's be generous and give the benefit of the doubt and say - "mistake", whether to disown a particular operation. You seem OK with giving them the benefit of the doubt; I'm not.
So we're asked to believe (1) that it was a mistake, or that (2) it was a mistake by someone doing their own thing, or (3) both.
Fair point.
Alot of this comes down to the individual's personal assessment of each individual case.
Obviously this is really where peoples prejudices play a large role in them deciding on one point of view or the other.
Personally I strongly believe that in the majority of cases such as Enniskillen, etc, that the intention to kill civilians wasn't present.
I base this on the large amounts I've read on the subjects, my opinion on overall IRA strategy at the time and whatever circumstantial evidence there is available. Call it an educated opinion.
I'll also say that I'd find it very hard to say that there hasn't been cases where the IRA has f***ed up and then had the actions in question claimed by a previously / little heard of republican splinter group.
It seems like an obvious tactic to use to avoid creating political obstacles for both sides.
For the sake of the victims though, I think that in this day and age that responsibiliy should be admitted by the IRA, if such responsibility exsists.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out, I shall amend my post.Liam Byrne wrote: »??? Did you mean "deny" ?
While not agreeing with alot you say you make some good points and
contribute to the debate, unlike several other posters who just wish
to post negative, unsubstantiated allegations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »How do we know this for a fact ? Plus, you're (at the risk of converging two threads) the murder of Jerry McCabe was "unauthorised"; not a civilian, as such, but another example of how something "went wrong" and the word "unauthorised" was immediately trotted out.
So that seems to have been the tactic.
And again, who says or believes that ? Maybe the official line was "Go ahead, and if you pull it off it's 'ours' but if you screw up you're on your own" ?
How do we know ?
I don't, but loads of people seem to gladly accept it as if it were fact or part of the ten commandments.
I would tend to agree with this post that this did happen.
I'm sure there was something about members of the Dublin Brigade being stood down prior to armed robberies only to be reinstated again after the robbery had been carried out.
The Jerry McCabe case is another case in point.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »You need to stop inferring things from my posts that I'm not saying.
I wasn't "inferring" (as in implying that you were saying it)......I was merely pointing out that if I use the same logic in reverse, the other view can easily apply.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »How about saying it like this?
We never do it but there has been extremely rare, isolated incidents of our members doing it.
We can say it like that, but it still doesn't give any factual basis on from which we can deduce that it's true.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Fair point.
Alot of this comes down to the individual's personal assessment of each individual case.
Obviously this is really where peoples prejudices play a large role in them deciding on one point of view or the other.
Personally I strongly believe that in the majority of cases such as Enniskillen, etc, that the intention to kill civilians wasn't present.
I base this on the large amounts I've read on the subjects, my opinion on overall IRA strategy at the time and whatever circumstantial evidence there is available. Call it an educated opinion.
Likewise, I have looked at lots of things logically, and the main issue I have is how - when anything counterproductive "happens", it's immediately blamed on a splinter group or wasn't sanctioned or was a "mistake" or whatever; once or twice, maybe, but every time ? That stretches my credibility WAY too far.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »I'll also say that I'd find it very hard to say that there hasn't been cases where the IRA has f***ed up and then had the actions in question claimed by a previously / little heard of republican splinter group.
It seems like an obvious tactic to use to avoid creating political obstacles for both sides.
True. But while it avoids political obstacles, it also stretches crediblility and abdicates responsibility. That would be - grudgingly and uncomfortably - acceptable if it were applied to both sides equally, but it isn't.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »For the sake of the victims though, I think that in this day and age that responsibiliy should be admitted by the IRA, if such responsibility exsists.
100% in agreement.Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »While not agreeing with alot you say you make some good points and
contribute to the debate, unlike several other posters who just wish
to post negative, unsubstantiated allegations.
Thank you. I can't claim to know the facts of every case; but likewise those who scream "conspiracy" for the opposing side don't know the facts behind the opposite side; they appear to be perfectly happy to abdicate responsibility based on the caveats, while refusing point-blank that the same logic can be applied to "the other side". THAT is my primary objection to any point raised by so-called "republicans"......0 -
Sorry I'm late guys!
0 -
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »I can't claim to know the facts of every case; but likewise those who scream "conspiracy" for the opposing side don't know the facts behind the opposite side; they appear to be perfectly happy to abdicate responsibility based on the caveats, while refusing point-blank that the same logic can be applied to "the other side". THAT is my primary objection to any point raised by so-called "republicans"......
That is exactly were I'm coming from, actually that's why I set up the thread.
I'm well aware of what the Brits/UDR/RUC did, but I think that is often used as an excuse to justify equally abhorrent atrocities/murders.
If the IRA want to be remembered as an Army, the same standards have to apply.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »We can say it like that, but it still doesn't give any factual basis on from which we can deduce that it's true.
The simple fact of the matter is that it is beyond doubt that the IRA never
had a concerted campaign to target civilians.
I and others have already gone to lengths in this thread to explain and illustrate why.
Yes, we've had Kingsmill where civilians were targetted but I think it's fair to say that this was a one-off or at worst a very isolated incident.
Fair enough we have the incidents which I accept falls into the middle ground.
Pub bombings, Enniskillen, etc.
People like myself hold to the view that civilians were not the target of these attacks. That while civilian lives were certainly being put at risk,
the resultant deaths came about due to 'f**k ups' for want of a better expression.
People like yourself hold to the view that in certain cases such as these the IRA did in fact target civilians.
It's unlikely that people will reach agreement about these 'middle ground' issues however would you agree that there was never a concerted effort to carry out operations with the primary goal being the murder of innocent civilians?Liam Byrne wrote: »Likewise, I have looked at lots of things logically, and the main issue I have is how - when anything counterproductive "happens", it's immediately blamed on a splinter group or wasn't sanctioned or was a "mistake" or whatever; once or twice, maybe, but every time ? That stretches my credibility WAY too far.
I also agree that credibility was stretched by these denials that the majority of the general public found difficult to believe.
However, like most things in politics things are alot more complicated than they appear on the surface.
For example, let's say Sinn Féin has come close to overcoming some large stumbling block with the Brits and some breakthrough deal is about to be reached.
This deal will result in the political agenda being moved forward as the beginning of a cease fire.
The Brits will have had an unbelievably difficult job coming to some agreement that satisfied both republicans and unionists.
Next thing some botched IRA operation occurs, like Enniskillen for example.
What to do?
If the IRA admits responsibility then the Brits position will become untenable.
Support for the deal amongst voters will plunge and the unionists will most likely have to pull out of the deal or run the risk of losing their own supporters.
The solution, blame it on some made up IRA splinter group.
Nobody really believes it but it allows the Brits to save some face, for unionist leaders to save some face and for the deal to go ahead.
You have to appreciate that by the IRA refusing to come clean about their involvement in certain, particularly messy events that it is usually not just them that benefit from the lie.
The lie ends up benefiting almost all concerned, in certain cirumstances only of course.Liam Byrne wrote: »Thank you. I can't claim to know the facts of every case; but likewise those who scream "conspiracy" for the opposing side don't know the facts behind the opposite side; they appear to be perfectly happy to abdicate responsibility based on the caveats, while refusing point-blank that the same logic can be applied to "the other side". THAT is my primary objection to any point raised by so-called "republicans"......
Again, fair point.
But you must also accept that the reverse is also true.
Just because certain supporters of the republican movement 'abdicate responsibility' as you put it, doesn't mean that they're claims are always false.
I.e. you may not believe the reasons proffered for the deaths in Enniskillen and Warrington, however this doesn't mean you should automatically disbelieve the reasons given for unintentional deaths resultant from other IRA operations.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »The simple fact of the matter is that it is beyond doubt that the IRA never
had a concerted campaign to target civilians.
OK, Can you accept the Brits didn't either?Armin_Tamzarin wrote:Fair enough we have the incidents which I accept falls into the middle ground.
Pub bombings
Pub bombings, come on? You are smarter than that. A pub bombing is not Enniskillen.Armin_Tamzarin wrote:For example, let's say Sinn Féin has come close to overcoming some large stumbling block with the Brits and some breakthrough deal is about to be reached.
This deal will result in the political agenda being moved forward as the beginning of a cease fire.
The Brits will have had an unbelievably difficult job coming to some agreement that satisfied both republicans and unionists.
Next thing some botched IRA operation occurs, like Enniskillen for example.
What to do?
If the IRA admits responsibility then the Brits position will become untenable.
Support for the deal amongst voters will plunge and the unionists will most likely have to pull out of the deal or run the risk of losing their own supporters.
The solution, blame it on some made up IRA splinter group.
Nobody really believes it but it allows the Brits to save some face, for unionist leaders to save some face and for the deal to go ahead.
You have to appreciate that by the IRA refusing to come clean about their involvement in certain, particularly messy events that it is usually not just them that benefit from the lie.
The lie ends up benefiting almost all concerned, in certain cirumstances only of course.
I accept that did happen, but I think that is absolving the IRA of guilt because it's expedient and many sympathisers now believe this to be true.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »The simple fact of the matter is that it is beyond doubt that the IRA never
had a concerted campaign to target civilians.
:
:
People like yourself hold to the view that in certain cases such as these the IRA did in fact target civilians.
Therefore, it is not "beyond doubt". I've noticed the subtle introduction of the word "concerted", and it's bugging me; we've gone from querying whether a campaign existed to querying whether an "every time" campaign existed. And that's NOT what the thread is about : "Did the IRA target civilians ?" does not equal "Did the IRA ALWAYS target civilians ?"Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »[It's unlikely that people will reach agreement about these 'middle ground' issues however would you agree that there was never a concerted effort to carry out operations with the primary goal being the murder of innocent civilians?
No, sorry. I cannot see how anyone can plant a bomb in a crowded public area and not have the intention of killing civilians. If the British Army opened fire in a public place, they'd be immediately accused of targetting civilians, wouldn't they ? And rightly so, because more innocent civilians would be hurt or killed than anyone else who "might" be in the vicinity. The same applies in reverse.
If a British soldier shoots someone innocent on a street in the North, the "republicans" scream "murderous bas***ds", and rightly so; when Gerry McCabe is shot on a street in Adare, we're constantly reminded that the guys "weren't convicted of murder", and told not to use the word........my question is WHY ?Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »What to do?
If the IRA admits responsibility then the Brits position will become untenable.
Support for the deal amongst voters will plunge and the unionists will most likely have to pull out of the deal or run the risk of losing their own supporters.
The solution, blame it on some made up IRA splinter group.
Nobody really believes it but it allows the Brits to save some face, for unionist leaders to save some face and for the deal to go ahead.
This would be perfectly logical if it were "the Brits" who were issuing a press release as to who did it. But it's the IRA who say "nope, 'twasn't us".
But can you not see the hole in that argument ? You're expecting me to believe that the IRA wants to help a nation/administration, that it hates and wants out, to "save face" ? So having blown a town or street to pieces they then turn around and say "we'll help ye out now, and pretend it was someone else" ???
Is that SERIOUSLY what you are saying ? :eek:Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Just because certain supporters of the republican movement 'abdicate responsibility' as you put it, doesn't mean that they're claims are always false.
I.e. you may not believe the reasons proffered for the deaths in Enniskillen and Warrington, however this doesn't mean you should automatically disbelieve the reasons given for unintentional deaths resultant from other IRA operations.
At no stage did I suggest that. To me "targetting civilians" doesn't mean "targetting them every time"; the direct attacks on Army sites would refute that straight away.
Yes, there may well have been cases where there wasn't any deliberate intent to kill civilians - I've already said that my objection to these caveats is that they were trotted out EVERY TIME. And THAT'S what's not credible, and that THEN causes into question the other times.
e.g. if the IRA admitted and took responsibility for 6 out of 10 bombings where they said "that's what we meant to do", and said "oops" for the other 4, chances are they'd be believed; not respected, because it still shows a contempt for innocent people, but at least they'd be believed.
dhorgan probably summed it up on the previous page:We are talking about the brits for god sake. No need to be naive
Again, why is that acceptable to say about "the brits", but not acceptable to say about what the IRA tell us ?
Fair and balanced viewpoints isn't too much to ask, is it ?0 -
Yes, apart from incidents where British Security Services used agents such as Brian Nelson to carry out bombings.OK, Can you accept the Brits didn't either?
As I said, 'middle ground'.Pub bombings, come on? You are smarter than that. A pub bombing is not Enniskillen.
For reasons I've already laid out in this thread.
I don't believe civilians were the actual targets.
I don't agree that it's absolving the IRA of guilt.I accept that did happen, but I think that is absolving the IRA of guilt because it's expedient and many sympathisers now believe this to be true.
Merely pointing out some of the more complicated reasond behind such things.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Yes, apart from incidents where British Security Services used agents such as Brian Nelson to carry out bombings.
Fair enough.Armin_Tarmzarian wrote:As I said, 'middle ground'.
For reasons I've already laid out in this thread.
I don't believe civilians were the actual targets.
A bomb in a pub is going to kill civilians, simple as. It's murder. A warning is just an excuse, they knew the consequences of what they did.Armin_Tarmazarian wrote:I don't agree that it's absolving the IRA of guilt.
Exactly.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »If a British soldier shoots someone innocent on a street in the North, the "republicans" scream "murderous bas***ds", and rightly so;
Yes but that's the thing.
The soldier is guilty of killing an innocent.
The Brits were complicit in the murder of civilians for very complicated reasons.
I still wouldn't say that they had this major strategy of killing civilians.
I'm not just applying my arguments to one side and not to the other.Liam Byrne wrote: »This would be perfectly logical if it were "the Brits" who were issuing a press release as to who did it. But it's the IRA who say "nope, 'twasn't us".
Well it wouldn't be logical at all.
As if the Brits could come out and openly make excuses for an IRA attack in order to get the IRA off the hook as it were.
These things are like a very intricate game where things get played out by a complicated set of rules.Liam Byrne wrote: »But can you not see the hole in that argument ? You're expecting me to believe that the IRA wants to help a nation/administration, that it hates and wants out, to "save face" ? So having blown a town or street to pieces they then turn around and say "we'll help ye out now, and pretend it was someone else" ???
Is that SERIOUSLY what you are saying ? :eek:
Obviously it would be to the IRA's benefit as well as also being beneficial to other parties.
Don't get me wrong, the motive I layed out for denying responsibility certainly couldn't have been this in all cases.
In other cases the IRA would have just used it as a means of 'damage control'. I.e to limit the amount of backlash from republican communites for such acts or to say, limit the damage to it's image of foreign dontators, etc, etc.Liam Byrne wrote: »Again, why is that acceptable to say about "the brits", but not acceptable to say about what the IRA tell us ?
Fair and balanced viewpoints isn't too much to ask, is it ?
Again, I agree with your point here.
It would be naive to take everything the Brits say at face value just as it would be naive to take everything the IRA says at face value.0 -
explain how the IRA were going to use terror (As already admitted to) without targetting civilians? surely the debate is whether or not they meant to actually kill any rather than did they actually target them.0
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »explain how the IRA were going to use terror (As already admitted to) without targetting civilians? surely the debate is whether or not they meant to actually kill any rather than did they actually target them.
Fair point but surely to target someone is to intend to kill them.
People will have opposing views on how to interpret certain actions.
I mean, take Canary Wharf for example,thousands were terrified by the IRA that day but it's clear that no civilians were targetted.
It's easy to forget with all the talk about pub bombings, etc. that the IRA's primary objective was always agents of the Crown not members of the public.0 -
A bomb in a pub is going to kill civilians, simple as. It's murder. A warning is just an excuse, they knew the consequences of what they did.
I'm not taking away from how bad an act such a thing is.
It's just that I believe that the deaths of innocent civilians were viewed by the IRA as f**k ups, collateral damage, etc.
That is not the same thing as setting out with the intention, 'oh, let's go blow up some innocent people'.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Fair point but surely to target someone is to intend to kill them.
People will have opposing views on how to interpret certain actions.
I mean, take Canary Wharf for example,thousands were terrified by the IRA that day but it's clear that no civilians were targetted.
It's easy to forget with all the talk about pub bombings, etc. that the IRA's primary objective was always agents of the Crown not members of the public.
Harrods? Warrington? Birmingham pub bombings? Paddington Station? mortar attacks on Heathrow Airport? Arndale Shopping centre, Manchester?
Yes, it is easy to forget that the IRA were after "Agents of the Crown".0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »It's just that I believe that the deaths of innocent civilians were viewed by the IRA as f**k ups, collateral damage, etc.
I guess you're entitled to believe that, based on your consideration of the facts. That said, how the IRA - or anyone - view their own acts is a little biased - even Bertie reckons he did nothing wrong!
The issue is how others see them - whole other debate there on how, to some, perception is more important than the facts, but my focus is on the facts, and frankly how the IRA view or self-justify their own actions is irrelevant to me - they're terrorists (partially justifiably) but they're also criminals who rob banks, "manslaughter" people :rolleyes:, etc - and criminals lie about their actions.
Likewise, others are entitled not to; given - as I said earlier - that EVERY civilian death was a f**k up or a "splinter group", combined with the fact that there were far too many (yes, one is "too many", but **** does happen too) it happened far too often to enable me to believe it.
Either (a) the excuses and caveats are lies or (b) the IRA were spectacularly unable to control their members or (c) the IRA were hopelessly inept and incapable of doing what they actually wanted to do without screwing it up.
I honestly don't know which of the 3; I just know that it's difficult to believe anyone who repeatedly kills innocent people and just goes "oops".
The same applies to my view of Bertie.....he was given at least 3 chances to explain his finances, and each time there was a different account. The result is that I don't believe a word the guy says, because everything was an excuse or barely-credible story.0 -
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: ».....the IRA's primary objective was always agents of the Crown not members of the public.
Firstly, that's what we're debating - it can't be stated as fact.
Secondly, why the introduction of the word "primary" ? It's similar to the introduction of the word "concerted" earlier....
Saying their primary objective was one thing (and considering they were so obviously extremely bad at achieving that, given all the "**** ups") doesn't mean that they didn't have a secondary, back-up objective.
Why didn't you just say
"the IRA's primary objective was always agents of the Crown not members of the public."
I really don't mean to be overly hard on you, Armin, but those caveats and semantics etc are precisely what bug me - no-one speaks straight and clearly anymore.
And while it might merely be frustrating when it comes to political parties, it's even more annoying when all people are looking for is a straight, un-caveated statement of facts with no "but they did worse" and no bull****.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, that's what we're debating - it can't be stated as fact.
Secondly, why the introduction of the word "primary" ? It's similar to the introduction of the word "concerted" earlier....
Saying their primary objective was one thing (and considering they were so obviously extremely bad at achieving that, given all the "**** ups") doesn't mean that they didn't have a secondary, back-up objective.
Why didn't you just say
"the IRA's primary objective was always agents of the Crown not members of the public."
I really don't mean to be overly hard on you, Armin, but those caveats and semantics etc are precisely what bug me - no-one speaks straight and clearly anymore.
And while it might merely be frustrating when it comes to political parties, it's even more annoying when all people are looking for is a straight, un-caveated statement of facts with no "but they did worse" and no bull****.
You misunderstand and read too much into my words once again.
Killing agents of the Crown always was the IRA's primary objective.
I don't see how this can be disputed.
Obviously the IRA also had other objectives such as the bombing of 'comercial targets' and other such activities such as fund raising, etc.
Even in the cases of the pub bombings, the attacks were aimed at off-duty soldiers and a substantial number off off-duty military personnel were in fact killed / injured in such attacks.
It's not an accurate assessment to claim that the IRA were extremely bad at killing agents of the Crown.
They were extremely profficent at it.
Especially considering the small size of the organistaion and the fact that they were taking on the almost limitless resources of the British Empire.
I don't think it's fair to accuse me of not speaking straight.
I've responded to every point that you're put to me with a straight answer accompanied with the reasoning behind the answer.
N.B. In when I say 'agents of the Crown' I'm using it as a term of convenience to refer to military, police, politicians, royalty, informers, agents, etc.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Harrods? Warrington? Birmingham pub bombings? Paddington Station? mortar attacks on Heathrow Airport? Arndale Shopping centre, Manchester?
Yes, it is easy to forget that the IRA were after "Agents of the Crown".
Warrington (1st bomb), Paddington, Heathrow and Manchester are all clearly commercial targets
Why don't you check a list detailing all IRA attacks.
Count the number of ones that fall under the category of attacks against agents of the Crown and then count the number that don't fall into this category.
You'll find that the number that don't only adds up to a small percentage of the total amount.0 -
Advertisement
-
Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »Warrington (1st bomb), Paddington, Heathrow and Manchester are all clearly commercial targets
Why don't you check a list detailing all IRA attacks.
Count the number of ones that fall under the category of attacks against agents of the Crown and then count the number that don't fall into this category.
You'll find that the number that don't only adds up to a small percentage of the total amount.
so its agents of the crown and commercial targets is it? surely commercial targets would involve civilians as you don't tend to get too many Paras working in Argos.
I can understand the Baltic Exchange or Canary Wharf, they were carried out at times designed to minimise casualties. Fair enough. Arndale and Warrington were carried at busy times as were the other bombs in Manchester. If the IRA were really after commercial targets, why go for Warrington ffs, it is a back water. were they just too lazy to drive all the way to london, or too stupid to realise it wasn't Liverpool?
OK, they may be small percentages, but the fact the IRA diluted the attacks by killing plenty of soldiers in between doesn't make them any less henous. If they were having success killing squaddies then why pick on the poor people of Manchester time after time after time, or was it just something they did on the way to watch united?
They may not have intended to kill people, but people kept gettiung killed and the IRA kept coming back to the same sort of attacks, like a moth to a lightbulb.
The truth is, they targetted civilians fully understanding that people were going to get killed and they considered that their cause, to remove a line from a map, was more important than the lives of innocent people.0
Advertisement