Civilian targets

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

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.

I didn't dispute it

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Obviously the IRA also had other objectives such as the bombing of 'comercial targets' and other such activities such as fund raising, etc.

Agreed - "secondary targets".

But there is absolutely no factual basis on which to state that civilians were not also "secondary targets". Plus, as Fred correctly pointed out above, commercial targets include civilians, unless you specifically hit them outside of working hours to make it purely commercial/infrastructural.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

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.

Pub bombings, maybe. But all the others (shopping centres, main streets, etc) ? Did they bomb Argos on the off-chance that there were some off-duty soldiers shopping there at the time ?

Armin_Tamzarian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

When I refer to 'commercial targets' I'm talking about targets that will have a serious impact when destroyed, such as Canary Wharf, key sections of Motorway, etc.
Perhaphs 'economic target' would be a better description?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

All the pub bombings, the street bomb in Warrington, etc were appalingly bad ideas and are some of the IRA's most shameful acts.
I have no problem condemning them.

I don't have a problem with attacks such as Canary Wharf where they were planned well, inflicted alot of financial damage and the only people who were killed were 2 who ignored police warnings and risked their own lives.
Most other cases of bombing in England were way to reckless and the lack of consideration for inncent lives was shocking.

I think that there was a logic in the IRA in the '70s that they wanted to 'take the war to England' to raise awareness amongst the English public.
I think the idea was that the general public would get that sick of it all that'd be clamouring for politicians to hand back the 6 counties to Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I think that there was a logic in the IRA in the '70s that they wanted to 'take the war to England' to raise awareness amongst the English public.
I think the idea was that the general public would get that sick of it all that'd be clamouring for politicians to hand back the 6 counties to Ireland.

maybe, but it took away any sympathy the English public had for the republican cause. You could say it cost the lives of the hunger strikers to an extent, because the people of England were sick of being held to ransom by the Irish and it would have been political suicide for any politician to have given in to them.

All the IRA achieved in England was getting themselves and Sinn Fein branded as murdering scum.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Pub bombings, maybe. But all the others (shopping centres, main streets, etc) ? Did they bomb Argos on the off-chance that there were some off-duty soldiers shopping there at the time ?

No, these were particularly bad cases.
Putting a bomb in a bin on a public street is quite shocking.

This is another case of a botched warning happening.
I think the police went to the right shop in the wrong town or something like that.
Something like this should never have been carried out and I struggle to understand the mindset that could plan something like this.

Armin_Tamzarian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe, but it took away any sympathy the English public had for the republican cause. You could say it cost the lives of the hunger strikers to an extent, because the people of England were sick of being held to ransom by the Irish and it would have been political suicide for any politician to have given in to them.

All the IRA achieved in England was getting themselves and Sinn Fein branded as murdering scum.

I agree.
I know of several people who were working in England (mainly London) in the '70s / '80s.
They said that in certain places the attitude towards Irish people plummeted almost overnight when these sort of bombings took place.

I believe that this campaign of bombings in England was a terrible idea that achieved nothing.

If things were planned out and thought out properly instead of making these amaturish attempts could have been different.

If the utmost effort was put into ensuring that innocent civilians lives weren't put at risk and if the IRA went for targets along the lines of Canary Wharf or pure military targets then I believe the backlash in England wouldn't have been created, or would have been miniscule in comparison.

Attacks such as the pub bombings are one of the hardest thing for impartial people to swallow.
However I believe the same people would have much less trouble accepting the logic in attacks like Canary Wharf, etc.

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

If the IRA want to be remembered as an Army, the same standards have to apply.

Define this standard.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

No, these were particularly bad cases.
Putting a bomb in a bin on a public street is quite shocking.

This is another case of a botched warning happening.
I think the police went to the right shop in the wrong town or something like that.
Something like this should never have been carried out and I struggle to understand the mindset that could plan something like this.

+1

And those are the ones that make it very difficult to believe that civilian targets were at the very least "acceptable", if not actively pursued.

Fratton Fred

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Attacks such as the pub bombings are one of the hardest thing for impartial people to swallow.
However I believe the same people would have much less trouble accepting the logic in attacks like Canary Wharf, etc.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Armin_Tamzarian

I wish to add something, with respect to the Pub bombings and the Warrington attacks in particular.

Having been posting in this thread for a few days I've been spending alot of time thinking about the issues being discussed here and it's been quite a while since I've given such matters any real thought.

I've reached the conclusion that previously I hadn't fully appreciated the sheer insanity behind the this segment of the IRA's campaign.
I have no problem unconditionally condemning these events.

Throughout this thread when I've offered reasons for why I believe certain events were perpetrated I've received responses which criticised me somewhat for excusing these actions.
There is a big difference.

While not forgetting about isolated incidents such as Kingsmill
I still stand by my original belief that there was never been an IRA to 'target civilians' but blame for these horrors must be laid both at the feet of those who sent the bombers and those who actually carried out the acts.

I believe the strategy was to send units to Englands with the vague instructions to kill off duty military personnel.
Surely a cleaner method could have been employed than say throwing a bomb into a pub.
The more I think about it the more preposterous and disgusting it sounds.

With respect to Warrington.
My knowledge of the event is limited.
I believe a bomb was placed in either one or two litter bins on a busy street.
A warning was given but the location was confused.
The bombs went off and two young boys were killed.

I believe strongly in logic.
I don't really believe there is such a thing as an illogical act as such.
I believe that if any action and the person who carried out the action are analysed deeply enough that a logical reason for the event will occur, even if the logical thought process can be thought of as insane.

I'm finding it hard to attempt to follow the logic of that street bomb.
Some theories.

1. The bomb was placed with the intention of having it found via a warning.
The intention was that nobody would die and terror would be spread to enhance the IRA's negotiating position, etc.

2. The bomb was placed with the intention to kill civilians.
I don't reallty buy into this, unless the perpetrator was one of those psycopathic elements, of which the IRA had a few.

3. Could it be possible that the bomb was destined for use elsewhere and that it was dumped in the bin by someone possibly spooked?


If anyone has any additional facts / theories regarding this even, please share them.

FTA69

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I agree.
I know of several people who were working in England (mainly London) in the '70s / '80s.
They said that in certain places the attitude towards Irish people plummeted almost overnight when these sort of bombings took place.

Similarly every time the Brits decided to kill a child with a plastic bullet or run someone over with an armoured car attitutes toward English people here plummeted. At the end of the day it was a political conflict, blaming some labourer in Kilburn for the actions of the IRA is ridiculous, similarly accosting English people here for the actions of their government is equally wrong.

I believe that this campaign of bombings in England was a terrible idea that achieved nothing.

The likes of pub bombings were wrong and were entirely counter-productive. However in general the England campaign was a vital component of the IRA campaign. You can shoot working-class squaddies from Newcastle and Irish cops until the cows come home, that won't shift the issue at all. Essentially the IRA campaign (and guerilla warfare in general) was armed propaganda, an effort to create a demand within the occupying country itself for withdrawal. This was seen in great effect in the example of Vietnam where the goal was to 1) make the occupied country ungovernable and 2) kill enough soldiers in order to make the occupation untenable. Eventually it was turbulence within the USA itself that led to them pulling out of SE Asia.

While the IRA could destabilise the northern state to the extent they could not be ignored (ie a political settlement could not come about while they were active) it could never escalate the campaign to the point where it was killing soldiers on a regular basis. As the logic went, one bomb in London in worth 10 in Belfast.

If things were planned out and thought out properly instead of making these amaturish attempts could have been different.

If the utmost effort was put into ensuring that innocent civilians lives weren't put at risk and if the IRA went for targets along the lines of Canary Wharf or pure military targets then I believe the backlash in England wouldn't have been created, or would have been miniscule in comparison.

The backlash against the Irish community in England was irrelevant to the IRA from a strictly military point of view. It didn't hamper their ability to conduct a campaign at all. The IRA stumbled across the tactic of hitting the financial centres too late, but at the same time it didn't take long for the Brits to take action. London city centre was drastically hampered as a result of the threat of the Baltic Exchange bomb. At the same time, the campaign was focussed on the likes of bridges, cultural landmarks and economic institutions (ie CBDs of major cities, Heathrow etc). This was what kept the Irish issue firmly on the British agenda. Disrupting the Grand National was another effective operation and the likes of the Brighton bomb and the mortaring of 10 Downing Street demonstrated the IRA's ability to attack at will.

Armin_Tamzarian

FTA69 wrote: »

Similarly every time the Brits decided to kill a child with a plastic bullet or run someone over with an armoured car attitutes toward English people here plummeted. At the end of the day it was a political conflict, blaming some labourer in Kilburn for the actions of the IRA is ridiculous, similarly accosting English people here for the actions of their government is equally wrong.

I agree completely.

FTA69 wrote: »

The backlash against the Irish community in England was irrelevant to the IRA from a strictly military point of view. It didn't hamper their ability to conduct a campaign at all. The IRA stumbled across the tactic of hitting the financial centres too late, but at the same time it didn't take long for the Brits to take action. London city centre was drastically hampered as a result of the threat of the Baltic Exchange bomb. At the same time, the campaign was focussed on the likes of bridges, cultural landmarks and economic institutions (ie CBDs of major cities, Heathrow etc). This was what kept the Irish issue firmly on the British agenda. Disrupting the Grand National was another effective operation and the likes of the Brighton bomb and the mortaring of 10 Downing Street demonstrated the IRA's ability to attack at will.

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Do you not think that the pub bombings, warrington, etc had a negative effect in the sense that there was a backlash from some of the IRA's own supporters and the Irish public in general.
Alot of people who supported and continued to support the IRA could stomach the killings of soldiers alot easier than innocents being killed brutally in pubs, etc.

Do you believe that it was a case at first of units being sent to Britain with the vague instrucions, locate places frequented by off-duty soldiers and kill them?
Do you also think that the units that went were unprepared and were entering unknown territory in the sense that they were now operating abroad instead of their own local communities.
With the result being that the whole thing was executed in a very sloppy fashion?

FTA69

I agree 100%, the IRA of the 1970s was quite a sloppy organisation compared to the IRA of the mid 80s.

LordSutch

I havent posted to this Thread since Post#156 (deliberately) because of the stream of Pro-IRA bile being spewed out from all directions, but on this occassion I feel compelled to make a 'one off" input, due to Armin_Tamzarian's "Road to Damascus-esque" revelations contained within Post#310, really glad you are analyzing the facts & thinking about the consequences of indescriminate IRA bombings.........

Well said & Bye, bye.

Fratton Fred

I'm not so sure about canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange, but I think the M25 bombs were quite clever, similarly with the Hammersmith Flyover. There was a definite feeling of "Oh for ****s sake, give em back their piece of ****ing land if they're that desperate for it"

It is such a shame that so many innocents were slaughtered before the IRA sussed that out. If an republicans are looking for gold stars for clever ways to get your point across, then i'm afraid you lost any respect from me the day Ross McWhirter was killed in cold blood on his door step. The Balcombe Street gang was arguably one of the key factors in prolonging operation banner and to call them sloppy would be akin to calling jack the ripper a bit of a rascal.

FTA69

I'm not so sure about canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange

The two of them caused more damage than the rest of the IRA bombs put together.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

The two of them caused more damage than the rest of the IRA bombs put together.

I know how much damage they caused, they also cost a lot of people their jobs. Have you ever onsidered maybe that the gherkin is actually a giant middle finger:D

People looked at the bombings and still viewed them in the same way as the Pub Bombs. The motorway bridges inconvenienced a lot of people and prevented peoplee from getting to work etc, didn't cause any major damage but in the case of the Hammersmith flyover, seriously pissed people off for months.