Civilian targets

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

.

Warrington

Canary Wharf

If memory serves, the IRA claimed at the time that they either had phoned in a coded warning about where that bomb was, but it detonated early ? Something to that effect anyway. With the public outcry that followed, they had to come up with some excuse. Still, no excuse covers that.

As for Canary Wharf, different matter. The warnings about time and place were precise enough for the Police to have the whole area evacuated. Could have went badly wrong though.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uiuwQtYMC_s

K-9

Duiske wrote: »

If memory serves, the IRA claimed at the time that they either had phoned in a coded warning about where that bomb was, but it detonated early ? Something to that effect anyway. With the public outcry that followed, they had to come up with some excuse. Still, no excuse covers that.

As for Canary Wharf, different matter. The warnings about time and place were precise enough for the Police to have the whole area evacuated. Could have went badly wrong though.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uiuwQtYMC_s

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

of course isnt that where the queen keeps her purse :rolleyes:

so where all the train stations pubs restaurants and hotels they bombed.

And they have the cheek to try and dictate to everyone how people should behave.

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

I'm not an apologist for the IRA. I was just trying to show that if the IRA had been deliberately targeting civilians, there would not have been ANY warnings for the Canary wharf bomb, or any other for that matter.

Military target ? Obviously not. I assume the IRA would have defended it at the time by calling it an economic target.

K-9

Duiske wrote: »

I'm not an apologist for the IRA. I was just trying to show that if the IRA had been deliberately targeting civilians, there would not have been ANY warnings for the Canary wharf bomb, or any other for that matter.

Military target ? Obviously not. I assume the IRA would have defended it at the time by calling it an economic target.

But economic means civilians?

pwd

Canary Wharf was not a legitimate miltary target: It was an economic target. None of the pira's targets were legitimate - they were a terrorist organization which the majority of Irish people did not support.

In 2004 they had killed 644 civilians, 273 RUC members, 163 Republican paramilitaries, 23 prison officers, 7 gardai and Irish army and 5 British police officers. This is a total of 1115people killed who were not British military.

The same study showed they had killed 456 British military (including territorial army), 182 Ulster Defence Regiment and 28 loyalist paramilitaries. This totals 666.

They also injured about 20,000 people, most of whom were civilians.

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

But economic means civilians?

Thats a question your going to have to put to the IRA leadership of the late 80's/90's i'm afraid. I believe their P.R.O. was a Mr P. O'Neill.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

But economic means civilians?

The theory behind targets like Canary Wharf was twofold.

They could have stayed at war with squaddies and peelers in the north forever, the London goverment gave not a damn. Making life difficult for the population of the English capital brought pressure on the government and cost them a fortune as insurance companies refused to pay out.

Secondly it was a headline grabbing, low risk operation.

I note no-one has been able to call me on my challenge. That is not to interpret me as defending atrocities like Enniskillen and Warrington.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wrong.

The attack was on a gasworks.

That was the first bomb (well, first collection of bombs). The second and third, a month later, were in the city centre.

Armin_Tamzarian

I believe that primarily the PIRA (especially in later years), sought to target the Crown (military, police, politicians), economic targets and to a lesser extent Loyalists.
I.e. Canary Wharf, Narrow Water, South Armagh sniper killings.
I'm aware that there were two civilian deaths in Canary Wharf but it should be noted that the building
had been cleared and they crossed the police barrier and re-entered the building to retrieve takings from the till.

In any conflict where there are going to be deaths then IMO these are the most acceptable type of deaths.
I'm not condoning it, I'm just being analytical about it.
In most cases I would imagine that it would have been a major concern to try to avoid any civilian casualties.


In some other cases attacks went ahead in the knowledge that there would be come civilian deaths,
collateral damage you might call it.
Examples of this would be Mountbatten where two innocent children were killed.
I've read abit about Mountbatten and I've known people who had met him.
He certainly doesn't sound like an enemy of Irish Republicanism but I
suppose from the point of view of the IRA any member of the Royal family was fair game.
I think that cases like this are disgraceful.
How someone can willingly kill two innocent children for the sake of
killing their primary target is beyond me.

Finally we have the last case.
Cases where civilians were purposefully targetted.
The only example that springs to mins is Kingsmill where republicans
murdered civilian construction workers who were working on a RUC / military base.
Possibly the worst part about these killings was the fact that
there was blantant sectarianism at work.
The killers identified the catholic workers (bar one) and let them go.

I think that killings like that were fairly isolated and I'm sure that
the republican movement was only too aware that killings like this were
extremely harmful to the republican movement.

Any attack such as this which sets out primarily to target civilians is beyond revulsion
and is totally indefensible.


To conclude.
I feel that it is too easy to claim that the IRA were more than happy to target civilians but that statement
doesn't stand up to argument.
Unfortunately it did happen, but only I believe in rare incidents and mainly
back in the 70s.

Even in cases like the terrible Omagh bombing.
The intention wasn't to kill civilians.
The person who phoned in the bomb warning was incoheren with
the result being that the location of the bomb was confused.

Fionnanc

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If you can name me one IRA bombing that was designed to "murder English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places" I will throw €100 at the charity of your choice.

Mods to referee?

Warrington bombing killing to boys. Bomb hidden in a bin. Canary wharf bombing killing 2 men. All those pub bombings in the 1970s Guilfortd etc

OhNoYouDidn't

Fionnanc wrote: »

Warrington bombing killing to boys. Bomb hidden in a bin. Canary wharf bombing killing 2 men. All those pub bombings in the 1970s Guilfortd etc

This point may be far too subtle for you, so I'll type it slowly.

The object of the Warrington bomb was not to kill those children. Thats no consolation to their families though.

The guys who died at Canary Warf broke the police cordon and were walking towords the bomb when it went off.

Guilford was an attack on a pub that soldiers drank in.

We can discuss the morality of these actions until the cows come home, but to say that the PIRA set out with the specific intention of killing civilians as a tactic is patently false, whatever your opinion of them.

The UDA/UFF and UVF however, did.

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This point may be far too subtle for you, so I'll type it slowly.

The object of the Warrington bomb was not to kill those children. Thats no consolation to their families though.

Oh so I'm going to assume that Boots and Argos were completely viable targets then? Perhaps some Brit soldiers bought some shelving in Argus or maybe a toothbrush in Boots made it a completely viable target then? The IRA knew exactly what they were doing planting those bombs in a civilian centre where there was no military presence.

The guys who died at Canary Warf broke the police cordon and were walking towords the bomb when it went off.

Oh so it's their fault that they're dead... Nothing to do with the fact the IRA should never have put a bomb there anyway. Again there's no logical reason reason as to why they'd bomb areas with a sustained civilian presence, the fact is the murder of civilians was of no real concern to them.

Guilford was an attack on a pub that soldiers drank in.

Oh so now pubs were off limits to civilians because soldiers had the cheek to drink there? Once again, the murder of civilians was of no real concern to the IRA.

We can discuss the morality of these actions until the cows come home, but to say that the PIRA set out with the specific intention of killing civilians as a tactic is patently false, whatever your opinion of them.

You may be able to try and argue that they didn't intentionally target civilians but you cannot say that they were concerned with trying not to murder civilians.

The UDA/UFF and UVF however, did.

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Armin_Tamzarian

I can't think of any example of the PIRA specifically targetting civilians on English soil.

However, the most heinous of the PIRA's acts were the bombings
that were carried out with the knowledge that there would be civilian
casualties.

The distinction should be made that although the PIRA was happy to accept the loss of civilian lives, that the civilians were never the
intended targets.

Also, in cases like the Birmingham and Warrington bombings.
Bomb warnings were phoned in but ambiguity, confusion and
lack of time were major factors in the loss of life.
It's next to impossible to discern if the ambiguity was intentional on the part of the bombers or if it was due to difficulties understanding accentsm, etc.

But worst of all were the bombs that were preceded with no warning.
How people could leave a bomb in a pub on the basis that the pub
was believed to be frequented by off duty soldiers is completely beyond me.
In all likelihood, the majority of working class pubs in Britain are frequented by off duty members of the British armed forces.

I do believe that in later years the PIRA recognised the atrociousness of such acts and made better efforts to avoid the loss of civilian life.

Armin_Tamzarian

Poccington wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

This statement is simply untrue.

Republicans have been responsible for the deaths of many, many civilians.
The point is that in nearly all these cases the deaths of the civilians wasn't intentional.

However, Loyalists on the other hand made careers out of targetting innocent civilians for death purely on the basis of their religion.
E.g. Greysteel, Silverbridge, Dennis Carville and all the other innocent Catholics who were murdered because of their religion.

It's a little O/T but let's not forget all those heroic Loyalists who braved the cold weather and got out of bed early to pelt stones at groups of 4 and 5 year old girls on their way to school.
So no, both sides were not as bad as each other.

One side was bad but the other was worse.

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so I'm going to assume that Boots and Argos were completely viable targets then? Perhaps some Brit soldiers bought some shelving in Argus or maybe a toothbrush in Boots made it a completely viable target then? The IRA knew exactly what they were doing planting those bombs in a civilian centre where there was no military presence.

You seem to think I am here to defend these attacks. I am not. I'm simply saying, as Armin T is, that there was never an PIRA campaign to target civilians.

A stragegy in the 90's was to attack commercial targets in light of the famous 'acceptible level of violence' strategy London was employing. The provos made a decison that making life difficult for ordinary English folk was the tactic that would get London to the negotiating table.

I'm not offereing an opinion on this strategy

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so it's their fault that they're dead... Nothing to do with the fact the IRA should never have put a bomb there anyway. Again there's no logical reason reason as to why they'd bomb areas with a sustained civilian presence, the fact is the murder of civilians was of no real concern to them.

Logical reason was to cost the London government a couple of hundred million and have middle class Londoners put pressure on the Tories to go to the negotiating table.

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so now pubs were off limits to civilians because soldiers had the cheek to drink there? Once again, the murder of civilians was of no real concern to the IRA.

Possibly not, but thats not whats being discussed.

Poccington wrote: »

You may be able to try and argue that they didn't intentionally target civilians but you cannot say that they were concerned with trying not to murder civilians.

Personally I think that they probably did try to avoid civilians, but that comes down to your ideological stance. Or put another way, they could have killed a hell of a lot more civilians if they wanted.

Poccington wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Thats a spectacularly naive statement. The IRA did not drive around Belfast and Mid Ulster looking for Protestants to aduct, torture and even in some cases sexually molest before executing them. The loyalist campaign was a squalid in that all they could militarily do for god and ulster was target teenagers out for a few pints.

As Armin says "One side was bad but the other was worse."

IRISH RAIL

they just put bombs in peoples taxis and forced them to drive it to police stations.
they just put bombs in pubs because a soilder might have been having a quiet drink there that night.
they just happened to beat a man to death outside a pub because he said something to the wrong person.

get real

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just put bombs in peoples taxis and forced them to drive it to police stations.

Never heard that one.

Were you not defending IDF attacks on Palestinian police stations? An Apache killed dozens when they were passing out on a parade ground. Why the double standard?

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just put bombs in pubs because a soilder might have been having a quiet drink there that night.

They did.

I repeat, I am not condoning that tactic.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just happened to beat a man to death outside a pub because he said something to the wrong person.

Two groups of hardmen had a fight over a woman. It was a savage beating they gave him, but its not the first time a bar brawl went too far.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

get real

from the bloke who defends shelling schools with phosphorous? No thanks.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Never heard that one.

January 2005. CIRA. Could use Patsy Gillespie as a PIRA equivalent though, that was 1990 IIRC. Or the two London cabbies forced to be proxy bombers the same day as the Bishopsgate bomb, that was 1993.

K-9

WTF has Israel got to do with NI?

You shouldn't have to make the comparison if your argument stands up.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

WTF has Israel got to do with NI?

You shouldn't have to make the comparison if your argument stands up.

He was giving out because the IRA targeted the RUC but defended the Israeli Airforce strafing Palestinian police.

Just pointing out an inconsistancy.

OhNoYouDidn't

sceptre wrote: »

January 2005. CIRA. Could use Patsy Gillespie as a PIRA equivalent though, that was 1990 IIRC. Or the two London cabbies forced to be proxy bombers the same day as the Bishopsgate bomb, that was 1993.

so there was one occasion when the PIRA forced a taxi driver to deliver a proxy bomb, and in that occasion no-one was hurt.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

so there was one occasion when the PIRA forced a taxi driver to deliver a proxy bomb, and in that occasion no-one was hurt.

I just put in the ones I remembered (that'd be two btw, there were two on the same day, no buy one get one free discount applied). There's probably a few handy lists on the web of all the goings-on that might give you a few more. You said you hadn't heard of the taxi driver thing, proxy bombs were a favourite of the PIRA between 1990 and 1993 so there may be more taxi drivers, there are certainly more people if you check it up.

K-9

sceptre wrote: »

I just put in the ones I remembered (that'd be two btw, there were two on the same day, no buy one get one free discount applied). There's probably a few handy lists on the web of all the goings-on that might give you a few more. You said you hadn't heard of the taxi driver thing, proxy bombs were a favourite of the PIRA between 1990 and 1993 so there may be more taxi drivers, there are certainly more people if you check it up.

YEP, Very common. Worth checking out OhNoYouDidn't!

May have been economic targets though!

IRISH RAIL

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He was giving out because the IRA targeted the RUC but defended the Israeli Airforce strafing Palestinian police.

Just pointing out an inconsistancy.

I was stating how the ira use civilians to carry there bombs

The Israeli air force dont straffe targets and havent done so since 1973
You sir are the inconsistancy
saying how they never target civilians and attempt to put up a wager
when the proof is shown you simply ignore the post and carry on asking is no one going to take up the challenge. then try to twist things in your favour.
you say I was defending the IDF fr attacking a police station while they were passing out yet ignore it was a Hamas police station a terrorist group just like the one you seem to favour.
I have not got the double standard you do by criticising the IDF when civillins get killed and then trying to justify it when terrorists kill civillians while convenintly putting "i am not condoning that" in to make you feel better.

this is one of your lines

Possibly not, but thats not whats being discussed.

in answer to this

Oh so now pubs were off limits to civilians because soldiers had the cheek to drink there? Once again, the murder of civilians was of no real concern to the IRA.

but you mustnt have realised the title of this thread is civillian targets
so that is exactly what is being discussed.


Two groups of hardmen had a fight over a woman. It was a savage beating they gave him, but its not the first time a bar brawl went too far.

is that the best excuse you can come up with
when earlier you said one was sexually harassing the woman
now you try and brush it off with a group fight and it went too far.

once again get real

Armin_Tamzarian

In this thread people are consistantly missing the point that there is
a difference between targetting civilians and killing civilians.

RE the pub bombs, civilians were killed but the targets were soldiers.
The deaths of civilians would have been undesirable.

RE the proxy bombs.
They're usage wasn't widespread and it did alot more harm than good
to the republican movement.
It's a real sick idea.
I think initially the idea was to use so called 'enemy's of the republican movement', i.e. collaborators and informers to drive the bombs but
things soon got even worse when totally innocent civilians were used.
I believe the majority of the drivers escaped with their lives by jumping from the vehicle in the nick of time or because the bomb failed to detonate.
Again, the civilian wasn't the target but was just being used as a means to an end.

RE the killing of Robery McCartney.
Him and his friend were involved in a bar brawl that got way out of hand.
Let's say I got into a fight with a member of the PIRA in some Dublin pub.
Maybe a few of his mates who were drinking with him helped him out.
Now let's say that this man gets the upper hand and beats me to death.
I would have been killed by and individual or maybe 2 or 3 individuals in a bar brawl.
It certainly couldn't be claimed that I was murdered by the IRA.
To refer to someone getting killed in a bar brawl as a reference in a debate about the IRA targetting civilians is ludicrous.

Finally, people have made good points in this thread but don't forget it's a debate about whether the IRA targetted civilians or not.
When people argue the point that civilian deaths were incidental as opposed to intentional they are not defending or supporting the actions of the IRA.

oscarBravo

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

The distinction should be made that although the PIRA was happy to accept the loss of civilian lives, that the civilians were never the
intended targets.

I can see why you'd want to make that distinction, but there's a very fine line between doing so and full-on apologism.

If you plant a bomb in a shopping centre, you're doing so in the full knowledge that - despite any precautions you claim to take - civilian casualties may result. That's morally equivalent, in my book, to consciously deciding to murder civilians. Sure, there's a moral difference to some people, but those are people I (and many others) don't share a moral code with.

I've manage to go my entire life without killing any civilians. I've achieve that, in large part, by not placing any bombs in shopping centres.

Also, in cases like the Birmingham and Warrington bombings.
Bomb warnings were phoned in but ambiguity, confusion and
lack of time were major factors in the loss of life.
It's next to impossible to discern if the ambiguity was intentional on the part of the bombers or if it was due to difficulties understanding accentsm, etc.

Again, who cares? If they really wanted to avoid civilian casualties, they wouldn't have placed the bombs where civilians could have been killed.

oscarBravo

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

RE the proxy bombs.
They're usage wasn't widespread and it did alot more harm than good
to the republican movement.
It's a real sick idea.

It's instructive to note that the reason proxy bombs were discontinued as a tactic is not the sheer, unadulterated evil involved, but the negative PR value. If their use had promoted the Republican cause, I suspect they would have continued unabated.

Again, the civilian wasn't the target but was just being used as a means to an end.

It would be charitable of me to describe as "disingenuous" the claim that the driver of a proxy bomb is not the (or, at least, an) intended target of that bomb.

When people argue the point that civilian deaths were incidental as opposed to intentional they are not defending or supporting the actions of the IRA.

They may not intend to defend IRA actions, but a tacit defence is still a defence.

OhNoYouDidn't

sceptre wrote: »

I just put in the ones I remembered (that'd be two btw, there were two on the same day, no buy one get one free discount applied). There's probably a few handy lists on the web of all the goings-on that might give you a few more. You said you hadn't heard of the taxi driver thing, proxy bombs were a favourite of the PIRA between 1990 and 1993 so there may be more taxi drivers, there are certainly more people if you check it up.

I am fully aware of the proxy tactic (generally used to also 'punish' nationalists who worked for the security services), but I stand corrected, there was one attack using taxi drivers. IrishRail was implying it was a regular thing and that the taxi drivers were killed.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's instructive to note that the reason proxy bombs were discontinued as a tactic is not the sheer, unadulterated evil involved, but the negative PR value. If their use had promoted the Republican cause, I suspect they would have continued unabated.

Agreed, indeed Ed Moaloney put forward the theory that it was the doves in the IRA who promoted the tactic in order to discredit the hawks.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be charitable of me to describe as "disingenuous" the claim that the driver of a proxy bomb is not the (or, at least, an) intended target of that bomb.

Yes, because they were viewed as collaberators.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They may not intend to defend IRA actions, but a tacit defence is still a defence.

But that subtlty is the topic in hand.