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
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    IRISH RAIL wrote: »
    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

    1: Police are police. Its either acceptible to target them in a war or its not. Make up your mind.

    2: I am not justifying anything. I'm simply stating that there are grey areas when it came to the Republican campaign. There is a difference between civilians dying and the deliberate targeting of civilians. The IRA may have killed far too many civilians but the UDA/UVF deliberatly targetted them.

    3: Who is making the excuse re McCartney? Thats commonly accepted as what happened. His friend, who also got stabbed, made a comment about the backside of a local Provo commander. The manner of the killing and coverup were decidedly unpleasant, but the salient fact still remains; he got in a bar brawl over a woman.


  • Options
    #63
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    pwd wrote: »
    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 RUC were an armed paramilitary force with direct responsibility for maintaining the northern state, under the Ulsterisation policy of the
    mid 1970s the RUC were given primacy in the military campaign against the IRA. They were stationed in fortified barracks and were armed with automatic weapons. They were an integral part in the infrastructure of the British armed forces here and were most defnitely legitimate targets. By your logic the Black and Tans weren't military targets either because they were police auxillaries.

    The "163 Republicans" is another skewed statistic because the vast majority of them died as a result of being blown-up by their own bombs; the remainder were informers.


  • Options
    #64
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    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.

    Others put forward the theory that it was a British agent within the IRA who came up with the policy.


  • Options
    #65
    RDM_83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭RDM_83


    I think that a lot of people from the Republic don't quiet realise quite how many bombs there were, if the IRA had wanted to target civilians (this is using their definition of civilians nearly every settlement larger than a hamlet would have a tradigy associated with it not just Enniskillen and claudy etc.
    (I think during some years in the seveties there was over a thousand bombings a year, I have heard as well that during the 70's around 80% of derry centre was bombed out.


  • Options
    #66
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Others put forward the theory that it was a British agent within the IRA who came up with the policy.
    And there are those who believe the moon is made of cheese


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.

    This statement simply isn't true.
    You either set out with the intention of killing someone or you don't.
    If someone places a hidden bomb somewhere, set for detonation in the near future of course there will always be the possibility that some innocent civilians will get killed.

    To use an example that I'm not fond of, by your logic do you also believe that the British, American and possibly the Irish governments are consciously deciding to murder civilians?
    I mean, they engage in armed conflict where innocent civilians die as a result of their guns and bombs.

    People seem to forget that we are discussing terrorists here, who by there very definition seek to realise their aims through the use of terror.
    If terrorists were to adhere to a code of never risking civilian life then they really wouldn't be very busy would they.
    If they were completely adamant about not accidently killing innocent civilians then they wouldn't be able to plant bombs anywhere.

    The O/P's question was as follows.
    Do you think that civilian death by the IRA were casualties of war, unintentional or was there a targeted campaign to murder civilians?

    From all the arguments and examples in this thread I think we can all agree that there were plenty of civilian deaths which were casualties of war and unintentional.
    However, apart from people trying to argue points on semantics and definition nobody in this thread has given any example of the IRA operating a targeted campaign to murder civilians.


    RE the proxy bombs.
    I don't think this was a hawks / doves issue.
    I also don't think it was singularily done as some sick twisted form of killing.
    I believe that the first proxy bombs were used because the IRA had so much difficulty in remotely detonating bombs, due to advancements in the British Army's abilites to jam radio signals.
    I think that in the first few cases the IRA used people they viewed as enemys to drive the bombs.
    Later this situation degenerated and innocent taxi drivers, etc, were used.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    They may not intend to defend IRA actions, but a tacit defence is still a defence.
    I find this statement somewhat offensive.
    I will categorically state that I find the deaths of all civilians at the hands of the IRA as abhorrent.
    I'm merely stating my believe that there was not a campaign to target civilians.


  • Options
    #68
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    And there are those who believe the moon is made of cheese

    Well if we are to believe that British agent Freddie Scapatticci was the number two in the IRA's Internal Security Unit, then we would also have to conclude that an agent in the pay of the Brits took part in the premeditated murder of British citizens. The world of agents and double agents is a very murky one indeed, and the only people who believe in "cheese moons" would be those who thought that the Brits had qualms about killing people or letting people die during the course of their counter-insurgency campaign.


  • Options
    #69
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    With all the dirty tricks used against Republicans by the british army and their various side kicks from the unionists side in the six counties during the war,

    the IRA were remarkably disciplined not to fall into the brit trap and slaughter thousands of unionist civilians,
    we all know that the Loyalist terriosts would have had no such qualms and would have killed as many nationalists as they possibly could,
    as was demonstrated in Dublin and Monaghan, when assisted by their british army handlers.


  • Options
    #70
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    as was demonstrated in Dublin and Monaghan, when assisted by their british army handlers.

    That was ok, that was an economic target.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #71
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    K-9 wrote: »
    That was ok, that was an economic target.
    What makes you think that?, all bombs planted in the 26 counties and the six counties by the brits and their studges had no warnings, so as to inflict maximum civilian casualties.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    K-9 wrote: »
    That was ok, that was an economic target.

    Hardly.
    An economic target is a target that if destroyed causes substantial financial damage to the state.
    Examples would be the central bank, the M50 bridge, IFSC, etc.
    Not some dingy back street pub.


  • Options
    #73
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    Hardly.
    An economic target is a target that if destroyed causes substantial financial damage to the state.
    Examples would be the central bank, the M50 bridge, IFSC, etc.
    Not some dingy back street pub.

    Like Warrington.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #74
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    K-9 wrote: »
    Like Warrington.

    The bombing of the gasworks in Warrington could be viewed as the bombing of an economic target.

    The other bombs could not as they were placed in bins.
    You'd imagine that the aim of these devices was to spread terror, pure and simple.


  • Options
    #75
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    The other bombs could not as they were placed in bins.
    You'd imagine that the aim of these devices was to spread terror, pure and simple.

    It was an Economic target.

    So can we agree Warrington was similar to Dublin and Monaghan?

    3,333rd post! Double it!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #76
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    K-9 wrote: »
    So can we agree Warrington was similar to Dublin and Monaghan?

    Two bombs that (insufficient as it turned out) warnings were given that killed two during an evactuation desiged to cause panic by the IRA.

    Four no warning carbombs killing 34 (the worst atrocity of the troubles) specifically placed to kill the most people possible by elements of the British military to influence the southern governments policy (not the first time) on the north.

    Similar in what sense exactly?


  • Options
    #77
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Two bombs that (insufficient as it turned out) warnings were given that killed two during an evactuation desiged to cause panic by the IRA.

    Why cause panic like that? Could easily have been 20. They were lucky.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #78
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    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.

    The whole point of the loyalist attacks were to show the Catholic community they could not rely on the IRA to defend them and therefore stop supporting them. They were murderous scumbags but their formation doesn't surprise me and my finger's pointed solely at the PIRA. How exactly were the Loyalists supposed to take out military targets in a British juristiction?

    I also agree bombing soldiers pubs with civillian staff was just as bad as targeting civillians.

    You also haveto remember the IRA considered postmen "legitimate targets"

    Sorry to the OP, I know mention of loyalists was banned but it seems to have drifted that way already.


  • Options
    #79
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    People seem to forget that we are discussing terrorists here, who by there very definition seek to realise their aims through the use of terror.
    If terrorists were to adhere to a code of never risking civilian life then they really wouldn't be very busy would they.
    If they were completely adamant about not accidently killing innocent civilians then they wouldn't be able to plant bombs anywhere.

    so they did target civilians. They were trying to terrorise the general public by targetting them with bombs.

    They put bombs in pubs, in shops, in railway stations. How is that not targetting civilians? At le Mons they tried their hardest to kill as many civilians as was possible.

    Economic targets, fair enough, you could even argue that Harrods at Christmas was an economic target but Argos in Warrington? A rememberance parade in Eniskillen?

    I agree, I think €100 to santa Strike force is the best place for the donation.


  • Options
    #80
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    so they did target civilians. They were trying to terrorise the general public by targetting them with bombs.

    Again, the point is being blurred.
    Terrorising people is not the same as targetting people for death.
    Phoning in a fake bomb thread for a busy shopping centre would have
    the effect of spreading terror but no civilian would have been targeted for death.

    Similarly, if one plans to plant a bomb only to phone in a warning with the intention of having the area cleared in time.
    Then the terror is being used but the intention to kill civilians isn't present.
    Civilians may die but it is unintentional.


  • Options
    #81
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Yes, of course the IRA deliberately murdered civillians. just remember how many Bombs the IRA planted in Cars, Pubs, Resteraunts, Busses & Bars in Northern Ireland + all the other civillians thay murdered in Britain, not forgetting the campaign they waged against 'their own' civillians in the form of Knee Cappings, Torture, Punishment beatings, & execution for those wee Republican lads & lassies who stepped out of line . .

    The IRA avoided 'Full On' engagement with the Army because they knew that they would have been anialiated within days, hence the drip-drip feed of Murders in all their various forms, Car Bombs, Bus Bombs, Shootings, Pub Bombs etc etc .............

    Civilians were expendable in the eyes of the Provo's, and some of their victims have never been found.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    Again, the point is being blurred.
    Terrorising people is not the same as targetting people for death.
    Phoning in a fake bomb thread for a busy shopping centre would have
    the effect of spreading terror but no civilian would have been targeted for death.

    Similarly, if one plans to plant a bomb only to phone in a warning with the intention of having the area cleared in time.
    Then the terror is being used but the intention to kill civilians isn't present.
    Civilians may die but it is unintentional.

    blurred where and how? if you want to terrorise someone, you have to target them. the threat of death has to be there otherwise no one is going to get scared.


  • Options
    #83
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    K-9 wrote: »
    So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

    The Baltic Exchange and Canary Wharf were completely legitimate military targets. The economic damage done was huge and the collateral damage minimal.

    Frankly the Provos disgust me. They should have bombed Eton.


  • Options
    #84
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    mountainyman wrote: »
    The Baltic Exchange and Canary Wharf were completely legitimate military targets. The economic damage done was huge and the collateral damage minimal.

    Frankly the Provos disgust me. They should have bombed Eton.

    Sounds like there is still some 'degraded' recruiting material out there :cool:


  • Options
    #85
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Those who are truly degraded were the proponents of the long war. The IRA completely misunderstood their enemy. What could have one the war was a short sharp shock at the heart of the English establishment.

    They should have bombed Eton.


  • Options
    #86
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    K-9 wrote: »
    Why cause panic like that? Could easily have been 20. They were lucky.

    To pressure the British government in light of the 'Acceptible level of violence' doctrine and move the war closer to them.


  • Options
    #87
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    blurred where and how? if you want to terrorise someone, you have to target them. the threat of death has to be there otherwise no one is going to get scared.

    Do you accept that if the IRA had decided to kill British civilians al-Quaeda style there would have been a lot more innocents killed?

    I stated that if anyone could find me an example of a bombing in England thats sole intention was to kill civilians I would pay €100. No-one has done that yet.

    There is a disctinction, far too subtle for some, between terrorising civilians and deliberately murdering them.


  • Options
    #88
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    The whole point of the loyalist attacks were to show the Catholic community they could not rely on the IRA to defend them and therefore stop supporting them. They were murderous scumbags but their formation doesn't surprise me and my finger's pointed solely at the PIRA. How exactly were the Loyalists supposed to take out military targets in a British juristiction?

    What an absolute load of bullsh*t. The UVF was formed in 1965 and was killing Catholic civilians a good three years before the Provisional IRA was even founded, the first cop to die during the war was killed by rioting Loyalists. The Ulster Defense Association was founded during the riots in 1970and remained legal until 1992 despite it carrying out hundreds of random, sectarian murders.

    Paramilitary Loyalism has existed before modern Republicanism itself, the first being the Peep O'Day boys; later we had the Ulster Volunteer Force and the quasi-military B-Specials. For you to insinuate that it was the Provos who somehow created murderous aspects of sectarian Loyalism is to deny history itself.

    The notion that the IRA is to blame for butchers like Lenny Murphy semi-decapitating people at random is ludicrous. Instead of blaming the reactionary bigotry that lies at the heart of Loyalism you decide to absolve sectarian murderers and blame Republicans. I have to say yours is the most ridiculous argument I have ever encountered on this forum.


  • Options
    #89
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Do you accept that if the IRA had decided to kill British civilians al-Quaeda style there would have been a lot more innocents killed?

    I stated that if anyone could find me an example of a bombing in England thats sole intention was to kill civilians I would pay €100. No-one has done that yet.

    There is a disctinction, far too subtle for some, between terrorising civilians and deliberately murdering them.

    so we should be thankful to the IRA for being so compassionate??

    so it is a bombing in England, shall we add in between the hours of 2 and 3 on a saturday afternoon?

    who killed Ross McWhirter? Leprechauns?

    The balcombe Street gand only managed to murder a handful of civilians by sheer good fortune, that's all

    http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/t-z/year03.html


  • Options
    #90
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    so we should be thankful to the IRA for being so compassionate??

    so it is a bombing in England, shall we add in between the hours of 2 and 3 on a saturday afternoon?

    who killed Ross McWhirter? Leprechauns?

    The balcombe Street gand only managed to murder a handful of civilians by sheer good fortune, that's all

    http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/t-z/year03.html

    Both sides were compassionate or cowardly depending on your point of view. The 'Troubles' were a disgrace like war in toytown.
    Pretendy war.
    In fairness to the UVF at least they were honest about the purpose of terrorism. The IRA never knew where they were and the British never went in hard enough to win.


    The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    so we should be thankful to the IRA for being so compassionate??

    Thats not the point being made and well you know it.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    so it is a bombing in England, shall we add in between the hours of 2 and 3 on a saturday afternoon?

    Panic, local populace put pressure in government who enter peacetalks.

    Its very clear why they did it. The morality is an entirely different debate.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    who killed Ross McWhirter? Leprechauns?

    No, the IRA. After he put a bounty on the ASU in London and admitted he had put his own life in danger.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The balcombe Street gand only managed to murder a handful of civilians by sheer good fortune, that's all

    http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/t-z/year03.html

    Yes, very much so. But that does not mean they set out to do so.


Advertisement