Civilian targets

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

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.

Come off it! Driving a bomb-laden car into a crowded town centre ? What did they think would happen ?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if they'd hired a top V/O artist to record the "warning" that they'd be off the hook ?

This attitude is what has our own courts nowadays in a shambles, where scum take their knives with them into towns and then say "I didn't mean / intend to stab him, your honour".....normal people don't take knives with them on a normal night out, therefore it's intentional.

Likewise, people with no intention of killing innocent civilians don't drive bombs into town centres.

Try phoning your local Garda and telling him that you're going to stab the person next door......hopefully, they'll be able to warn him in time and arrest you, but if they don't, it's still YOU that would be in the dock for murder, and rightly so.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Come off it! Driving a bomb-laden car into a crowded town centre ? What did they think would happen ?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if they'd hired a top V/O artist to record the "warning" that they'd be off the hook ?
.

I never suggested anyone would be 'off the hook'.

I was merely stating facts.
The RIRA were always likely to make a shambles of anything they tried.
It was only a matter of time before something like that happened.

The warning was phoned in and it is a well documented fact that
the actual location of the bomb was lost in translation.
If the actual location of the bomb had been correctly received then one would presume that the area would have been cleared and the tradgedy diverted.


I'm merely stating fact, you make it sound like I'm going out of my way to try to excuse what these people did.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This attitude is what has our own courts nowadays in a shambles, where scum take their knives with them into towns and then say "I didn't mean / intend to stab him, your honour".....normal people don't take knives with them on a normal night out, therefore it's intentional.

Likewise, people with no intention of killing innocent civilians don't drive bombs into town centres.

Try phoning your local Garda and telling him that you're going to stab the person next door......hopefully, they'll be able to warn him in time and arrest you, but if they don't, it's still YOU that would be in the dock for murder, and rightly so

What attitude?
Someone may well carry a knife for whatever reason, be it legal i.e. fishing or not legal, i.e. for some misplaced sense of security and self-defence.
If that person ends up stabbing then they're obviously still guilty of commintting a serious crime and deserve whatever punishement they get (with the exception of some rare cases of self-defence).

There is an issue of whether they actually left the house to seek out a certain person and stab them or whether they ended up in a situation where they reacted and stabbed someone.
This is called pre-meditation and it's what the law uses to differentitate between murder and manslaughter.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I never suggested anyone would be 'off the hook'.

I was merely stating facts.
The RIRA were always likely to make a shambles of anything they tried.
It was only a matter of time before something like that happened.

The warning was phoned in and it is a well documented fact that
the actual location of the bomb was lost in translation.
If the actual location of the bomb had been correctly received then one would presume that the area would have been cleared and the tradgedy diverted.


I'm merely stating fact, you make it sound like I'm going out of my way to try to excuse what these people did.

Good God, it's a bomb, not an essay that the dog ate.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

If you'll recall correctly the Volunteer who planted the Shankill bomb blew himself up, I think that's a fairly clear indication of the botched nature of it.

So following the same logic, we therefore conclude that 9/11 was "botched" too ? After all, a few of THEIR "volunteers" blew themselves up too.

The excuses across this thread would be laughable, if the issue weren't so serious.....basically, if an operation killed civilians, it's because something "went wrong", or it "wasn't sanctioned" or "was the Brits own fault because their mobile phones triggered the bombs", or even "operating under a name of convenience" :eek:.

Add in quotes like

Armin Tamzarian wrote: »

it is believed that the IRA were targeting members of the security forces

....and we see the problem....."believed" by whom, exactly ? Apologists only, or the general public ? The same apologists that scream "conspiracy theory" when "it is believed that Bloody Sunday was carried out without orders from the top" ? I don't know whether EITHER is true, so I can't say but I can't abide people that assume X for one "side" and scream "Y" for the other.

Those apologists who "stick to their guns", so to speak, seem to be brainwashed into thinking that whatever the IRA say is true; and therein lies the problem with this thread......an example :

Armin Tamzarian wrote: »

The fact that all eleven victims were innocent civilians strengthens the case that something went wrong.

....why do you think this ? If that's your view then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to prove the thread title......because the above implies that if innocent people are killed, the apologists immediately use this to "strengthen the case that something went wrong"........it's almost creating a tautology!

While personally I would conclude that taking a bomb into an area signals intent (if the intent was merely to terrorise civilians, then the same "panic" effect could be achieved with a telephoned warning .....something even the above poster admitted.

What you believe, and how far your credibility can be stretched, seems to depend 100% on whether or not you think the IRA are saints that make mistakes; but in thinking that way you appear to have to equally assume that the Brits are scum who never made mistakes and targetted everyone deliberately.

Basically, not a hope in hell of treating like with like.

If us neutrals were to take an immediate leap of faith and believe everything about mistakes, unauthorised murders, etc, is there any chance that the apologists would take the same leap of faith and apply the same logic to Brit actions ?

I doubt it, but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised...

Because when that day comes, we'll have made progress, and the overlooking of inconsistencies will have been worth it.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Someone may well carry a knife for whatever reason, be it legal i.e. fishing or not legal, i.e. for some misplaced sense of security and self-defence.
If that person ends up stabbing then they're obviously still guilty of commintting a serious crime and deserve whatever punishement they get (with the exception of some rare cases of self-defence
There is an issue of whether they actually left the house to seek out a certain person and stab them or whether they ended up in a situation where they reacted and stabbed someone.

This is called pre-meditation and it's what the law uses to differentitate between murder and manslaughter.

OK. So we've established that there's a grey(ish) area if the carrying of the knife is legal. And while I'll give you the fishing angle, you're right; it's illegal to carry one for any other purpose, and it will - or should - be viewed as a declaration of intent to use.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

If the actual location of the bomb had been correctly received then one would presume that the area would have been cleared and the tradgedy diverted.

Aside from the blatantly obvious that if the bomb hadn't been there AT ALL, then ALL tragedy would have been averted, can I also propose that "If the actual location of the bomb had been correctly DELIVERED then one would presume that the area would have been cleared and the tradgedy diverted".

Anyways, back to the knife analogy; any examples of where it's legal to carry a bomb into town ?

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So following the same logic, we therefore conclude that 9/11 was "botched" too ? After all, a few of THEIR "volunteers" blew themselves up too.

That's not following any kind of logic.
The purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to kill as many civilians as possible.
As are most attacks carried out by such people.
I'm sure I've never heard of a suicide bomber phoning in a warning in advance.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....and we see the problem....."believed" by whom, exactly ? Apologists only, or the general public ? The same apologists that scream "conspiracy theory" when "it is believed that Bloody Sunday was carried out without orders from the top" ? I don't know whether EITHER is true, so I can't say but I can't abide people that assume X for one "side" and scream "Y" for the other.

I've clearly stated previously that I don't believe Bloody Sunday was 'carried out with orders from the top'.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....why do you think this ? If that's your view then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to prove the thread title......because the above implies that if innocent people are killed, the apologists immediately use this to "strengthen the case that something went wrong"........it's almost creating a tautology!

Again, I, and others have clearly condemned Kingsmill as a pointed attack on civilians.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

While personally I would conclude that taking a bomb into an area signals intent (if the intent was merely to terrorise civilians, then the same "panic" effect could be achieved with a telephoned warning .....something even the above poster admitted.

A terrorist organistaion who merely faked bomb threats wouldn't have much credibility for long, would they?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What you believe, and how far your credibility can be stretched, seems to depend 100% on whether or not you think the IRA are saints that make mistakes; but in thinking that way you appear to have to equally assume that the Brits are scum who never made mistakes and targetted everyone deliberately.

I neither think the Brits are all scum or that the IRA are saints.
Please re-read my previous posts and try to take on what I've been saying.

Armin_Tamzarian

K-9 wrote: »

Good God, it's a bomb, not an essay that the dog ate.

Explain, I'm confused?

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK. So we've established that there's a grey(ish) area if the carrying of the knife is legal. And while I'll give you the fishing angle, you're right; it's illegal to carry one for any other purpose, and it will - or should - be viewed as a declaration of intent to use.

You seem to ignore the entire point of the argument, pre-meditation.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Aside from the blatantly obvious that if the bomb hadn't been there AT ALL, then ALL tragedy would have been averted, can I also propose that "If the actual location of the bomb had been correctly DELIVERED then one would presume that the area would have been cleared and the tradgedy diverted".

Delivered, received, it's just sematics the point is the same.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anyways, back to the knife analogy; any examples of where it's legal to carry a bomb into town ?

The legality of the carryig of the bomb isn't the issue.
The issue is intent.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

The purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to kill as many civilians as possible.

To an outsider, yes, and I'd agree. But has anyone asked them ? Are we entitled to assume this ? And if we are, why are we not also entitled to assum that the purpose of driving a bomb-laden car into a town centre implies at least SOME similar intent or disregard for human life. And sorry, with the four excuses that are trotted out, I can't bring myself to believe them. If it happened once, fair enough (in a larger sense) but almost EVERY atrocity seems to have a caveat.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Again, I, and others have clearly condemned Kingsmill as a pointed attack on civilians.

OK so - thread question answered, then ? Or was that "unsanctioned" too ?
And - as I asked above - who exactly believes that it was unsanctioned, and why ?

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

A terrorist organistaion who merely faked bomb threats wouldn't have much credibility for long, would they?

True, but a terrorists organisation which says "oops", or appears not to be able to control its members that go off on "unsanctioned" attacks loses credibility too.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Delivered, received, it's just sematics the point is the same.

Sorry, no; maybe in normal conversation, but not when it comes to politics and not when it comes to discussions like this. Maybe it wasn't your intention to do so, but saying "received" lays the blame on the receiver, whereas saying "delivered" lays the blame on the "deliver-er".

"I didn't get / receive that" = passive, with doubt as to who is to blame.
"You didn't give / send me that" = your fault.

And if there was a concerted effort to ensure that - while terror was created - that as many civilians as possible were uninjured, then whoever is delivering would make DAMN SURE it was delivered AND received properly.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To an outsider, yes, and I'd agree. But has anyone asked them ?

Ammm, Al Qaeda are open about the fact that they target civilians.
It's probably their main startegy.
Death to the Infidels and all that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK so - thread question answered, then ? Or was that "unsanctioned" too ?
And - as I asked above - who exactly believes that it was unsanctioned, and why ?

Whether it was sanctioned or not, it is a clear cut case of the IRA targretting civilians.
However, I'm unable to think of one other case of the IRA setting out with the sole intention to murder civilians.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

True, but a terrorists organisation which says "oops", or appears not to be able to control its members that go off on "unsanctioned" attacks loses credibility too.

Unfortunately this happens in practically every army in the world.
The Free State army in the Irish war of Independence, look what happened in Kerry.
The British Army in the North i.e. Bloody Sunday and many more examples.
The American Army, Guantanamo Bay, Vietname, etc. etc.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry, no; maybe in normal conversation, but not when it comes to politics and not when it comes to discussions like this. Maybe it wasn't your intention to do so, but saying "received" lays the blame on the receiver, whereas saying "delivered" lays the blame on the "deliver-er".

I apologise if it appeared that I was inferring that the greater proportion of the blame lay with the person receiving the call, that wasn't my intention.

The trouble with various dialects / accent is comprehension problems.
I frequently find myself trying to converse with people with strong Scottish accents.
They have trouble undestanding me and I have trouble understanding them.
I don't really feel that either party is at fault.
However, I concur that if someone is relaying information as critical as a bomb location then you'd imagine that they would make damn sure that they were understood.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I apologise if it appeared that I was inferring that the greater proportion of the blame lay with the person receiving the call, that wasn't my intention.

Thanks for that; and maybe I'm sensitive on the semantics of this but it does gall me when I hear people say "people got killed" (passive) rather than "we killed them".

The second is true regardless of whether there was intent.

I know it's typical politics (e.g. FF saying "money was wasted", rather than "we wasted money") but that doesn't make it acceptable; if we start to accept that "passive voice" then there is no accountability and a general acceptance that "stuff happens", even though most "stuff" wouldn't "happen" unless someone "did it".

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

However, I concur that if someone is relaying information as critical as a bomb location then you'd imagine that they would make damn sure that they were understood.

Good to hear, and my own apologies in return if I picked up a sub-text that you hadn't intended; this probably stems from the post that you had saying along the lines that "civilians got killed so therefore that implies something went wrong" [the tautology], which I completely disagree with as it's putting the assumption ahead of the action and the results, with no actual basis in fact.

And because that post took that angle, maybe I was a bit too harsh on you with the semantics of the others. but like I said earlier, I DETEST two-faced-ness and hypocrisy......if SOMEONE innocent was killed in Dublin today, would they mention whether they were gay or straight, black or white, Catholic or Protestant or Muslim ?

No. Because it isn't relevant. Someone innocent is someone innocent; and SOMEONE did it. "Oops, I brought a knife into town and there was a row and he 'got stabbed' " doesn't wash with me. You* stabbed him and killed him - period. And if he's an innocent bystander you* shouldn't have.

*Generic "you", not actually directed at anyone who's posted here

FTA69

Sand wrote: »

As for the Provo support in the areas they terrorise - well, again - it takes a very brave man to disrespect a Provo. Assuming he values his internal organs and limbs. And you have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome? A victims identification with his violent, aggressive master?

And yet they must be so terrorised that they vote for them en masse through secret ballot all over the country. In fact one in ten of electorate down here must also be in the grip of the terrifying machinations of "Sinn Féin/IRA", although you'll probably explain this as "ignorant skangers" voting for other skangers or some sort of other uninformed nonsense. The fact is Sand, people supported the IRA not out of fear but out of a sense of desperation which made them view the Army as their only representatives. The Army consisted of sons, brothers, aunties and uncles; it was an inherent part of the community itself and the links between the two were deep and complex. However it is much easier for you to delude yourself that the IRA have the power to intimidate people into voting for Sinn Féin as to admit otherwise would shatter the obviously skewed belief you hold.

Dont worry FTA, we already knew that you wouldnt consider anything Provos did to be all that bad really.

Sure what would you know about it? I was a member of that movement for 5 years, I know exactly what I'm talking about and despite your belief of the contrary, I am well able to point out things that I believe were unjustified or wrong.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

....a sense of desperation which made them view the Army as their only representatives.

Small bit of clarification required there, FTA.....had to read it twice!

When I read it first, I was confused; I thought you were referring to an actual Army ? I wasn't sure whether it was British or Irish, but I definitely wouldn't have associated "IRA" with the phrase "The Army".

And while those "involved" may read it as you intended, I would be 99% sure that most people wouldn't give the IRA the "legitimacy" of using the word army, and definitely wouldn't use the definitive phrase "The Army".

FTA69

And while those "involved" may read it as you intended, I would be 99% sure that most people wouldn't give the IRA the "legitimacy" of using the word army, and definitely wouldn't use the definitive phrase "The Army".

It's Republican terminology yes. Personally I wouldn't give the Brits the "legitimacy" of using the word army.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The second is true regardless of whether there was intent.

The main point being debated here is intent.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And because that post took that angle, maybe I was a bit too harsh on you with the semantics of the others. but like I said earlier, I DETEST two-faced-ness and hypocrisy......if SOMEONE innocent was killed in Dublin today, would they mention whether they were gay or straight, black or white, Catholic or Protestant or Muslim ?

Sorry but I'm finding it abit difficult to make out what your point is here.
I'm pretty sure I'd never differentiate between the deaths of two innocent people based on their race, gender, religion, etc.
I'd view all such deaths as equally tragic.

Pandcoa

Liam Byrne wrote: »

When I read it first, I was confused; I thought you were referring to an actual Army ? I wasn't sure whether it was British or Irish, but I definitely wouldn't have associated "IRA" with the phrase "The Army".

And while those "involved" may read it as you intended, I would be 99% sure that most people wouldn't give the IRA the "legitimacy" of using the word army, and definitely wouldn't use the definitive phrase "The Army".

Argueing over language now eh? Pretty petty

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK so - thread question answered, then ? Or was that "unsanctioned" too ?
And - as I asked above - who exactly believes that it was unsanctioned, and why ?

No one, not even in the republican movement believes it wasn't santioned, it was by at least one senior member of Northern command or perhaps even the Army council. As I said earlier, provos had a radical reactionary strategy towards loyalist killings and that was to hit harder against the unionist community to force loyalists to cease targeting theirs, which in Kingsmills was the killing of 5 catholics a few days before. Thats not to say all of the council agreed with the policy, in Kingsmills case some were outraged since the action was so counter productive in result towards their cause (I think this source was either in Ed Molloys book or "Armed struggle") which eventually lead to an agreement by both sides to stop the tit for tat killings. However it doesn't exactly set out a long held intentional policy of targeting civilians to achieve their aims

And yet they must be so terrorised that they vote for them en masse through secret ballot all over the country. In fact one in ten of electorate down here must also be in the grip of the terrifying machinations of "Sinn Féin/IRA", although you'll probably explain this as "ignorant skangers" voting for other skangers or some sort of other uninformed nonsense. The fact is Sand, people supported the IRA not out of fear but out of a sense of desperation which made them view the Army as their only representatives. The Army consisted of sons, brothers, aunties and uncles; it was an inherent part of the community itself and the links between the two were deep and complex. However it is much easier for you to delude yourself that the IRA have the power to intimidate people into voting for Sinn Féin as to admit otherwise would shatter the obviously skewed belief you hold.

There's no point in argueing with some people, especially some southerners who never even been up north to experiance it themselves, never mind even observing a normal republican community in person, it's easy for them to stay back and look down with scorn and disgust without actually even putting themselves in somebody elses shoes or understanding what situation they were brought up in. Hume opposed IRA violence but even he said he understood how it happened. They live in a bubble were all republicans are either uneducated thugs or deceitful criminals out for their own end so they just foam at the mouth when they hear the words "IRA" and repeat sensationalist stories rather than talk actual politics. Well thats the impression I get from some.

Back on topic, it isn't well known but operations where unintended casulties happened were internally known as "f*ck ups". I think you can argue semantics all day in order to suit your own political agenda but I think there is no ground to surely say they had an intential policy of targeting innocents in order to achieve their aims of uniting Ireland. They might have been wittingly careless and apathetic to innocent deaths but did they ever set out to blow up as many people as possible? If they had then Oklahoma would have looked minor compared to their attempts.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Sorry but I'm finding it abit difficult to make out what your point is here.
I'm pretty sure I'd never differentiate between the deaths of two innocent people based on their race, gender, religion, etc.
I'd view all such deaths as equally tragic.

Good to hear, as would I. The point is that apologists seem to say "oops!" when it's an innocent British person but scream blue murder when it's an Irish person.

As you said above, who cares ?

I remember watching the news as a teenager and I could never figure out why news reports used to say "a Catholic was shot in Belfast" or "a Protestant was beaten to a pulp"; again - who cares ? Someone innocent was murdered.

And what I was saying was that if a "mistake" happened once and there WAS a concerted effort to respect human life, they would have made sure it never happened again - at the very least (and most cynical) killing innocents is bad PR. Personally, if the IRA - or the "other side", or whoever - had stuck to "legitimate" targets, I would have maintained some respect for them, but as was said elsewhere all they did was get a majority of right-minded people to become disgusted with the lack of regard and respect for innocent human life, and corrupted the word "republican" in the process.

If someone hits you, hit them back. Don't hit an innocent bystander - that cannot be justified or excused.

@FTA69.....not liking something doesn't make it untrue.....e.g. FF are "the Government" much as I mightn't like it, and calling some other group "the Government" just because I don't want to give FF the "legitimacy" won't change the facts.

yomchi

If someone hits you, hit them back. Don't hit an innocent bystander - that cannot be justified or excused.

Step into the real world Liam and out of that liberal utopia you reside in.

In war, innocents suffer, thats the reality of it, unfortunate and all as it is.
If you are that concerned you should be aiming your froth at the Americans, British and Israelis.

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

Step into the real world Liam and out of that liberal utopia you reside in.

In war, innocents suffer, thats the reality of it, unfortunate and all as it is.
If you are that concerned you should be aiming your froth at the Americans, British and Israelis.

+1 You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Just look at what's been happening recently in Palestine and on the Pakistan - Afghan border.

Every army in the world that engages in armed conflict kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said.

I've read some particularly gruesome horror stories of what some American troops got up to in Vietnam.

One misplace American / British missile strike could and probably has wiped out more innocent civilians in one go than the IRA did througout 25 years.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

+1 You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Just look at what's been happening recently in Palestine and on the Pakistan - Afghan border.

Every army in the world that engages in armed conflict kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said.

I've read some particularly gruesome horror stories of what some American troops got up to in Vietnam.

One misplace American / British missile strike could and probably has wiped out more innocent civilians in one go than the IRA did througout 25 years.

That has nothing to do with my OP. The IRA does not have the firepower or amunition of the American Army.

Liam Byrne

Jon wrote: »

Step into the real world Liam and out of that liberal utopia you reside in.

In war, innocents suffer, thats the reality of it, unfortunate and all as it is.
If you are that concerned you should be aiming your froth at the Americans, British and Israelis.

Who says I haven't ? And why should I aim it at them and not at the equivalents, anyways ? Are you trying to get me to look away or something ?

For the record, I've aimed plenty "froth" at the Bush regime and their lies, thank you very much, and I've also said that - in an admittedly uncomfortable and perverse way - that I'd have more respect for those who committed 9/11 - they believed in their cause enough to die for it, rather than simply and cowardly plant a bomb and run, or lob a missile over a border.

BUT while the thread title does just say "civilian targets", it would be COMPLETELY off-topic to discuss those in this thread, considering what was asked in the original post.

The fact is, though - much and all as I hate the American (or more specifically, the Bush regime's) actions - if they kill civilians they don't say "oops, we didn't mean that", or "oops, no one at the top sanctioned that", or "that was a yank operating under a flag of convenience".

Anyways, all that has NOTHING to do with this thread.

As for "living in a liberal utopia", at least I'm still living, I guess - unlike many.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Just look at what's been happening recently in Palestine and on the Pakistan - Afghan border.

There are other threads about that; what does it have to do with this thread ?

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Every army in the world that engages in armed conflict kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said.

Now I'm REALLY confused; some people call the IRA an "army", and the thread is about whether they deliberately targetted civilians; your statement above says :

"Every army in the world .... kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said."

So therefore, have you just proven the OP's original question ? I'm asking straight out because I don't want to misrepresent......

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I've read some particularly gruesome horror stories of what some American troops got up to in Vietnam.

PLEASE tell me how this is relevant to this thread ?

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

One misplace American / British missile strike could and probably has wiped out more innocent civilians in one go than the IRA did througout 25 years.

Oh, I guess that makes it all ok, so ? :rolleyes: Next time someone's murdered, they can get off by saying "I only murdered 3 people - that guy over there has murdered 25"...... :rolleyes:

Armin_Tamzarian

K-9 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with my OP. The IRA does not have the firepower or amunition of the American Army.

As it's your thread, sorry for going O/T, again.
I was responding to one of Liam's posts.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

As it's your thread, sorry for going O/T, again.
I was responding to one of Liam's posts.

Debate away lads. Just pointing out you can't compare the US, Brits, Israelis etc. in many circumstances.

You can in some granted, not in all.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

PLEASE tell me how this is relevant to this thread ?

It's relevant because you said
"And what I was saying was that if a "mistake" happened once and there WAS a concerted effort to respect human life, they would have made sure it never happened again "

I was merely illustrating the point that these "mistakes" happen in every conflict and keep on happening over and over again.
Unintentional civilian deaths are by no means exclusive to the IRA.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh, I guess that makes it all ok, so ? :rolleyes: Next time someone's murdered, they can get off by saying "I only murdered 3 people - that guy over there has murdered 25"...... :rolleyes:

Totally outrageous statement.
By pointing out the magnitude of the civilian deaths caused by the self appointed 'savious of the free world' in no way makes civilian deaths caused by the IRA any more acceptable.
How you could construe this from my post is beyond me.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Totally outrageous statement.
By pointing out the magnitude of the civilian deaths caused by the self appointed 'savious of the free world' in no way makes civilian deaths caused by the IRA any more acceptable.
How you could construe this from my post is beyond me.

Conceded, and partial apologies. But "pointing out the magnitude of the civilian deaths caused by the self appointed 'savious of the free world" was WAY off-topic, hence the reason it was construed that way - if I deliberately kill one person, then it is completely irrelevant whether the U.S killed 200,000. Point that out in another thread, by all means, and then there would be no misconstruing.

Let's go back to the other point that you made for a second - the one you didn't reply to:

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Every army in the world that engages in armed conflict kills civilians and not always accidently it should be said.

Do you agree that this completely supports the OP's original question in relation to the IRA ?

If you view the examples that you included to support "every army makes mistakes" are to be valid when discussing the IRA, then the above statement relating to "every army" seems to imply that they, too, have killed innocent civilians on purpose.

Armin_Tamzarian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Conceded, and partial apologies. But "pointing out the magnitude of the civilian deaths caused by the self appointed 'savious of the free world" was WAY off-topic, hence the reason it was construed that way - if I deliberately kill one person, then it is completely irrelevant whether the U.S killed 200,000. Point that out in another thread, by all means, and then there would be no misconstruing.

But it is relevant.
People are quick use accidental civilian deaths as a reason for calling the IRA scum.
Pointing out that civilian deaths are an unavoidable (however tragic) aspect of any armed conflict is a valid point, I believe.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you agree that this completely supports the OP's original question in relation to the IRA ?

If you view the examples that you included to support "every army makes mistakes" are to be valid when discussing the IRA, then the above statement relating to "every army" seems to imply that they, too, have killed innocent civilians on purpose.

I'm not 100% sure of what exactly your getting at here but I'll have a go at replying, hopefully I'll answer your question.
If not, reply and I'll try again, I wouldn't like to be seen to be avoiding any questions.

With respect to the OP's original question.
My original post in the thread answers this question.
Yes, the IRA is responsible for deaths of many, many civilians.
Accidently through poorly executed attacks, bad luck, being too reckless, etc.

Did the IRA intentionally target innocent civilians?
No, with the exception of very isolated incidents (Kingsmill being the only one that springs to mind).
If I had to say I really don't believe Kingsmill to have been sanctioned by the Army Council, however I believe there was more going on here
than just a couple of IRA member snapping and carrying out the killing in a knee-jerk reaction.
Therefore the IRA must accept responsibility for it.

Finally, the "not always accidentally" comment doesn't refer to every army in the world.

ChocolateSauce

Targeted murder of civilians, hands down. Deaths among the IRA and their militant unionist opponents is simply gang warfare over turf.

Illegal, immoral and pathetic.

Liam Byrne

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Finally, the "not always accidentally" comment doesn't refer to every army in the world.

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 ].

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Did the IRA intentionally target innocent civilians?
No, with the exception of very isolated incidents (Kingsmill being the only one that springs to mind).......Therefore the IRA must accept responsibility for it.

So that's a "Yes", then. QED.

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So that's a "Yes", then. QED.

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.