Bobby Sand death anniversary today

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

I never received the God enscribed memo which stated that wearing a uniform served as a guarantee of personal decency and the validity of ones cause.

You seem again to be mistaking the average British private, doing his job, and going on a walkabout patrol, to be some sort of ideologically motivated quasi-soldier pursuing and enforcing a cause.....


when actually he is walking down a street in the United Kingdom.

Wearing a uniform, makes him who he is. It lets people know who he is and who sent him and what his job is. The very reasons the IRA 'brave' men didn't. Because in actualy fact they're cowards, who were afraid of people knowing who they were.

That's the reason I can have a lot of respect for the men of 1916. Not the vermin who desecrate their memory.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

The very reasons the IRA 'brave' men didn't. Because in actualy fact they're cowards, who were afraid of people knowing who they were..

....like the men of 1919-21, the SAS on certain operations and anyone who wears camoflage, sundry resistance movements etc, presumably.

neil_hosey

prinz wrote: »

Wearing a uniform, makes him who he is. It lets people know who he is and who sent him and what his job is. The very reasons the IRA 'brave' men didn't. Because in actualy fact they're cowards, who were afraid of people knowing who they were.

That's the reason I can have a lot of respect for the men of 1916. Not the vermin who desecrate their memory.

To suggest that the provos should have worn uniforms is absolutely rediculous and shows your naivity on the subject. It was a guerrilla war they were fighting, much like the ones who fought in the war of independence, made up by many men and women who fought in the rising, yes these men who took part in the rising killed in plain clothes much like the provos have done for the past 30 years..

Get a grip!!!

Unless people have actually lived through what happened in the north, its pathetic to cast judgement on them..

IIMII

But would you accept that the Bobby Sands' IRA and the British Army are effectively the same thing - organisations of war? And that both have killed innocents?

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

....like the men of 1919-21, the SAS on certain operations and anyone who wears camoflage, sundry resistance movements etc, presumably.

Yes, the War of Independence was a guerilla terrorist war. Luckily it was relatively short-lived and didn't take too high a toll. It could have been much worse.

Once again however you are comparing terrorists fighting against the legitimate state, to a standing national army, and to resistance movements. Northern Ireland isn't occupied.... it's part of the UK, like the majority of us wanted, so they're not resistance fighters.

prinz

neil_hosey wrote: »

To suggest that the provos should have worn uniforms is absolutely rediculous and shows your naivity on the subject. It was a guerrilla war they were fighting, much like the ones who fought in the war of independence,..

No they killed in the most part unarmed people, and drove cars laden with explosives into the streets of the North's towns, and made sure they were well away when they went off. That's not a war.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes, the (....)fighters.

...but the similiar modus operandi rather gets away from the simple labelling of those not in uniforms as cowards though, doesn't it

prinz wrote: »

No they killed in the most part unarmed people, and drove cars laden with explosives into the streets of the North's towns, and made sure they were well away when they went off. That's not a war. .

Well, if they had used airplanes, it would be, tbh.....

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

...but the similiar modus operandi rather gets away from the simple labelling of those not in uniforms as cowards though, doesn't it

[/size]

Well, if they had used airplanes, it would be, tbh.....

In relation to N.I. no it doesn't.

As for airplanes........... did the RAF bomb towns in Northern Ireland? I must have missed the carpet bombing tbh, because that seems to be a frequent comeback.

prinz

IIMII wrote: »

But would you accept that the Bobby Sands' IRA and the British Army are effectively the same thing - organisations of war? And that both have killed innocents?

No. What happened in NI was not a war, so therefore the IRA can claim no such thing. Of course innocent people have been killed by the British Army, possibly in Northern Ireland, definitely in other places. No army the world over except perhaps the Swiss Guard can lie about that fact.

However it was not their goal. The didn't set out to kill an innocent person with the sole purpose of terrorising the community.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

In relation to N.I. no it doesn't. .

So it doesn't make anyone cowards, except the IRA, because........?

prinz wrote: »

As for airplanes........... did the RAF bomb towns in Northern Ireland? I must have missed the carpet bombing tbh.

Never said they did. They have bombed towns, cities and tents in their time though, as have other airforces over the last century. Generally its done from as a great height away from the area as feasible, so those dropping them are safely away from retribution.

prinz wrote: »

No. What (....) community.

I don't recall the IRA being founded with the expressed goal of killing innocent people....

oscarBravo

Trenches dug. Thread closed.