600lb bomb defused in Forkhill

mega man

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Guys I live quite close to where the bomb was planted. I've travelled on the road many times (probably on it when the device was there but before it was discovered on my way to a football match) and there are a couple of important observations to be made. Now I am in no way military minded but:

a) Why plant a bomb in relatively closely to those you claim to be fighting on the side of;

b) The Brits/PSNI/RUC (whatever you want to call them) seldom drive around any roads in South Armagh*;

c) Since there is very little military activity, in the area, why not plan the operation better where the chances of success would be greatly increased (South Down for instance is a lot more populated with PSNI officers than S. Armagh).

It seems that the answer to all these questions can be that the recent marginal increase in the amount of criminal activity by this particular organisation suggests the dying squawks of a wounded animal desperate to recapture the hopes of dreams long dead, and are ready and willing to lash out at all and sundry to claim that those dreams are still alive. Thus, the dreadful positioning, planning, timing and overall logistics of the operation evidenced by such an attack.





*For 30 years during the troubles, they famously disbanded the practice of driving anywhere in South Armagh at all, favouring the safer route in the air. Whilst ground transport has increased, it is very seldom, if ever I have seen any drive on the type of back road that this road is a prime example of.

the illegal checkpoints set up by the ira in meigh might have had something to do with drawing the police into the no go areas of south armagh to attack them

FTA69

WinstonSmith wrote: »

a) Why plant a bomb in relatively closely to those you claim to be fighting on the side of;

If the bomb had of went off while buried in a ditch then it probably wouldn't have resulted in civilian casualties to be honest, it might well have blown out a number of windows in nearby houses but I doubt it would have killed people in their houses.

b) The Brits/PSNI/RUC (whatever you want to call them) seldom drive around any roads in South Armagh*;

The Brits don't, but the cops do. The PSNI do have a presence in South Armagh, during that Real IRA checkpoint a couple of weeks ago a number of unmarked PSNI vehicles ended up nearly driving into it.

c) Since there is very little military activity, in the area, why not plan the operation better where the chances of success would be greatly increased (South Down for instance is a lot more populated with PSNI officers than S. Armagh).

Because maybe they don't have the proper logistical base in the area? Similarly, I'd say they are hoping to try and create a situation where the PSNI will refuse to enter South Armagh without helicopter support, a bit like South Fermanagh at the moment.

It seems that the answer to all these questions can be that the recent marginal increase in the amount of criminal activity by this particular organisation suggests the dying squawks of a wounded animal desperate to recapture the hopes of dreams long dead, and are ready and willing to lash out at all and sundry to claim that those dreams are still alive.

I wouldn't write them off yet. While I fundamentally disagree with the approach taken by the likes of the Real IRA, they aren't motivated by monetary gain and they, or a similar group, will be around for the foreseeable future.

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

The Brits don't, but the cops do. The PSNI do have a presence in South Armagh, during that Real IRA checkpoint a couple of weeks ago a number of unmarked PSNI vehicles ended up nearly driving into it.

So the 'Brits' seldom drive around any roads in South Armagh, but the cops do!

Always wondered what 'Brits' meant (Brits=Army)? but surely the IRA in all its many guises would also consider the Police Service of Northern Ireland & most of the population as as Brits? or am I missing something?

FTA69

"Brits" generally refers to the British Army.

but surely the IRA in all its many guises would also consider the Police Service of Northern Ireland & most of the population as as Brits? or am I missing something?

The term "Brits Out" means a British political and military withdrawal from Ireland, it does not, and never did, refer to the expulsion of Irish Unionists.

prinz

FTA69 wrote: »

The term "Brits Out" means a British political and military withdrawal from Ireland, it does not, and never did, refer to the expulsion of Irish Unionists.

If only it were that simple. I would need more than two hands to count the amount of times I've been addressed as a "Brit" right here on this very site. Seems to me it's a catch-all phrase, to include anyone who thinks terrorists are scum.

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

"Brits" generally refers to the British Army.

The term "Brits Out" means a British political and military withdrawal from Ireland, it does not, and never did, refer to the expulsion of Irish Unionists.

So, for thirty years I thought 'Brits out' meant "British people out" when it actually meant political & military withdrawl only > I wonder was the 'Brits out' message lost on many in Ireland & abroad over the decades, due to its vagueness?

I certainly took personal offence when Adams & his cronies talked about the Brits this, & the Brits that, we want Brits out, etc, etc, etc (And all the time they were only talking about taking the Army off the streets)!

mega man

what has this to do with the thread?

getz

there is a lot of terrorism going on in derry at this moment in time,today people have been asked to leave their homes in the springtown area of derry after a suspect divice found,police are also investigating reports of an explosion in shantallow,man shot in both ,legs by masked gang this morning in derry ,there have been six paramilitary style shooting in derry over the last four weeks,

ednwireland

bomb scare in donegal town at the moment, pipe bomb left outside a building society

getz

is all this republican, real IRA/and IRA infighting ?

getz

the real IRA have admitted the three overnight attacks in derry on friday,the relatives of a serving police officer were the target of two bombs the first device exploded outside his parents home in shantallow,while a second device is being examined outside his sisters home in kylemore park.in a statement the group also claimed responsibility for shooting a man in his legs and hand at about 0130 BST,police are investigating the car believed to have carried the bomb in foxhill, oglaigh na heieann a small republican splinter group,has claimed responsibility

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

The term "Brits Out" means a British political and military withdrawal from Ireland, it does not, and never did, refer to the expulsion of Irish Unionists.

I remember a slogan from the H-Block protests

What do we want?
Political status.
When do we want it?
Now
Anything else?
Brits out
Who's a Brit?
Gerry Fitt.

I think that broadens the definition out way past British political and military people and even past Irish Unionists.

the_syco

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Let's hope this doesn't make the UDA change their minds on decommisioning.

In the past they would have just gone over to the RHC, in the same way that anyone left from the various *IRA groups went into the RIRA, but as the RHC has stated that they have decommisioned, I'm not sure what flag they'd now commit the crimes under?

WinstonSmith wrote: »

a) Why plant a bomb in relatively closely to those you claim to be fighting on the side of;

.
No poster says "join us now" like "look, we can still make a 600lb bomb like the good old days"...?

Fratton Fred

the_syco wrote: »

In the past they would have just gone over to the RHC, in the same way that anyone left from the various *IRA groups went into the RIRA, but as the RHC has stated that they have decommisioned, I'm not sure what flag they'd now commit the crimes under?

The Real Red Hand Commandos? Contiunity RHC? or some other convenient name that allows Loyalist extremists to tut tut at them and condemn their actions yet complain about internment and persecution when one of them is arrested?

Maybe.

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

So, for thirty years I thought 'Brits out' meant "British people out"

You thought wrong.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

You thought wrong.

Maybe you could offer a reason as to why, when an attrocity is carried out by Nationalists, it is the IRA/RIRA/INLA etc etc but when the "Other Side" commit an attrocity it is "The Brits".

There is no distinction ever made between the British Army, RUC or UVF. In Fairness, should not all Nationalist crimes be blamed on "The Irish"?

Genuine question, not looking for an arguement.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe you could offer a reason as to why, when an attrocity is carried out by Nationalists, it is the IRA/RIRA/INLA etc etc but when the "Other Side" commit an attrocity it is "The Brits".

There is no distinction ever made between the British Army, RUC or UVF. In Fairness, should not all Nationalist crimes be blamed on "The Irish"?

Genuine question, not looking for an arguement.

I'd disagree. When people talk about UVF/UFF they usually say loyalists

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe you could offer a reason as to why, when an attrocity is carried out by Nationalists, it is the IRA/RIRA/INLA etc etc but when the "Other Side" commit an attrocity it is "The Brits".

Um, only the British armed forces are referred to as the Brits - The UDA and so on are referred to as loyalists. I think you missed the memo on this. It's been quite obvious for a few decades now.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no distinction ever made between the British Army, RUC or UVF.

Yes there is. Your lack of basic knowledge on this is either slightly amusing, or slightly disturbing - given the amount of threads we've had a banter in over the years.

British Army = Brits.

UVF/UDA = Loyalists.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In Fairness, should not all Nationalist crimes be blamed on "The Irish"?

No, and not all loyalist crimes are blamed on The British people either. You're not making any sense to be honest.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Genuine question, not looking for an arguement.

It was a silly question to be honest.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

It was a silly question to be honest.

Apologies, I thought you might be able to engage in a reasonable discussion without going off on a rant.

If the british Army are referred to as "The Brits" then why aren't the IRA/INLA etc referred to as "The Irish". They claim to be fighting on behalf of all Irish people.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the british Army are referred to as "The Brits" then why aren't the IRA/INLA etc referred to as "The Irish". They claim to be fighting on behalf of all Irish people.

The British army are acting on behalf of the British people, as designated by the British Government. So when they say "Brits Out" - It refers to British rule, and British military. Not British people. The IRA is not designated by the Government of Ireland, so on an international stage did/does not represent the people of Ireland. It represented the people who believed in armed resistance, over political resistance. Although, "The Irish" was a term often used in 1970's Irish-skeptic London.

I don't see what's complex about this for you. It's a very simple concept.

If you believe that "Brits Out" refers to the average Joe Soap from England, instead of the logical explanation of a British governmental & armed forces system - then go for it. It doesn't make it anyway less laughable. As a Republican, I think I know what the meaning of "Brits Out" really means. If the BBC can recognise that Brits out refers to British occupation and not British people, then I'm sure you can too.

This thread is already going off topic. I'm sure we can manage to discuss the issue at hand. Irresponsible behaviour that put innocent people at risk.

Fratton Fred

I just see it as part of the Republican efforts to demonise everything and everyone British. To me it is just another way of labelling people, as in everyone who doesn't hate Britain is just a "West Brit" or a "Jackean".

The Republican Spin Machine is an impressive thing.

gurramok

Would you prefer the UDA to call themselves the British DA or the UVF as British VF as after all they are loyal to Britain??

Now, that would be a slur on the British people and righly so. Hence vice versa fo rthe Irish scenario of armed groups.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I just see it as part of the Republican efforts to demonise everything and everyone British.

Inferiority complex perhaps? I'm sorry you have such a skewed outlook on Republicanism. It is nothing to do with demonizing British people. Not one IOTA. It is a political statement, not a cultural one. But, you would have it be a cultural one - just so you could continue your very transparent attack on Republicanism.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To me it is just another way of labelling people, as in everyone who doesn't hate Britain is just a "West Brit" or a "Jackean".

The term Jackeen has been in use for 200 years. You should take that up with it's original creator. And the term does not mean "if you don't hate Britain, you're a Jackeen". It implied that someone had heightened sympathy towards the British political and military system, over the Irishmen and Women who were fighting for Irish independence and being killed by the said British forces. Such a term would be apt anywhere in the world in the same situation.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Republican Spin Machine is an impressive thing.

I could say the same for the British media. Not sure what it has to do with the said topic. You're keen on taking it off topic. I think you've somehow become confused that Republicans have agreed with you on an issue in regards toe the bombing, and not comfortable with that - you've resulted in trying to bring the thread off topic, so you could attack Republicans on other issues due them them actually agreeing with you on the principle of this issue.

No prerogative there at all.

Not bothered discussing anything further with you. I've said my piece. I feel the bomb-placement was negative in all forms possible and I don't feel the people involved have anything to offer the Irish people, or indeed even the Republican movement.

Fratton Fred

Dlof, I asked a question and wanted to avoid an arguement, but you come out with all your holier than thou **** and make it personal. How dare anyone ever dream of criticising anything or anyone to do with the mighty republican cause!

I too feel the bomb placement was negative and damaged the republican cause, but to be honest, I really struggle to see the difference between this, Omagh, Warrington, Eniskillen etc etc. If you support the organisation that carried out those attacks then imo it is hypocritical to now decide to criticise this one.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Dlof, I asked a question and wanted to avoid an arguement

In fairness, you asked it to start an argument.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I too feel the bomb placement was negative and damaged the republican cause, but to be honest, I really struggle to see the difference between this, Omagh, Warrington, Eniskillen etc etc. If you support the organisation that carried out those attacks then imo it is hypocritical to now decide to criticise this one.

I don't support the organisation(s) that carried out any of the above attacks.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

A moronic action. This does absolutely nothing to further the goal of Irish unification.

Why does your condemnation need to be qualified with reference to the “goal of Irish unification”?

dlofnep wrote: »

The British army are acting on behalf of the British people, as designated by the British Government. So when they say "Brits Out" - It refers to British rule, and British military. Not British people.

But to some people it might. For example, my girlfriend had “Brits Out” and “IRA” emblazoned across the back of her British-registered car a few years back – how exactly was she to interpret that message?

dlofnep wrote: »

If you believe that "Brits Out" refers to the average Joe Soap from England, instead of the logical explanation of a British governmental & armed forces system - then go for it. It doesn't make it anyway less laughable. As a Republican, I think I know what the meaning of "Brits Out" really means.

Isn’t it possible that it means different things to different people? Just because “Brits Out” translates as “British Army Out” in your mind, doesn’t mean that it won’t translate into “British People Out” in someone else’s mind. Seems like a pretty ambiguous slogan to me.

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Why does your condemnation need to be qualified with reference to the “goal of Irish unification”?

Because, their goal is Irish unification - Why shouldn't I analyse it? Who are you to question on what I can or cannot add commentary to? Are you the thought police?

djpbarry wrote: »

But to some people it might.

It is a reference to the British Government. It is a political statement and not a cultural one. It is said within that context. Only misinformed people would jump to other conclusions. A simple query would quickly clarify it to be untrue.

djpbarry wrote: »

For example, my girlfriend had “Brits Out” and “IRA” emblazoned across the back of her British-registered car a few years back – how exactly was she to interpret that message?

As a political statement, within the context for which it means. When the Palestinians ask for the Israelis to get out of the Gaza strip, is that a political or cultural request?

djpbarry wrote: »

Isn’t it possible that it means different things to different people?

No. That is not possible, because it can only be said in one context - and that is a political one. If someone misinterprets the message, then that is due to them being misinformed or ignorant regarding the message.

djpbarry wrote: »

Just because “Brits Out” translates as “British Army Out” in your mind, doesn’t mean that it won’t translate into “British People Out” in someone else’s mind. Seems like a pretty ambiguous slogan to me.

You're not making one IOTA of sense.

If the people who say it say it in a political context, with reference to the British government - then this can be the only way for which it can be translated. This issue has been clarified a million times over. If someone reads it in a different fashion for which it has been said, then that's their loss - because the slogan certainly isn't an attack on the average Joe from England, and this is very clear. People are always going to misinterpret messages, on a range of different issues - but that doesn't change the substance of the message, or it's true intent.

Terrontress

dlofnep wrote: »

Because, their goal is Irish unification - Why shouldn't I analyse it? Who are you to question on what I can or cannot add commentary to? Are you the thought police?



It is a reference to the British Government. It is a political statement and not a cultural one. It is said within that context. Only misinformed people would jump to other conclusions. A simple query would quickly clarify it to be untrue.



As a political statement, within the context for which it means. When the Palestinians ask for the Israelis to get out of the Gaza strip, is that a political or cultural request?



No. That is not possible, because it can only be said in one context - and that is a political one. If someone misinterprets the message, then that is due to them being misinformed or ignorant regarding the message.



You're not making one IOTA of sense.

If the people who say it say it in a political context, with reference to the British government - then this can be the only way for which it can be translated. This issue has been clarified a million times over. If someone reads it in a different fashion for which it has been said, then that's their loss - because the slogan certainly isn't an attack on the average Joe from England, and this is very clear. People are always going to misinterpret messages, on a range of different issues - but that doesn't change the substance of the message, or it's true intent.

Do you realise that the word "iota" is not an acronym? You can use lower case letters, like in most other words.

Bottle_of_Smoke

So back to the topic at hand.

Anyone any details on what foiled the bomb or made the group abandon it? Is it possible this was a show of strength, seems a strange place to put it. This alongside the para checkpoint a few weeks ago, are they trying to make the border region in South Armagh unpolicable again?

dlofnep

Terrontress wrote: »

Do you realise that the word "iota" is not an acronym? You can use lower case letters, like in most other words.

Oh really? I never knew such ground-breaking information. Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the thread.

As always, the usual suspects have taking a thread completely off-topic.