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
Are the ideals of the RIRA the same as those of the men of 1916?
Options
Comments
-
brianthebard wrote: »This isn't completely accurate tbh, planning for the 1916 Rising were based mainly on Connolly's theories of street warfare which were a huge contrast to conventional warfare of the period. Whether RIRA and 1916 tactics are similar I can't say.
Well that is'nt completely accurate neither, the tactics used by the men of 1916 were based on Joseph Plunketts reading of modern urban warfare and were based on the assumption that they would be working with a much larger force (O Neills countermanding order deprived them of many numbers) With these extra numbers the aim was to fortify a ring around Dublin city centre and defend this - which was the common tactic of urban warfare of the time, obviously the countermanding order scuppered this plan and didnt allow the rebels to follow through on a plan to completely encircle the city centre. Its true that Connolly was in favour of this tactic as it was his belief that the British would not shell capatalist infrastructure.0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »I don't agree about Bloody Sunday. I think they have every right to complain about that. What I would say is I agree with you about not having a right to complain about checkpoints. I would also say they have no right to complain about SAS death squads taking out active service units.
I would have a serious issue with SAS death squads taking out active service units, such as the unarmed unit that was murdered at Gilbralter when an easy arrest was possible. I base this opinion on the fact that the SAS actions were acts of war, whereas the official British government line was that the volunteers of the IRA were common criminals, the British government refused to treat IRA prisoners as prisoners of war for example. The British could treat the northern war as a war when it suited them, and as a criminal campaign when it suited them. If you are not going to acknowledge the campaign as a war then surely you must not step outside the rule of law in dealing with it?0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »I don't agree about Bloody Sunday. I think they have every right to complain about that.
Personally, I agree with you. Anyone who's ever murdered or attacked an innocent person has lost my respect.
My point is that those who defend the murder of civilians or use excuses do not have the right to complain.
It's either OK to murder civilians or it's not.
And if someone thinks it's somehow OK for their "side" to do it, or argues that the caveats and half-truths excuse it, they can't scream when the "other side" in a "war" does it.
Of course, that's assuming that you believe it's a war (since killing civilians isn't OK in normal society - e.g. you don't shoot civilians during a war on drugs - you target the drug-dealers) but then I'm not the one who claimed it was a "war".0 -
Well that is'nt completely accurate neither, the tactics used by the men of 1916 were based on Joseph Plunketts reading of modern urban warfare and were based on the assumption that they would be working with a much larger force (O Neills countermanding order deprived them of many numbers) With these extra numbers the aim was to fortify a ring around Dublin city centre and defend this - which was the common tactic of urban warfare of the time, obviously the countermanding order scuppered this plan and didnt allow the rebels to follow through on a plan to completely encircle the city centre. Its true that Connolly was in favour of this tactic as it was his belief that the British would not shell capatalist infrastructure.
Sorry but you said the rising was based on standard military tactics of the time, which was the principles of trench warfare as occurred in Europe at the time, not the street warfare which Connolly theorised, so this is plainly not the case. Also the plan was not to encircle the city, but to push from the centre out. As you pointed out those the countermanding order prevented this.
Secondly as the main lecturer on street warfare to the Volunteers in Dublin and later the commander in chief of the Dublin brigade it is fair to say that the Rising was principally based on Connolly's planning, though he did have fairly high regard for Plunkett. Plunkett's ideas were based mainly on his reading of Clauseowitz's writings, which were not exactly of the time.
If you have a look at the workers' republic, the newspaper Connolly edited a year before his death, or more easily look up the book 'The lost Writings' you will be able to see some of the lecture notes Connolly printed prior to the Rising.
I realise this is somewhat off topic but there are so many myths and stories surrounding the Rising that its important to clarify points where possible.0 -
I would have a serious issue with SAS death squads taking out active service units, such as the unarmed unit that was murdered at Gilbralter when an easy arrest was possible. I base this opinion on the fact that the SAS actions were acts of war, whereas the official British government line was that the volunteers of the IRA were common criminals, the British government refused to treat IRA prisoners as prisoners of war for example. The British could treat the northern war as a war when it suited them, and as a criminal campaign when it suited them. If you are not going to acknowledge the campaign as a war then surely you must not step outside the rule of law in dealing with it?
Do you consider the killing of British Soldiers at, for example, Warrenpoint murder or acts of war?
What about those soldiers killedat Deal Barracks or Private William Davies who was shot at Lichfield Station whilst off duty?
As Liam says, it is a two way thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Do you consider the killing of British Soldiers at, for example, Warrenpoint murder or acts of war?
What about those soldiers killedat Deal Barracks or Private William Davies who was shot at Lichfield Station whilst off duty?
As Liam says, it is a two way thing.
Sadly as I said before soldiers are always at risk of being targeted, regardless of whether or not they are on duty. While in the barracks they are seen as targets.
I would call Warrenpoint a very strategic and very intelligent act of war. I do not agree with killing other people but I have to say the IRA pulled off a master stroke there! And sadly a 19 year old was shot by the Paratroopers that day as he fished on the lake. I feel sorriest for his family.
And as the graffiti by Republicans said afterward "14 dead but not forgotten, we got 18 and Mountbatton!"
Both sides have done acts of great tragedy, but as the republicans said, "We met violence with violence"!
The republicans took alot of Sh!te before they resorted to violence.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Sorry but you said the rising was based on standard military tactics of the time, which was the principles of trench warfare as occurred in Europe at the time, not the street warfare which Connolly theorised, so this is plainly not the case. Also the plan was not to encircle the city, but to push from the centre out. As you pointed out those the countermanding order prevented this.
Secondly as the main lecturer on street warfare to the Volunteers in Dublin and later the commander in chief of the Dublin brigade it is fair to say that the Rising was principally based on Connolly's planning, though he did have fairly high regard for Plunkett. Plunkett's ideas were based mainly on his reading of Clauseowitz's writings, which were not exactly of the time.
If you have a look at the workers' republic, the newspaper Connolly edited a year before his death, or more easily look up the book 'The lost Writings' you will be able to see some of the lecture notes Connolly printed prior to the Rising.
I realise this is somewhat off topic but there are so many myths and stories surrounding the Rising that its important to clarify points where possible.
Nah the plan was to encircle the city, the plans are in existance. A quick look at the buildings that were eventually taken over will back up the point that the intention was to encircle the city but reduced numbers compromised this plan. The practical aspects of the Rising were planned by men such as McDonough and Plunkett, Connolly was not one of the main contributers to the original plan, rather he was coopted into the plan after it had already been made. This was because both he and his Citizen Army (a separate organisation to the Volunteers) were publically making gestures to rebellion (the same gestures mentioned by you above; for example his writings) The leaders of the Rising felt that they must coopt Connolly in on their plans before his writings and speeches alerted the British authorities to the possibility of rebellion and thus spoil all their plans. Connolly was thus brought on board as a leader.
You will have to trust me that the fortification of buildings in the centre of an urban area and the defense thereof was the urban warfare tactic of choice at this time, you may consult military books from the period if you do not believe me! Of course you cannot use the example of trench warfare as being the common tactic for urban warfare of the time since trench warfare was a rural tactic, Im sure no military strategist would suggest digging trenches across O Connoll Street. Of course to further prove that the men of 1916 did pay attention to all current military tactics - after observing how long a trench could be defended one battalion of Volunteers (under Michael Mallin) did dig trenches in Stephens Green, however they were forced to abandon them to take refuge in RCSI under heavy fire.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Do you consider the killing of British Soldiers at, for example, Warrenpoint murder or acts of war?
What about those soldiers killedat Deal Barracks or Private William Davies who was shot at Lichfield Station whilst off duty?
As Liam says, it is a two way thing.
Without getting into a tit-for-tat for whataboutery, because we could be here all day, I am simply saying that the British could use the law of war when it suited them and the rules of criminal law when it suited them. The Provisional IRA never stated that they were in anything other than a war. My point is that unless you are going to treat all combatants in a conflict as soldiers fighting a war ie - give proper recognition to a prisoners status as a POW, then you cannot treat their unarmed comrades the way the SAS done. Infact even if the IRA were officially acknowledged as a legitimate army engaging the British in open warfare the actions of the SAS in places like Gilbraltor would still be classed as war crimes.0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »Sadly as I said before soldiers are always at risk of being targeted, regardless of whether or not they are on duty. While in the barracks they are seen as targets.
I would call Warrenpoint a very strategic and very intelligent act of war. I do not agree with killing other people but I have to say the IRA pulled off a master stroke there! And sadly a 19 year old was shot by the Paratroopers that day as he fished on the lake. I feel sorriest for his family.
And as the graffiti by Republicans said afterward "14 dead but not forgotten, we got 18 and Mountbatton!"
Both sides have done acts of great tragedy, but as the republicans said, "We met violence with violence"!
The republicans took alot of Sh!te before they resorted to violence.
Absolutely, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that the catholic population of the 6 counties were but second class citizens with no voice, nobody in London or Dublin was doing anything worthwhile to reverse this and until the Provisional campaign forced the British and Unionists to the table this was never going to change. The Provisionals put down their arms once political progress was possible, and we entered a new era in the north, unfortunately now the British, Unionists, and unfortunately also the Dublin government, feel that the danger posed by the Provos is passed, they are now beginning to attempt to freeze out the catholic/ nationalist voice in the country again (take for example the major bias towards Sinn Fein, the peaceful voice of Irish nationalism). Low and behold what happens? Nationalists once again begin to lose faith in politics and the gunman rears his head again.0 -
I know the standard reading is that he was co-opted after the fact, but it makes no sense. Connolly had taught the majority of Dublin Volunteers everything they knew about military planning and street warfare. Why would Connolly be made the leader of the Dublin brigade (therefore the head of the army, above Plunkett, McDonagh, and everyone bar Pearse) if he had not a commanding position in the plans? Furthermore, how does one encircle a city by first setting out from Liberty Hall to take the GPO at the centre of the city, then spreading out to different outposts?
I never suggested that they did not pay attention to current military strategies, but Connolly at least explicitly rejected them. Markievicz ordered the trenches to be dug, not that I think this single event proves they were following military strategies of the time.
Everything I've read has said that the plans for the rising were destroyed so I would like to know where you are keeping them.0 -
Advertisement
-
With respect to the person above saying about P O Neill not making a comment about Omagh? I presume you mean that the Provisional IRA didnt make a comment? P O Neill was a code word using by the Provisional IRA, it wasnt ever a real person. In fact there was a P O Neills coal delivery company operating in the north at the start of the Provisional campaign, perhaps this is the origin of the codeword.
I know - it was an attempt at sarcasm. I was having a dig at Adams & McGuinness for their condemning of a bombing that killed civilians.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I know the standard reading is that he was co-opted after the fact, but it makes no sense. Connolly had taught the majority of Dublin Volunteers everything they knew about military planning and street warfare. Why would Connolly be made the leader of the Dublin brigade (therefore the head of the army, above Plunkett, McDonagh, and everyone bar Pearse) if he had not a commanding position in the plans? Furthermore, how does one encircle a city by first setting out from Liberty Hall to take the GPO at the centre of the city, then spreading out to different outposts?
I never suggested that they did not pay attention to current military strategies, but Connolly at least explicitly rejected them. Markievicz ordered the trenches to be dug, not that I think this single event proves they were following military strategies of the time.
Everything I've read has said that the plans for the rising were destroyed so I would like to know where you are keeping them.
Where do I start? James Connolly had little or nothing to do with the Irish Volunteers prior to being coopted onto the plans for the Risings, I do not know exactly why he would be made leader of the Dublin Brigade - you will have to get out your oouja board for that one. But I can assure you that he was coopted into the plans after they had been made. The main architects of the Rising were men such as Clarke and McDonough - even Pearse was but a figurehead. The suspected plan for the Rising was to encircle the city, looking at the buildings that were occupied, along with the buildings that occupation was attempted at, and the buildings that writers after the rising (often people who had been involved with the Rising) suggested were to be occupied, you can clearly see an attempt to fortify a ring around the city centre with the GPO as like the central command post. Look at your map of 1916 sites, even with reduced numbers the locations of the buildings occupied can very clearly be seen to follow this pattern.
Unfortunately Markieviez didnt order any trenches to be dug, she was second in command of the battalion which later fought in the college of surgeons, it would have in fact been Michael Mallin who ordered the trenches to be dug (or indeed one of his superiors in central command) I dont blame you for this error, the assumption that Markieviez was in command of a battalion of Volunteers is a common myth in the 'standard reading' of the Rising which you speak about, Michael Mallin was the Battalion commander of the Stephens Green, and very soon after, RCSI positions.
The plans can be pieced together from the actions of Easter week and the prior correspondance of the leaders of the Rising, obviously I dont think they had a big black book with 'Plans for Rising - Top Secret' written on it, you will have to do some detective work!!
I cant stress enough though that James Connolly was not one of the main architects of the Rising, as much as I admire the man we have to be honest about history. The plans for the Rising go back years before the actual events of 1916, Connolly as I said was coopted into the plans for fear that he might alert the British authorities to the possibility of a Rising. Think logically about it, if Connolly (a very intelligent man) had indeed known of the plans for a Rising and had even helped formulate them and train the Volunteers, do you think that he would then start broadcasting the need for a Rising and gesturing that his Citizen Army would engage the British empire!! Not unless he had some sort of deathwish for his Rising.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »I know - it was an attempt at sarcasm. I was having a dig at Adams & McGuinness for their condemning of a bombing that killed civilians.
Oh right, apologies
0 -
I know you said you personally disagree with the actions, but the context of Bloody Sunday was not really one of 'war', so I don't think that it's ironical. People were fed up with the ridiculous sectarianism of the state and sure, there were sporadic riots throughout the North, but there were many peaceful demonstrations campaigning for equality too and Bloody Sunday was one of them - it was not a battle. Most peaceful marches organised by NICRA had been attacked and disrupted by Loyalist gangs while the security forces did nothing and sometimes helped the Loyalists - Burntollet in 1969 is another example.Liam Byrne wrote: »Of course, the irony is that if people are of that mindset, then they can't complain about the murder of civilians on Bloody Sunday, or being stopped and harrassed at checkpoints; these things happen in "war" too.
And before I get flamed or misrepresented, personally I disagree with both actions, but that's because I'm consistent. And like I said, the day a sympathiser views them consistently (not screaming "collusion" and mouthing excuses for one while simultaneously demanding "justice and transparency" for the other) then I'll take them seriously and listen to what they have to say.0 -
Without getting into a tit-for-tat for whataboutery, because we could be here all day, I am simply saying that the British could use the law of war when it suited them and the rules of criminal law when it suited them.
That is my point. both sides were equally guilty of that. http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/185800 -
Ok I'm going to call you on this, its completely incorrect to say Connolly had little or nothing to do with the Volunteers, he lectured officers for at least a year prior to the Rising, held war games with the Volunteers and ICA at Croydon Park and went to Vol. games at St. Enda's, and was in contact with the IRB from August 1914.Where do I start? James Connolly had little or nothing to do with the Irish Volunteers prior to being coopted onto the plans for the Risings, I do not know exactly why he would be made leader of the Dublin Brigade - you will have to get out your oouja board for that one. But I can assure you that he was coopted into the plans after they had been made. The main architects of the Rising were men such as Clarke and McDonough - even Pearse was but a figurehead.
When in January 1916 he met with the Military Council they worked out a plan together, with Connolly's theories of street fighting forming the backbone of the plan. Its all in the articles as I've said already; the emphasis on barricades, the plan to take two main headquarters in the centre of the city and then push out to form a circle which was to expand throughout the city, it had all be written about months before in the WR.
Now they are suspected plans? You had a evidence a minute ago.The suspected plan for the Rising was to encircle the city
Its not an error, I'm well aware that Mallin was in charge of Stephen's green, but that doesn't mean that Markievicz couldn't give an order for trenches to be dug.Unfortunately Markieviez didnt order any trenches to be dug, she was second in command of the battalion which later fought in the college of surgeons, it would have in fact been Michael Mallin who ordered the trenches to be dug (or indeed one of his superiors in central command) I dont blame you for this error, the assumption that Markieviez was in command of a battalion of Volunteers is a common myth in the 'standard reading' of the Rising which you speak about, Michael Mallin was the Battalion commander of the Stephens Green, and very soon after, RCSI positions.
In that case your earlier assumption was wrong.The plans can be pieced together from the actions of Easter week and the prior correspondance of the leaders of the Rising, obviously I dont think they had a big black book with 'Plans for Rising - Top Secret' written on it, you will have to do some detective work!!I cant stress enough though that James Connolly was not one of the main architects of the Rising, as much as I admire the man we have to be honest about history. The plans for the Rising go back years before the actual events of 1916, Connolly as I said was coopted into the plans for fear that he might alert the British authorities to the possibility of a Rising. Think logically about it, if Connolly (a very intelligent man) had indeed known of the plans for a Rising and had even helped formulate them and train the Volunteers, do you think that he would then start broadcasting the need for a Rising and gesturing that his Citizen Army would engage the British empire!! Not unless he had some sort of deathwish for his Rising.
Yes I know for a fact he knew about plans for a failed rising which was to happen in November 1915, he then mocked the IRB Military Council for several weeks through the pages of his WR, calling on them to act instead of waiting. He did teach Volunteers, this is well documented. You seem to be lacking knowledge of basic facts which would have been covered in books by Charles Townshend and Donal Nevin, or even general histories of twentieth century Ireland.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Ok I'm going to call you on this, its completely incorrect to say Connolly had little or nothing to do with the Volunteers, he lectured officers for at least a year prior to the Rising, held war games with the Volunteers and ICA at Croydon Park and went to Vol. games at St. Enda's, and was in contact with the IRB from August 1914.
When in January 1916 he met with the Military Council they worked out a plan together, with Connolly's theories of street fighting forming the backbone of the plan. Its all in the articles as I've said already; the emphasis on barricades, the plan to take two main headquarters in the centre of the city and then push out to form a circle which was to expand throughout the city, it had all be written about months before in the WR.
Now they are suspected plans? You had a evidence a minute ago.
Its not an error, I'm well aware that Mallin was in charge of Stephen's green, but that doesn't mean that Markievicz couldn't give an order for trenches to be dug.
In that case your earlier assumption was wrong.
Yes I know for a fact he knew about plans for a failed rising which was to happen in November 1915, he then mocked the IRB Military Council for several weeks through the pages of his WR, calling on them to act instead of waiting. He did teach Volunteers, this is well documented. You seem to be lacking knowledge of basic facts which would have been covered in books by Charles Townshend and Donal Nevin, or even general histories of twentieth century Ireland.
Your reply is all over the place, first you say that I dont have evidence of the plans, then when I direct you to it you still have a problem, saying that my earlier 'assumption' is wrong! I dont get what you are trying to say, you question where is the evidence, when you are shown it you still have a problem.
The long and the short of it is that James Connolly had no direct involvement in the original plans for a Rising, he was not involved with the Volunteers neither, any of the history sources you mention yourself should clarify this for you. He was coopted at a later stage into the plans, unless of course you think the man was some class of absolute idiot that having being involved in the planning of a Rising then decided to write in many publications about it, thus letting the British know what was coming, wouldnt be the brightest move ever! As for your compelling suggestions of Connollys intimate involvement with the Volunteers as far back as 1914 I would love to see your evidence for this..... And as for Connolly publishing all his plans for a Rising in publications prior to Easter week and all that, please have more respect for the man than to suggest that he would broadcast all the plans he and the Volunteers had prepared to all and sundry before any Rising had taken place! What type of an idiot do you believe him to have been?! He was coopted into the plans for a Rising which he had previously not known about because of what he was saying in his publications. He wouldnt have been so outright about plans for a potential rebellion if he had known that one was actually in planning, rather he would have been silent on the issue incase he might do damage to the preparations. Use some sense to think about this!
And it was actually Michael Mallin who ordered the trenches to be dug in Stephens Green, in fact the only other person it could have been would be, rather interestingly, James Connolly who instructed Mallin to occupy the Green. Mallins error was to ignore the possible significance of the RCSI building across the way and here is where Markeviez served a crucial role, she was instrumental in the withdrawl inside this building.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »I know - it was an attempt at sarcasm. I was having a dig at Adams & McGuinness for their condemning of a bombing that killed civilians.
Adams and McGuinness had every right to condemn the action of that day in my opinion. There is how I understand it, as the members of the RIRA gave the coded message, this bomb was already assembled and was given the certain time period before it detonated. They came to the street in which they initially intended to bomb and that was the street given in the code, there was no parking on this street and they decided to park it on the street where the bomb actually did go off. Now, what I condemn and what I believe Adams and McGuinness condemn was the conduct where the bombers could have drove the car far away as possible from civilians instead of killing these innocent people. They still wanted to bomb when prior warnings to bombs are conduct that should be followed at all cost.0 -
Connolly was a very intelligent man, I cannot for one minute believe that he left a paper trail to his plans! Besides his family has donated and loaned a lot of Connolly's writings and possessions to Kilmainham Jail and to the Exhibition of 1916 and neither have any letters/notes containing such information prior to a month or so before the rising. He was adament that the British would not fire on Capitalist property, which caused places such as the GPO to be taken into consideration as stronghold sites. He was not a central player at the beginning or towards the middle. He was merely brought on board so not to screw things up!
This getting way off topic though0 -
wolfpawnat wrote: »Connolly was a very intelligent man, I cannot for one minute believe that he left a paper trail to his plans! Besides his family has donated and loaned a lot of Connolly's writings and possessions to Kilmainham Jail and to the Exhibition of 1916 and neither have any letters/notes containing such information prior to a month or so before the rising. He was adament that the British would not fire on Capitalist property, which caused places such as the GPO to be taken into consideration as stronghold sites. He was not a central player at the beginning or towards the middle. He was merely brought on board so not to screw things up!
This getting way off topic though
Absolutely, I dont know whether to find it laughable or an insult to a great man that someone on here is trying to say that James Connolly helped plan a Rising - a Rising whose only chance of success was based on catching the British unawares and hopefully capitalising on this. And that he would then begin broadcasting all of his plans in publications which he knew British intelligence would have at least had access to. Or indeed that his comrades would have allowed this to continue! Its the same as if the Provisional IRA began giving details of their planned actions every week in An Poblacht!!
I understand that people like to put Connolly up on a pedestle, sure I do it myself, but its more of a service to his legacy to admit that he was not in on the original plans for 1916.0 -
Advertisement
-
Adams and McGuinness had every right to condemn the action of that day in my opinion. There is how I understand it, as the members of the RIRA gave the coded message, this bomb was already assembled and was given the certain time period before it detonated. They came to the street in which they initially intended to bomb and that was the street given in the code, there was no parking on this street and they decided to park it on the street where the bomb actually did go off. Now, what I condemn and what I believe Adams and McGuinness condemn was the conduct where the bombers could have drove the car far away as possible from civilians instead of killing these innocent people. They still wanted to bomb when prior warnings to bombs are conduct that should be followed at all cost.
This is interesting, the bomb was placed in a different location to where the warning was given for? Is there evidence for this? Im not doubting what you say, I am actually interested by this, I had been hearing that the warning had been lost in translation, that the warning said the bomb was at one end of the street and for whatever reason the authorities ended up moving everyone to that location instead of to the other side.0 -
This is interesting, the bomb was placed in a different location to where the warning was given for? Is there evidence for this? Im not doubting what you say, I am actually interested by this, I had been hearing that the warning had been lost in translation, that the warning said the bomb was at one end of the street and for whatever reason the authorities ended up moving everyone to that location instead of to the other side.
http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/p/Omagh_Bombing.htm
it's accepted as fact about the parking, I believe.
People were moved closer to the bomb site as a result0 -
Three warning phone calls, IIRC two to UTV and one to the Samaritans. The calls said that the bomb was at the courthouse on the main street due to go off in 30 minutes (that's one), that there was a bomb in Omagh due to go off in 15 minutes (that's two, it came a minute after the first call) and that a bomb would go off on the main street about 200 yards from the Omagh courthouse in 30 minutes (that's 3, it came about three minutes after the first call).This is interesting, the bomb was placed in a different location to where the warning was given for? Is there evidence for this? Im not doubting what you say, I am actually interested by this, I had been hearing that the warning had been lost in translation, that the warning said the bomb was at one end of the street and for whatever reason the authorities ended up moving everyone to that location instead of to the other side.
Omagh doesn't have a street called or referred to as "Main Street" but Market Street is the main shopping street. The car was parked on Lower Market Street, 400 metres from the courthouse. Some people were evacuated to an area close to where the bomb turned out to be. 200 metres is a fair distance.0 -
And on top of that the lower end of Market Street ( Campsie end if you like ) is a rather narrow street with high buildings on both sides while the street further uphill and at the courthouse widens considerably which would probably have lessened the effects of the explosion somewhat.
Anyway, someone who knowingly and deliberatly drives a vehicle packed with hundreds of kilos of explosives to be detonated in an area where the only realistic expectation can be that the overwhelming majority of casualties are going to be civilians is no soldier or militant for any cause or ideology. They're a pack of vile, cowardly mass murderers. Just like anyone in a military uniform of no matter what country or nation who opens fire on unarmed civilians is a vile piece of scum.0 -
-
And btw...
It makes no f*cking difference whatsoever where the bomb was planted or if those who were "warned" about it understood the directions. Try explaining any of that sh*t to the families of those who were killed.
The basic fact is, that if you plant a bomb and it goes off & kills people, you are directly responsible for taking their lives & you are a murderer. No amount of excuses can waffle your way out of that.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »In the same way that the pot has the right to call the kettle black? At least P.O'Neil had the decency to decline to comment.
Did I not explain my reply or did you just read the first sentence?0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »And btw...
It makes no f*cking difference whatsoever where the bomb was planted or if those who were "warned" about it understood the directions. Try explaining any of that sh*t to the families of those who were killed.
The basic fact is, that if you plant a bomb and it goes off & kills people, you are directly responsible for taking their lives & you are a murderer. No amount of excuses can waffle your way out of that.
No, do you take in no consideration the people who failed to act when they could have, in the British army's case, that has lead to countless deaths0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement