Shoot to Kill

Dave Joyce

There are no rules in war. Killing someone is killing someone, so no contradiction there. If the PIRA played by the rules they'd have been wiped out. So why would anyone expect the British Army to play by the rules??

I'd be executing my enemy if i were fighting a war.

Fantastic irony there, the IRA don't play by the rules so the Brits don't have to even if they are the forces of law and order and are "supposed" to follow the terms of the Geneva convention???!!! So WHY are you complaining about the IRA not playing by the rules then. I mean, in general, wounded soldiers are NOT executed during conflicts/wars????!!!!

savagecabbages

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Fantastic irony there, the IRA don't play by the rules so the Brits don't have to even if they are the forces of law and order and are "supposed" to follow the terms of the Geneva convention???!!! So WHY are you complaining about the IRA not playing by the rules then. I mean, in general, wounded soldiers are NOT executed during conflicts/wars????!!!!

Where did I complain? I justified why they didn't play by rules. Not that there are any rules in modern insurgent wars...

indioblack

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Fantastic irony there, the IRA don't play by the rules so the Brits don't have to even if they are the forces of law and order and are "supposed" to follow the terms of the Geneva convention???!!! So WHY are you complaining about the IRA not playing by the rules then. I mean, in general, wounded soldiers are NOT executed during conflicts/wars????!!!!

The IRA followed their own rules - the British were supposed to follow the rule of law. But if the British were regarded as not being the legitimate authority in this business doesn't that confuse matters?
Not sure where the Geneva convention enters into this.

RMD

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Fantastic irony there, the IRA don't play by the rules so the Brits don't have to even if they are the forces of law and order and are "supposed" to follow the terms of the Geneva convention???!!! So WHY are you complaining about the IRA not playing by the rules then. I mean, in general, wounded soldiers are NOT executed during conflicts/wars????!!!!

I'm not in anyway an IRA supporter but what must be taken into account is the IRA were a paramilitary organization not bound by international law, the British armed forces were and as a result must obey international law.

It's the same story in Afghanistan, the Taliban are a paramilitary organization in essence not bound by international law while ISAF coalition forces are and must adhere to the law.

Exile 1798

Deleted User wrote: »

It's simple.

There are four organisations authorised to use lethal force in the administration of their duties on the island of Ireland, which are the forces of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement, voted in by popular mandate on both sides of the border.

1. An Garda Siochana
2. The Police Service of Northern Ireland
3. The Irish Defence Forces
4. Her Majesty's Armed Forces

Anyone else, no matter who/where/what/why who threatens life on this island, is unauthorised to do so.

I wish them either incarceration or a bullet caused, blood-spattered death.

I don't care what flag they cling to, they are criminals in this day and age. If they threaten life, theirs is forfeit.

Politics of war. Completely irrelevant to this thread, which is discussing pre-Belfast Agreement military actions by the Tyrone IRA and the British Security Forces.

The PSNI did not exist at the time that is being discussed & Sinn Féin/IRA is also a signatory to the Belfast Agreement.

indioblack

RMD wrote: »

I'm not in anyway an IRA supporter but what must be taken into account is the IRA were a paramilitary organization not bound by international law, the British armed forces were and as a result must obey international law.

It's the same story in Afghanistan, the Taliban are a paramilitary organization in essence not bound by international law while ISAF coalition forces are and must adhere to the law.

Not sure about the international law thing.
The IRA did not recognise the legitimacy of the UK in it's governing of the north.
It therefore attempted to destabilise that part of the UK - get the Brits out, put simply.
The IRA were insurgents, freedom-fighters, criminals, rebels - you can colour them according to your preferences.
The IRA did not feel obliged to adhere to the rules - unless they chose to.
But they, and their supporters, expected the state to follow it's own rules - the same state whose legitimacy the IRA did not accept.
Will a state under threat of it's existance always do the right thing?
And should it?
If it breaks it's own rules to survive is that sufficient justification?
Maybe winning was all that mattered - for the IRA and the British.
But if one side abandons the rules they shouldn't be too suprised - or upset - if their opponents start to do the same.

Manic Moran

Locking pending review. I don't have time for this right now.