Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

trendyvicar

Nodin wrote: »

You still haven't explained this -

I'd have thought it was self explanatory...

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

I'd have thought it was self explanatory...

Were that the case, I wouldn't be asking. If you would.....

nesf

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

Good bye.

J Cheever Loophole

maccored wrote: »

I'll say one thing - the propaganda you were fed seems to have worked alright.

Propaganda?

Not so! It's in the breeding.

As a true loyal son of Ulster...I mean ULSTER! .....the absolute disdain / thinly disguised hatred shown for all things Irish / Nationalist / Republican, is heart felt and genuinely held.

Trying to enter into any meaningful debate here is a futile exercise.

pbowenroe

the provos wanted the brits off the streets, but it was them keeping them on the streets

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument by the insults they come out with.

Tiocfaidh Armani

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

And the mask slips...

LordSutch

maccored wrote: »

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument by the insults they come out with.

Well to be fair, the whole premise of this thread is insulting! The OP asks a provocative & insulting question guaranteed to get the blood boiling "Was the Republican campaign justifiable" > Of course it wasn't bloody justifiable, but the OP (knowing full well that this question would directly feed the Republican appetite) asks the question anyway . . .

If you look at the catalogue of Atrocities perpetrated by militant Republicanism (PIRA/INLA) then no right minded Irish pesron could argue that all those pub bombings, bus bombings, car bombings, and grisly murders were justifiable. With the amount of personal loss relating to some posters here, this whole question was always going to offend and get peoples backs up, and personally speaking, I'm not sure that hurtful threads like this one should be allowed to rub salt into the wounds.

The Republican campaign of death & destruction certainly was not justifiable.

maccored

Well to be fair, the whole premise of this thread is insulting! The OP asks a provocative & insulting question guaranteed to get the blood boiling "Was the Republican campaign justifiable" > Of course it wasn't bloody justifiable, but the OP (knowing full well that this question would directly feed the Republican appetite) asks the question anyway . . .

If you look at the catalogue of Atrocities perpetrated by militant Republicanism (PIRA/INLA) then no right minded Irish pesron could argue that all those pub bombings, bus bombings, car bombings, and grisly murders were justifiable. With the amount of personal loss relating to some posters here, this whole question was always going to offend and get peoples backs up, and personally speaking, I'm not sure that hurtful threads like this one should be allowed to rub salt into the wounds.

The Republican campaign of death & destruction certainly was not justifiable.

i think the OP was just asking a question. I also think it says a lot about a person if they see it as insulting. as we all know, theres two sides to every story, and the other side of this particular story was just as bad.

LordSutch

maccored wrote: »

i think the OP was just asking a question. I also think it says a lot about a person if they see it as insulting. as we all know, theres two sides to every story, and the other side of this particular story was just as bad.

And you are talking from your side . . . .

Either way, the wounds are still raw, and the subject matter is bound to get peoples blood boiling, bombs were planted & people were murdered in the name of Irish people, many people were blown to pieces, and it was a sustained attack that had no mandate from the Irish people either, so I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

Tiocfaidh Armani

LordSutch wrote: »

And you are talking from your side . . . .

Either way, the wounds are still raw, and the subject matter is bound to get peoples blood boiling, bombs were planted & people were murdered in the name of Irish people, many people were blown to pieces, and it was a sustained attack that had no mandate from the Irish people either, so I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

Do you get so wound up about loyalist or British violence? Or the 100,000 dead Iraqi's killed by American and British forces so they could give the $5 trillion oil in Kurdistan to Texan oil companies?

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Well to be fair, the whole premise of this thread is insulting!......

....to you, a self declared unionist.

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away!......

The person thats been insulting Irish people generally in this thread and others. Thats nice.

LordSutch wrote: »

I'm not sure that hurtful threads like this one should be allowed to rub salt into the wounds. .

Really.

J Cheever Loophole

LordSutch wrote: »

And you are talking from your side . . . .

Either way, the wounds are still raw, and the subject matter is bound to get peoples blood boiling, bombs were planted & people were murdered in the name of Irish people, many people were blown to pieces, and it was a sustained attack that had no mandate from the Irish people either, so I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

Far from getting carried away, I thought the banned poster came across as very considered and totally in control of his emotions when making his insulting comments! The fact that he made them in these circumstances speaks volumes for the person in question.

maccored

i think said poster's mission was to wind up as many 'paddys' as possible.

maccored

LordSutch wrote: »

And you are talking from your side . . . .

Move on sir. the past is gone, we no longer need to take 'sides'.

Either way, the wounds are still raw, and the subject matter is bound to get peoples blood boiling, bombs were planted & people were murdered in the name of Irish people, many people were blown to pieces, and it was a sustained attack that had no mandate from the Irish people either, so I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

You blame the subject matter - not the poster. Ah now - I'll say no more other than thats the problem with society these days .... some people arent willing to take responsibility and prefer to blame inanimate objects like internet threads.

Chuck Stone

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

You have it bass ackwards.

That poster was the one doing the inciting and as has been pointed out to you, rather than getting 'carried away', he seemed well rooted in his disconnect and bilious prejudice.

The banned poster displayed exactly the type of attitude, when held and expressed by those of an anti-Cathoilc persuasion in the the NI statelet, that contributed to and sustained the conflict in NI.

Anti-Irish.
Anti-Catholic
Self-righteous.
Deluded.
Paranoid.
Condescending.

Tragically it is that type of attitude that gave physical force Republicans impetus i.e. 'there is no talking to these people'.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

You have it bass ackwards.

That poster was the one doing the inciting and as has been pointed out to you, rather than getting 'carried away', he seemed well rooted in his disconnect and bilious prejudice.

The banned poster displayed exactly the type of attitude, when held and expressed by those of an anti-Cathoilc persuasion in the the NI statelet, that contributed to and sustained the conflict in NI.

Anti-Irish.
Anti-Catholic
Self-righteous.
Deluded.
Paranoid.
Condescending.

Tragically it is that type of attitude that gave physical force Republicans impetus i.e. 'there is no talking to these people'.

So what your saying is trendyvicer attitude justifies physical force republicanism? 'theres no talking to these people, so let's kill them
Instead,

Liam Byrne

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

And you are talking from your side . . . .

Either way, the wounds are still raw, and the subject matter is bound to get peoples blood boiling, bombs were planted & people were murdered in the name of Irish people, many people were blown to pieces, and it was a sustained attack that had no mandate from the Irish people either, so I don't blame the banned poster for getting carried away, I blame the subject matter of this thread for inciting people.

Do you get so wound up about loyalist or British violence? Or the 100,000 dead Iraqi's killed by American and British forces so they could give the $5 trillion oil in Kurdistan to Texan oil companies?

I know your post was asking someone else, but my answer is yes.

What's telling is your automatic assumption that we wouldn't - when people take illogical and contrived sides, they rarely manage to get their head around the fact that some people don't take sides, and see crime and murder for what it is - crime and murder.

Ironically, even when someone points out the above, the discussion twists from ousting Saddam to ousting someone like Hitler.....in fact, anything to avoid admitting that support of / excusing the IRA includes being OK with cold-blooded murder of fellow Irishmen, women and children.

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know your post was asking someone else, but my answer is yes.

What's telling is your automatic assumption that we wouldn't - when people take illogical and contrived sides, they rarely manage to get their head around the fact that some people don't take sides, and see crime and murder for what it is - crime and murder.

Ironically, even when someone points out the above, the discussion twists from ousting Saddam to ousting someone like Hitler.....in fact, anything to avoid admitting that support of / excusing the IRA includes being OK with cold-blooded murder of fellow Irishmen, women and children.

Any criticism from somebody who can't evven layout their own position can be easily ignored.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know your post was asking someone else, but my answer is yes.

What's telling is your automatic assumption that we wouldn't - when people take illogical and contrived sides, they rarely manage to get their head around the fact that some people don't take sides, and see crime and murder for what it is - crime and murder.

Ironically, even when someone points out the above, the discussion twists from ousting Saddam to ousting someone like Hitler.....in fact, anything to avoid admitting that support of / excusing the IRA includes being OK with cold-blooded murder of fellow Irishmen, women and children.

No I've twisted it towards the killing of innocent people by armies wearing uniform and dropping bombs on people. You can try and take it to extremes but my points stands. The killing of innocent people by armies who wear uniforms is usually okay in their eyes so I can't take their outrage seriously.

It was violence that won our freedom, very harsh and brutal violence but you wouldn't think it in Ireland. They were lovely chaps who wouldn't hurt a fly so they wouldn't.:rolleyes:

Tiocfaidh Armani

Nodin wrote: »

Any criticism from somebody who can't evven layout their own position can be easily ignored.

I think I've laid out my position quite clearly in many other threads. I'm a republican who sees no difference to the IRA of then to further back. They both killed soldiers, policemen and anybody who got in their way, even a 14 year old boy shot in the back before the 1916 Rising started. I don't have rose tinted specs on about the past, unlike most other Irish people.

The British created the condition that made that conflict possible going back to the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 to 1969 and so on. People in the 26 counties wouldn't have sat back and being treated like that under British rule yet it was "tut, tut aren't they terrible" when the nationalists in the North finally had enough.

Nodin

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I think I've laid out my position quite clearly in many other threads. ..........

I was referring to Mr Byrne....
see here for context.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056471458&page=51

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I think I've laid out my position quite clearly in many other threads. I'm a republican who sees no difference to the IRA of then to further back. They both killed soldiers, policemen and anybody who got in their way, even a 14 year old boy shot in the back before the 1916 Rising started. I don't have rose tinted specs on about the past, unlike most other Irish people.

The British created the condition that made that conflict possible going back to the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 to 1969 and so on. People in the 26 counties wouldn't have sat back and being treated like that under British rule yet it was "tut, tut aren't they terrible" when the nationalists in the North finally had enough.

Must be great to have these principles and still take the Queens shilling

Tiocfaidh Armani

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Must be great to have these principles and still take the Queens shilling

I have nothing against Scotland or any other country. I don't see that how that takes away from my political beliefs? How bigoted of you to say that.

PS, I would for a large US company in their international department, I've never taken a penny from Her Majesty, but as a professional benefits sponger that she is, like all the other 'royal' families around the world, she certainly has taken a few quid from me.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I have nothing against Scotland or any other country. I don't see that how that takes away from my political beliefs? How bigoted of you to say that.

PS, I would for a large US company in their international department, I've never taken a penny from Her Majesty, but as a professional benefits sponger that she is, like all the other 'royal' families around the world, she certainly has taken a few quid from me.

Nothing Bigoted about it. You stay in the UK you advocate violence against The British army you pay tax towards the upkeep of said army you are paid in Sterling I presume so you are taking in the Queens shilling you are just another example of what Scotland doesn't need

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

So what your saying is trendyvicer attitude justifies physical force republicanism? 'theres no talking to these people, so let's kill them
Instead,

Not his attitude in and of itself. An attitude can't harm anyone.

It's when the holder of that type of attitude is armed and has no problem expressing his attitude by beating and murdering people who seek nothing other than equality - well then yes - there obviously is no talking to them.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The banned poster displayed exactly the type of attitude, when held and expressed by those of an anti-Cathoilc persuasion in the the NI statelet, that contributed to and sustained the conflict in NI.

If you look earlier in the thread I have said that there is good evidence that the setting up of the UDR had some noble intent. It was a botched job from the start though when they allowed people who's only intentions were anti-Catholic and indeed, as is evidenced, opportunistic subversion.

This discussion is beginning to follow it's own tracks circularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

Tiocfaidh Armani

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Nothing Bigoted about it. You stay in the UK you advocate violence against The British army you pay tax towards the upkeep of said army you are paid in Sterling I presume so you are taking in the Queens shilling you are just another example of what Scotland doesn't need

It's like I disagree with the US on their funding of Israel, should I take my holidays elsewhere as some sort of political statement?

I moved here because I met a girl here, end of. Should I not follow my heart because of Britain's foreign policy. How pathetic and that was the best you could do with the post from me you quoted? I expect nothing less from a stereotypical Rangers fans.

I work for an international company and contribute to society and pay my way, unlike your Queen who does pay tax but it's basically on her benefits.:D

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

It's like I disagree with the US on their funding of Israel, should I take my holidays elsewhere as some sort of political statement?

I moved here because I met a girl here, end of. Should I not follow my heart because of Britain's foreign policy. How pathetic and that was the best you could do with the post from me you quoted? I expect nothing less from a stereotypical Rangers fans.

I work for an international company and contribute to society and pay my way, unlike your Queen who does pay tax but it's basically on her benefits.:D

Tell me how am I a stereotypical Rangers fan you know nothing about me

Tiocfaidh Armani

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Tell me how am I a stereotypical Rangers fan you know nothing about me

You make a political point about something and some Rangers fan comes on because you life in Scotland with "what ya mean you take Her Majesty's shilling". I despair:rolleyes:

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

You make a political point about something and some Rangers fan comes on because you life in Scotland with "what ya mean you take Her Majesty's shilling". I despair:rolleyes:

You talk nonsense you still know nothing about me and you thoughts on me are probably so wide of the mark its not true

So unless you have anything more sensible to say to me go back to telling everyone how the killing of innocents is acceptable

Tiocfaidh Armani

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So unless you have anything more sensible to say to me go back to telling everyone how the killing of innocents is acceptable

That's a very black and white question. The killing of innocents is always regrettable, the deliberate killing of innocents is always unjustifiable.

My point was people are selective in their outrage about the killing of innocents.

Dr Galen

Lets leave the personal stuff out of it please.

I will have no hesitation in closing this thread (which has for the most part been grand) if any of the same old crapola creeps in.

Cheers

DrG

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's a very black and white question. The killing of innocents is always regrettable, the deliberate killing of innocents is always unjustifiable.

My point was people are selective in their outrage about the killing of innocents.

Your right in that no matter what side does the killing it is wrong

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

junder wrote: »

So what your saying is trendyvicer attitude justifies physical force republicanism? 'theres no talking to these people, so let's kill them
Instead,

Not his attitude in and of itself. An attitude can't harm anyone.

It's when the holder of that type of attitude is armed and has no problem expressing his attitude by beating and murdering people who seek nothing other than equality - well then yes - there obviously is no talking to them.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The banned poster displayed exactly the type of attitude, when held and expressed by those of an anti-Cathoilc persuasion in the the NI statelet, that contributed to and sustained the conflict in NI.

If you look earlier in the thread I have said that there is good evidence that the setting up of the UDR had some noble intent. It was a botched job from the start though when they allowed people who's only intentions were anti-Catholic and indeed, as is evidenced, opportunistic subversion.

This discussion is beginning to follow it's own tracks circularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line. Republicans justify murdering members if udr ruc for a myriad of different reasons but the fatal flaw in thier logic is that the unionist community saw it asa direct assult on thier community. A dead British soldier maybe nothing more then a 'good hit' to a republican (including many on this site) but to us they were a murdered father, brother, uncle, cousin and in dome cases a murdered mother, sister, aunt so yes the results of these actions led some people down dark paths.

MOD SNIP

Let's not speak Ill of the banned and all that

Cheers

DrG

Sunnyisland

junder wrote: »

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line. Republicans justify murdering members if udr ruc for a myriad of different reasons but the fatal flaw in thier logic is that the unionist community saw it asa direct assult on thier community. A dead British soldier maybe nothing more then a 'good hit' to a republican (including many on this site) but to us they were a murdered father, brother, uncle, cousin and in dome cases a murdered mother, sister, aunt so yes the results of these actions led some people down dark paths.

For the record, believe I recognise trendy vicers tone and langauge. If I am correct them he is somebody that has already been banned of this site on several occasions as well as being banned or pulse. I dont know how he gets around the ip ban but he seems to resurface every few months. If he is the person I believe him to be then he us not actully from northern Ireland or contected to it or loyalism for that matter, he hails from london

Agree with this.

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line. Republicans justify murdering members if udr ruc for a myriad of different reasons but the fatal flaw in thier logic is that the unionist community saw it asa direct assult on thier community. A dead British soldier maybe nothing more then a 'good hit' to a republican (including many on this site) but to us they were a murdered father, brother, uncle, cousin and in dome cases a murdered mother, sister, aunt so yes the results of these actions led some people down dark paths.

For the record, believe I recognise trendy vicers tone and langauge. If I am correct them he is somebody that has already been banned of this site on several occasions as well as being banned or pulse. I dont know how he gets around the ip ban but he seems to resurface every few months. If he is the person I believe him to be then he us not actully from northern Ireland or contected to it or loyalism for that matter, he hails from london

Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.

Not everybody moans about them, What i find here is that there is a continuous attack on republican violence as if there wasn't any other violence, be it loyalist or British Army .

junder

realies wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.

Not everybody moans about them, What i find here is that there is a continuous attack on republican violence as if there wasn't any other violence, be it loyalist or British Army .

This is an Irish site so of course the focus is going to be on tbe Irish side of things. And the whole 'yer but the british' is a weak argument

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line.

Well maybe they should have asked their leaders why they found themselves in that situation. Not that your painting of Loyalist paramilitaries as a reactionary force has any credibility.

The UVF and affiliates were up to mischief well before the IRA campaign developed momentum and at that time it wasn't due to any killing of their family members as you suggest.

In March and April 1969, there were six bomb attacks on electricity and water infastructure targets, causing blackouts and water shortages. At first the attacks were blamed on the Irish Republican Army (IRA). In fact, it later emerged that members of the loyalist Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had carried out the bombings in an attempt to implicate the IRA, destabilise the Government and halt the reforms demanded by the Civil Rights movement and promised by Terence O'Neill

Chronology of the conflict: 1969. Conflict Archive on the Internet.

Also, it was anti-Catholic rioters who were trying to burn Catholics out of their homes, during calls for equality/civil rights, and did a fairly good job of it while being allowed to by the RUC.

The most bloody rioting was in Belfast, where seven people were killed and hundreds more wounded. Scores of houses and businesses were burned-out, most of them owned by Catholics. In addition, thousands of families were driven from their homes. The RUC was accused of helping the loyalists and of failing to protect Catholic areas. Events in Belfast have been viewed by some as a pogrom against the minority Catholic and nationalist community.

Fields, Rona M. Northern Ireland: Society Under Siege. Transaction Publishers, 1977. p.19

Clearly it was the Catholic community in the North who were under siege.

Moreover, unlike Protestants, Catholics couldn't join the RUC, UDR and BA to protect their community.

Liam Byrne

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote:

The killing of innocent people by armies who wear uniforms is usually okay in their eyes so I can't take their outrage seriously.

As I clearly stated : not in my eyes, so you can leave me out of that grouping or rethink your position.

So now that that angle has been debunked are you going to suddenly come up with another, different, reason not to take my outrage seriously, or will you stand over the reason that you outlined above ?

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

junder wrote: »

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line.

Well maybe they should have asked their leaders why they found themselves in that situation. Not that your painting of Loyalist paramilitaries as a reactionary force has any credibility.

The UVF and affiliates were up to mischief well before the IRA campaign developed momentum and at that time it wasn't due to any killing of their family members as you suggest.

In March and April 1969, there were six bomb attacks on electricity and water infastructure targets, causing blackouts and water shortages. At first the attacks were blamed on the Irish Republican Army (IRA). In fact, it later emerged that members of the loyalist Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had carried out the bombings in an attempt to implicate the IRA, destabilise the Government and halt the reforms demanded by the Civil Rights movement and promised by Terence O'Neill

[SIZE="1"]Chronology of the conflict: 1969. Conflict Archive on the Internet.[/SIZE]

Also, it was anti-Catholic rioters who were trying to burn Catholics out of their homes, during calls for equality/civil rights, and did a fairly good job of it while being allowed to by the RUC.

The most bloody rioting was in Belfast, where seven people were killed and hundreds more wounded. Scores of houses and businesses were burned-out, most of them owned by Catholics. In addition, thousands of families were driven from their homes. The RUC was accused of helping the loyalists and of failing to protect Catholic areas. Events in Belfast have been viewed by some as a pogrom against the minority Catholic and nationalist community.

[SIZE="1"]Fields, Rona M. Northern Ireland: Society Under Siege. Transaction Publishers, 1977. p.19[/SIZE]

Clearly it was the Catholic community in the North who were under siege.

Moreover, unlike Protestants, Catholics couldn't join the RUC, UDR and BA to protect their community.

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Why don't you address my post instead instead of having a go at me?

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

I agree. This talk of burning catholics out of homes could be said about the thousands of Protestants intimated and bombed out of their homes in Londonderry.

Cases of Protestants being attacked out of their homes and Catholics moving in. It happened on both sides. I wish there was more balance on this.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Why don't you address my post instead instead of having a go at me?

Why not read what I had originally posted instead or resorting to your typical default reply

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

Why not read what I had originally posted

I did read what you originally posted and replied to it with my view.

instead or resorting to your typical default reply

I don't have a default reply.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

the discussion twists from ousting Saddam to ousting someone like Hitler.....

..........the discussion went on to show, I believe, you'd do absolutely nothing to stop Saddam and Hitler etc. unless you could fight the perfect war. Many more innocents would have probably died, not less, if they weren't stopped at some point.

How can more of them dying, not less, fit in any way comfortably with your core argument re innocents?

Noreen1

KeithAFC wrote: »

Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.

So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

..........the discussion went on to show, I believe, you'd do absolutely nothing to stop Saddam and Hitler etc. unless you could fight the perfect war. Many more innocents would have probably died, not less, if they weren't stopped at some point.

I love the way your phrasing emphasises the "do nothing" in an effort to dismiss the concept, while putting the "unless" as an aside.

It was possible - had the proper view been taken re human lives - to take out Saddam Hussein, but no.....the powers that be decided that shelling an entire city was the option that they would choose. That was 100% wrong.

So enough with trying to imply that I would have "done nothing". There is a MASSIVE difference between targetting civilians and any genuine accidents.

I'm not - despite your assertions - looking for a "perfect world"; what I am looking for is a 100% genuine attempt to ensure that innocent people aren't maimed or murdered.

How can more of them dying, not less, fit in any way comfortably with your core argument re innocents?

That pointless question and assertion is based on the false premise of "doing nothing". Yet again, there would be a huge difference in a tactical team taking out Hussein (even though that COULD have resulted in a some unacceptable deaths) vs bombing an entire city which any sane individual would know WOULD result in unacceptable deaths.

The key difference is in the "COULD" vs the "WOULD". Ignore that, and you lose my support. In fact, in civilised society you can be sued based on that intent, and rightly so.

The IRA chose to bomb civilian areas and - as someone pointed out above - it is astronomically stupid to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result.

So they were either (a) astronomically stupid or (b) knew damn well that civilians would be murdered and didn't give a crap.

Either way, that means unjustifiable.

Liam Byrne

Noreen1 wrote: »

So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?

Ideally it should mean both. But double-standards are the order of the day.

The IRA can attack because there's a war on (meaning war rules apply) but the British Army can't act like there's a war on, and the opposing "side" (ironically with the same mentality and more in common with the IRA than ordinary decent people) will get whinged about by apologists for doing exactly what the IRA were doing.

Farcical at times, but what can you do.

Tiocfaidh Armani

The IRA chose to bomb civilian areas and - as someone pointed out above - it is astronomically stupid to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result.

So they were either (a) astronomically stupid or (b) knew damn well that civilians would be murdered and didn't give a crap.

Liam, this is kinda also the point I'm making. People are selective about their outrage about civilians being killed.