breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

crusher000 · 05-05-2014 12:58pm

bumper234 should change their name to whataboutery234 they're favourite word in the entire dictionary and whip it out when they can't think of anything intelligent to come back with,

British army still to this day use methods of torture to try and get information where ever they're posted and it's 2014.

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 12:58pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

For me that can be applied to the actions of the British Army and elements of the RUC and UDR in my locality.

Show people a picture of a British soldier and an IRA member and ask which one is the terrorist, guarantee the majority will.point at the IRA member.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 12:59pm

bumper234 wrote: »

ter·ror·ist

ˈterərist/

noun

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

So does a war or rebellion/insurrection count as terrorism?

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:02pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

So does a war or rebellion/insurrection count as terrorism?

So it was a war?

But IRA claimed there was a shoot to kill policy, surely that's what soldiers do in time of war right? Or did shoot to kill only count for the brave IRA lads that set up.ambushes?

Anyway back to good old GA, wonder if he slept well after his long incarceration, damage limitations and PR machine will be cranked into overdrive from tomorrow onwards.

timtime · 05-05-2014 1:03pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Show people a picture of a British soldier and an IRA member and ask which one is the terrorist, guarantee the majority will.point at the IRA member.

people living in a state of denial would say so

Happyman42 · 05-05-2014 1:04pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Show people a picture of a British soldier and an IRA member and ask which one is the terrorist, guarantee the majority will.point at the IRA member.

Yes and immediately reveal their bias. Which is why the term is useless in the first place.
The British where happy enough to talk and negotiate with those they labelled 'terrorists'. It's a meaningless term.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:04pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Show people a picture of a British soldier and an IRA member and ask which one is the terrorist, guarantee the majority will.point at the IRA member.

Terrorists = i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/05/article-1284356-068A9355000005DC-609_468x334.jpg

IRA Man = upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/Bobbysandslongkesh1973.jpg

|I can't post links yet.

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:06pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes and immediately reveal their bias. Which is why the term is useless in the first place.
The British where happy enough to talk and negotiate with those they labelled 'terrorists'. It's a meaningless term.

But if you showed those pictures in America, Australia, France,Sweden, Germany etc do you think the people there would not pick the IRA member? Would they also be biased?

twowheelsgood · 05-05-2014 1:07pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes.

What is a 'terrorist' in your eyes?

Terrorism is not a very useful word to use as i has been redefined to label what the bad guys (whoever you think they are) do. But with its original meaning it can hardly be disputed that much of what the PIRA did was terrorism.

The 1996 London bombs for example. Executed (against a civilian target) to garner a political advantage. Do you dispute that that was an act of terror?

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:11pm

bumper234 wrote: »

So it was a war?

But IRA claimed there was a shoot to kill policy, surely that's what soldiers do in time of war right? Or did shoot to kill only count for the brave IRA lads that set up.ambushes?

.

Well how else was guerrilla army that could only mobilize a few hundred members at a time fight one of the largest & richest armies in the world without ambushes? Same with the VC & NVA against the US. A ambush is a legit tactic like the SAS used at Loughgall.

It's the British who are claiming it's not a war & that their the democracy. If they want to use shot-to-kill fine but don't be hypocrites & pretend your not in a war.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:13pm

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The 1996 London bombs for example. Executed (against a civilian target) to garner a political advantage. Do you dispute that that was an act of terror?

What civilians did they target?

twowheelsgood · 05-05-2014 1:14pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

What civilians did they target?

Not civilian personnel but it wasn't a military target

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes.

What is a 'terrorist' in your eyes?

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to kill innocent people of purpose.

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:16pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

What civilians did they target?

Well if you don't think that that was a terrorist attack then surely Warrington was.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:16pm

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Not civilian personnel but it wasn't a military target

To my definition then it's not terrorism.

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:17pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to kill innocent people of purpose.

Well the IRA certainly did that, therefore they were terrorists.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:17pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Well if you don't think that that was a terrorist attack then surely Warrington was.

If it's purpose was to kill than yes it was.

JohnInDublin59 · 05-05-2014 1:17pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is how I am gonna treat this bull when I see it.

Provide a source where anyone in SF said the above.

Apologies if I have confused or misled you, or been unclear.

(Or possibly it suited your purposes to interpret what I wrote the way you did.)

Anyhoo, I did not state, nor intend to imply, that anyone in SF actually came out and said ‘we support the police – as long as they don’t arrest one of us...’ I merely thought it was a pretty accurate summary of their position.

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:18pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Well the IRA certainly did that, therefore they were terrorists.

So did the British Army in the North are they terrorists?

And when did the IRA sanction attacks on innocent people?

timtime · 05-05-2014 1:19pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Well the IRA certainly did that, therefore they were terrorists.

that would make the BA even bigger terrorists so

Happyman42 · 05-05-2014 1:19pm

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Terrorism is not a very useful word to use as i has been redefined to label what the bad guys (whoever you think they are) do. But with its original meaning it can hardly be disputed that much of what the PIRA did was terrorism.

The 1996 London bombs for example. Executed (against a civilian target) to garner a political advantage. Do you dispute that that was an act of terror?

All armies use 'terror' therefore all army members are terrorists. Show me one that doesn't.
'Terrorist' as used in the context you are using it, is a pejorative term.

What 'mandate' have the people of Iraq and Afghanistan given to the US or British armies, yet they have been subjected to 'terror' the likes of which we have never seen.

Jawgap · 05-05-2014 1:20pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

That was the Officals. The Provos believed self determination was the best thing for them. Even John "Mother Thersea" Hume believed that.

.....and the quotes I offered from the 1977 edition of the Green Book?

The PIRA may have been less overtly Marxist-Leninist leanings but it doesn't mean they shrugged off the mantle passed from the OIRA - their rhetoric is fairly obviously Marxist in it's tone and definition and if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck.......

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:20pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

If it's purpose was to kill than yes it was.

What other reason would there be for planting 2 bombs in rubbish bins on a high street?

Happyman42 · 05-05-2014 1:20pm

JohnInDublin59 wrote: »

Apologies if I have confused or misled you, or been unclear.

(Or possibly it suited your purposes to interpret what I wrote the way you did.)

Anyhoo, I did not state, nor intend to imply, that anyone in SF actually came out and said ‘we support the police – as long as they don’t arrest one of us...’ I merely thought it was a pretty accurate summary of their position.

No it isn't, unless you have comprehension difficulties.

twowheelsgood · 05-05-2014 1:22pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

To my definition then it's not terrorism.

Terrorism is not necessarily about killing, it is about well, using terror for political gain.

But I guess if you are going to change the meaning of words then any word can mean or not mean anything you like.

But most people would see the 1996 bombings as terrorism.

bumper234 · 05-05-2014 1:23pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

So did the British Army in the North are they terrorists?

And when did the IRA sanction attacks on innocent people?

Warrington

pO1Neil · 05-05-2014 1:25pm

twowheelsgood wrote: »

If only they all thought fit to let the people decide their affairs themselves!

That's what the Provo's taught was best for the Irish people. Let them decide their own future let them acting a single unit to decide the faith of the border.

twowheelsgood · 05-05-2014 1:26pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

All armies use 'terror' therefore all army members are terrorists. Show me one that doesn't.
'Terrorist' as used in the context you are using it, is a pejorative term.

What 'mandate' have the people of Iraq and Afghanistan given to the US or British armies, yet they have been subjected to 'terror' the likes of which we have never seen.

But you were asserting that the IRA were not terrorists. Are you standing over this?

twowheelsgood · 05-05-2014 1:28pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

That's what the Provo's taught was best for the Irish people. Let them decide their own future let them acting a single unit to decide the faith of the border.

That directly contradicts what you said earlier? That the provos knew what was best for the Irish people?

Courtesy Flush · 05-05-2014 1:28pm

IRA terrorism
Loyalist terrorism
State sponsored terrorism. British security services certainly aided loyalist groups at times

Everyone has blood on their hands. I dont see how any side could be proud of their record in the Troubles

breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

Comments