ISIS vs The IRA ?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why detonate the bombs at midday on a Saturday (or Friday evening in the case of La Mon and Birmingham) if civilians were not the targets.

Go back and read the the thread fred, this has been covered a million times. you have nothing to add in rebuttal so youre reposting the same stuff again and again

The IRA weren't the cold blooded killers that ISIS are, but they clearly needed to instil an atmosphere of terror in people, something they had been doing since the S Plan. Too many deaths reduced their support, but a terror campaign needs a few dead and wounded to have the desired effect.

Drivel! What is the perfect number of deaths then? WHere's that sweet spot where you can kill enough to inspire terror but not lose support? Do you hear yourself? There was no terror campaign from the IRA. Terror didnt get them anywhere. Hitting the brits in the pocket got results. You have no understanding of the IRA, britains history in Ireland or the most recent conflict. As early as the 70s the IRA were advocating economic targets because costing the brits money got their attention.

You just don't want to see it because you hero worship these guys. You seriously need to open your eyes and see the IRA campaign for what it was.

No, you dont see it for what it was because you are determined to demonise them because you are ignorant of the causes, motivations and actions of the conflict. Go and educate yourself on these matters before making ill informed, baseless allegations.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Go back and read the the thread fred, this has been covered a million times. you have nothing to add in rebuttal so youre reposting the same stuff again and again

I'm reposting it, because you have not answered the question, other than to give vague suggestions about "operational reasons".

Why did the ira hit those, as well as other targets, at their busiest times?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm reposting it, because you have not answered the question, other than to give vague suggestions about "operational reasons".

Why did the ira hit those, as well as other targets, at their busiest times?

To. create. as. much. disruption. as. possible. and. have. the. biggest.economic.effect.possible.

Please save this post and reread it next time you feel the need to ask a question asked and answered numerous times

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To. create. as. much. disruption. as. possible. and. have. the. biggest.economic.effect.possible.

Please save this post and reread it next time you feel the need to ask a question asked and answered numerous times

Disruption to who? As has already been pointed out, two bombs going off at 4am would have the same effect, those businesses would not open that day.

Why two bombs, one would close the entire area?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption to who? As has already been pointed out, two bombs going off at 4am would have the same effect, those businesses would not open that day.

Why two bombs, one would close the entire area?

And as I pointed out; no they wouldnt. The point was not to close the businesses the bombs were outside but the entire street.
These were not the huge city destroyer bombs of Manchester and London, these were much smaller devices. Given their size it would have been quite easy to cordon off the area directly affected, clear the debris and reopen the street in a number of hours. It happened in belfast all the time.
Bombs at both ends shut off the entire street instead of just on side of it.
I have written all this before. You clearly have no interest in actually reading any responses and just want to post the same old baseless guff over and over

Fratton Fred

So you are claiming the sole purpose of the Warrington bomb attacks was to close a few shops in a town centre for a few hours?

Not much of an economic consequence there.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you are claiming the sole purpose of the Warrington bomb attacks was to close a few shops in a town centre for a few hours?

Not much of an economic consequence there.

And once again you post something already posted before and once again Im forced to write the same thing back to you.

It was part of a much wider campaign of attacking economic and infrastructure targets in Britain.
You can take any single action in any war and claim that it alone was pointless.
You could pick one single soldier from the Somme and ask "was it utterly necessary to shoot this particular soldier? Would the outcome have been any different if he hadnt been shot?"
Once again, you are taking a single incident completely out of context and displaying your total ignorance of the conflict.

Once again, please save this post and reread it when you feel the need to ask questions that have been previously asked and answered numerous times.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

And once again you post something already posted before and once again Im forced to write the same thing back to you.

It was part of a much wider campaign of attacking economic and infrastructure targets in Britain.
You can take any single action in any war and claim that it alone was pointless.
You could pick one single soldier from the Somme and ask "was it utterly necessary to shoot this particular soldier? Would the outcome have been any different if he hadnt been shot?"
Once again, you are taking a single incident completely out of context and displaying your total ignorance of the conflict.

Once again, please save this post and reread it when you feel the need to ask questions that have been previously asked and answered numerous times.

Lots of small attacks on civilian targets. It's called a terrorist campaign. It's as simple as that. It was never just an economic war, it's only become that as revisionists try to justify their support for it. that is why there is no point discussing this with you, you have swallowed hook line and sinker the IRA spiel.

Thankfully the majority of people disagree with you, even Martin McGuinnes called it shameful.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lots of small attacks on civilian targets. It's called a terrorist campaign. It's as simple as that. It was never just an economic war, it's only become that as revisionists try to justify their support for it. that is why there is no point discussing this with you, you have swallowed hook line and sinker the IRA spiel.

Thankfully the majority of people disagree with you, even Martin McGuinnes called it shameful.

None of the links I put up or information I used came from IRA sources. Nobody is revising anything. Once again you have provided nothing to back up your opinion. The death of two children was indeed shameful. Who is arguing otherwise. The question is were civilians the target. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates no. Im sorry that doesnt suit your agenda but there you have it

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The SDLP were/are far bigger men, and not once did they stoop to murder.

The stoop downs stooped to much else.

LordSutch wrote: »

Admittedly they were eventually overtaken by the Shinners,.........

*sniff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHK0eao7Qlk

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

In a proper war the British Army would of course destroyed the PIRA in about a week (using tanks, harrier jump jets, jaguar ground attack jets, mobile heavy guns, helicopter gunships, and everything at their disposal).

. . . the problem for the army was of course that many innocents would have died too in such a war (seeing as the IRA were embedded in parts) of that NI population! The army always had one hand tied behind their back during the troubles.

'the British army' sutch.

Yeah, seein as they were next door to home. If it had been Africa they would have carried on like they usually did , with a few more massacres and village burnings, concentration camps.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

None of the links I put up or information I used came from IRA sources. Nobody is revising anything. Once again you have provided nothing to back up your opinion. The death of two children was indeed shameful. Who is arguing otherwise. The question is were civilians the target. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates no. Im sorry that doesnt suit your agenda but there you have it

So what was the target then?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what was the target then?

youre just being deliberately dense now fred. If you genuinely dont know then go and read the thread where this has been asked and answered a dozen times already. If you still cant grasp it when it's written down in front of you then im afraid theres little anyone can do to help you

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

youre just being deliberately dense now fred. If you genuinely dont know then go and read the thread where this has been asked and answered a dozen times already. If you still cant grasp it when it's written down in front of you then im afraid theres little anyone can do to help you

I asked disruption to who, but you avoided answering. Who or what was the target, if it was not civilian?

Who, or what, was the target in Birmingham and why was Birmingham bombed on a Friday evening when those pubs were packed.

What was the Balcombe street gang's (bizarrely referred to as "our Mandelas) targetwhen they threw a bomb in to a busy restaurant in Mayfair. What was their target when they shot Ross McWhirter on his doorstep.

Before you answer, Google Birmingham pub bombings and tell me why they weren't bombed at a quieter time of day?

Then tell me if these were terrorist attacks or war crimes?

Junkyard Tom

LordSutch wrote: »

the problem for the army was of course that many innocents would have died too in such a war of that NI population!

Many innocents did die. The UDR regiment of the BA was the principle source of weapons and support to loyalist paramilitaries who murdered over 800 innocent unarmed Catholic civilians. Also the BA itself murdered over 150 civilians including quite a few children whose names you no doubt have no clue of.

(seeing as the IRA were embedded in parts)

The British Army were embedded in parts of Britain. By your own poor reasoning they were hiding amongst the population.

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why plant bombs in pubs, hotels and shopping centres then?

Or was Birmingham bullring a hot bed of British oppression? Maybe the leadership of the UVF decided to hold a Saturday lunchtime meeting in McDonald's Warrington.

You know full well they carried out a significant number of attacks where they deliberately targeted innocent people.

What happened in Birmingham & Warrington were in excusable. But these type of tragedies were the exception not the norm. 10,000 plus bombs detonated by the IRA between 1970 & 1994. If Birmingham was the norm the IRA would have killed 210,000+ people.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

What happened in Birmingham & Warrington were in excusable. But these type of tragedies were the exception not the norm. 10,000 plus bombs detonated by the IRA between 1970 & 1994. If Birmingham was the norm the IRA would have killed 210,000+ people.

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

I said they were inexcusable.

Is a atrocity not tragedy as well?

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I said they were inexcusable.

Is a atrocity not tragedy as well?

an atrocity is both, a tragedy is just a tragedy.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I asked disruption to who, but you avoided answering. Who or what was the target, if it was not civilian?

I answered it numerous times already. Here it is again, please actually read it this time and note the post number as i wont be repeating it for you again. The main commercial thoroughfare as part of a wider campaign against the british economy and infrastructure. If you feel the need to ask this question yet again please refer yourself to the previous sentence.

Who, or what, was the target in Birmingham and why was Birmingham bombed on a Friday evening when those pubs were packed.

What was the Balcombe street gang's (bizarrely referred to as "our Mandelas) targetwhen they threw a bomb in to a busy restaurant in Mayfair. What was their target when they shot Ross McWhirter on his doorstep.

Before you answer, Google Birmingham pub bombings and tell me why they weren't bombed at a quieter time of day?

Then tell me if these were terrorist attacks or war crimes?

Again, all part of a campaign against the British economy and infrastructure. Being the early 70s these were obviously less sophisticated devices.
Two warnings were given but due to a broken phone they didnt give the 30 minute warning required by the IRA.
Again I stress, you asked why and these are the reasons. I am not in any way justifying the killing of civilians. Greater care to ensure they had access to a working phone to send warning should have been taken. No doubt you will ignore this sentence and attempt to accuse me of justifying their deaths, which i am not, but i suppose that's the price you pay for engaging with blind zealots.

McWhirter was a bigot who wanted to put nazi style restrictions and markers on Irish people in Britain and put up £50k bounty for information leading to the death or capture of IRA volunteers. Frankly, fuck him, he brought that on himself. No explanation needed for that one.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

Who is excusing them? Once again you arent getting the answer you like so you throw around blind accusations. You asked why certain places were targeted and I told you. No justification, no excuses, just the facts. Just because those facts doesnt suit your agenda doesnt mean you can then accuse me whatever you like

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

an atrocity is both, a tragedy is just a tragedy.

I don't want to get into a debate over words.

The people who created a real atmosphere of terror was the British Arny & Loyalists who together killed close 1000 innocent people. Including a joint operation in Dublin that left 34 dead including an entire family & several babies.
You want to talk about the busiest times of day, hows 5.30 on a Friday afternoon when Dublin is packed with people coming home from work & the shops full with Friday shoppers. The terror of that afternoon was such that the memories of it had to be suppressed for 20 years.

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Members of the IRA May have joined for their own personal reasons, but the IRA was never about civil rights, it was about creating a socialist republic. They refused to recognise the Dublin government ffs and they certainly didn't represent the majority of people in the north.

To try and claim the ira were fighting for civil liberties is nothing but revisionism

No Fred - it's called reality. A place it seems you rarely visit on that very tall horse of yours.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I answered it numerous times already. Here it is again, please actually read it this time and note the post number as i wont be repeating it for you again. The main commercial thoroughfare as part of a wider campaign against the british economy and infrastructure. If you feel the need to ask this question yet again please refer yourself to the previous sentence.



Again, all part of a campaign against the British economy and infrastructure. Being the early 70s these were obviously less sophisticated devices.
Two warnings were given but due to a broken phone they didnt give the 30 minute warning required by the IRA.
Again I stress, you asked why and these are the reasons. I am not in any way justifying the killing of civilians. Greater care to ensure they had access to a working phone to send warning should have been taken. No doubt you will ignore this sentence and attempt to accuse me of justifying their deaths, which i am not, but i suppose that's the price you pay for engaging with blind zealots.

McWhirter was a bigot who wanted to put nazi style restrictions and markers on Irish people in Britain and put up £50k bounty for information leading to the death or capture of IRA volunteers. Frankly, fuck him, he brought that on himself. No explanation needed for that one.

a bomb can not target an economy. It can have an indirect effect on the economy, but it can not actually target the economy itself. It needs a direct target.

A thoroughfare is just that, no business is done there and bombing it is pointless, so what was the actual intended target of the Warrington, and Birmingham bombs, the direct target that is, not the indirect one.

You've already spoken about disruption, but disruption to who?

Ross McWhirter had a right to life, it us not up to some gung ho kid to decide his fate.

I suppose people in Scott's restaurant had it coming as well?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

a bomb can not target an economy. It can have an indirect effect on the economy, but it can not actually target the economy itself. It needs a direct target.

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

A thoroughfare is just that, no business is done there and bombing it is pointless, so what was the actual intended target of the Warrington, and Birmingham bombs, the direct target that is, not the indirect one.

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

You've already spoken about disruption, but disruption to who?

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

Ross McWhirter had a right to life, it us not up to some gung ho kid to decide his fate.

Ross McWhirter was a bigot who directly involved himself in a conflict. He took a gamble with his own right to life and lost. Soldiers going into a war have a right to life but that doesnt mean the other side arent gonna shoot them.

I suppose people in Scott's restaurant had it coming as well?

Is this how this is gonna go on indefinitely? Youre proven to be talking utter guff on incident so you quickly drop it and leap to the next? All the while ignoring the overall facts and context which are:

:Anywhere beteween 10,000 and 20,000 bombs set off by the IRA
:Literally, countless bullets fired
:The lowest percentage of civilian deaths than any group involved and well below the civilian kill ratio in other conflicts
:Offered bomb warnings as policy
:Aborted attacks to avoid civilian casualties
:The vast majority of attacks carried out against a heavily armed military
:The vast majority of other attacks carried out against economic, infrastructure or symbolic targets
:A remarkably low number of overall deaths
:Gained nothing from attacking civilians. It was counterproductive in fact.
:Apologised for any civilian deaths that did occur

It's simply completely disingenuous to try and claim that the IRA had any interest in attacking civilians. It would only lose them support and precious materials.

Your claims thus far, none of which have been backed up with anything other than the gnashing of your teeth, have highlighted only your ignorance of the IRA, the conflict and British involvement in Ireland

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to



Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to




Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

Is that like pedantic waffle or waffling pedantically?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

You haven't been arguing anything, you have been putting your fingers in your ears and spouting the same thing and providing vague answers, because you know the simple truth is that all of these incidents directly targetted civilians.

Civilian pubs, civilian shops, civilian restaurants.

So, war crimes, or terrorist attacks. Which is it.

DarkyHughes

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

Plus he fails to respond to the British Armies & Loyalists joint terror campaign. Even high ranking loyalists themselves acknowledge that they couldn't have been half as effective without British Int help. The vital intelligence like Fred Holroyd & Collin Wallace describe.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You haven't been arguing anything, you have been putting your fingers in your ears and spouting the same thing and providing vague answers, because you know the simple truth is that all of these incidents directly targetted civilians.

Civilian pubs, civilian shops, civilian restaurants.

So, war crimes, or terrorist attacks. Which is it.

Ive had no choice but to say the same thing. you keep asking the same questions. Like I said, it's fairly clear what your plan is here. Pretty pathetic

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You haven't been arguing anything, you have been putting your fingers in your ears and spouting the same thing and providing vague answers, because you know the simple truth is that all of these incidents directly targetted civilians.

Civilian pubs, civilian shops, civilian restaurants.

So, war crimes, or terrorist attacks. Which is it.

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

The difference between Loyalists & Republicans was that Loyalists considered a large death of Catholic civies a great success, Republicans regarded the deaths of any civilians as a disaster.

Crooked Jack

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

I've given him all the facts and plenty of links, he clearly doesnt care about debate, he just wants to continue spouting his own nonsense.
The text is there for anyone interested to read and make up their own mind, he's just after a row.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

The difference between Loyalists & Republicans was that Loyalists considered a large death of Catholic civies a great success, Republicans regarded the deaths of any civilians as a disaster.

The loyalists paramilitary were just a bunch of murdering Scum, but that does not give the ira any justification for carrying out many of their atrocities.

Fratton Fred

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings..

Canary wharf and Bishops gate could be construed as economic targets.

A pub, restaurant or shopping centre are simple acts of terrorism.

Junkyard Tom

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets.

In fairness the Birmingham bombings were just bombings with no defined goal other than to spread fear. If we're to condemn 'loyalists' for bombing McGurks bar then we should be equally critical of the IRA for doing similar.

Kieran Conway, a former senior officer of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, formally admitted that the terrorist group had committed the Birmingham pub bombings in 2014, adding that he was "appalled and ashamed" at the atrocity, and that other senior IRA officials shared his opinion the bombings had been immoral and detrimental to the objectives of the republican movement.

wikipedia.org

Crooked Jack

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

In fairness the Birmingham bombings were just bombings with no defined goal other than to spread fear. If we're to condemn 'loyalists' for bombing McGurks bar then we should be equally critical of the IRA for doing similar.

But nobody's arguing that they werent "appalled and ashamed". Im sure they were. They put a ban on any more attacks in the area.
The question is were people the target and the evidence provided thus far says no. McGurks was a deliberate attempt to just kill catholic civilians. A no warning bomb planted by a group who boasted about the number of deaths afterwards and whose history shows that that catholic civilians were their main targets.

No comparison.

Birmingham was horrendous enough without attempting to paint it as something it wasnt

Junkyard Tom

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No comparison.

The results were comparable. Listen, planting bombs in places packed with civilians is a pretty callous thing to do - even if you're not intending to kill people there's a strong possibility something could go wrong which it did.

The PIRA itself prohibited the targeting of pubs for that very reason.

I agree with you about loyalists btw - they celebrated mass murder and those who carried them out.

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Canary wharf and Bishops gate could be construed as economic targets.

A pub, restaurant or shopping centre are simple acts of terrorism.

The bombings all happened in London's West End were all the most expensive shops & restaurants in the country maybe even Europe were. The bombings were designed to hurt Britain finical heart not to cause terror. If their goal was to cause terror they would have planted lets a dozen bombs in the center of London, primed them to go of 2-3 minutes after the first went of, 2-3 mins after the second, 2-3 mins after the third etc... and not phoned a warning. That would have been real terror.

And the IRA were more than just bombs they put their own lives at risk. The East Tyrone Brigades destruction of rural RUC stations & British army checkpoints, the assaults on stations at Ballygawley The Birches & the Loughgall (RIP) were the best examples of this. There's plenty of other cases were seeked out the enemy & engage them in battles. The Armagh sniper was another one, he killed 9 enemy forces with a single shot.

RandomName2

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Okay you've invented a fantasy world where you get to decide what a battle is which only underscores that you're still clueless. Step away from the Xbox and enter the real world.

Ah you're one of those causa nostra types; the one who describes gang members as "soldiers", ey? The IRA is a terrorist group, not an army.


What is a battle?
"a sustained fight between large organized armed forces."

sustained = greater than hours
fight = armed combat on both sides
large = greater than hundreds
organised = what it says on the tin
armed = again
forces = again

Try finding anything that resembles that with the IRA. Firebombing a hotel? Ah... close enough.

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

They were defending their homes from actual criminal gangs called loyalists valiantly.

Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries. Over 35 % of the people they killed were civilians. Valiant, indeed!

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

As I've already shown, you're clueless - keep embarrassing yourself if you please.

I admire your self-belief.

Reiver

At Crossbarry the IRA outfought and outmarched the British Army, they were well capable of it when they wanted to.

RandomName2

Reiver wrote: »

At Crossbarry the IRA outfought and outmarched the British Army, they were well capable of it when they wanted to.

That was the 1920s IRA - presumably unrelated in a thread talking about contemporary armed forces such as ISIS...

Reiver

RandomName2 wrote: »

That was the 1920s IRA - presumably unrelated in a thread talking about contemporary armed forces such as ISIS...

Everyones going about the 70s 'Ra as well so like when's the cut off point?

indioblack

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

The results were comparable. Listen, planting bombs in places packed with civilians is a pretty callous thing to do - even if you're not intending to kill people there's a strong possibility something could go wrong which it did.

The PIRA itself prohibited the targeting of pubs for that very reason.

I agree with you about loyalists btw - they celebrated mass murder and those who carried them out.

So what were the pub bombings?
Incompetence, faulty communications, bad luck?
You gave the answer yourself - callousness.
An indifference to what might happen if it went wrong.
No need to debate if it was part of an economic strategy or not.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries.

Loyalist gangs not loyalist paramilitaries. Back to the good-versus-evil children's fairy tale books with you.

DarkyHughes

Reiver wrote: »

Everyones going about the 70s 'Ra as well so like when's the cut off point?

I'm with you on this. The United Irishmen were Republicans & their army was a Irish Republican one.

DarkyHughes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah you're one of those causa nostra types; the one who describes gang members as "soldiers", ey? The IRA is a terrorist group, not an army.


What is a battle?
"a sustained fight between large organized armed forces."

sustained = greater than hours
fight = armed combat on both sides
large = greater than hundreds
organised = what it says on the tin
armed = again
forces = again

Try finding anything that resembles that with the IRA. Firebombing a hotel? Ah... close enough.




Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries. Over 35 % of the people they killed were civilians. Valiant, indeed!



I admire your self-belief.

51.5% of those killed by British forces were civilians over 15% than the IRA killed. And if the British had carried on like they had from from 1970 - 1972 it would have been a lot higher. The Falls road massacre (the first massacre of civilians during the troubles), The Ballymurphy massacre, Blood Sunday & the Springfield massacre all committed by the British within in less than two years. The only reason they stopped this policy of massacring civilians was because they realized it was given the IRA a propaganda victory & it was allowing them successfully to paint them as a army of occupation worldwide not because they gave a s!!t about the nationalist population.

When I watched that Peter Taylor series a few years ago the first was called Provo's, the second Loyalists & the third Brits. As much a I disliked the Loyalists & had no respect for them I could tell they were genuine & speaking the truth. I couldn't say the same for the Brits, I could tell they were trying to put on a show for the cameras & just wanted to make themselves look good.

Junkyard Tom

DarkyHughes wrote: »

As much a I disliked the Loyalists & had no respect for them I could tell they were genuine & speaking the truth.

Those bloodthirsty cowards were the lowest form of filth when it came to the troubles. When the INLA assassinated a couple of their 'soldiers' they retaliated by spraying a pub full of civilians watching a match.

The very fact that mass murderer, and torturer of Catholics, Lenny Murphy's gravestone had 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Those bloodthirsty cowards were the lowest form of filth when it came to the troubles. When the INLA assassinated a couple of their 'soldiers' they retaliated by spraying a pub full of civilians watching a match.

The very fact that mass murderer, and torturer of Catholics, Lenny Murphy's gravestone has 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

Some ex UVF members have said that the UVF organised the Murphy hit through communication with the PIRA. They realised he was a loose cannon and needed to be taken out.

Also it's pretty much accepted that the UVF organised Billy Wright's killing through their influence in the NI Prison Officers Union, contact was made with INLA prisoners in that case. The UVF were at war with each other at the time with Wright breaking off and forming the LVF with his supporters.

Junkyard Tom

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some ex UVF members have said that the UVF organised the Murphy hit through communication with the PIRA. They realised he was a loose cannon and needed to be taken out.

Also it's pretty much accepted that the UVF organised Billy Wright's killing through their influence in the NI Prison Officers Union, contact was made with INLA prisoners in that case. The UVF were at war with each other at the time with Wright breaking off and forming the LVF with his supporters.

Your first point is a fact afaia. I was unaware of UVF collusion but I suspected that king of the degenerates was marked by forces outside the prison.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post though.