ISIS vs The IRA ?

130Kph

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 had 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

I disagree. In my opinion a gang of self-appointed, fratricidal sociopaths consistently rejected by the majority of their own community, throughout the troubles, are on a lower rung. How many catholics & innocent protestants did the provos kill, hundreds? Of course the loyalist murders were despicably evil also - almost all after the provos kicked off.

Picture the scene: its November 1974. Imagine being a 20 year old catholic looking up while being beaten to death with an iron bar by two smiling, sneering psychopaths from his own community for some reason - typically, being suspected of being an informer. These two oxygen thieves can't believe their luck. They're able to enjoy the primal violence of savagely beating someone to death (oh I mean protecting him from the BA) and then slapping each other on the back. Afterwards, they know they'll be admired by their comrades once word gets out on the street. It really was heaven for sociopaths in those days.

The only path for nationalists once the civil rights protesters were beaten off the streets was civil disobedience and paradoxically continuing persistent peaceful protest. I will admit that this was / is a very hard thing to do esp with orange provocations. However, it was / is the only wise & sane option. Sooner rather than later, the nationalists would have been given equal rights. The settlement of 1998 would have happened in 1970/71 but less the 3,000 dead. The troubles were an excellent example to the world of what not to do in divided societies. A futile, unnecessary, avoidable conflict that is a permanent stain on those that chose the path of violence.

The war fighting stage of this conflict ended in 1921. That was the settlement, however unsatisfactory. Try a little realpolitik now that we have the benefit of 45 years hindsight.

You can see footage from the late sixties of sane nationalists passionately pleading with others not to go down the road of violence; that it would be madness to even consider it. But the provos / inla 'felt' differently. To this day, those who defend their 'beautiful' legacy couldn't give two f*cks what others think.

The path the troubles took once the provos started their 'war' especially once they decided to try to reverse the 1921 treaty could have been predicted by a 12 year old. I mean it really was obvious at the time, given the limited support the provos had from nationalists.

As for ISIS, I wonder if there is an SDLP equivalent party in Raqqa or Mosul? Maybe the pro-provos on here should be on the side of ISIS. You guys know what its like when only you are right and everyone else just can't see the light; so maybe ISIS are right. Maybe their model is superior? Mmmm


TLDR: The provos & INLA were seriously deluded, political pygmies suffering from a bad dose of historical myopia.

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

In my opinion a gang of self-appointed, fratricidal sociopaths consistently rejected by the majority of their own community, throughout the troubles, are on a lower rung.

I simply do not care about your opinion. The facts speak for themselves despite your over-emotional rambling.

'Loyalists' raison d'etre was the murder of people because they were born into a religion. 85% of loyalist killings were innocent Catholics going about their business. As a normally sympathetic to loyal/unionism Irish sycophant said:

There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated. And then there was Lenny Murphy and his merry gang, the Shankill Butchers, who for years in the mid-1970s abducted, tortured and murdered Catholics -- usually by cutting their victims' throats.

independent.ie

Go ahead and continue to attempt elevate these mass murdering degenerates from the bottom rung if you wish - it says more about your own morals, or lack thereof, than anything about the realities of the conflict.

130Kph

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I simply do not care about your opinion. The facts speak for themselves despite your over-emotional rambling.

I am in agreement with you on this point. I know it was a long post but I said:

To this day, those who defend their 'beautiful' legacy couldn't give two f*cks what others think.

All the sickening loyalist atrocities happened after the provos chose the path of violence. That is a fact also. Not one you like to dwell on however.

I am not elevating them. I put the UVF etc as low as possible on the totem pole of shame and put the provos in turn below them.

In the final analysis it all comes down to where to set the bar for going to war. I think we can all agree that "war is the end of everything human" (said by a French woman who lived through the Nazi occupation).

You, Gerry, Martin and the rest set the bar at point X. The rest of us set it at point Y.

Are you saying if we could use a time machine and reset time to 1969 you would make the same decision again to choose the path of violence?

Also, any comment on ISIS seeing themselves as right and everybody else wrong?

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

All the sickening loyalist atrocities happened after the provos chose the path of violence. That is a fact also.

You're another member of the 'clueless propaganda swallower's brigade'. Loyalist violence pre-dated the provos.

You should probably stop embarrassing yourself now - your lack of knowledge of the facts will see you retreat from this discussion when you realise just how little you know just as your ill-informed ilk always do.

130Kph

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

You're another member of the 'clueless propaganda swallower's brigade'. Loyalist violence pre-dated the provos.

You should probably stop embarrassing yourself now - your lack of knowledge of the facts will see you retreat from this discussion when you realise just how little you know just as your ill-informed ilk always do.

Ah yes, Gusty.

"It wasn't me Sir". "They started it, Sir".

Don't flatter yourself that I'm being fooled by propaganda. What a joke. Those facts are widely known by anyone who takes more than a passing interest in the troubles ffs.

The provos poured petrol onto a smouldering fire. After that, the misery levels inflicted on both communities exploded.

You're the same as Bush & Blair with their immoral low threshold for war in Iraq.

Ghandi you ain't.

Is this a joke? People arguing whether Loyalist or Provo terrorists were all round better people?

"The people who opened fire on a pub in Greysteel were a bad bunch, but those who burned all the victims at La Mon weren't so bad, while those who blew up kids in Warrington were only reacting to the fellows that shot the crowd at Milltown Cemetary..." and on and on and on.

They were all utter scumbags. Why the need for some hierarchy?

noway12345

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this a joke? People arguing whether Loyalist or Provo terrorists were all round better people?

"The people who opened fire on a pub in Greysteel were a bad bunch, but those who burned all the victims at La Mon weren't so bad, while those who blew up kids in Warrington were only reacting to the fellows that shot the crowd at Milltown Cemetary..." and on and on and on.

They were all utter scumbags. Why the need for some hierarchy?

Why have you left out the British army?

Junkyard Tom

noway12345 wrote: »

Why have you left out the British army?

Because, surprise surprise, he has created a hierarchy and ignored that the UDR regiment of the British Army was the principle source of weapons and training to loyalist murder gangs as well as providing killers.

Glenanne Gang

Lethal Allies claims that permutations of the group killed about 120 people – almost all of whom were "upwardly mobile" Catholic civilians with no links to Irish republican paramilitaries. The Cassel Report investigated killings attributed to the group and found evidence that British soldiers and RUC officers were involved in of those. John Weir claimed his superiors knew he was working with loyalist militants but allowed it to continue

wikipedia.org

He's probably also ignored the covert BA gangs who executed people and the regular ol' British soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry and Belfast or shot people in the back from lookout towers.

You couldn't make them up.

Not a NSA agent

It's like terrorist top trumps.

I play Boko Haram and choose most killings in a single place.

130Kph

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Because, surprise surprise, he has created a hierarchy and ignored that the UDR regiment of the British Army was the principle source of weapons and training to loyalist murder gangs as well as providing killers.



He's probably also ignored the covert BA gangs who executed people and the regular ol' British soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry and Belfast or shot people in the back from lookout towers.

You couldn't make them up.

What f*cking planet are you on?

I presume you accept what I posted earlier that war is the end of everything human.

What level of moronic analysis of this conflict are you at? Do you know that going to war isn't kids play? What part of this are you not getting?

So, you think the provos could kick back at Gusty and then the BA and have no consequent response. Is this what you really think? You think war is about playing fair? Jesus H Christ, you really are at square no. 1.

Did you not read Battle or Warlord comics when you were younger? Do you not watch war films. Do you not read about other wars. Your understanding of what war actually means is embarrassing.

I'd sincerely recommend you read some books about the profundity of going to war.

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

What f*cking planet are you on?

Earth. What's the view like from your planet?

I presume you accept what I posted earlier that war is the end of everything human.

It's difficult to pick out any coherence among the hysterical arm-waving.

Do you know that going to war isn't kids play?

Yes.

So, you think the provos could kick back at Gusty and then the BA and have no consequent response. Is this what you really think? You think war is about playing fair? Jesus H Christ, you really are at square no. 1.

It doesn't surprise me that you have it arseways. The UVF were blowing things up and shooting people dead before the PIRA was formed and before the BA was brought to the north to prevent a loyalist/RUC/B-Special bloodbath initially. Also despite the propaganda the conflict wasn't between the PIRA and loyalists. The PIRA's M.O. was to take on the security apparatus of the state whereas the M.O. of loyalists was sectarian murder.

I'd sincerely recommend you read some books about the profundity of going to war.

Hilarious. You wear your cluelessness with such pride. I suggest you go to the CAIN University of Ulster website where you'll find some facts.

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."

Charles Bukowski

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

All the sickening loyalist atrocities happened after the provos chose the path of violence. That is a fact also.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Learn your logical fallacies.

I tend to agree with Kevin Myers' take on the issue.

This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a Godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure. But they were nonetheless elevated by the insane delusion that they are the chosen people, who have been deprived of their birthright by some vast conspiracy between the Catholic Church and the British government.

independent.ie

LordSutch

ISIS Vs the IRA

ISIS would win by virtue of their more overt savagery + the fact that most of the PIRA are now getting a bit old & creaky, whilst holding down political jobs in Northern Ireland & the ROI. IRA heads would roll in this hypothetical encounter.

Junkyard Cat

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Because, surprise surprise, he has created a hierarchy and ignored that the UDR regiment of the British Army was the principle source of weapons and training to loyalist murder gangs as well as providing killers.

He's probably also ignored the covert BA gangs who executed people and the regular ol' British soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry and Belfast or shot people in the back from lookout towers.

You couldn't make them up.

Person arguing that "their child killers were worse than ours" invents point I never made. I am shocked.

By all means fire in the BA as well. Particularly if you can cite examples as disgusting as Warrington, La Mon and all those attacks where the IRA intended to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. I'm not defending any scumbags here, you are.

I suppose one credit due to the BA is that they didn't seem to have a policy about raping kids and covering for it.

noway12345

Deleted User wrote: »

Person arguing that "their child killers were worse than ours" invents point I never made. I am shocked.

By all means fire in the BA as well. Particularly if you can cite examples as disgusting as Warrington, La Mon and all those attacks where the IRA intended to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. I'm not defending any scumbags here, you are.

I suppose one credit due to the BA is that they didn't seem to have a policy about raping kids and covering for it.

Read up on Kincora. :rolleyes:

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Particularly if you can cite examples as disgusting as Warrington, La Mon

Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy will do that job. Not only were those people murdered they were then declared terrorists and those who carried out the acts went on to have careers in the BA. The massacred of Ballymurphy have still not been declared innocent by the British Government.

and all those attacks where the IRA intended to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

Killing civilians only ever hurt the IRA cause unlike how massacring civilians was considered a success by loyalists.

LordSutch

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Killing civilians only ever hurt the IRA cause unlike how massacring civilians was considered a success by loyalists.

Admittedly ISIS have probably killed more civilians than the IRA, which is not to say that the Provo's didn't avoid civilian deaths.

Junkyard Cat

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Killing civilians only ever hurt the IRA cause unlike how massacring civilians was considered a success by loyalists.

Again with the our child killers were better than theirs, because we attribute more base motives to their child killing than ours. Our child killing was always for a noble cause, so the parents should draw some comfort from that as they scrape up the remains.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

child killers

As ruthless as the protagonists were I don't think any set out to kill children.

Skylinehead

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

As ruthless as the protagonists were I don't think any set out to kill children.

Doesn't change the validity of the term though.

Junkyard Cat

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

As ruthless as the protagonists were I don't think any set out to kill children.

In placing bombs on city streets they were at least reckless as to the prospect of children dying, and as a matter of criminal law of course they were guilty of murder in committing a felony in which children died.

LordSutch

Skylinehead wrote: »

Doesn't change the validity of the term though.

What about the validity of the thread title though?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

Junkyard Tom

LordSutch wrote: »

What about the validity of the thread title though?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

It has no real validity because ISIS are a different entity in a different time, with a different ideology, with different capabilities, with territory and natural resources.

The PIRA's campaign was more of an insurgency or insurrection and they didn't hold territory (the controlled it in places like south Armagh but didn't technically occupy it). Their aims were a little more modest and they disbanded when the reasons for people joining them were no longer a factor.

Skylinehead

LordSutch wrote: »

What about the validity of the thread title though?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

I think ISIS would win, they have Sterling Archer.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

In placing bombs on city streets they were at least reckless as to the prospect of children dying, and as a matter of criminal law of course they were guilty of murder in committing a felony in which children died.

I agree. It was a heinous act.

noway12345

The main thing that ISIS and the PIRA have in common is the fact that Britain played a big part in creating and swelling the numbers of both!

Egginacup

Well I would imagine that IS/ISIL/ISIL are enjoying success that the IRA could never have hoped for:

Ramadi has now been taken over.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32773780

Incidentally, Ramadi controls the water supply to Fallujah AND Baghdad.

Cakewalk, Bush. Cakewalk.

130Kph

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Earth. What's the view like from your planet?

It's difficult to pick out any coherence among the hysterical arm-waving.
Yes.
It doesn't surprise me that you have it arseways. The UVF were blowing things up and shooting people dead before the PIRA was formed and before the BA was brought to the north to prevent a loyalist/RUC/B-Special bloodbath initially. Also despite the propaganda the conflict wasn't between the PIRA and loyalists. The PIRA's M.O. was to take on the security apparatus of the state whereas the M.O. of loyalists was sectarian murder.
Hilarious. You wear your cluelessness with such pride. I suggest you go to the CAIN University of Ulster website where you'll find some facts.

:eek:
Thats it. You've convinced me by force of argument that the provos were not a bunch of moronic ****-stains of history and were in fact the smartest freedom fighters the world has ever seen. Top marks Mr Junkyard Cat. You have won the internet.:D

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

:eek:
Thats it. You've convinced me by force of argument that the provos were not a bunch of moronic ****-stains of history and were in fact the smartest freedom fighters the world has ever seen. Top marks Mr Junkyard Cat. You have won the internet.:D

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

wikipedia.org

.

130Kph

Oh nooos. You're pulling all the tricks I pull on other people. :pac:

and your as fast as ***k.

Listen, you gave your best arguments and so did I. The readers / onlookers can decide who has the best arguments.

I do respect you as a valiant opponent. All the best.

RandomName2

130Kph wrote: »

Oh nooos. You're pulling all the tricks I pull on other people. :pac:

and your as fast as ***k.

Listen, you gave your best arguments and so did I. The readers / onlookers can decide who has the best arguments.

I do respect you as a valiant opponent. All the best.

He actually describes people who kidnapped, tortured and murdered civilians as valiant (on the grounds that other "combatants" during the Troubles were just as grim ). I don't know what you expected.

Hmm: now that I think about it, that's there's another similarity between the IRA and ISIS.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

He actually describes people who kidnapped, tortured and murdered civilians as valiant

No I didn't...

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

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

...but don't let that stop you from spewing inaccuracies.

DarkyHughes

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 had 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

I agree with this completely. If they just tried to engage Republican paramilitaries I still would have disliked them but would have had more respect for them. The Loyalists in particular the UDA had close links with Nazi's, some of them even were ones the documentary "Mad Dog Adair & Nazi Nick" says it all.

Yeah the that's Loughingisland massacre your referring to. After the INLA (who did several Protestants in their organization) ambushed & killed 3 UVF men, one was Trevor King a top UVF player, two days later while people were watching the Ireland vs Italy 1994 world cup game 2 gunmen in boiler suits burst in & sprayed the small pub to bits shooting 6 people including a man in his mid 80's in his back. It's still one of the incidents being looked into.

There was another week in 92 or 93 the UDA shot dead 5 Catholic civilians. They annouced in a statement at the end of that week the UDA said "this has been a successful week for us"

After the Dublin & Monaghan bombings a high level UDA & UWC said "I am very happy about the bombings in Dublin. There is a war with the Free State and now we are laughing at them." Can you imagine a member of the IRA say something like that about Birmingham, I can't anyway.

RecordStraight

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

No I didn't...



...but don't let that stop you from spewing inaccuracies.

Were there some IRA folks who just guarded houses, while whole other groups of them abducted and murdered people and blew up children?

LordSutch

ISIS Vs the IRA.

ISIS would win.

Junkyard Tom

RecordStraight wrote: »

Were there some IRA folks who just guarded houses, while whole other groups of them abducted and murdered people and blew up children?

I don't know how they allocated IRA operatives to certain activities. What I do know was that when Republicans got their hands on some weaponry the whole loyalists-burning-down-entire-neighbourhoods thing stopped.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

ISIS Vs the IRA.

ISIS would win.

The question is stupid. Are we talking about the IRA now? Cause as it stand ISIS win simply by existing.

Or the combined strength of the IRA from 1919 to 2005? If so how do you deal with the fact some of them would be using weaponry a hundred years old?

Are we talking about two teams of equal number? Well who the hell knows? It would depend on the terrain, the weapons on offer, whether it would be a conventional shoot out or guerrilla tactics.

It's a stupid question that cannot possible be answered, at least not without a detailed breakdown of what the OP actually means. ISIS v IRA means nothing. If the scenario was ISIS invade Ireland then I've no doubt the IRA would win. IF it's ISIS as they stand today vs the IRA as they stand today (ie; they dont) then obviously ISIS win. If it's six people from each in a paintball field with real guns then it's just a coin toss. The six best from the french army could beat the six best from the Russian army, doesnt mean france would win in a showdown with Russia.

It's no wonder the thread has gone off topic. The topic is meaningless as it stands

Crooked Jack

RecordStraight wrote: »

Were there some IRA folks who just guarded houses?

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/24047

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

ISIS Vs the IRA.

ISIS would win.

Sutch - the worlds first Unionist Jihadi....

Crooked Jack

Nodin wrote: »

Sutch - the worlds first Unionist Jihadi....

Quote of the day :pac::pac: