ISIS vs The IRA ?

Fratton Fred

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry if you've never heard of the Black and Tans.

The very same people who went around burning people's houses down and killing people (and because your ageist, children too) who had nothing to do with the IRA. And they did it every time a little bit of resistance was shown to British rule.

I like this guy, he funny.

The Diabolical Monocle

Fratton Fred wrote: »

last time I was in Belfast, they were still using Sterling, the Post Boxes were red and the number plates yellow.

only costs the GB taxpayer a 7 billion pound annual subvention.

epic win.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Military objective of the PIRA as per the Green Book in 1977.



last time I was in Belfast, they were still using Sterling, the Post Boxes were red and the number plates yellow.

thats temporary. a united ireland will happen as its meant to be. the IRA slaughtered many BA persons and the BA never could defeat them

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The British imposed conditions to talks, the conditions being that the IRA must decommission once an agreement was made regardless of the terms of the agreement.

well, that meant nothing. if the agreement didn't go in the IRA'S favour, then bomb bomb.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The important part here is the British imposed conditions to talks, defeated sides don't impose conditions and winning sides don't agree to decommission before a treaty is signed.

and as the british didn't "win" they agreed to their part of the deal. as the agreement went in the IRA'S favour, they agreed to their part also.

end of the road

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

only costs the GB taxpayer a 7 billion pound annual subvention.

epic win.

12000000000

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

well, that meant nothing. if the agreement didn't go in the IRA'S favour, then bomb bomb.

The IRA had already agreed to decomission before an agreement had been reached.

and as the british didn't "win" they agreed to their part of the deal. as the agreement went in the IRA'S favour, they agreed to their part also.

I disagree the agreement was in nationalist favor. But regardless we can agree the IRA didn't "win".

ghostfacekilla

Are either of them hiring interns does anyone know?

It's slightly easier to tell strange women that on the internet than dropping the 'job bridge' bomb.

Father Ted Crilly

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry if you've never heard of the Black and Tans.

The very same people who went around burning people's houses down and killing people (and because your ageist, children too) who had nothing to do with the IRA. And they did it every time a little bit of resistance was shown to British rule.

Ah sure of course, I forgot, they blew up the kids in Warrington cos a de Black n Tans.

That was a fierce good point. And shows you understand the IRA campaign very well. I guess they rammed the La Mon with incendiary devices, not to burn people, but to have a go at the Auxies.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA had already agreed to decomission before an agreement had been reached.



I disagree the agreement was in nationalist favor. But regardless we can agree the IRA didn't "win".

but they did win against the BA. they killed more BA fighters then BA killed IRA. they stopped the BA slaughtering by force. that to me is a win

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

only applies to isis. the IRA never deliberately killed civilians, it was an accident.

You disgust me

smurgen

I'm not even sure the ira really exist anymore. its just a bunch of criminals turning profits from crime at this stage. Even at their biggest the ira. Were alot less equipped than ISIS. isis are like a fully kitted out legitimate army that use terrorism to expand control quickly.it wouldn't even be close on a battlefield.

Arsemageddon

BREAKING NEWS

ISIS launch first strike in war against Nordies....

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah sure of course, I forgot, they blew up the kids in Warrington cos a de Black n Tans.

That was a fierce good point. And shows you understand the IRA campaign very well. I guess they rammed the La Mon with incendiary devices, not to burn people, but to have a go at the Auxies.

collateral damage to hit a very important target.extemely regrettable and I myself find it horrific however I see it as being no different to U.S drones which have killed thousands to eliminate a few dozen targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

Father Ted Crilly

We can all agree that England is messed up. They attack you then promise to leave you alone if you give them part of your country.

The British are evil. The IRA fought for a Republic, they got it. It doesn't make any sense. They weren't playing a game of chess. They were fighting over a country. The country belonged to the Irish and the English randomly came in. I find it ridiculous that when someone says "Northern Ireland" they're referring to a different country. UNITED IRELAND!

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

but they did win against the BA. they killed more BA fighters then BA killed IRA. they stopped the BA slaughtering by force. that to me is a win

Victory isn't defined by who kills more of the enemy. Victory is defined by who imposes conditions on peace talks and in that sense the British won.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

collateral damage to hit a very important target.extemely regrettable and I myself find it horrific however I see it as being no different to U.S drones which have killed thousands to eliminate a few dozen targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

The argument he made was that it was linked to the Black and Tans.

What was the very important target in those Warrington shops though?

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

collateral damage to hit a very important target.extemely regrettable and I myself find it horrific however I see it as being no different to U.S drones which have killed thousands to eliminate a few dozen targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

What was important about the La Mon hotel?

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

but they did win against the BA. they killed more BA fighters then BA killed IRA. they stopped the BA slaughtering by force. that to me is a win

So the British objective was to restore peace to Northern Ireland, the PIRA's was to bring about a United socialist Republic.

But the PIRA won?

How Do you come to that conclusion? Last I saw, the Union Flag still flies over Londonderry.

Father Ted Crilly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Victory isn't defined by who kills more of the enemy. Victory is defined by who imposes conditions on peace talks and in that sense the British won.

I am about to rage. I cannot see how the British won. They are at wrong here. They had no right to come to Ireland and take it for themselves.
The IRA fought for our republic, if they never did what they did we'd be surrounded by people with fruitcake accents and caaaas with yellow plates.

I have total respect for the IRA.

Father Ted Crilly

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

...if they never did what they did we'd be surrounded by people with fruitcake accents and caaaas with yellow plates.

And da Black n Tans...

BoJack Horseman

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

They had no right to come to Ireland and take it for themselves.

Take it up with King Henry II & Pope Adrian IV.

The IRA fought for our republic,

Not in my name, not in my nations name.
A moronic sentiment on your part.

I have total respect for the IRA.

Well, we all grow up eventually..... Your time will come.

Junkyard Tom

It's largely agreed upon that the conflict could not be concluded with force. Republicans realised they couldn't remove the British state out of the north by force. The British acknowledged they could not defeat the PIRA militarily. Loyalists were just a bunch of Catholic murdering, territory feuding, filth who killed more of each other than they did PIRA.

The infantile will say 'ha ha the IRA lost' or 'na na the British got their asses kicked' but the truth is that what happened in the north was a failure of humanity. Nobody won. I don't remember any trophies being handed out. More like mass cards and tranquillisers for traumatised survivors and their loved ones who had to pick up the pieces (literally).

Father Ted Crilly

Are the North considering becoming independent? If so then maybe the IRA is waiting for that to happen so that they can have an invasion of the North and finally bring it home and send the British who still hung around home.

Gavster1982

jesus what a thread!

after much consideration id have to plump for a draw though. gerry and martin would no doubt be happy with that outcome

end of the road

smurgen wrote: »

I'm not even sure the ira really exist anymore. its just a bunch of criminals turning profits from crime at this stage. Even at their biggest the ira. Were alot less equipped than ISIS. isis are like a fully kitted out legitimate army that use terrorism to expand control quickly.it wouldn't even be close on a battlefield.

the IRA is gone yes . the lot that call themselves the IRA these days are indeed not the IRA.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Victory isn't defined by who kills more of the enemy. Victory is defined by who imposes conditions on peace talks and in that sense the British won.

but they didn't. the IRA imposed more conditions and got them when the british agreed to the agreement. the IRA could have continued bombing if they needed to even for a bit after the treaty was signed

Father Ted Crilly

end of the road wrote: »

the IRA is gone yes . the lot that call themselves the IRA these days are indeed not the IRA.

They are the PIRA (Pretend Irish Republican Army). They use pretend guns and bombs. To join you need to have a good imagination.

end of the road

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Take it up with King Henry II & Pope Adrian IV.


Not in my name, not in my nations name.
A moronic sentiment on your part.


Well, we all grow up eventually..... Your time will come.

having respect for the IRA as it was doesn't mean you haven't grown up

Fratton Fred

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

The IRA fought for our republic, if they never did what they did we'd be surrounded by people with fruitcake accents and caaaas with yellow plates.

Cavan?

BoJack Horseman

end of the road wrote: »

having respect for the IRA as it was doesn't mean you haven't grown up

Showing "respect" for the ra' or ISIS, or any terrorist scum either makes you a child or possess the intelligence of one.

ISIS would, of course, destroy the IRA. How could there ever be any doubt? It wouldn't be like fighting the British or anyone else - because at least the British had some form of morality, even if not much. ISIS have zero. There are thousands that people would know about and probably way more hidden ones. They have much more weapons and people who are already battled hardened - the IRA aren't. Not as they are now.

end of the road

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Showing "respect" for the ra' or ISIS, or any terrorist scum either makes you a child or possess the intelligence of one.

the IRA are nothing like isis. the IRA were freedom and equal rights fighters. isis are a bunch of ferrel wild animal savages and vermin who want to impose sharia law and their strict religious beliefs upon everyone.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the IRA are nothing like isis. the IRA were freedom and equal rights fighters. isis are a bunch of ferrel wild animal savages and vermin who want to impose sharia law and their strict religious beliefs upon everyone.

ISIS, who effectively were born out of the Taliban, were freedom fighters. Also weren't the IRA pushing their strict religious Catholic beliefs?

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ISIS, who effectively were born out of the Taliban, were freedom fighters. Also weren't the IRA pushing their strict religious Catholic beliefs?

I wouldn't say so,certainly not in any way that's comparable to isis.i watch a great film recently called 71.about the troubles told from the eyes of a British soldier.great movie as it showed how there was evil on both sides.there was alot of grey areas in the north.thank god we're after moving on from those days.

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

the IRA are nothing like isis. the IRA were freedom and equal rights fighters. isis are a bunch of ferrel wild animal savages and vermin who want to impose sharia law and their strict religious beliefs upon everyone.

whilst I agree that ISIS are in a different league to the ira, or any other terrorist organisation the world has seen, there can never ever be any justification for some of the actions of the IRA. A number of their members behaved like wild ferrell savages at times.

When people try and down play those actions, or claim the hundreds of innocent people they killed were "accidents" it just gives justification to those idiots that want to continue their campaign.

LDN_Irish

Deleted User wrote: »

ISIS, who effectively were born out of the Taliban, were freedom fighters. Also weren't the IRA pushing their strict religious Catholic beliefs?

Wrong on pretty much all accounts. IS split from Al Qaeda, not the Taliban (and yes that's a massive distinction) and the PIRA did not push strict religious Catholic beliefs. You might have noticed SF campaigning for a Yes in the marriage referendum and blocking the DUP's so called "conscience clause" despite the Catholic church backing it.

LDN_Irish

What's with the IRA and ISIS comparisons anyway? ISIS are much more like the British army than the IRA, rampaging through the middle east and seizing territory that's not their own. The British have only very recently stopped doing that and somehow people have forgotten already.

Jjiipp79

Messi would win... And take all the ladies home.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Wrong on pretty much all accounts. IS split from Al Qaeda, not the Taliban (and yes that's a massive distinction) and the PIRA did not push strict religious Catholic beliefs. You might have noticed SF campaigning for a Yes in the marriage referendum and blocking the DUP's so called "conscience clause" despite the Catholic church backing it.

I knew IS split from either Al Queda or Taliban, but I couldn't remember which it was.

But going back to the topic itself, it's ludicrous to think that the IRA, who probably number in the hundreds, can beat a ruthless force like ISIS in their thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What's with the IRA and ISIS comparisons anyway? ISIS are much more like the British army than the IRA, rampaging through the middle east and seizing territory that's not their own. The British have only very recently stopped doing that and somehow people have forgotten already.

That's no less ridiculous a comparison than the IRA one.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

whilst I agree that ISIS are in a different league to the ira, or any other terrorist organisation the world has seen, there can never ever be any justification for some of the actions of the IRA. A number of their members behaved like wild ferrell savages at times.

When people try and down play those actions, or claim the hundreds of innocent people they killed were "accidents" it just gives justification to those idiots that want to continue their campaign.

I would actually agree with this post, but I think there was a justification for armed struggle. You can only push people so far and there was massive provocation.

Deliberately targeting civilians is never excusable, and I don't like to add a "but" to this but taking 72-74 as an example when they intentionally killed 92 Protestants, this is obviously horrific and is obviously not morally justifiable, loyalists had killed over 300 Catholic civilians in this time and the tit for tat killings were an attempt to force the loyalists to stop. Kingsmill for example, did put a stop to Catholics being constantly slaughtered in Armagh. I'm not justifying it (although I appreciate it will look like that) but it's important that we look at the context and see what drove people to do what they did. The black and white approach of some posters is an easy way to look at things but it's not particularly helpful or even interesting as debate if you just look at these things as a way to kill time.

Loyalists are doing their best to show that elements of their they actually can't live side by side with anyone, including themselves half the time. I can't look at how Catholics had been treated in the region since the formation of the state and say that there was no justification for violence. And I'm generally anti-violence.

SEPT 23 1989

end of the road wrote: »

but they did win against the BA. they killed more BA fighters then BA killed IRA. they stopped the BA slaughtering by force. that to me is a win

the BA never took the gloves off

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's no less ridiculous a comparison than the IRA one.

The UN ruled that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, Britain and their masters had no right to be there. That they had the decency to not mass rape and behead doesn't change the fact that the country they invaded and the people they killed had as much justification as IS's actions, ie none.

I stand by my statement that IS are more comparable to the BA than the IRA. I'm not saying they're identical.

LDN_Irish

Deleted User wrote: »

But going back to the topic itself, it's ludicrous to think that the IRA, who probably number in the hundreds, can beat a ruthless force like ISIS in their thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Yeah, no argument there! I don't think it was meant as a serious premise but it's AH so anything is possible. :pac:

osarusan

2-2 draw. Isis with most of the territory and possession, but IRA lethal on the counter. Isis self-destructed a bit towards the end.

Belfast was rocking, but the second leg next week is a bitch to get to. Not even sure where it's on.

Fratton Fred

I know several guys who served in NI and they hated the loyalists as much as they hated the IRA. In fact, they just hated Northern Ireland in general.

I think it was Andy McNab that acknowledged that if he was born on the Falls Road, he would have joined the IRA, but he wasn't, he was born in East London, so he joined the British Army and therefore the IRA were the enemy.

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

but they didn't. the IRA imposed more conditions and got them when the british agreed to the agreement. the IRA could have continued bombing if they needed to even for a bit after the treaty was signed

The IRA imposed no conditions, they weren't even invited to talks, they had to talk through an intermediary party and had agreed before the talks even began that they would unconditionally decommission.

The IRA couldn't have continued bombing regardless of the treaty, they had already began decommission by the time talks started. No matter what the outcome of the talks the IRA were confined by the pre-agreed conditions imposed by the British, that's the only reason there were talks.

Hans Bricks

end of the road wrote: »

they weren't beaten. they forced the British government to the table and brought the BA to a stailmate. it was a fantastic achievement. isis won't be beaten though that is true

end of the road wrote: »

bad news for you. the bombing raping and slaughtering in countries such as iraq for example was supposed to prevent more terrorism, it failed. just like the butcher chambers (sorry death penalty) is a complete flop

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. it was a win. they force the british to the table, and if the british didn't agree there would be more bombs.

end of the road wrote: »

oh it worked. once the bombs went off in britain the british government knew there was no other option but to come to the table.

end of the road wrote: »

only applies to isis. the IRA never deliberately killed civilians, it was an accident.

end of the road wrote: »

thats temporary. a united ireland will happen as its meant to be. the IRA slaughtered many BA persons and the BA never could defeat them

end of the road wrote: »

well, that meant nothing. if the agreement didn't go in the IRA'S favour, then bomb bomb.



and as the british didn't "win" they agreed to their part of the deal. as the agreement went in the IRA'S favour, they agreed to their part also.

end of the road wrote: »

but they did win against the BA. they killed more BA fighters then BA killed IRA. they stopped the BA slaughtering by force. that to me is a win

end of the road wrote: »

but they didn't. the IRA imposed more conditions and got them when the british agreed to the agreement. the IRA could have continued bombing if they needed to even for a bit after the treaty was signed

end of the road wrote: »

the IRA are nothing like isis. the IRA were freedom and equal rights fighters. isis are a bunch of ferrel wild animal savages and vermin who want to impose sharia law and their strict religious beliefs upon everyone.

Nothing to see here. Joseph Goebbels is just severely inebriated again.

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

the BA never took the gloves off

This times a billion. The BA were far more restrained than the likes of ISIS ever would be.

Iwasfrozen

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

It's largely agreed upon that the conflict could not be concluded with force. Republicans realised they couldn't remove the British state out of the north by force. The British acknowledged they could not defeat the PIRA militarily. Loyalists were just a bunch of Catholic murdering, territory feuding, filth who killed more of each other than they did PIRA.

The infantile will say 'ha ha the IRA lost' or 'na na the British got their asses kicked' but the truth is that what happened in the north was a failure of humanity. Nobody won. I don't remember any trophies being handed out. More like mass cards and tranquillisers for traumatised survivors and their loved ones who had to pick up the pieces (literally).

What, all of them? I largely agree with your post but this part isn't true.