ISIS vs The IRA ?

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Neither would James Bond.

Having links with the Palestinians and ANC means many things might be accomplished, though as you point out The Bearded One himself would not obviously be directly involved.

James Bond would of course have the SAS in tow, which would spell the end of the line for Boko Haram, the PIRA, ISIS, and their kindrid spirits the Taliban, whose beards would all become a liability in the hot african jungle.

smurgen

LordSutch wrote: »

You might well put a questionmark after your waffle, anyway (what the British did or didn't do, a hundred years ago is neither here nor there) in this fight to the death between Boko Harm and the winner of the ISIS Vs PIRA Terror match.

The British gave em independence in the 1960.Slavery was still legal there until 1936.Another country in a heap over the British terrorist Empire.

LordSutch

smurgen wrote: »

The British gave em independence in the 1960.Slavery was still legal there until 1936.Another country in a heap over the British terrorist Empire.

Why don't you and Nodin start a new thread named Colonial forces Face Off.

British Empire Vs French Empire, with the victors fighting the Dutch.

the_syco

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I take FF/FG for eternity over the DUP. They are right up there with the most bonkers parties in Europe. They make UKIP look centrist.

Nationalist bias aside, are SF that much different than DUP?

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

The British gave em independence in the 1960.Slavery was still legal there until 1936.Another country in a heap over the British terrorist Empire.

lol, the IRA bashing upsetting you is it?

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

James Bond would of course have the SAS in tow, which would spell the end of the line for Boko Haram, the PIRA, ISIS, and their kindrid spirits the Taliban, whose beards would all become a liability in the hot african jungle.

I think you'll find the PIRA survived the attentions of the Special Assasination Squad for a considerable period and would doubtless do so again.

LordSutch

Beards Vs balaclavas.

ISIS would beat the Provo's every time.

Nodin

the_syco wrote: »

Nationalist bias aside, are SF that much different than DUP?

By a few light years, yes.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/creationism-and-political-power-northern-Ireland

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/01/watch-ni-first-minister-peter-robinson-makes-homophobic-comments-on-tv/

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/iris-robinson-gays-are-more-vile-than-child-abusers-28529856.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/first-minister-peter-robinson-backs-wifes-view-that-gays-are-an-abomination-28510012.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/10/25/northern-ireland-dup-politician-tells-children-homosexuality-is-an-abomination/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Ulster_from_Sodomy

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-25961996

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/14/dup-councillor-bacardi-breezer-meeting

Colinf1212

Religious fanatic terrorists vs freedom fighers?

What a stupid debate. It's like debating who would win between British squaddies and Barnardo's volunteers

BoJack Horseman

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Religious fanatic terrorists vs freedom fighers?

Terrorist scum vs terrorist scum.

I predict terrorist scum would win.

Colinf1212

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Terrorist scum vs terrorist scum.

I predict terrorist scum would win.

You're right. British squaddies vs ISIS would be a far more realistic battle. Which group of terrorist scum would win though?

padd b1975

Nodin wrote: »

I think you'll find the PIRA survived the attentions of the Special Assasination Squad for a considerable period and would doubtless do so again.

I doubt they could rely on the network of safe houses and blind eyes that served them so well during the troubles.

One thing you can be sure of though is this, if the republican paramilitaries ever reorganised, they would once again be riddled with informers and double agents.

Never a good starting point...

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

One thing you can be sure of though is this, if the republican paramilitaries ever reorganised, they would once again be riddled with informers and double agents.

Never a good starting point...

And more paedos than every swimming club and scout troop in the country.

LordSutch

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Terrorist scum vs terrorist scum.

I predict terrorist scum would win.

Round one; PIRA Vs ISIS
Round two; INLA Vs Taliban
Round three; UVF Vs Boko Harem
Round four; RIRA Vs Hezbollah

Winner of each round fights each other, till the surviving terrorist group fights Hamas to the death.

Sorted

Santa Cruz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And more paedos than every swimming club and scout troop in the country.

What are you insinuating?

Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz wrote: »

What are you insinuating?

The IRA and the Republican movement. Rammed with paedos. Covering for each other, moving them around, sending them down here, the kangaroo courts etc.

It wasn't meant to be an insinuation, I thought the meaning was clear.

LDN_Irish

the_syco wrote: »

Nationalist bias aside, are SF that much different than DUP?

Oh come on. If you're against militant republicanism because you're against violence in any circumstances then that's a position I respect, (leaving aside the few that excuse any violence from British or Americans) The only comparison that can be made been SF ad the DUP is that they maintain power through a sectarian political structure, which isn't to say SF are inherently sectarian but they do benefit from it because "Catholics" will often vote for them purely because they feel they have to vote for the biggest Nationalist party.

SF are a secular, progressive, liberal party. They fight for rights for everyone in society, gays, ethnic minorities, religious minorities. The DUP are driven by Christian fundamentalism and have made it clear that they hate everyone that isn't like them, multiple times. They can't make it any clearer. And in fact nearly all of the parties thay register as unionist are like that, NI21 is an exception. They're actually registering as neutral some time in the future because registering as unionist is a bit like registering as a dinosaur. It's no coincidence that it was almost exclusively unionist parties that supported the DUP's conscience clause (the RCC did too!) and nearly all the Nationalist parties were against it. Catholics of a certain age actually know what it's like to be legally discriminated against.

I've seen a good few of your posts and you speak a lot of sense a lot of the time, but thay question shows that you're quite out of touch with the politics up there. I really do implore you to read some of Nodins links above, even just a random selection. The DUP are more extreme than UKIP, Le Pen's National Front in France, probably even the BNP. They have a lot more power than the BNP too which makes them so much more dangerous.

If the DUP holds the balance of power in the UK elections (off chance but possible) then we'll either see them say absolutely nothing in front of what they call "the mainland" or they will be exposed as the lunatics they are and probably do irrepairable damage to whoever is desperate enough to do business with them.

You probably won't believe me, but hand on heart, I don't vote SF or any of the "dissident" republican groups.

LordSutch

the_syco wrote: »

Nationalist bias aside, are SF that much different than DUP?

SF are/were the political wing of one of the most lethal European terrorist organisations, namely the Provisional IRA (Provo's) for short. The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit. Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

frostyjacks

LordSutch wrote: »

SF are/were the political wing of one of the most lethal European terrorist organisations, namely the Provisional IRA (Provo's) for short. The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit. Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

I'd rather a party be open about their support of armed struggle, instead of the duplicitous nature of the DUP.

Fratton Fred

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Religious fanatic terrorists vs freedom fighers?

What a stupid debate. It's like debating who would win between British squaddies and Barnardo's volunteers

The IRA weren't religious fanatics were they?

Hans Bricks

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA weren't religious fanatics were they?

You're just looking to get a rise now Fred.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA weren't religious fanatics were they?

No. Some were hardline Catholics but they were not a religious organisation taking their justification from religious scripture. Or are you making a joke about IS being freedom fighters so it must be the IRA who are the religious fanatics? I can't tell

LDN_Irish

LordSutch wrote: »

SF are/were the political wing of one of the most lethal European terrorist organisations, namely the Provisional IRA (Provo's) for short. The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit. Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

Ian Paisley caused as much violence as any IRA gunman ad he delighted in it.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

No. Some were hardline Catholics but they were not a religious organisation taking their justification from religious scripture. Or are you making a joke about IS being freedom fighters so it must be the IRA who are the religious fanatics? I can't tell

I don't see how someone can call ISIS terrorists and the IRA freedom fighters. That's all.

smurgen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see how someone can call ISIS terrorists and the IRA freedom fighters. That's all.

The IRA (old) freed 26 counties from British rule. Not rocket science lol!

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see how someone can call ISIS terrorists and the IRA freedom fighters. That's all.

The IRA were fighting to free a part of Ireland from British rule. Even if you disagree with them doing that, the way they went about it, or any other aspect of the conflict that's still a fact. IS are importing fundamentalist Muslims from all over the world to subjugate the local population in to accepting their interpretation of Islam. It's really easy to see how someone could say something like that.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

The IRA were fighting to free a part of Ireland from British rule. Even if you disagree with them doing that, the way they went about it, or any other aspect of the conflict that's still a fact. IS are importing fundamentalist Muslims from all over the world to subjugate the local population in to accepting their interpretation of Islam. It's really easy to see how someone could say something like that.

The cause is irrelevant, it is the tactics employed that make an organization a terrorist one.

smurgen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cause is irrelevant, it is the tactics employed that make an organization a terrorist one.

like shock and awe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Criticism_of_execution

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

like shock and awe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Criticism_of_execution

Good old shinner deflection there.

Tactics like bombing shopping centres, pubs, hotels, train stations.

Junkyard Tom

LordSutch wrote: »

The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit.

It was only the DUP's founder and religious lunatic Ian Paisley who was the most instrumental individual in stoking the flames of sectarian strife in the north in the years leading up to the Troubles. It was Ian Paisley who continuously split the Unionist vote when it looked like there was anything resembling a rapprochement with Nationalists before, during and after the Troubles.

Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

Scratch the surface and you'll see plenty of shady DUP connections to people who committed sectarian violence and murder in both state forces and paramilitary groups.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good old shinner deflection there.

Tactics like bombing shopping centres, pubs, hotels, train stations.

What about flying planes over countries dropping bombs on everything? WWII for example, terrorism or war? What about dropping an atomic bomb on 2 cities? Necessary because that's the only way the Japanese could have been stopped? Terrorism? Both maybe. These are genuine questions, not deflection. I'm interested to see where your line is drawn. When the enemy controls all the infrastructure and all the armoured vehicles, pulling on your homemade uniform and jumping in your DIY armoured car makes as much sense as hanging yourself in protest.

ScumLord

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cause is irrelevant, it is the tactics employed that make an organization a terrorist one.

There's no other way to fight the British empire. By your logic everyone should just accept the status quo, if a country can't beat an invading army at their own game on a battlefield then they should just accept their faith.

Guerrilla warfare is no worse than any other form of warfare. If anything it's more surgical than what the Americans and British do with their large armed forced.

ISIS have taken it to it's extreme but there's basically no other way of using violence against their enemy effectively.

Fratton Fred

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no other way to fight the British empire. By your logic everyone should just accept the status quo, if a country can't beat an invading army at their own game on a battlefield then they should just accept their faith.

Guerrilla warfare is no worse than any other form of warfare. If anything it's more surgical than what the Americans and British do with their large armed forced.

ISIS have taken it to it's extreme but there's basically no other way of using violence against their enemy effectively.

if the ira stopped at killing soldiers or politicians then you'd have a point.

Tell me why Warrington or Birmingham were bombed? What was the purpose other than to slaughter innocent people.

How is a Jihadist gunning down someone for drawing cartoons of Mohammed any different to murdering a kids tv presenter on his doorstep because he offered a reward for information about an IRA cell?

CruelCoin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

ISIS obviously, they have more money and a far larger population of weirdos to call upon.

That and they have tanks and people who actually know how to use weaponry, as opposed to da ra with nothing but shifty eyed looking knackers with pistols stuffed down their tracksuits.

I still think that isis video proclaiming that using a jcb as a firing platform represented "modern technology" was hilarious. Bless their little cotton socks.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What about flying planes over countries dropping bombs on everything? WWII for example, terrorism or war? What about dropping an atomic bomb on 2 cities? Necessary because that's the only way the Japanese could have been stopped? Terrorism? Both maybe. These are genuine questions, not deflection. I'm interested to see where your line is drawn. When the enemy controls all the infrastructure and all the armoured vehicles, pulling on your homemade uniform and jumping in your DIY armoured car makes as much sense as hanging yourself in protest.

The difference is total war v armed insurrection. It isn't hard to see the difference.

In WWII, the people of Britain were, sadly, in a war against the people of Nazi Germany.

CruelCoin

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Religious fanatic terrorists vs freedom fighers?

What a stupid debate. It's like debating who would win between British squaddies and Barnardo's volunteers

Only you cannot call the IRA "freedom fighters". They used to be. Now they're nothing but drug-dealing, fuel/fag smuggling knackers.

If you spot any, tell them i want my gate back.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The difference is total war v armed insurrection. It isn't hard to see the difference.

In WWII, the people of Britain were, sadly, in a war against the people of Nazi Germany.

Have to admit, I think that's a mad position. Thankfully not everyone is against armed insurrection of the world would be a darker place.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Have to admit, I think that's a mad position. Thankfully not everyone is against armed insurrection of the world would be a darker place.

Are you not able to see the difference between placing a bomb in an army barracks and one in a crowded shopping centre?

Are the current incarnation of the IRA justified in their renewed bombing campaign?

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you not able to see the difference between placing a bomb in an army barracks and one in a crowded shopping centre?

Are the current incarnation of the IRA justified in their renewed bombing campaign?

Attacking economic targets is a valid tactic used by pretty much every army and insurgency ever. Very few phone ahead to clear civilians. I doubt Hitler had many calls from Churchill warning him to get his civilians out of Dresden and that killed somewhere in the region of 23000 civilians. Hey, Britain had the decency to actually declare war thay time so the deaths were more morally justified. Approval or not, the economic targets were a key part of the campaign and were as effective as killing soldiers here and there. The soldiers were signed up to be shot whereas the shopping centres were meant to make money.

Erm, tough one really. Politically and tactically unjustified, morally less justified than PIRA (because of the conditions imposed on their communities then and now) but more justified than any of the last 3 British military campaigns.

LDN_Irish

Final answer: morally unjustified. Killing people with no hope of actually achieving anything can't be justified just because they have no right to be armed on soil they've taken illegitimately. It's more like killing for revenge than any other reason.

No idea if they're gangsters and drug dealers. I've never seen any convictions and I keep hearing that they're inept and riddled with informers. Weird then that they'd be the most successful conviction evaders who've ever dealt drugs.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

SF are/were the political wing of one of the most lethal European terrorist organisations, namely the Provisional IRA (Provo's) for short. The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit. Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

Ahhh Sutch. Tis ever my labour to educate ye....
https://youtu.be/OMpV5jnZhq8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers%27_Council_strike

Not to mention they were a party dedicated for most of their existence to keeping the place a sectarian statelet.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Attacking economic targets is a valid tactic used by pretty much every army and insurgency ever. Very few phone ahead to clear civilians. I doubt Hitler had many calls from Churchill warning him to get his civilians out of Dresden and that killed somewhere in the region of 23000 civilians. Hey, Britain had the decency to actually declare war thay time so the deaths were more morally justified. Approval or not, the economic targets were a key part of the campaign and were as effective as killing soldiers here and there. The soldiers were signed up to be shot whereas the shopping centres were meant to make money.

Erm, tough one really. Politically and tactically unjustified, morally less justified than PIRA (because of the conditions imposed on their communities then and now) but more justified than any of the last 3 British military campaigns.

How can you call bombing a pub an economic target?

And, in the bizarre world where a pub, or a McDonald's is possibly an economic target, why bomb them at their busiest times?

LordSutch

So this tongue in cheek/silly thread started off about the IRA Vs ISIS, yet every few posts its dragged back into a British army/Northern Ireland thread.

The same few posters just won't give up, presumably because they don't like their IRA heroes being compared to another terrorist organisation? hence they keep dragging the British army into the equation for reasons . . . . .

Cathy1985

Sorry clearly the wrong post lol dunno how I done this 😅

osarusan

Cathy1985 wrote: »

Hey, any advice from previous T CD students who studied the Masters in Social Work RE: working part-time would be so appreciated. I start in September and I'm wondering if I'll be able to keep my current position at the weekends😊😊 or is it possible time wide 😬

Is this terrorist code?

LDN_Irish

LordSutch wrote: »

So this tongue in cheek/silly thread started off about the IRA Vs ISIS, yet every few posts its dragged back into a British army/Northern Ireland thread.

The same few posters just won't give up, presumably because they don't like their IRA heroes being compared to another terrorist organisation? hence they keep dragging the British army into the equation for reasons . . . . .

I'm debating what I am because "who would win, the IRA or ISIS?" is good for a laugh for a minute but not exactly thought provoking or interesting. Not because I don't like comparisons to IS which are ludicrous in the extreme.

Considering IS now control the areas they operate in a consistent position would be anyone attacking those areas are terrorists and IS are the legitimate rulers. They took it fair and square after all. Maybe they can gerrymander a majority of their supporters in to an area and then keep it for the next 100 years. If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'm debating what I am because "who would win, the IRA or ISIS?" is good for a laugh for a minute but not exactly thought provoking or interesting. Not because I don't like comparisons to IS which are ludicrous in the extreme.

Considering IS now control the areas they operate in a consistent position would be anyone attacking those areas are terrorists and IS are the legitimate rulers. They took it fair and square after all. Maybe they can gerrymander a majority of their supporters in to an area and then keep it for the next 100 years. If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

By your logic, the way to defeat ISIS is to blow up a corner shop.

Father Ted Crilly

LDN_Irish wrote: »

If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

It's the British calling the IRA terrorists. The Irish never called anyone a terrorist and I'm pretty sure the Iraqis and Syrians do call ISIS "terrorists".

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can you call bombing a pub an economic target?

And, in the bizarre world where a pub, or a McDonald's is possibly an economic target, why bomb them at their busiest times?

Oh, I thought we were talking about shopping centres. Are you talking about the Birmingham pub bombings where they attempted to phone in a warning but the phone box was vandalised? So they say anyway. I thought the idea was to damage the area rather than the actual pubs but what would I know? I have no more inside info than you do. Presumably you think they just really wanted to kill some Birmingham drinkers but it's not really that plausible a theory when you consider that there are places where you could cause much more civilian casualties if you were that way inclined.