ISIS vs The IRA ?

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Yeah but only at it's "busiest time" apparently. The comparisons don't work when they get so literal Fred.

Edit: If IS successfully hold the area they do now for the next 20 years to pick a number at random , would guerilla warfare against them by locals be justified?

Edit again: Only if they leave the pubs and McDonalds alone?

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

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.

So the people responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings were those who vandalised the telephone box?
If you don't plant the explosive device in the first place the problem of faulty telephone communication doesn't arise.

ScumLord

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

How is an American bomber bombing a city any better or worse? War always has civilian targets. The fact is we live in democracies so why should the average citizen expect to be ignored by the enemies of their state? Their the main target because their the ones that can affect change.

I'm not saying that ISIS are waging a war that will get them any kind of result. Guerrilla warfare doesn't work against modern states, we ignore it and it only prolongs a conflict and makes a victory by any side next to impossible. At this stage I think the people in charge of groups like the IRA or ISIS use the conflict to protect their criminal enterprises.

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

So the people responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings were those who vandalised the telephone box?
If you don't plant the explosive device in the first place the problem of faulty telephone communication doesn't arise.

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Fratton Fred

ScumLord wrote: »

How is an American bomber bombing a city any better or worse? War always has civilian targets. The fact is we live in democracies so why should the average citizen expect to be ignored by the enemies of their state? Their the main target because their the ones that can affect change.

I'm not saying that ISIS are waging a war that will get them any kind of result. Guerrilla warfare doesn't work against modern states, we ignore it and it only prolongs a conflict and makes a victory by any side next to impossible. At this stage I think the people in charge of groups like the IRA or ISIS use the conflict to protect their criminal enterprises.

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

Guerrilla warfare is valid. deliberately detonating a bomb in a pub or a shopping centre at its busiest time isn't guerrilla warfare, it is an act of terrorism.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Not deflection then, no?

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Evasion.
The devices were planted. You can't pass the responsibility off onto others.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not deflection then, no?

How is that deflection? The post was a complete strawman. I didn't imply or say that whoever vandalised the phone box was responsible, if indeed there was a vandalised phone box. I'm amazed you even thanked that post considering how ridiculous the implication was. I didn't have you down as someone who just thanks any post that looks like it's on the same side of the debate as yours.

Junkyard Tom

ScumLord wrote: »

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

Although the death of civilians is a consequence of conflict the targeting of pubs and shopping districts full of people cannot be justified (unless of course you're Lordsutch who would describe combatants living amongst communities as 'hiding').

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

Evasion.
The devices were planted. You can't pass the responsibility off onto others.

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

the intent could have been what then?

a) to kill innocent people
b) to cause an act of terror

Eitherway, it is an act of terrorism.

LDN_Irish

Just so we can drop the inane phone box sideline and to be really clear:

Obviously, the PIRA were responsible for those deaths. I don't think they intended to intentionally kill those civilians for the reason I gave a page or so back, primarily because they could have killed more civilians elsewhere but also because it was massively damaging to republicanism.

Fred, do you consider the British victims? Can you name some conflicts where you'd peg the British as "the bad guys" and the other side as justified?

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Fred, do you consider the British victims? Can you name some conflicts where you'd peg the British as "the bad guys" and the other side as justified?

Victims of what?

Britain had one of the biggest empires in its day, all empires had conflicts where they were the bad guys. I don't see what the relevance of that is.

I wouldn't consider the PIRA campaign as unjustified considering the way Catholics in the north were treated, just a lot of the tactics they employed.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Victims of what?

Britain had one of the biggest empires in its day, all empires had conflicts where they were the bad guys. I don't see what the relevance of that is.

I wouldn't consider the PIRA campaign as unjustified considering the way Catholics in the north were treated, just a lot of the tactics they employed.

God knows what we're debating then. I'm sure I said similar to you yesterday. If the question is "do I think targeting pubs I justified?" Then it depends on the circumstances is really the only answer I can give you. I don't think deliberately targeting civilians in a pub is justified and I don't think that's what the intent was, but that doesn't bring anyone back to life unfortunately.

I'm guessing from your name and presence here that were from similar backgrounds. Are you England born to Irish parents too?

Edit: If the question is "does that constitute terrorism?" Then I suppose it could. But terrorism is applied to everyone who dares challenge any larger regime with armed action and I think can equally be applied to any type of war, except maybe the trench type warfare of WWI. The semantics of it aren't really that important to me.

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

The intent was to detonate an explosive device in a public place.
Maybe there was no desire to kill people.
Once the device is planted and the bomber has left there is less control over what will happen next.
Hence, if the device is not planted in such a location, the rest becomes irrelevant.
When, as in this case, this operation, allegedly, went wrong don't be surprised if people come to their own conclusions as to the intent.

Father Ted Crilly

GaryTLynch wrote: »

Fr. Ted Crilly,
Could you please summarise the events that led to the outbreak of the Troubles, the war that ensued and the eventual signing of the Good Friday Agreement (as YOU see it).

This should be good.

I'm sorry if these events are not in the correct order.

Ok well there was this little humble and lovely nation called Ireland.
Then this English king called William of Orange was so obsessed with Oranges that he decided he'd poison all of Ireland's potatoes and replace them with Oranges. Then he sent his army over who started stealing the Irish people's land and homes and killing and raping them and selling them as slaves.
Then one day our heroes came and named themselves the Irish Republican Army. They fought those tyrants off with spirit, pride and determination.
King William had all Easter eggs replaced with Terry's Chocolate Oranges, the Irish had had enough. This sparked the 1916 Easter Rising.

Anyway, we got a Republic in exchange for 6 counties which is ridiculously stupid.
This brings us to The Troubles. Those Northerners were cheeky enough to say that the North should stay with the UK. The smart guys AKA the PIRA starting nuking them and the Northerners were scared into making some sort of agreement called the "Belfast Good Friday Agreement".


On to the next thing, all I can say is that ISIS is a big bunch of religious wackos and the IRA have better reasons for what they did.

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

The intent was to detonate an explosive device in a public place.
Maybe there was no desire to kill people.
Once the device is planted and the bomber has left there is less control over what will happen next.
Hence, if the device is not planted in such a location, the rest becomes irrelevant.
When, as in this case, this operation, allegedly, went wrong don't be surprised if people come to their own conclusions as to the intent.

No arguments there. No surprise either.

smurgen

Irish people are horrified by war.i know I am myself.for people so disgusted by ira bombings you'd think the British would be slow to enter more and more wars and inflict hardships on other folk.Its almost as if they love war and the perpetual cycle of hate.

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

Irish people are horrified by war.i know I am myself.for people so disgusted by ira bombings you'd think the British would be slow to enter more and more wars and inflict hardships on other folk.Its almost as if they love war and the perpetual cycle of hate.

try some sugar on those sour grapes.

Father Ted Crilly

Fratton Fred, are you of British decent? I can smell British people from a mile away. If I'm right about this and I have no reason to doubt myself, it would explain your biased opinions.

Fratton Fred

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Fratton Fred, are you of British decent? I can smell British people from a mile away. If I'm right about this and I have no reason to doubt myself, it would explain your biased opinions.

Oh Father, you were ok when you were being funny, now you're just boring.

Father Ted Crilly

I'll interpret that as a "yes".

What do you know, there's a thread about having a United Ireland. It would appear this thread isn't interesting anymore, but I'll be back.

GaryTLynch

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm sorry if these events are not in the correct order.

Ok well there was this little humble and lovely nation called Ireland.
Then this English king called William of Orange was so obsessed with Oranges that he decided he'd poison all of Ireland's potatoes and replace them with Oranges. Then he sent his army over who started stealing the Irish people's land and homes and killing and raping them and selling them as slaves.
Then one day our heroes came and named themselves the Irish Republican Army. They fought those tyrants off with spirit, pride and determination.
King William had all Easter eggs replaced with Terry's Chocolate Oranges, the Irish had had enough. This sparked the 1916 Easter Rising.

Anyway, we got a Republic in exchange for 6 counties which is ridiculously stupid.
This brings us to The Troubles. Those Northerners were cheeky enough to say that the North should stay with the UK. The smart guys AKA the PIRA starting nuking them and the Northerners were scared into making some sort of agreement called the "Belfast Good Friday Agreement".


On to the next thing, all I can say is that ISIS is a big bunch of religious wackos and the IRA have better reasons for what they did.

Bravo, Father, BRAVO! :-D

Colinf1212

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I'm sorry if these events are not in the correct order.

Ok well there was this little humble and lovely nation called Ireland.
Then this English king called William of Orange was so obsessed with Oranges that he decided he'd poison all of Ireland's potatoes and replace them with Oranges. Then he sent his army over who started stealing the Irish people's land and homes and killing and raping them and selling them as slaves.
Then one day our heroes came and named themselves the Irish Republican Army. They fought those tyrants off with spirit, pride and determination.
King William had all Easter eggs replaced with Terry's Chocolate Oranges, the Irish had had enough. This sparked the 1916 Easter Rising.

Anyway, we got a Republic in exchange for 6 counties which is ridiculously stupid.
This brings us to The Troubles. Those Northerners were cheeky enough to say that the North should stay with the UK. The smart guys AKA the PIRA starting nuking them and the Northerners were scared into making some sort of agreement called the "Belfast Good Friday Agreement".


On to the next thing, all I can say is that ISIS is a big bunch of religious wackos and the IRA have better reasons for what they did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Hv-M6zu3M

Santa Cruz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

It was. Just see if some of our Provie lovers can defend the IRA sexual abuse of children in. their safe houses

DarkyHughes

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.

Oh yeah I forget them arseholes. There's so many ultra-conservative parties on this island.

Father Ted Crilly

Santa Cruz wrote: »

It was. Just see if some of our Provie lovers can defend the IRA sexual abuse of children in. their safe houses

Were these children British?

indioblack

smurgen wrote: »

Irish people are horrified by war.i know I am myself.for people so disgusted by ira bombings you'd think the British would be slow to enter more and more wars and inflict hardships on other folk.Its almost as if they love war and the perpetual cycle of hate.

So we are to assume that the British love war?
Should we also assume from the activities of the IRA that the Irish love blowing people up?

kingchess

indioblack wrote: »

So we are to assume that the British love war?
Should we also assume from the activities of the IRA that the Irish love blowing people up?

Maybe you should assume that the IRA are in fact British seeing as they are from a part of the UK ,so are every bit as British as some posters here are.:D. So your question above need not be asked??

indioblack

kingchess wrote: »

Maybe you should assume that the IRA are in fact British seeing as they are from a part of the UK ,so are every bit as British as some posters here are.:D. So your question above need not be asked??

Indeed.
It's pretty daft to make the claim, as the poster did, that an entire nation loves war.
Just as it would be equally foolish to claim that another nation, (Irish/British - you choose) love detonating explosive devices.

Father Ted Crilly

BREAKTHROUGH

I have calculated that the IRA would beat ISIS. The Irish are the best snipers. The IRA would snipe them all to Hell before they could get close enough to set off their dirty suicide bombs.
This will backup what I am saying.

end of the road

kingchess wrote: »

Maybe you should assume that the IRA are in fact British seeing as they are from a part of the UK ,so are every bit as British as some posters here are.:D. So your question above need not be asked??

the IRA are irish and are from part of ireland which was stolen from us by the UK

Father Ted Crilly

end of the road wrote: »

the IRA are irish and are from part of ireland which was stolen from us by the UK

The IRA are not from Northern Ireland...

smurgen

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed.
It's pretty daft to make the claim, as the poster did, that an entire nation loves war.
Just as it would be equally foolish to claim that another nation, (Irish/British - you choose) love detonating explosive devices.

The country idolises war.how many wars have they been involved in?not supporting their war 'heros' or wearing the poppy would be enough to end someone's career.

indioblack

smurgen wrote: »

The country idolises war.how many wars have they been involved in?not supporting their war 'heros' or wearing the poppy would be enough to end someone's career.

Well, I don't believe that everyone who dons a uniform is automatically heroic.
I've not bought a poppy for a couple of years - no particular reason, I just haven't - and I've managed to keep my job - probably because no one else wants it!
Britain does have a military history - and, historically, they've had more than their share of wars.
I still think it's odd to say they love war.
When you say they idolise war, that could certainly be applied to some people.

Santa Cruz

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Were these children British?

When the Provies come to child abuse nationality wasnt. an issue

osarusan

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

Were these children British?

Why would that matter?

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

Well, I don't believe that everyone who dons a uniform is automatically heroic.
I've not bought a poppy for a couple of years - no particular reason, I just haven't - and I've managed to keep my job - probably because no one else wants it!
Britain does have a military history - and, historically, they've had more than their share of wars.
I still think it's odd to say they love war.
When you say they idolise war, that could certainly be applied to some people.

Don't play stupid when you're clearly no fool. You know as well as everyone else that there is a lot of pressure to wear a poppy in certain industries, the media being a prime example. I wouldn't go as far as the previous poster who said it could end a career though as I'm not aware of anyone actually losing their careers.

And yes, some people do idolise war. Some don't idolise it but appreciate the reasons why it's sometimes necessary.

Britain finds it necessary every few years. Who'll be the next lucky opponent I wonder? We can rule out anyone who might be able to put up a decent defense if every conflict Britain has been involved in since WWII is a sign if how things will continue.

Junkyard Tom

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Who'll be the next lucky opponent I wonder?

I think Afghanistan was Britain's swan song when it comes to military adventurism. Britain will still play a role in training and equipping groups who attempt to overthrow people like Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad just as they've always done. Britain will also continue to sell arms to nasty regimes.

As for the poppy thing, well, unlike our equivalent, I don't think an intellectual or journalist who's critical of British militarism would have much of a career in the mainstream media in Britain - maybe a few opinion pieces in the back of The Guardian.

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Don't play stupid when you're clearly no fool. You know as well as everyone else that there is a lot of pressure to wear a poppy in certain industries, the media being a prime example. I wouldn't go as far as the previous poster who said it could end a career though as I'm not aware of anyone actually losing their careers.

And yes, some people do idolise war. Some don't idolise it but appreciate the reasons why it's sometimes necessary.

Britain finds it necessary every few years. Who'll be the next lucky opponent I wonder? We can rule out anyone who might be able to put up a decent defense if every conflict Britain has been involved in since WWII is a sign if how things will continue.

That's what's known as a back handed compliment.
I fully agree with you regarding media pressure and I'm sure you're aware that there would be a sizeable number of people here who would not agree with that kind of coercion.
Some people idolise war - I said it, you said it.
How Britain needs a war every few years you'll have to flesh out.
And where is the relevance of whom they take on and their alleged inability to win?

corner of hells

I'll see your IRA and ISIS and raise you the "Lords Resistance Army".

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

And where is the relevance of whom they take on and their alleged inability to win?

It's having a cuppa with the relevance of how you've kept your job after refraining from wearing a poppy.

And I said "Britain finds it necessary every few years" which is self evident.

By the way, often when people say "Britain does" or "Brits need" they're referring to the state and not the people, something in your post made it look like you didn't know that but I can't be arsed going back and quoting it but if you already know that then fee free to ignore.

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

It's having a cuppa with the relevance of how you've kept your job after refraining from wearing a poppy.

And I said "Britain finds it necessary every few years" which is self evident.

By the way, often when people say "Britain does" or "Brits need" they're referring to the state and not the people, something in your post made it look like you didn't know that but I can't be arsed going back and quoting it but if you already know that then fee free to ignore.

No, I find your posts refreshing and amusing.
How do I keep my job? Because I'm only half English and an awkward *******!
If Britain the state feels the need for armed conflict on some cyclical basis, most of the people I know would want no part of it.
And I would add that a state is only people - wouldn't an Irish person feel some kind of identity with their state?
Therefore they might construe, rightly or wrongly, a criticism of the nation state as a possible criticism of them as individuals.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I think Afghanistan was Britain's swan song when it comes to military adventurism. Britain will still play a role in training and equipping groups who attempt to overthrow people like Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad just as they've always done. Britain will also continue to sell arms to nasty regimes.

Afghanistan is the swan song for now, because there are no more wars that need fighting. People talk of Afghanistan as if it was some sort of British only war. Over 40 countries contributed troops to ISAF, including a nominal contribution from Ireland.

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

As for the poppy thing, well, unlike our equivalent, I don't think an intellectual or journalist who's critical of British militarism would have much of a career in the mainstream media in Britain - maybe a few opinion pieces in the back of The Guardian.

You should read the Guardian more often then. There's quite a lot of articles in there critical of Britains interventionist policies.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Afghanistan is the swan song for now

It sounds as if you've somehow taken that personally and are lamenting the end of Britain's 100 years of being involved in one conflict or another.

because there are no more wars that need fighting.

You say that as if Britain had no choice but to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a recent series of documentaries on BBC about BA involvement in Afghanistan and it was suggested that British Soldiers entering another war is very unlikely for many more reasons than 'there are no more wars'.

The same series of documentaries showed how British soldiers have gone from being portrayed as fighters of war to victims of it by the media. Also, those interviewed said that the primary reason Britain became involved in Afghanistan was its relationship with the US - that 'special relationship' is now largely viewed as a thing of the past.

because there are no more wars that need fighting.

Max Hastings wants ISIS sorted out with British Troops in the mix.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

It sounds as if you've somehow taken that personally and are lamenting the end of Britain's 100 years of being involved in one conflict or another.



You say that as if Britain had no choice but to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a recent series of documentaries on BBC about BA involvement in Afghanistan and it was suggested that British Soldiers entering another war is very unlikely for many more reasons than 'there are no more wars'.

The same series of documentaries showed how British soldiers have gone from being portrayed as fighters of war to victims of it by the media. Also, those interviewed said that the primary reason Britain became involved in Afghanistan was its relationship with the US - that 'special relationship' is now largely viewed as a thing of the past.

Britain got involved in Afghanistan for the same reason Germany, France, Poland, Sweden, Australia and lots of other countries got involved, because the UN passed a resolution to create a security assistance force. As I pointed out earlier, Ireland was involved as well.

the same reason Ireland "got involved" in Syria, East Timor and Lebanon. Because Ireland has a long history of doing UN missions.

Iraq was a result of one man's religious crusade from what I can tell. The whole country was lied To and it will take a lot for that to happen again, but if need be, Britain will do what it is required to do as a world power, as will Australia, Canada, India or whoever.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain will do what it is required to do as a world power

I see the 'Britannia Rules the Waves' mindset persists in some.

"I feel badly about the British. They are our dear friends but they are no longer a world power, it's just a fact of life,"

John McCain.

Britain is no longer a world power - get over it.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I see the 'Britannia Rules the Waves' mindset persists in some.

"I feel badly about the British. They are our dear friends but they are no longer a world power, it's just a fact of life,"

John McCain.

Britain is no longer a world power - get over it.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/rule-britannia-britain-still-second-strongest-global-power-world-says-study/

LordSutch

HELLO THERE BOARDS.ie MODERATOR.

Is there any chance this thread could be put back on topic?

Like how about ISIS Vs the IRA?

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.trendingcentral.com/rule-britannia-britain-still-second-strongest-global-power-world-says-study/

Britain doesn't even feature in the top 7 in this study.

You shouldn't get butt-hurt about it though. If I was British I'd be delighted that my fellow countrymen were less likely to be deployed in far-away shitholes just to please the Americans.

LordSutch wrote: »

HELLO THERE BOARDS.ie MODERATOR.

This is After Hours - threads naturally drift off topic.