ISIS vs The IRA ?

RIchieNouveau

indioblack wrote: »

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.

I don't know if I fully agree with that. If a state was truly only a collection of people then wouldn't the fact that most of the people you know want no part of Britain's various wars mean that there should be far fewer of them?

Ireland gets a very hard time BTL of Guardian pieces but I don't take them personally when they are targeted at the state. Some examples I can think of are the Savita Halappanavar case and an article on some bizarre alternative to caesarians that was apparently carried out over here at great cost to women's quality of life because it made it more likely that they would bear more children so the church and state favoured it. Irish commenters overwhelmingly condemned it with everyone else unless the criticisms were aimed at Irish citizens as happens quite a lot on the Guardian. Even then the defense was more about the fact that English commenters are often describing an Ireland that hasn't existed for a few decades.

TL;DR I don't think British people should be offended when the British tendency to go to war is criticised. It's British civilians/military that suffer from the blowback of their efforts more than the average boards.ie poster anyway. Not as much as the countries they invade suffer but the threat of suicide bombers on trains is something that at least some people are conscious of so it's not entirely without consequence.

DarkyHughes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

But blowing up a hospital or school from a helicopter gunship is a legitimate act of Guerrilla warfare?

DarkyHughes

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

The IRA are not from Northern Ireland...

I pointed that out earlier. Most of their volunteers were from the North tho.

DarkyHughes

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.

The troubles started when Paisley's UPV & Gusty Spences UVF started blowing up stuff & blaming it on at that time the pretty much non-existent IRA to undermine the PM at the time Captain O'Neill who hardline Loyalists & stupid Loyalists felt was being to liberal & was to soft on the Civil Rights movement. Their strategy worked & O'Neill stepped down & was replaced by a more conservative PM who was less sympathetic to the CRM which in turn lead to a series of viscous confrontations between the RUC & nationalists which culminated in the "Battle of the Bogside" followed by Loyalist pogroms which resulted in 8 deaths & almost 2000 Catholic refugees. Then the British Army was deployed to the streets of Belfast.

LordSutch

ISIS

Bad ass mothers . . . .

DarkyHughes

Shouldn't ISIS sound like "is is" instead of the "ice-is" sound?

BuilderPlumber

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

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..

For years, people have been conditioned by their governments to think that war is normal, gallant and glorious. A war hero is the highest honour one can have in many nations. Look at all the commemorations every few years. WW2 start anniversary, WW1 start anniversary, D-Day landings, now VE day ... all celebrated by the saviours of freedom.

But what about the innocent Germans whose city (Dresden) and them was/were targeted deliberately to lower war morale. What about 2 Japanese cities who faced 2 acts of nuclear terrorism. What about all those innocent Vietnamese napalmed or the innocent Iraqis who were being killed because Bush frame Saddam for 9/11. Nothing gallant, glorious or normal here ...

Sure, Hitler, Stalin, al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and to a lesser extent the Provos all did do extremely evil things. But all of them can be traced back to the poor, poor way their countries were treated. Evil is born out of evil. All of the above named organisations and people came out of war.

War has ruined world stability and damaged the world's economy and resources. It has bred hatred, mistrust and the rise of fascist movements and dictators. The people of the US, UK and other countries do not want this and their politicians should listen.

Attitudes towards the Middle East need to change. This region was largely apolitical and very peaceful up until oil was discovered and interference commenced. ISIS and other movements like it do need to be defeated and then a new attitude should emerge where the region and its people get treated with respect. ALL the hatred we see in the region is born out of the decades of war that have been unleashed on these countries directly or indirectly by the superpowers. Civil wars with sides armed by each superpower, invasions of countries, installing poor governments, protecting other poor governments, etc. is what has been going on. 40 years ago, all the world's states had some form of government. Now, there's more failed states than there ever were. Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, most of Northwest Africa .... No wonder we see all these violent groups forming ...

BuilderPlumber

DarkyHughes wrote: »

The troubles started when Paisley's UPV & Gusty Spences UVF started blowing up stuff & blaming it on at that time the pretty much non-existent IRA to undermine the PM at the time Captain O'Neill who hardline Loyalists & stupid Loyalists felt was being to liberal & was to soft on the Civil Rights movement. Their strategy worked & O'Neill stepped down & was replaced by a more conservative PM who was less sympathetic to the CRM which in turn lead to a series of viscous confrontations between the RUC & nationalists which culminated in the "Battle of the Bogside" followed by Loyalist pogroms which resulted in 8 deaths & almost 2000 Catholic refugees. Then the British Army was deployed to the streets of Belfast.

Terence O'Neill was well on his way to sorting out a lot of issues but it was against the wishes of the powers that be that wanted war. The UVF, Paisley and others did not want to see a moderate Northern Ireland administration that would sideline their existence. So, an escalation of the troubles was the result and UVF intimidation caused the Provos to form. This convinced the moderate unionists to see there was indeed a threat and the UVF and Paisley were defending them. Money and power as always was the goal.

The disasterous 1970s and 1980s followed and a bloody campaign of terrorism resulted. Funnily enough, by the late 1980s everyone including those who stirred it up wanted a way out and began to adopt the strategies that O'Neill was attempting to implement. 30 years of terrorism could have been avoided if things were sorted at the start.

ScumLord

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

For years, people have been conditioned by their governments to think that war is normal, gallant and glorious.

War has been with humans since civilization began, the fact is in the past every civilization depended on members of the community to go out and fight for their people. These may not have been professional soldiers either, just members of the community. So having a respect for the people who are willing to fight is probably deeply ingrained in the human psyche.

War has ruined world stability and damaged the world's economy and resources. It has bred hatred, mistrust and the rise of fascist movements and dictators. The people of the US, UK and other countries do not want this and their politicians should listen.

Like I said, war has been a part of human behaviour since civilization began (maybe even before civilization began). While war may cause temporary turmoil, the after effects of war can be decades or centuries of peace and cooperation. You can't really say war has ruined stability or damaged the economy because it's always been there in some form or another. Many cultures like the Roman empire, the British empire back in the day and even the American military today have made war a profitable enterprise.

Attitudes towards the Middle East need to change. This region was largely apolitical and very peaceful up until oil was discovered and interference commenced.

I think you need to do some reading on the history of the middle east, like every other part of the world with humans in it, it's pretty much been in a constant state of war for millennia. There have been moments of peace, some lasting quite a long time but over all the region has been fighting probably longer than any other part of the world because civilization was there for a lot longer than Europe.

Father Ted Crilly

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Shouldn't ISIS sound like "is is" instead of the "ice-is" sound?

IRA stands for the Irish Republican Army. We spell "IRA" when we say IRA.

ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. So in actual fact, we should be spelling ISIS, not making it into a word.
However, it's much easier to say it the way we do.

We don't say "Ice is", we say "I sis". "Sis" coming from "sister".

That's one point for the IRA!

DarkyHughes

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Terence O'Neill was well on his way to sorting out a lot of issues but it was against the wishes of the powers that be that wanted war. The UVF, Paisley and others did not want to see a moderate Northern Ireland administration that would sideline their existence. So, an escalation of the troubles was the result and UVF intimidation caused the Provos to form. This convinced the moderate unionists to see there was indeed a threat and the UVF and Paisley were defending them. Money and power as always was the goal.

The disasterous 1970s and 1980s followed and a bloody campaign of terrorism resulted. Funnily enough, by the late 1980s everyone including those who stirred it up wanted a way out and began to adopt the strategies that O'Neill was attempting to implement. 30 years of terrorism could have been avoided if things were sorted at the start.

I'm not so sure about this part. After the Coagh ambush were the SAS killed 3 IRA volunteers which was in 1991 Paisley called for & I quote "a fight to the death with the IRA".

I agree with most of the O'Neill stuff but do you think he would have shared power with Republicans & would have ended the gerrymandering?

It's pretty ironic that a conflict largely instigated by Loyalists to finish of the IRA & Republicanism helped to re-generate the IRA & ended up with Republicans in a much stronger position than before it started.

DarkyHughes

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

IRA stands for the Irish Republican Army. We spell "IRA" when we say IRA.

ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. So in actual fact, we should be spelling ISIS, not making it into a word.
However, it's much easier to say it the way we do.

We don't say "Ice is", we say "I sis". "Sis" coming from "sister".

That's one point for the IRA!

Are you sure?

So we should be saying the letters I S I S, like we say the I R A, is that you mean?

As were on the topic of the troubles does anyone know is there's some sort of service or commemeration for the Dublin & Monaghan bombings? It was the worst terrorist incident in the states history after all. And I think the second worst disaster in terms of people killed only after the Stardust fire.

Reiver

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

What about 2 Japanese cities who faced 2 acts of nuclear terrorism.

The Japanese vetoed their right to a fair trial after Nanking and the death marches. They behaved worse than the Soviets and even tried to rewrite their textbooks.

Should have dropped a third bomb.

BuilderPlumber

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this part. After the Coagh ambush were the SAS killed 3 IRA volunteers which was in 1991 Paisley called for & I quote "a fight to the death with the IRA".

I agree with most of the O'Neill stuff but do you think he would have shared power with Republicans & would have ended the gerrymandering?

It's pretty ironic that a conflict largely instigated by Loyalists to finish of the IRA & Republicanism helped to re-generate the IRA & ended up with Republicans in a much stronger position than before it started.

The whole Republican movement (that is the PIRA) would not have become as strong only for other events happening imo. Terence O'Neill probably would have laid the groundwork for some powersharing between moderate unionists and moderate nationalists. But the hardliners on both sides did not want this and gained the upper hand as history has shown.

Paisley was not always consistent in what he said and did. His main consistency was making money and getting elected. He responded to whatever audience he wanted votes from and he got them. Yes, he even toned down his rhetoric and stood up for Republic of Ireland farmers when he wanted their vote on time I recall. He built most of his career as an outspoken critic of the IRA in all its guises, Catholicism and the Catholic nature of the Irish Republic. But he also did a grand deal with Sinn Fein and swept the carpet from under the feet of the moderate UUP when it suited. Paisley the hardliner who became a moderate? Yes, of course: he is afterall a politician!!!

BuilderPlumber

Reiver wrote: »

The Japanese vetoed their right to a fair trial after Nanking and the death marches. They behaved worse than the Soviets and even tried to rewrite their textbooks.

Should have dropped a third bomb.

The problem is ... too many innocent people died. By all means, the Japanese fascist regime deserved all what was coming to them. But not the innocent Japanese people who did not have a say in the tyrannical greed of their egotistical and brutal regime.

Fratton Fred

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The problem is ... too many innocent people died. By all means, the Japanese fascist regime deserved all what was coming to them. But not the innocent Japanese people who did not have a say in the tyrannical greed of their egotistical and brutal regime.

I'd agree to an extent, but you have to remember the Japanese are an odd bunch. Thousands died defending Okinawa and many thousands more committed suicide afterwards.

An assault on the main Japanese islands would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths alone.

Reiver

That's war though. A part of human nature ever since a caveman hit another over the head with a rock because he liked something he had.

It's a bit much to call the Japanese people innocent. I'm sure some were but what about the ones who strapped explosives to themselves and rolled under tanks? Who bayoneted live prisoners for practice? Who brutalised civilians and captured soldiers alike. The regime didn't explicitly order that but they still did it.

BuilderPlumber

Reiver wrote: »

That's war though. A part of human nature ever since a caveman hit another over the head with a rock because he liked something he had.

It's a bit much to call the Japanese people innocent. I'm sure some were but what about the ones who strapped explosives to themselves and rolled under tanks? Who bayoneted live prisoners for practice? Who brutalised civilians and captured soldiers alike. The regime didn't explicitly order that but they still did it.

In this, you have the typical peasant zeal where a brainwashed isolated sector of a population are fed and believe a constant diet of propaganda such as the emperor being a god, and dying for god, country and freedom stuff. Some were fed that Japan was going to be a superpower and making this sacrifice would benefit their children.

The semi-'Islamist' Revolutionary Guards of Iran used exactly the same tactics to mobile Iranians against Saddam in the 1980s. And most recently, the 'Islamist' terrorists in al Qaeda and ISIS do it today. Suicide bombers were something borrowed from the 1940s Japanese fascists as was using a plane as a missile.

I do not agree at all with the 2 nuclear bombings of Japan. But I can see where the logic came from. The regime was basically al Qaeda and ISIS in control of a powerful enough country that was not surrendering. They made the Nazis look logical and even moderate by comparison. Germans then were in general educated and by 1945 had enough of sacrificing themselves for a failed state. Japan on the other hand had a large peasant population who would jump off a cliff if their emperor said so. And the regime exploited this to its full potential! Unfortunately, this is the same problem that feeds Talibanised Islam.

Smiles35

It was all go with the Japs. Who would come down to dominate China when it was decided in central Europe? What 'commonweath' would Oz be part of if England went? America? Along with the Philippines? May as well hand the whole place over to the sea then.

Cee-Jay-Cee

FFS this is AH and the OP started a thread which I thought would be full of humour and jokes but as usual it descended into a bloody world and Irekabd history lesson.

Chrissybhoy

[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?

No the IRA never pushed an catholic beliefs that's a lie anyway

Chrissybhoy

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.

To cause financial and economic havoc

Fratton Fred

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

To cause financial and economic havoc

by using an act of terrorism to kill innocent people.

LordSutch

ISIS

Bad ass mothers . . . .

jugger0

Fratton Fred wrote: »

by using an act of terrorism to kill innocent people.

Waa waa waa how many kiddies did the RAF blow to bits? The high estimate puts the civilian death toll at 600,000, but you'll wear a poppy and pull yourself to the queen.

Reiver

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In this, you have the typical peasant zeal where a brainwashed isolated sector of a population are fed and believe a constant diet of propaganda such as the emperor being a god, and dying for god, country and freedom stuff. Some were fed that Japan was going to be a superpower and making this sacrifice would benefit their children.

The semi-'Islamist' Revolutionary Guards of Iran used exactly the same tactics to mobile Iranians against Saddam in the 1980s. And most recently, the 'Islamist' terrorists in al Qaeda and ISIS do it today. Suicide bombers were something borrowed from the 1940s Japanese fascists as was using a plane as a missile.

I do not agree at all with the 2 nuclear bombings of Japan. But I can see where the logic came from. The regime was basically al Qaeda and ISIS in control of a powerful enough country that was not surrendering. They made the Nazis look logical and even moderate by comparison. Germans then were in general educated and by 1945 had enough of sacrificing themselves for a failed state. Japan on the other hand had a large peasant population who would jump off a cliff if their emperor said so. And the regime exploited this to its full potential! Unfortunately, this is the same problem that feeds Talibanised Islam.

Fair point but who has more rights? The 'innocent' population of an evil regime or the millions who are currently suffering under their control? The thousands of starving prisoners they held, the millions of Chinese civilians still under their control. I get what you're saying, it's a fair point but I just can't agree.

George MacDonald Fraser said something along the lines of "To those who said the Japanese were ready to fold, I'd invite them to chat to the bastard who came out of the brush at me three days after VJ Day. He was clad in rags, armed only with a bamboo spear but he had no intention of surrender.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

by using an act of terrorism to kill innocent people.

It's quite clear from even a cursory glance at the facts that death was not the intention.
The goal was to destroy the British economy and make Ireland simply to costly to hold on to.
The IRA gained nothing from killing civilians. Countless operations were altered or abandoned to avoid civilian casualties.
Even setting the facts aside, let's buy into your fantasy that the IRA was just out to kill as many innocent people as they could. If that was the case they were incredibly bad at it. Bomb warnings, aborting missions, attacking heavily defended military posts when they could have just killed civilians. Around 30-35% of their victims were civilians, much lower that the 50% for state forces (not including collusion) or 85-100% for loyalists. And even then, many of the victims counted in the civilians list could hardly be considered uninvolved. Informers, criminals, people who put bounties on the IRA, corrupt judges etc...
The IRA set off anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 explosive devices over the course of the conflict and fired countless bullets, killing 1800 people, the majority of whom could not be described as civilians.

Like I said, if the goal was to just kill innocent people they were incredibly bad at it.

Fratton Fred

jugger0 wrote: »

Waa waa waa how many kiddies did the RAF blow to bits? The high estimate puts the civilian death toll at 600,000, but you'll wear a poppy and pull yourself to the queen.

Did some one drop their dummy, never mind.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's quite clear from even a cursory glance at the facts that death was not the intention.
The goal was to destroy the British economy and make Ireland simply to costly to hold on to.
The IRA gained nothing from killing civilians. Countless operations were altered or abandoned to avoid civilian casualties.
Even setting the facts aside, let's buy into your fantasy that the IRA was just out to kill as many innocent people as they could. If that was the case they were incredibly bad at it. Bomb warnings, aborting missions, attacking heavily defended military posts when they could have just killed civilians. Around 30-35% of their victims were civilians, much lower that the 50% for state forces (not including collusion) or 85-100% for loyalists. And even then, many of the victims counted in the civilians list could hardly be considered uninvolved. Informers, criminals, people who put bounties on the IRA, corrupt judges etc...
The IRA set off anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 explosive devices over the course of the conflict and fired countless bullets, killing 1800 people, the majority of whom could not be described as civilians.

Like I said, if the goal was to just kill innocent people they were incredibly bad at it.

No, their campaign was not just about killing as many people as possible, I'll grant that. But they did have to slaughter a certain amount to create the general atmosphere of terror. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, their campaign was not just about killing as many people as possible, I'll grant that. But they did have to slaughter a certain amount to create the general atmosphere of terror. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's ridiculous to think they had any interest in slaughtering anyone beyond those directly involved with British oppression in Ireland.
You dont have to see the IRA as heroic freedom fighters to recognise that. From a purely selfish, amoral point of view it simply benefited them, their goals and their support in no way whatsoever to do otherwise. It was directly counterproductive.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's ridiculous to think they had any interest in slaughtering anyone beyond those directly involved with British oppression in Ireland.
You dont have to see the IRA as heroic freedom fighters to recognise that. From a purely selfish, amoral point of view it simply benefited them, their goals and their support in no way whatsoever to do otherwise. It was directly counterproductive.

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

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

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

osarusan

jugger0 wrote: »

Waa waa waa how many kiddies did the RAF blow to bits? The high estimate puts the civilian death toll at 600,000, but you'll wear a poppy and pull yourself to the queen.

Where are all the posters who would quickly criticise such irrelevant comments as whataboutery, if this were a thread about British military crimes?

130Kph

Tough and unpleasant question.

Its like trying to decide between bubonic plague and pancreatic cancer.

LDN_Irish

osarusan wrote: »

Where are all the posters who would quickly criticise such irrelevant comments as whataboutery, if this were a thread about British military crimes?

Deflection! Deflection! SomethingBot!

HTH Hun xxx

LordSutch

Definitely ISIS.

golfball37

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

I can't think of any off hand where a warning wasn't given in advance. And I'm not defending them by any means.

I just think its de facto correct now to say they slaughtered women and children and intended doing so, when my memory of the 1980s was that this wasn't the case. They brought shame on Ireland but were nothing like modern day Islamic terrorists.

osarusan

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Deflection! Deflection! SomethingBot!

HTH Hun xxx

I'm not sure what you are on about, but it is the posters saying 'what about all the Brit killings' that are doing the deflecting.

Fratton Fred

golfball37 wrote: »

I can't think of any off hand where a warning wasn't given in advance. And I'm not defending them by any means.

I just think its de facto correct now to say they slaughtered women and children and intended doing so, when my memory of the 1980s was that this wasn't the case. They brought shame on Ireland but were nothing like modern day Islamic terrorists.

If I give you a five minute warning that I'm about to burn your house down and your elderly bed ridden aunt dies in the blaze, along with all your family who are trying to get her out, am I a good guy for giving you five minutes to get her out, or have I just murdered your entire family?

And no, warnings were not given, or incorrectly given in a lot of instances.

In Warrington they detonated two device two minutes apart at either end of the high street, so people fleeing the first would get caught up in the second. They also did it at midday on a Saturday.

But I would agree with them being choir boys compared to ISIS and the Taliban for that matter. Especially after this morning's atrocity in Pakistan.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

Yeah, why bomb commercial streets and centres during an economic campaign. Daft question.

You might like saying they deliberately targeted innocent people but the fact is they didnt. They didnt gain any military, political or propaganda victories from doing so. it was totally counterproductive offering propaganda victories to their enemies.

If the IRA was out to kill innocent people then why offer warnings, why abort missions, why attack the military and why were the numbers of deaths so low? Surely an army with it's level of weaponry and expertise could have killed thousands with ease if they wished.

Your claims just dont stack up and are typical of certain attitudes on this site whereby people feel free to just throw whatever guff they want out there without any basis in fact.

And it's a neat trick there, talking about McDonald's but of course the target was the commercial centre of the town, not the specific building the bomb was outside.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, why bomb commercial streets and centres during an economic campaign. Daft question.

You might like saying they deliberately targeted innocent people but the fact is they didnt. They didnt gain any military, political or propaganda victories from doing so. it was totally counterproductive offering propaganda victories to their enemies.

If the IRA was out to kill innocent people then why offer warnings, why abort missions, why attack the military and why were the numbers of deaths so low? Surely an army with it's level of weaponry and expertise could have killed thousands with ease if they wished.

Your claims just dont stack up and are typical of certain attitudes on this site whereby people feel free to just throw whatever guff they want out there without any basis in fact.

And it's a neat trick there, talking about McDonald's but of course the target was the commercial centre of the town, not the specific building the bomb was outside.

So if the buildings and not the people were the targets, why time the bombs to go off at the busiest times?

And an economy of over one trillion pounds is going to be affected by a bomb in a small town centre?

You are trying to reconcile your fan boy adoration of the ira with your own conscience. You are trying to convince yourself not me.

LordSutch

Unless of course you add in Hamas, then there would be fireworks

I'd say ISIS would still win though.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So if the buildings and not the people were the targets, why time the bombs to go off at the busiest times?

To cause the most amount of disruption. Obviously.

And an economy of over one trillion pounds is going to be affected by a bomb in a small town centre?

This is daft. you could take any single action from any war and ask would the outcome have been different if that single action had not been carried out.
Would it have been different if one less soldier had been killed at the Somme? Would the outcome had been different if just that last soldier had been spared? That's not how it works, you can take it out of context like that. It was part of a much wider campaign.

You are trying to reconcile your fan boy adoration of the ira with your own conscience. You are trying to convince yourself not me.

Im under no illusions about the absolute horror of what happened and take issue with a number of action carried out by the IRA. However, i am able to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that rather than the daft "The IRA just liked killing people" waffle that you get from the usual suspects here.

Now would you care to answer any of the questions I posed regarding why an organisation that was "out to slaughter innocents" would give warnings, abort missions, attack the military, issue apologies or kill such relatively small numbers of people, mostly inadvertently.

LordSutch

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

golfball37

LordSutch wrote: »

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

They both recruited heavily from the diaspora in Britain is another similarity I can think of.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

Well what do you mean? All of ISIS vs all of the IRA? The IRA ran for 30 years. Nigh on a hundred years actually. Are we talking about all IRA members ever, given that ISIS is relatively new. Or are we talking about putting a hit team together of each of their best units. Are they gonna go full tilt field warfare or both use guerrilla tactics?

It doesn't make any sense the two groups arent comparable. The only comparisons between ISIS and the IRA are the same comparisons you could make between ISIS and any army, ie..they have guns etc...

ISIS and the IRA are actually polar opposites in most ideological senses.

ISIS are imperialists, seeking to take over territory and set up a religious state. The IRA were anti imperialists seeking a democratic republic.
ISIS are religiously driven, while IRA men may have had individual beliefs the organisation was very much agnostic.
ISIS have no qualms whatsoever, indeed take great pride, in slaughtering mass numbers of civilians, the IRA clearly did not (see previous posts in the thread on this).

Crooked Jack

golfball37 wrote: »

They both recruited heavily from the diaspora in Britain is another similarity I can think of.

Youre wrong there. The IRA actually had plans and material in place to destroy all power stations in London, basically wipe out all electricity in the city.
The reason it was never carried out was because it would have required about 40 active volunteers in London, which they didnt have

indioblack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To cause the most amount of disruption. Obviously.



This is daft. you could take any single action from any war and ask would the outcome have been different if that single action had not been carried out.
Would it have been different if one less soldier had been killed at the Somme? Would the outcome had been different if just that last soldier had been spared? That's not how it works, you can take it out of context like that. It was part of a much wider campaign.



Im under no illusions about the absolute horror of what happened and take issue with a number of action carried out by the IRA. However, i am able to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that rather than the daft "The IRA just liked killing people" waffle that you get from the usual suspects here.

Now would you care to answer any of the questions I posed regarding why an organisation that was "out to slaughter innocents" would give warnings, abort missions, attack the military, issue apologies or kill such relatively small numbers of people, mostly inadvertently.

I doubt if the IRA were "out to slaughter innocents". But, by the very nature of their campaign, it was inevitably going to happen.
The only disruption in Warrington was to peoples bodies.
You may wish to claim that this was part of a wider strategy, that it was war.
From the British perspective, not surprisingly, it would not be regarded as war. Enough people in Ireland would think the same. Governments in Dublin, too.
Years ago I mentioned the bombing campaign in mainland Britain to an Irish relative, and the reply was, "That's war".
To which I answered, "OK, if it's a war, then don't complain when the other side, (the British), behave badly.
Warrington, like Bloody Sunday, simply gives the moral high ground to the other side.

noway12345

The PIRA got dragged down in a tit for tat on occasions. Responding to attacks from loyalists mostly. They should never have let themselves get dragged there. Martin McGuinness showed how it's done in Derry when he ran the local operation.

Reiver

South Armagh.

Now that was war.

Crooked Jack

indioblack wrote: »

I doubt if the IRA were "out to slaughter innocents". But, by the very nature of their campaign, it was inevitably going to happen.

Yes, if only Irish people in the north had rolled over and accepted their station as second class citizens then none of this would have happened.
People often forget that the IRA was the last to enter the Troubles and the first to call an end to it. It was not their war, it was the British state's war.

The only disruption in Warrington was to peoples bodies.

Well that's simply untrue. A gas storage facility was destroyed and a main shopping centre was shut down. (When responding to this try and stick to the point were discussing instead of coming back with some daft accusation about how I'm trying to say that justifies it when it clearly does not.)

You may wish to claim that this was part of a wider strategy,

It clearly was, are you actually arguing it wasnt part of a wider bombing campaign in england?

that it was war.

Put whatever name you like on it, the causes and consequences were the same

From the British perspective, not surprisingly, it would not be regarded as war.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/british-won-the-war-on-ira-claims-writer-taylor-30616888.html
The British won the war in Northern Ireland, according to veteran journalist Peter Taylor.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jul/07/highereducation.news

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/face-to-face-when-british-soldiers-met-ex-members-of-the-ira

Put whatever name you feel comfortable with on it but dont pretend to speak for anybody else. Numerous brit govs, ministers and members of the military have referred to it as a war.

Enough people in Ireland would think the same. Governments in Dublin, too.
Years ago I mentioned the bombing campaign in mainland Britain to an Irish relative, and the reply was, "That's war".
To which I answered, "OK, if it's a war, then don't complain when the other side, (the British), behave badly.
Warrington, like Bloody Sunday, simply gives the moral high ground to the other side.

Of course you can complain, just cause it's a war doesnt mean you have to like it. What sort of nonsensical waffle is this? Did widows and orphans during WWII go "oh well, at least it was a legitimate war, now i dont miss them." And war or not war there is no comparison between a bomb which very sadly but ultimately inadvertently killed two children, and the deliberate massacre of unarmed civil rights protesters.

Your points are all over the place here and youre getting hung up on the word war. Here's what Britain has to decide; either it was a war and they acknowledge the causes of it and their role in it and admit their actions, or it wasnt a war and they face endless court cases and inquests about "criminals" they ordered extrajudicial killings on.