ISIS vs The IRA ?

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

They were unable to fight conventional battles (both too scared to - they didn't like dying - and never got enough equipment or men).

You're clueless. The PIRA fought numerous gun battles with the BA in Belfast and Derry.

This is 1972 alone.

27 January 1972: An IRA unit which included Martin Meehan fought a 4-hour gun battle with a British Army detachment at Dungooley in south County Armagh. The British Army alone fired over 4,500 rounds while the IRA returned fire with assault rifles and an anti-tank gun. There were no casualties in the battle with the exception of a farmers pig which was caught in the crossfire. 8 IRA volunteers were arrested south of the border but were eventually acquitted.

10 February 1972: An IRA volunteer was killed in a gun-battle with the RUC in Newtownabbey, County Antrim.

14 March 1972: A two-man IRA unit armed with sub-machine guns ambushed a joint British Army/RUC patrol on Brackaville Road outside Coalisland. Over 50 shots were fired by the unit. The RUC officer who was driving the police patrol vehicle was killed

30 March 1972: A civilian was killed in the crossfire of a gun-battle between the IRA and the British Army in the Andersonstown area of Belfast.

25 April 1972: A British soldier was shot dead in an IRA gun-attack on a British Army Permanent Vehicle Checkpoint on the Donegall Road in Belfast.

13 May 1972: An IRA volunteer was killed in a gun-battle with the British Army on William Street in Derry.

12 June 1972: A British soldier was shot dead by the IRA during a gun-battle in the Ardoyne area of Belfast.

13 July 1972: Four British soldiers and an IRA volunteer were killed in various gun-battles across Belfast. The British Army also killed two# armed men

14 July 1972: An IRA volunteer was shot dead in a gun battle with the British Army. Also killed in the violence were three British soldiers, an OIRA volunteer and a civilian.

26 July 1972: A British soldier was shot dead in an IRA attack on a British foot-patrol in the Unity Flats, Belfast.

20 September 1972: A British soldier was killed in a gun battle with the IRA on Springhill Avenue in Ballymurphy, Belfast.

6 October 1972: An IRA volunteer was killed during an IRA attack on a British Army base in the Lower Falls, Belfast

In rural areas the PIRA routinely attacked BA and RUC outposts up to and including totally destroying them.

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

A senior British military officer, when quizzed about the IRA attack, said:
They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.

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

The British Army's official report about this incident stated: "This was a well-planned and well-executed attack indicative of the imaginative, innovative and capable nature of South Armagh PIRA".

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

The sudden counter-ambush disrupted the British operation, and the officer in charge aborted it.[4] He later stated that:
In military terms, it was one of the IRA's finest attacks in South Armagh. They picked out the COP team in the most exposed position. With hindsight, it was the one weak link in the operation and it says something for the IRA's tactical and field skills that they identified that fact before we did.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

So you think Omagh was a deliberate attempt to kill civilians in a town that's nearly 70% Catholic? Sounds plausible.

When did being Catholic make you safe from the IRA? It certainly didn't in Claudy.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When did being Catholic make you safe from the IRA? It certainly didn't in Claudy.

Have you ever tried out for dodgeball? You'd be great at it.

LDN_Irish

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Sorry I'm only young

Haha very good!



And no I can't multi quote, sorry!

Why is thread still open? It no longer has anything to do with the topic?

Junkyard Tom

LDN_Irish wrote: »

And no I can't multi quote, sorry!

Click on this little symbol on the posts you want to multi quote.



Located here
........................................................................................................................................................... ↓

noway12345

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why is thread still open? It no longer has anything to do with the topic?

This is always the way people react when they don't like the truth about the war in the North been spoken. Shut them people up. The PIRA were the good guys in an awful war. The facts are there for all to see.

FFS, go boil your head or something.

LDN_Irish

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Click on this little symbol on the posts you want to multi quote.



Located here
........................................................................................................................................................... ↓

Thanks very much, but I'm on mobile view on a phone. I don't think the option is there.

Fratton Fred

noway12345 wrote: »

This is always the way people react when they don't like the truth about the war in the North been spoken. Shut them people up. The PIRA were the good guys in an awful war. The facts are there for all to see.

You see, that's the problem people have. The IRA were not the 'good guys' no matter how people like to paint them.

They were an understandable product of their environment, but by no stretch of the imagination were they the good guys.

noway12345

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

FFS, go boil your head or something.

You talkin to me? Huh?

noway12345

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You see, that's the problem people have. The IRA were not the 'good guys' no matter how people like to paint them.

They were an understandable product of their environment, but by no stretch of the imagination were they the good guys.

No participant in the war can be seen as saintly. Dirty deeds had to be done. The PIRA had right on its side and they tried to operate cleanly for the huge majority of their actions. The same can't be said for the British forces or the loyalists. It's not the narrative many want to hear, but it's all fact.

Fratton Fred

noway12345 wrote: »

No participant in the war can be seen as saintly. Dirty deeds had to be done. The PIRA had right on its side and they tried to operate cleanly for the huge majority of their actions. The same can't be said for the British forces or the loyalists. It's not the narrative many want to hear, but it's all fact.

In what way did they right on their side?

LordSutch

noway12345 wrote: »

The uncomfortable fact for many is that the PIRA were actually the good guys. They can never admit to that, to do so would change their whole reality.

The PIRA were on the whole, murder hungry, trigger happy, deluded, determined & blinkered fundamentalists who bought into the misty eyed, Irish Republican pipe dream whereby the Green & Orange are united as one (under the auspices of one Republican United Ireland). The thirty year campaign did of course have the effect of poisioning Unionist hearts & minds & destroying any chance of a United island (never mind a united Ireland).

Kill as many Policemen and soldiers as you like, kill people who step out of line too, Eff the Unionists and their heritage, Eff the fact that the majority want to retain and remain in the United Kingdom, so let's plant as many bombs as we can, let's destroy as many businesses as we can, let's make the North uncontrollable & ungovernable, let's do what we want to get our way, until we are politically strong enough to drop the armalite & concentrate on the ballot box!

To say that the PIRA were the good guys is either deluded or I'll informed.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The PIRA (...........)or I'll informed.

Jaysus Sutch, were I to go on you for info, I'd never know there'd been a sectarian statelet up there for near on 50 years.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred just thanked that post despite saying earlier in the thread that he thinks the PIRA campaign was justified but he doesn't agree with everything they did.

You know those people who mindlessly share everything on FB Fred? You are the boards.ie equivalent.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Jaysus Sutch, were I to go on you for info, I'd never know there'd been a sectarian statelet up there for near on 50 years.

So how do you fix a sectarian state? Shoot, bomb & maim your way to a United Ireland?

Eh, no, I don't think so.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

So how do you fix a sectarian state? Shoot, bomb & maim your way to a United Ireland?

...........

Well they tried the old "peaceful protest" thing, if you recall. It caused the poor peaceful statelet to have them beaten off the streets. Evidently there was only one language they were going to listen to.

Santa Cruz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This has all been gone over already in the thread. Bombs went off at all hours of the day and night for all sorts of operational reasons.
If the targets were economic it would make sense to target them during their biggest trading day and time.
The fact is nobody has produced any evidence to suggest the IRA was targeting civilians or even provided a reason as to why they would do so.
I have produced plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise

The fact iss that you are a fool that has swallowed Provo propaganda

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Fratton Fred just thanked that post despite saying earlier in the thread that he thinks the PIRA campaign was justified but he doesn't agree with everything they did.

You know those people who mindlessly share everything on FB Fred? You are the boards.ie equivalent.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but what has Lord Sutch said that contradicts my view?

The IRA campaign ultimately was its own worst enemy. I know the fanboys like to claim they bombed the brits to the negotiating table, but in reality, their support was in serious decline after Enniskillen (economic target was it?) And Warrington all but killed it off.

If they had stuck to killing a few soldiers in uniform (as opposed to Aussie day trippers, unarmed raw recruits And off duty airmen and their infant children) it would have been far easier for a British government to talk to them.

But it wasn't until their support wained they realised they were never going to win.

RandomName2

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

You're clueless. The PIRA fought numerous gun battles with the BA in Belfast and Derry.

This is 1972 alone.

27 January 1972: An IRA unit which included Martin Meehan fought a 4-hour gun battle with a British Army detachment at Dungooley in south County Armagh. The British Army alone fired over 4,500 rounds while the IRA returned fire with assault rifles and an anti-tank gun. There were no casualties in the battle with the exception of a farmers pig which was caught in the crossfire. 8 IRA volunteers were arrested south of the border but were eventually acquitted.
[...]

Huh - gun-battles are not the same things as battles. They are shootouts where a criminal gang fires a whole heap of covering fire as they attempt to get away (they aren't really trying to kill the enemy as such... but might just kill a pig in the process).

For instance the 1986 FBI Miami gun-battle could hardly be considered an actual "battle" by anyone's imagination... though it did involve guns being shot and a couple of being being killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

The IRA did also like ambushes on the grounds that with an ambush you might be able to kill your opponent before they get an opportunity to draw their weapon.

Also, like all organised crime the IRA might do drivebys and the like. They still do drivebys in fact.

I don't think that any organised crime organisation would do well against an actual army - which ISIS is.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Well they tried the old "peaceful protest" thing, if you recall. It caused the poor peaceful statelet to have them beaten off the streets. Evidently there was only one language they were going to listen to.

The SDLP were/are far bigger men, and not once did they stoop to murder.

Admittedly they were eventually overtaken by the Shinners, but only after the end of the IRAs thirty year murderfest. SF then stole the SDLPs political clothes and took all the adulation in the process!

What all this has to do with ISIS Vs the IRA is beyond me at this stage

rockatansky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA campaign ultimately was its own worst enemy.

Yes in some ways this is true.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but what has Lord Sutch said that contradicts my view?

but in reality, their support was in serious decline after Enniskillen (economic target was it?) And Warrington all but killed it off.
.

Have to disagree with the above statement. Two examples would be Canary Wharf in 1996 and the South Armagh sniper campaign up until 1997 showed the IRA were still strong after the two attack you mentioned.

Father Ted Crilly

I think it's time this thread was renamed to "The British vs The IRA".

Reiver

Incidents like Kilmichael and Tourmakeady show the IRA were well able of taking on the British Army when they'd prepared.

rockatansky

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I think it's time this thread was renamed to "The British vs The IRA".

I think its time this thread was closed.

LordSutch

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I think it's time this thread was renamed to "The British vs The IRA".

I have tried to steer this thread back into ISIS Vs IRA territory several times, but to no effect!
In one post I even asked the Moderator to get it back on track (many pages ago) . . . . .

The thread title is not applicable.

noway12345

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In what way did they right on their side?

They were defending their people from attack, they were fighting for their people to gain freedom from an occupier who was shooting their people dead in the streets, they had to either fight or be treated like dirt in their own land. They chose to fight and they were right.

Fratton Fred

noway12345 wrote: »

They were defending their people from attack, they were fighting for their people to gain freedom from an occupier who was shooting their people dead in the streets, they had to either fight or be treated like dirt in their own land. They chose to fight and they were right.

The IRA were never about civil rights. The injustices imposed on their community was no more than a recruiting tool. The IRA were solely about creating a United socialist republic, often against the democratic will of the people.

noway12345

LordSutch wrote: »

The PIRA were on the whole, murder hungry, trigger happy, deluded, determined & blinkered fundamentalists who bought into the misty eyed, Irish Republican pipe dream whereby the Green & Orange are united as one (under the auspices of one Republican United Ireland). The thirty year campaign did of course have the effect of poisioning Unionist hearts & minds & destroying any chance of a United island (never mind a united Ireland).

Kill as many Policemen and soldiers as you like, kill people who step out of line too, Eff the Unionists and their heritage, Eff the fact that the majority want to retain and remain in the United Kingdom, so let's plant as many bombs as we can, let's destroy as many businesses as we can, let's make the North uncontrollable & ungovernable, let's do what we want to get our way, until we are politically strong enough to drop the armalite & concentrate on the ballot box!

To say that the PIRA were the good guys is either deluded or I'll informed.

The unionists created the PIRA. They poisoned Nationalist hearts and minds with their behaviour, the PIRA were born to protect nationalists from attack from loyalist mobs.
After the unionists created the PIRA, the British security forces grew the number of members of the PIRA by thousands. They shot innocent Nationalists on the street, they took a completely one sided stance in the war.
Unionists and the British forces said **** you to any Nationalists who wanted their Irishness respected. The PIRA stood up against the bullies. They had right on their side.

noway12345

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA were never about civil rights. The injustices imposed on their community was no more than a recruiting tool. The IRA were solely about creating a United socialist republic, often against the democratic will of the people.

The IRA was dead! They had no numbers. The unionists created the PIRA. What was wrong with just treating people fair and equally? Look at all the death and misery they caused.

LordSutch

noway12345 wrote: »

The unionists created the PIRA. They poisoned Nationalist hearts and minds with their behaviour, the PIRA were born to protect nationalists from attack from loyalist mobs.
After the unionists created the PIRA, the British security forces grew the number of members of the PIRA by thousands. They shot innocent Nationalists on the street, they took a completely one sided stance in the war.
Unionists and the British forces said **** you to any Nationalists who wanted their Irishness respected. The PIRA stood up against the bullies. They had right on their side.

The main Nationalist driving force throughout the troubles was the SDLP.
Most Northern Nationalists supported the SDLP during the troubles.
The SDLP was diametrically opposed to terrorism, division & destruction.
The supporters of the Provo's were but a tiny minority within a minority.
The PIRA were a fundamentalist terror organisation with an agenda.
As the PIRA wound down, the simultaenious rise of republican politics began.
The British army kept the IRA at bay long enough for politics evolve from . . .

RandomName2

noway12345 wrote: »

They were defending their people from attack, they were fighting for their people to gain freedom from an occupier who was shooting their people dead in the streets, they had to either fight or be treated like dirt in their own land. They chose to fight and they were right.

I've underlined the bits that are wrong (the rest is debatable).

By the way, points for paraphrasing the unionist quote "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" (leaving out the "Ulster" in this case, naturally enough). Though the ironic thing was that this sentence came more to represent unionist opposition to the British Army/White Hall as opposed to nationalists in the early 20th century.

NotYourYear20

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The one that is the biggest showering of cowardly murderous scumbag cnuts.

No need to bring the 1st Battalion, of the British Army Parachute Regiment into the discussion.

Reiver

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

No need to bring the 1st Battalion, of the British Army Parachute Regiment into the discussion.

The Dublin Guard in Kerry were worse.

indioblack

noway12345 wrote: »

You have no answer.

My observations in the mid to late 1970's was that neither side seemed capable of achieving their aims. The British could not defeat the IRA - and the IRA were unable to end British control of the north.
The reasonable option, therefore, was negotiation.
Straightforward, really.
The continued "armed struggle" was a waste of time.

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

My observations in the mid to late 1970's was that neither side seemed capable of achieving their aims. The British could not defeat the IRA - and the IRA were unable to end British control of the north.
The reasonable option, therefore, was negotiation.
Straightforward, really.
The continued "armed struggle" was a waste of time.

Could have all been so simple if unionists didn't en masse topple Sunningdale

Could have entirely been avoided if loyalists didn't beat civil rights marchers of the streets. Or if the UPV didn't start a bombing campaign to try to blame a barely existent IRA. Or if unionists treated Catholics like humans without requiring civil rights marches at all. It surprises me that anyone thinks violence wasn't only justified but completely inevitable.

Even if LordSutch's analysis above is correct and that the PIRA only used the attacks on civil rights marchers as a recruiting tool (and that ignores the fact that the PIRA was made of people, most of whom were being treated terribly with reduced rights due to their religion/ethnicity so to suggest they were already solely committed to the 32 county Republic and the conditions of the time wasn't a driving force is bonkers) then the blame for the entire conflict sits squarely at the feet of the unionist govt, the community that resisted any threat to their supremacy with violence and the British state that refused to reign them in.

Even now we can see that nearly all the so called nationalist parties are left leaning and nearly all the unionist parties are right leaning. It's not a coincidence. Catholics were demanding equality and Protestants were demanding supremacy. How anyone could expect there to be no violent reaction from nationalists when civil rights marches got them shot, burnt out and expelled while police looked on is beyond me.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

Huh - gun-battles are not the same things as battles.

Okay you've invented a fantasy world where you get to decide what a battle is which only underscores that you're still clueless. Step away from the Xbox and enter the real world.

They are shootouts where a criminal gang fires a whole heap of covering fire as they attempt to get away (they aren't really trying to kill the enemy as such... but might just kill a pig in the process).

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

As I've already shown, you're clueless - keep embarrassing yourself if you please.

LordSutch

I guess ISIS would be 'head and shoulders' above the IRA in hand to hand combat.

Can't remember the last time a thread was not kept in check re "adhering to the thread title" which for some reason has been allowed to morph into The IRA Vs the British army (in Northern Ireland) during the troubles

LordSutch

indioblack wrote: »

My observations in the mid to late 1970's was that neither side seemed capable of achieving their aims. The British could not defeat the IRA - and the IRA were unable to end British control of the north.
The reasonable option, therefore, was negotiation.
Straightforward, really.
The continued "armed struggle" was a waste of time.

In a proper war the British Army would of course destroyed the PIRA in about a week (using tanks, harrier jump jets, jaguar ground attack jets, mobile heavy guns, helicopter gunships, and everything at their disposal).

. . . the problem for the army was of course that many innocents would have died too in such a war (seeing as the IRA were embedded in parts) of that NI population! The army always had one hand tied behind their back during the troubles.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess ISIS would be 'head and shoulders' above the IRA in hand to hand combat.

Can't remember the last time a thread was not kept in check re "adhering to the thread title" which for some reason has been allowed to morph into The IRA Vs the British army (in Northern Ireland) during the troubles

hilarious that youre back seat modding about the thread goin off topic and then constantly firing your (ill informed) two cents in about the "new" topic. You know what hypocrisy is, dont you?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, cast iron litter bins that when a bomb goes off inside behave like the casing of a hand grenade, producing loads of shrapnel and causing widespread injuries.

Oh man, this post is just classic Fred. Move the goalposts, ignore the actual subject, pretend youre talking about something else, divert with a pious statement of morality, do anything, ANYTHING to avoid admitting that youre wrong.
Go back and read your post. We arent talking about people here. You asked about a bombs ability to close down and entire street and I pointed out that these were not city busters, these were relatively small devices in bins and that you could quite easily clear and reopen an area in a few hours after them.
Realising youre wrong you turn straight back to their effect on people, which noone is disputing and not what we were talking about.
Slibhin shyster style of debate.

It is quite scary that you actually believe this stuff, even scarier that you dismiss a bomb in a shopping area so lightly.

I certainly do dismiss the effect of a small bomb on an entire shopping thoroughfare when the intended effect is to close it down. Yes, i totally dismiss that.

I suppose the Omagh bomb was the same, an economic target.

Quick, Im losing, I dunno what Im talking about, break the emergency glass, start talking about Omagh, even though it's nothing to do with what we're talking about. Distract! Divert!

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Neither of you are providing facts, just desperately trying to justify callous acts of murder. It is quite scary.

I have provided plenty of facts and links to back them up and pointed out at every turn that Im talking about the actual numbers of the conflict and not the morality of it. You have provided no facts or links and ignored what I have said at every turn because you have no idea what youre talking about.

Still, it keeps the legend of the good old cuddly ira going and means there will always be new recruits.

Nope, im not a free state hypocrite who harks back mistily to the days of the good old IRA while condemning the same organisation years later when it's not their freedom or rights at stake

Crooked Jack

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Nope. Yourself and a few others are doing a bang up job all by yourselves.

Thought as much. Thanks for jumping in all the same. Great contribution there to the debate. i especially enjoyed all the facts and links you used to back up your argument

Crooked Jack

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The fact iss that you are a fool that has swallowed Provo propaganda

Please go through any evidence or links I have provided and tell me which of them came from the Provos.
Cain? Yup
BBC? Sure
Various newspapers? Certainly
Historical resarch? Absolutely
Provos? Nope, none of it, sorry.

But it's nice to know that all those can be dismissed as "provo propaganda" when they force you to face an uncomfortable truth

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have provided plenty of facts and links to back them up and pointed out at every turn that Im talking about the actual numbers of the conflict and not the morality of it. You have provided no facts or links and ignored what I have said at every turn because you have no idea what youre talking about

facts?

The PIRA planted two (2) bombs in litter bins in a medium sized town centre. These two bombs were planted either end of a pedestrianised shopping street and timed to detonate one minute apart at lunchtime on a Saturday.

No adequate warning was given and two children were killed and 56 people were seriously injured.

Those are the facts. You're interpretation of those facts is (bizarrely) that those innocent people were not the targets it was done for economic reasons.

Every normal thinking considers it as a straight forward act of terrorism. If, as you claim, it was an act of war, then the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime.

So which is it, a war crime or an act of terrorism?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

facts?

The PIRA planted two (2) bombs in litter bins in a medium sized town centre. These two bombs were planted either end of a pedestrianised shopping street and timed to detonate one minute apart at lunchtime on a Saturday.

No adequate warning was given and two children were killed and 56 people were seriously injured.

Those are the facts. You're interpretation of those facts is (bizarrely) that those innocent people were not the targets it was done for economic reasons.

Every normal thinking considers it as a straight forward act of terrorism. If, as you claim, it was an act of war, then the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime.

So which is it, a war crime or an act of terrorism?

Neither as it clearly wasnt a deliberate targeting of civilians. If you want to target civilians you dont give warnings. You dont plant small bombs when you have the capability to plant huge ones. You dont pick, as you pointed out, a medium sized town instead of a large busy one with far more targets.

The facts are two bombs were planted in wartime Britain.
Two warnings were given.
Should those warnings have been clearer? Certainly. deserved criticism there.
Was this an attempt to kill civilians? Absolutely not. You have offered no explanation as to why the IRA would want to kill civilians when they didnt gain anything from it. Youve offered no reasoning as to why they would issue statements calling the deaths and injuries "tragic and deeply regrettable" if the intent was to kill people. You've offered no rebuttal to the mountain of evidence about other IRA bombs that went off and didnt kill anyone? Was there something about warrington in particular they didnt like? That for whatever reason this was the place they would try to kill civilians but not elsewhere? You've taken one incident completely out of context, ignored points that have been put to you, offered no evidence to back up your arguments, centred a judgment of a 30 year campaign on one event.
In summation your argument is blind opinion offered with no basis and clearly designed to serve your agenda

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA were never about civil rights. The injustices imposed on their community was no more than a recruiting tool. The IRA were solely about creating a United socialist republic, often against the democratic will of the people.

how the hell would you know this fred? blindly ignore that the IRA wouldnt exist if the local population didnt support them, so cut the unionist claptrap about them acting 'against the democratic will of the people'. they had the support of the people they represented. Dont even start explaining how going against 'the people' could be seen as a recruitment tool. Absolute nonsensical balderdash.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Neither as it clearly wasnt a deliberate targeting of civilians. If you want to target civilians you dont give warnings. You dont plant small bombs when you have the capability to plant huge ones. You dont pick, as you pointed out, a medium sized town instead of a large busy one with far more targets.

The facts are two bombs were planted in wartime Britain.
Two warnings were given.
Should those warnings have been clearer? Certainly. deserved criticism there.
Was this an attempt to kill civilians? Absolutely not. You have offered no explanation as to why the IRA would want to kill civilians when they didnt gain anything from it. Youve offered no reasoning as to why they would issue statements calling the deaths and injuries "tragic and deeply regrettable" if the intent was to kill people. You've offered no rebuttal to the mountain of evidence about other IRA bombs that went off and didnt kill anyone? Was there something about warrington in particular they didnt like? That for whatever reason this was the place they would try to kill civilians but not elsewhere? You've taken one incident completely out of context, ignored points that have been put to you, offered no evidence to back up your arguments, centred a judgment of a 30 year campaign on one event.
In summation your argument is blind opinion offered with no basis and clearly designed to serve your agenda

Why detonate the bombs at midday on a Saturday (or Friday evening in the case of La Mon and Birmingham) if civilians were not the targets.

The IRA weren't the cold blooded killers that ISIS are, but they clearly needed to instil an atmosphere of terror in people, something they had been doing since the S Plan. Too many deaths reduced their support, but a terror campaign needs a few dead and wounded to have the desired effect.

You just don't want to see it because you hero worship these guys. You seriously need to open your eyes and see the IRA campaign for what it was.

Fratton Fred

maccored wrote: »

how the hell would you know this fred? blindly ignore that the IRA wouldnt exist if the local population didnt support them, so cut the unionist claptrap about them acting 'against the democratic will of the people'. they had the support of the people they represented. Dont even start explaining how going against 'the people' could be seen as a recruitment tool. Absolute nonsensical balderdash.

Members of the IRA May have joined for their own personal reasons, but the IRA was never about civil rights, it was about creating a socialist republic. They refused to recognise the Dublin government ffs and they certainly didn't represent the majority of people in the north.

To try and claim the ira were fighting for civil liberties is nothing but revisionism