Sinn Fein cancels bomber commemoration

CrazyFather1

If you want to discuss FF/FG, plenty of threads knocking around to discuss on them. Maybe stick to the topic that this thread is about.
The constant dragging of FF and FG into everything is very tiresome

Yurt2

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If you want to discuss FF/FG, plenty of threads knocking around to discuss on them. Maybe stick to the topic that this thread is about.
The constant dragging of FF and FG into everything is very tiresome

Mod: Banned, this time permanently

jm08

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

They gave a single warning with no location, just a Boots shop. Then when it was a child blown up the PIRA came out & said they gave two warning except nobody gave them and no locations.

Why would police want to let the bombs go off? they went off to Liverpool and start an evacuation? 30 min warning as well. Very generous

They still gave a warning. Why do that if you want to kill civilians?

blanch152

Scratchly wrote: »

It's quoted plenty and I don't have the stomach or time to read back through terrorist supporter quotes tbh. Read the thread.

Some highlights from this terrorist supporter are :

Fighting for Ireland is not a crime.
I never said targeting civilians was unacceptable.
IRA terrorists stood up and did what was necessary.
The North being occupied was justification for terrorist attacks.
The North is still occupied.
When asked if he would support renewed terrorist activity given he considered the North occupied he responded "if there's a border poll it will be unnecessary".
When asked what if there is no border poll he responded "if there's no democratic way then violence is the only option".

It's all printed in public in this thread. If a mod wants me to document it all I will. But I won't be taking directions from you.

And no amount of deflection to FG will change what's been said in this thread by terrorist sympathisers, apologists and supporters.

While that post may not exactly and completely quote from the posts referred, it is an accurate synopsis of what the poster was posting.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

They still gave a warning. Why do that if you want to kill civilians?

One of their warnings was designed to send people the wrong way towards a bomb. In another case, their warning was found to be completely inadequate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/botched-ira-warning-was-crucial-factor-in-birmingham-pub-bomb-deaths-inquest-finds-1.3850680

IRA warnings weren't designed to avoid killing civilians. Rather they were designed to give the pretence that the IRA cared about civilians.

Gatling

jm08 wrote: »

They still gave a warning. Why do that if you want to kill civilians?

And yet they killed civilians the civilians they claimed to be protecting from the invading hordes

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

So pubs that may have some off duty soldiers having a pint with their wives or girlfriends among other innocent civilians were legitimate targets in your eyes.
Do you know Tom Barry disagrees with you?

I'm trying to explain to you that in the thinking of the PIRA, Security Forces, etc. on or off duty were legitimate targets, not my thinking. I don't think it was worth the risk. I don't think they were targetting civilians because they were giving warnings to the Police and to the Samaritans. I believe they started giving warnings to the Samaritans as well because the Police were letting innocent people getting killed for PR reasons.


My main point is that civilians were not the targets. I think the BA & USA Army commit atrocities like this, they describe the killing of civilians as ''collatoral damage''.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

One of their warnings was designed to send people the wrong way towards a bomb. In another case, their warning was found to be completely inadequate.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/botched-ira-warning-was-crucial-factor-in-birmingham-pub-bomb-deaths-inquest-finds-1.3850680


From that article.

IRA warnings weren't designed to avoid killing civilians. Rather they were designed to give the pretence that the IRA cared about civilians.

Police first on the scene searched the Rotunda office block, wrongly believing one of the bombs was inside. In evidence, it emerged frontline officers had no standardised training or procedures when dealing with bomb warnings.
One detective told the inquest that bomb threats were dealt with “lightheartedly”.

You need to read the whole article which documents the failings of the police.

jm08

Gatling wrote: »

And yet they killed civilians the civilians they claimed to be protecting from the invading hordes

What invading hordes? I don't think the IRA claimed to be protecting anyone in England.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

You need to read the whole article which documents the failings of the police.

"They also found there was “not sufficient evidence” of any failings, errors or omissions by West Midlands Police’s response to the bomb warning call, or in regards to two alleged tip-offs to the force, giving advanced warning of the blasts."

Those are the inquest findings.

Your opinion, while interesting, is not really of substance, given you didn't hear all of the evidence.

Gatling

jm08 wrote: »

What invading hordes? I don't think the IRA claimed to be protecting anyone in England.

It's been claimed they were fighting an invasion ,

Necro

Mod:

Ok back on topic please and enough of the bickering, Yurt has been given a permanent holiday for his troubles.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

"They also found there was “not sufficient evidence” of any failings, errors or omissions by West Midlands Police’s response to the bomb warning call, or in regards to two alleged tip-offs to the force, giving advanced warning of the blasts."

Those are the inquest findings.

Your opinion, while interesting, is not really of substance, given you didn't hear all of the evidence.

From that article, they say that the PIRA warning was inadequate and that the police were shortstaffed and they had no training on how to deal with a bomb warning.


The tip-offs were not alleged. They received them. Just they didn't understand them and the PIRA should have been more specific as to where the bombs were planted.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

From that article, they say that the PIRA warning was inadequate and that the police were shortstaffed and they had no training on how to deal with a bomb warning.


The tip-offs were not alleged. They received them. Just they didn't understand them and the PIRA should have been more specific as to where the bombs were planted.

The article quotes the findings of the inquest:

"They also found there was “not sufficient evidence” of any failings, errors or omissions by West Midlands Police’s response to the bomb warning call, or in regards to two alleged tip-offs to the force, giving advanced warning of the blasts."

I am not second-guessing that independent process.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

The article quotes the findings of the inquest:

"They also found there was “not sufficient evidence” of any failings, errors or omissions by West Midlands Police’s response to the bomb warning call, or in regards to two alleged tip-offs to the force, giving advanced warning of the blasts."

I am not second-guessing that independent process.

This would be the same police force and judicial system that prosecuted and jailed 6 innocent people for something that they didn't do?


I suggest you should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

This would be the same police force and judicial system that prosecuted and jailed 6 innocent people for something that they didn't do?


I suggest you should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

And then there was Warrington

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/declassified-files-document-sets-out-how-ira-lied-about-warrington-bomb-warning-1001498

Another warning that didn't exist. Even worse, two false warnings were made the same day. All adding to the evidence that the IRA warnings were not designed to save lives, just a publicity stunt by the IRA to enable them to claim they didn't target civilians.

Just another despicable low.

CrazyFather1

jm08 wrote: »

They still gave a warning. Why do that if you want to kill civilians?

If you don't want to kill civilians then don't plant a bomb outside a Boots and McDonalds in the middle of a shopping area

Ever think of that?
Warrington was hardly the epicentre of trade in the UK. I doubt anyone in Northern Ireland even knew the place before the bombs went off

If they wanted to attack industry plenty of targets all over the UK to hit. Especially on a weekend

CrazyFather1

jm08 wrote: »

This would be the same police force and judicial system that prosecuted and jailed 6 innocent people for something that they didn't do?


I suggest you should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

Did the Police force plant the bomb? if not then pointless pointing the finger at anyone else.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

And then there was Warrington

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/declassified-files-document-sets-out-how-ira-lied-about-warrington-bomb-warning-1001498

Another warning that didn't exist. Even worse, two false warnings were made the same day. All adding to the evidence that the IRA warnings were not designed to save lives, just a publicity stunt by the IRA to enable them to claim they didn't target civilians.

Just another despicable low.

Seriously, an article from the Newsletter. Are you having a laugh.

During that period, the British Security services (police, army etc) were corrupt and lied frequently. They used torture to get ''confessions''. They are even more unreliable than the IRA in my opinion.


Of course, no mention of the civilian catholics that were shot in Northern Ireland the next day in retaliation. That was the British propaganda war machine in action for you which you have fallen for.

jm08

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Did the Police force plant the bomb? if not then pointless pointing the finger at anyone else.

So, because some innocent English people suffered, its ok that the British Police made some innocent Irish people suffer by torturing them to get a confession just because they needed some sort of a 'win'.


I suppose that would be right if you consider an Irish life to be worth less than an English life.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Seriously, an article from the Newsletter. Are you having a laugh.

During that period, the British Security services (police, army etc) were corrupt and lied frequently. They used torture to get ''confessions''. They are even more unreliable than the IRA in my opinion.


Of course, no mention of the civilian catholics that were shot in Northern Ireland the next day in retaliation. That was the British propaganda war machine in action for you which you have fallen for.

So you think the IRA warnings for Warrington were accurate and sufficient?

I can keep dragging up examples of the IRA blowing up civilians with inadequate warnings.

Bobeagleburger

jm08 wrote: »

Seriously, an article from the Newsletter. Are you having a laugh.

During that period, the British Security services (police, army etc) were corrupt and lied frequently. They used torture to get ''confessions''. They are even more unreliable than the IRA in my opinion.


Of course, no mention of the civilian catholics that were shot in Northern Ireland the next day in retaliation. That was the British propaganda war machine in action for you which you have fallen for.

When the subject of innocent civilians and children being blown up by bombs comes up it's always the same. But, but, what about XYZ, etc etc. Whataboutry.

There's no excuses for killing innocents. From any side. None.

I'm been a SF voter many times, but the killing of innocents always grated with me.

hatrickpatrick

It always saddens me that there's such a big debate about this. Targeting civilians is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason and the IRA badly, badly, badly lost its way when this became the modus operandi as opposed to attacking law enforcement, military, and paramilitary targets.

We really shouldn't be debating this. It's also not a zero sum game as I've said many times before - you can support a party or organisation whilst being heavily critical when they f*ck up. I'd argue that this is the healthiest way to support anything. Hell, it's the same situation as with the Story funeral - would love to see SF in government here with other left wing parties, have no problem calling the leadership out for such an unimaginably stupid, dangerous, and above all highly inflammatory decision in attending it.

People shouldn't be afraid to criticise their side where criticism is due. The IRA descended into absolute evil when they started authorising people to go over to England and blow up random commercial spaces full of innocent people going about their day. There's absolutely nothing controversial in that statement and it in no way undermines your status as a loyal Republican if you do so. In fact, I'd argue that not calling out one's own side when they f*ck up is in fact the height of disloyalty - does a good friend allow their friend to do stupid or evil sh!t without calling them out and saying "hey look, that was f*cked up and you really shouldn't be acting like this"?

Bobeagleburger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It always saddens me that there's such a big debate about this. Targeting civilians is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason and the IRA badly, badly, badly lost its way when this became the modus operandi as opposed to attacking law enforcement, military, and paramilitary targets.

We really shouldn't be debating this. It's also not a zero sum game as I've said many times before - you can support a party or organisation whilst being heavily critical when they f*ck up. I'd argue that this is the healthiest way to support anything. Hell, it's the same situation as with the Story funeral - would love to see SF in government here with other left wing parties, have no problem calling the leadership out for such an unimaginably stupid, dangerous, and above all highly inflammatory decision in attending it.

People shouldn't be afraid to criticise their side where criticism is due. The IRA descended into absolute evil when they started authorising people to go over to England and blow up random commercial spaces full of innocent people going about their day. There's absolutely nothing controversial in that statement and it in no way undermines your status as a loyal Republican if you do so. In fact, I'd argue that not calling out one's own side when they f*ck up is in fact the height of disloyalty - does a good friend allow their friend to do stupid or evil sh!t without calling them out and saying "hey look, that was f*cked up and you really shouldn't be acting like this"?

Agreed. Otherwise it's Trumpism type support imo.

Natterjack from Kerry

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

What has FF/FG got to do with a thread about a PIRA/SF bomber?
I asked before but yet to get an answer.

Nothing. But, SF/IRA having no identity other than the rather repulsive obsession with a UI, murder, and terrorism, SF supporters only understand themselves in relation to other parties. They generally dont want to get involved in discussion about their support for murder and terrorism, so end up back with more to say about FF or FG than about SF. The GFA removed much of their identity and purpose. Leaving a shell of a party in search of a purpose.

maccored

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Nothing. But, SF/IRA having no identity other than the rather repulsive obsession with a UI, murder, and terrorism, SF supporters only understand themselves in relation to other parties. They generally dont want to get involved in discussion about their support for murder and terrorism, so end up back with more to say about FF or FG than about SF. The GFA removed much of their identity and purpose. Leaving a shell of a party in search of a purpose.

copying and pasting posts? - man you really are trying.

Dyr

markodaly wrote: »

Your figures are incorrect I am afraid!

Still up to your ould nonsense





You might notice that the Brits and their paramilitaries killed more civilians than anyone else, especially when compared to the amount of combatants they killed. They killed over a thousand civilians and less than 200 combatants

Republicans did the opposite. the IRA killed over twice as many combatants as they did civilians. Thats better collateral damage control than most conventional armies can manage.

Those are brutal stastistics but you compare that to the selective oolagoning you do about innocent victoms of the provos it becomes fairly clear the motivation is the usual point scoring on the Shinners rather than any moral perspective

CrazyFather1

jm08 wrote: »

So, because some innocent English people suffered, its ok that the British Police made some innocent Irish people suffer by torturing them to get a confession just because they needed some sort of a 'win'.


I suppose that would be right if you consider an Irish life to be worth less than an English life.

Nobody said anything about one life worth more than another.

As I posted, if the PIRA didn't want to kill civilians then they shouldn't have planted bombs in a shopping area, do you not think?

CrazyFather1

Deleted User wrote: »

dont you guys always claim the ira was riddled with informers?

Surely,in yous version of reality,a warning wouldnt even be necessary?

So now the problem wasn't the guys planting the bombs, but the informers for not figuring out that the PIRA thought Boots and McDonalds was a legitimate target?

I must admit, that is a new one to me.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

I'm trying to explain to you that in the thinking of the PIRA, Security Forces, etc. on or off duty were legitimate targets.

So why leave a bomb in the middle of a packed pub, filled with innocent civilians who have no association with the security forces?
The PIRA 'reasoning' is just an excuse in wonton slaughter.

My main point is that civilians were not the targets. I think the BA & USA Army commit atrocities like this, they describe the killing of civilians as ''collatoral damage''.

There you have it, the 722 innocent civilians who were killed by Irish Republicans was just 'collateral' damage.