Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Options
1382383385387388553

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    People knew who the IRA were. The BA and intelligence agencies masqueraded as the good guys, upholding open rules of law and ethics when they were engaged in terrorism and murder. The civilian population and IRA had to deal with that even if we didn't know about it at the time, which I suspect the state did.

    Just look at internment. Grabbing people, often innocent civilians off the street, beating and torturing them. You can't paint a picture of clean living folk minding their own business until the IRA came along. Its dishonest.

    Rehashing tired 'RA discussions because of SF polls in 2021/2022.

    Post edited by Brucie Bonus on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    The IRA always tried to minimise civilian casualties, the Brits used to use children as human shields to prevent them from being shot at, this was common practice in Northern Ireland.

    Here's a quote from a British soldier speaking about the IRA

    ''if you start to stand next to kids, and that might sound callous and cruel but they were cowards and they wouldn't shoot at you because they didn't want to risk shooting any children because that wouldn't look good''.

    It's common knowledge to a lot of people that the Brits would use children as human shields but skip to 14.30 on this documentary and you will hear the quote posted above, there was an older American ABC documentary from the early 80s which goes into more detail about it which must have been taken off YouTube as I can't find it anymore.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DMZULAbyfs0k&ved=2ahUKEwi6wI7k6p_1AhUDhlwKHX1PDUUQwqsBegQICRAE&usg=AOvVaw3f1n96aqlJsHqgLbk4M936



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Planting bombs in public places isn't minimising civilian casualties. It's targeting civilians. Phoning in bomb locations doesn't change the fact that the IRA deliberately planted bombs in locations that would kill civilians when they went off which is what happened.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    War is never pretty. Entire villages and towns were wiped out in WW2, the good war. They were acceptable indiscriminate carpet bombings though, remembrance day and all that.

    Doesn't cancel it out but picking at one side in a conflict without context is pointless.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Would you not think its v.inefficent way of targeting civilains,by calling in warnings??


    And such accusations,in light of this fact,are foolish to point of parody?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,689 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No, not at all. In fact, as I have said, it is the opposite. Phoning in warnings allowed the PIRA to pretend that they weren't targetting civilians.



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Doesn't matter whether its efficient or inefficient. The intent was to put the lives of innocent people at risk. Those people were only at risk because of deliberate actions by the IRA to ensure innocent people were in harms way.

    Whether they banked on the police saving them or not isn't really relevant. The IRA cowardly scum that they were targeted innocent people.

    You want to talk of parody how's knowing bombs placed in public places by a terrorist organisation killed people but still claiming they were trying to minimise civilians casualties ?



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As per yous last paragraph,i would really like to understand the logic as how giving warnings for bombings,is regarded as not trying to minimise casualties??



    It simply isnt logical to claim so



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    You seem to be forgetting about the fact that the IRA were the ones who put the civilians in danger. I'd love to understand how you think placing a bomb in a public place to put civilian lives in danger is minimising civilian casualties.



  • Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭FullyComp



    Not placing a bomb around civilians is the only way you minimise civilian deaths, duh



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ive never claimed its minilising danger?

    Its a war (well,was),and they were quite clear in their intent to collaspe the economy to make the colony,both unprofitable and ungovernable


    Ive said simply,claiming they are targeting civilains is a misnomer,given they gave warnings


    (they do deserve the critism for instances,when warnings were failed,due to damaged phoneboxes etc....as they are good enough to plant,must accept resonsibility when they go off and havnt been able to get the warnings in)



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Indeed,but in a war situation....and giving warnings placed it is surely entirely misrepresentive to proclaim.it as targeting civilaians?

    ,as this postition,simply deosnt stand up to scrutiny



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    If your reaction to Paddy Cosgrave outing trolls, racists, misogynists, homophobes is along the lines of "fcuk paddy cosgrave", then you're a sympathiser for all the above.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    I think the armed force shooting civilians dead and assisting terrorists blow them up caused a few issues, and they were state backed.

    War isn't pretty.



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Simply claiming over and over that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny isn't an argument.

    The IRA placed bombs in public places so that civilian lives were at risk. The fear and political impact of innocent people dying during every day life was why those bombs were placed there. Not to damage the economy with a couple damaged buildings.

    It's irrelevant that they gave warnings. The intent was to put innocent lives at risk. They targeted civilians.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There is no need for any arguement .....


    as you have somehow convinced yourself the ira were targeting civilains while simutaneously failing to explain how giving warnings fits into this worldview (or acknowleging how inefficent it would be)


    Factually speaking,your position lacks both logic and credibility,pure swing-and-miss fairy logic.im afraid



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Targeting civilians isn't war. Its terrorism. Regardless of which side is doing it. It shouldn't be defended or downplayed but seen for the dispicable **** it is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Again no argument. Just claiming I'm wrong. I'm not sure how to dumb it down any further for you. I mean if you can't understand "Bomb in public puts public lives at risk" then there's not much hope.

    One last try. The reason those bombs were planted in public is because there were civilians there. Otherwise they'd have planted them in a field. The bombs don't have any impact unless peoples lives are at risk. Deliberately putting civilians lives at risk = targeting civilians.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    They werent planted because they were civilams there


    The bombs were to wreak the economy,to make the 6 counties unprofitable for.the british exchequer....


    how do you think,planting a bomb in a field damages the economy?.....childlike logic,which also thinks placing warnings furthers a cause of targeting civilians (how??)



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    Childlike logic? You're on to insults now after failing to make any argument? Lovely.

    And blowing up pubs and fast food joints was going to cripple the British economy was it? Plenty of those bombs were placed to spread fear to put pressure on the British government. And that fear was spread because civilian lives were at risk.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Eh.


    Look up proxy bombs by the RA.


    Forcing an innocent person to drive a bomb into an army barracks.


    Innocent person dies in the explosion.


    All done to damage the economy yeah?



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Did these bombs target military installations using collaborators?


    Come here to me actually,did the other 2 infamous bombs,have the driver warned not to open the door as it would set off the fuse?



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Except its not an insult,its an assestment of a mindset,that concludes people who provide warnings are setting out to target civilans,


    If you feel this is an unfair assestemnt,by all means highlight and outline how calling in warnings increases risk of civilian casualtys?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Only 30% of people killed by the IRA were civilians (a very good figure for any group engaged in conflict) that should settle the argument and clarify that civilians weren't being targeted but some did get targeted at times although most civilians were killed accidentally and were not targeted.

    The civilian figure also includes 60 former members of the security forces, 30 prison guards, civilians employed by British security forces, politicians, members of the judiciary, and alleged criminals and informers



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 MowldyCabbage


    An assessment of a mindset? So perhaps I should assess your mindset? You willfully ignore facts and logic to downplay the targeting and killing of civilians by a terrorist organisation. We'll call that terrorist-like logic shall we?

    I didn't say a warning increases the risk of civilian casualties. I said planting the bomb does and a warning doesn't negate that risk. Would you care to explain how planting a bomb in public does not increase the risk of civilians deaths ? Or how knowing even with warnings that civilians still died how planting subsequent bombs at non military, non economicly impactful locations causing the further civilian deaths was "minimising civilian casualties"?

    How would your terrorist-like logic explain that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭touts


    The IRA had a "no warning" campaign of blowing up pubs packed with civilians in Gilford and Birmingham. Saying they were targeting the couple of soldiers sitting at one end of the bar and the civilians all around them were not the actual targets is a new low of political spin even for Sinn Fein.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Except i havnt downplayed anything...perhaps using facts and logic,yous could outline where i did?


    But once the warning is placed in adequate time,it places burden of stopping it onto police/security forces,this is rather obvious stuff,if the police/military dont want this responsilbility,they are free to withdraw from the island at any time imo....i mean like, it is their job


    We are supposedly a neutral country,but have severl british army bases on the island,its bizzare logic



  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Townton


    Targeting economic infrastructure i.e corner shops, offices, supermarkets, bus stations etc. All places operated, run and used by innocent civilians. It was either terrorism or if you think these guys were actually soldiers (rather then the scumbags they were) then it was a war crime. Criminal either way.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    I think we should drop this subject it's not going anywhere.



Advertisement