Was the Loughgall ambush a mistake by the British?

ChicagoJoe · 26-08-2015 3:15pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I have no idea what your on about here to be honest, I never claimed that Loughgall was a knock out blow for the security forces. The fact that the conflict continued for nother 7 years makes this pretty evident. Listing off a number of other successful IRA actions doesn't alter the fact that the IRA in east Tyrone suffered more losses in the late 80s/early 90s than any other IRA unit.

I mentioned Ballygawley, Lisburn and Buchanan and Breen in particular as they were in direct retaliation for Loughgall, though as you correctly state east Tyrone suffered a lot of losses but it wasn’t the knock out blow the Brits and their fan boys in the media tried to make out. It should also be pointed out that the loyalist gangs were committing dreadful murders weekly in North Armagh at the same against any unfortunate Catholic that happened to be in the wrong place, but no ambushes and shootouts by the Brits and RUC on them of course in their so called counter of ‘ terrorism ‘. But then why would they, since the Brit Dirty tricks dept/RUC/UDR were arming and directing the loyalists all through it.

I'm well aware that a civilian was killed at Loughgall and his brother was seriously injured. As far as I remember the two brothers happened to arrive at the scene wearing the same type of navy overalls that the IRA team were wearing.

By the by I don't understand why anyone can happily list off actions by the IRA then complain about the security forces being 'trigger happy' when they shoot armed IRA members. Surely that's to be expected in a conflict?

The line of the two brothers turning up in similar boiler suits to the IRA men was just an excuse put out by the RUC press office and unquestionably carried on in the media of course. The SAS are far from the James Bond type of figures the media like to mega hype them to with tales of how they can survive on rats piss in sub zero weather etc, the fact that most of the SAS are from the Parachute regiment means that they’d be closer to the kind of lowlife you’d see on the Jeremy Kyle show than a 007 character and hence to describe their shooting of the two brothers as trigger happy would be a fair reflection. The surviving man has never been featured on tv vindicating the line that they were in boiler suits or anyone at the scene such as the ambulance crew etc, the fact that they haven’t been allowed to vindicate the boiler suit excuse says it all. But killing of innocents by the RUC and Brits were always reported as “an unfortunate tragedy”, those by the IRA “a heinous, cruel murder “ etc, etc.

The IRA at the time stated they accepted their dead at Loughgall as been killed in war while the unionists and Brits gloated over it but we all knew that retribution would be coming from the Provos and come it did.

ChicagoJoe · 26-08-2015 3:19pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And yet when 3 of them were killed in Gibraltar, their fan boys cried like babies.

And there no shortage of reaching for the Kleenex when the two SAS corporals drove into the funeral a few days later and were diasarmed and killed.

ChicagoJoe · 26-08-2015 3:21pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

What is never mentioned in the usual tit for tat about Loughall is that at least 15 of the RUC in the building were seriously injured, to at least life-threatening level, so it wasn't just a one-sided "soccer score" of 8-0 and they joined the quite forgotten list of injured in the Troubles, which numbered about 30,000 by the time it ended.

regards
Stovepipe

And also in Tim Pat Coogan's book The IRA he states that at least one if not two IRA men escaped unharmed from the ambush.

Fratton Fred · 26-08-2015 5:46pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

And there no shortage of reaching for the Kleenex when the two SAS corporals drove into the funeral a few days later and were diasarmed and killed.

Dragged from their car, beaten, tortured, stripped naked and executed in cold blood.

If that sort of thing makes you proud, you are seriously in need of help. Or growing up.

They weren't SAS by the way.

Victor · 26-08-2015 6:14pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

That's already 26 IRA vs 11 SAS.

There is an expression "Sectarian head count". They are an obnoxious thing that provoke reactions. You are engaging in a body count, which isn't very different. This makes people are less willing to accept your core message.

Realise that boasting about body counts sets many normal people against you. Hence, during the troubles, Sinn Féin rarely had more than 10% political support in Northern Ireland and about 1-2% in the Republic. And if that is a poor showing, then realise that the dissents are doing even worse.

LeinsterDub · 26-08-2015 6:38pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I have never heard that term being used to describe members of the IRA, as it would suggest an acceptance of partition

Either have I but I would suggest the Irish Republic refers to the 1916 Republic and not to (the Republic of) Ireland the 26 county state

Arsemageddon · 26-08-2015 9:56pm

I mentioned Ballygawley, Lisburn and Buchanan and Breen in particular as they were in direct retaliation for Loughgall, though as you correctly state east Tyrone suffered a lot of losses but it wasn’t the knock out blow the Brits and their fan boys in the media tried to make out.

I've never heard anyone claim that any of the above where in retaliation for Loughgall, they were all just business as usual during the troubles. Are you seriously suggesting that they wouldn't have happened if there was no ambush at Loughgall?

By the by you've failed to mention the Enniskillen bombing in your list of retaliatory actions by the IRA.

It should also be pointed out that the loyalist gangs were committing dreadful murders weekly in North Armagh at the same against any unfortunate Catholic that happened to be in the wrong place, but no ambushes and shootouts by the Brits and RUC on them of course in their so called counter of ‘ terrorism ‘. But then why would they, since the Brit Dirty tricks dept/RUC/UDR were arming and directing the loyalists all through it.

Fair point

The line of the two brothers turning up in similar boiler suits to the IRA men was just an excuse put out by the RUC press office and unquestionably carried on in the media of course.

It was also mentioned in the coroners inquest and was mentioned by Fr. Raymond Murray in his exhaustively researched book The SAS in Ireland. Fr. Murray was a representative of the republican prisoners and a human rights advocate. I respect both his research and opinion.

The SAS are far from the James Bond type of figures the media like to mega hype them to with tales of how they can survive on rats piss in sub zero weather etc, the fact that most of the SAS are from the Parachute regiment means that they’d be closer to the kind of lowlife you’d see on the Jeremy Kyle show than a 007 character and hence to describe their shooting of the two brothers as trigger happy would be a fair reflection. The surviving man has never been featured on tv vindicating the line that they were in boiler suits or anyone at the scene such as the ambulance crew etc, the fact that they haven’t been allowed to vindicate the boiler suit excuse says it all.

This is just a load of emotive waffle. Both the Paras and the SAS are elite military units. Trying to portray them all as guttersnipes is just foolish.

Because of their training and ethos and obviously their role in Bloody Sunday the Paras should never have been deployed to Northern Ireland to serve as anything other than a quick reaction force as they were far too aggressive. The shooting of two joyriders in Belfast in 1990 and the attempt at a cover up is a clear example of this. Their carry on during their deployment to East Tyrone in 1992 was an absolute PR disaster for the British Army and only served to whip up support for the IRA.

Anyone who seriously questions the military capabilities of the SAS needs their head examined.

But killing of innocents by the RUC and Brits were always reported as “an unfortunate tragedy”, those by the IRA “a heinous, cruel murder “ etc, etc.

The IRA at the time stated they accepted their dead at Loughgall as been killed in war while the unionists and Brits gloated over it but we all knew that retribution would be coming from the Provos and come it did.

It's hard to take your concern about the British Army killing a civilian seriously when you are so ready to gloss over the IRA killing civilians.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

And there no shortage of reaching for the Kleenex when the two SAS corporals drove into the funeral a few days later and were diasarmed and killed.

They weren't in the SAS

jonniebgood1 · 27-08-2015 8:30am

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

And there no shortage of reaching for the Kleenex when the two SAS corporals drove into the funeral a few days later and were diasarmed and killed.

What does this have to do with history?

This type of jingoistic rubbish is all you do on this forum lad. Infraction and ban and please please please do not bother coming back.

Thanks also for the personal abuse messages- I really couldn't care less what your view of me is. I have been accused by other users of being pro-nationalist in the past so it adds a good balance that now I am anti Sinn Fein. The truth you will find is exactly where it should be, somewhere in between.

Regards
Moderator

Jesus. · 28-08-2015 11:34pm

The Moderation is very heavy handed in this section. You can't say boo to a Goose before your message is deleted and/or you're banned. I don't know why this particular Forum is so restrictive. Can't grown men take a bit of flak on an anonymous message board FFS?

Expect this message to be deleted and me banned by Jonnie Goebels when he sees it :rolleyes:

tac foley · 29-08-2015 9:48am

Well, Sir, it wasn't, and you aren't.

I suppect that makes you pretty disappointed, right?

tac

jonniebgood1 · 29-08-2015 10:19am

Jesus. wrote: »

The Moderation is very heavy handed in this section. You can't say boo to a Goose before your message is deleted and/or you're banned. I don't know why this particular Forum is so restrictive. Can't grown men take a bit of flak on an anonymous message board FFS?

Expect this message to be deleted and me banned by Jonnie Goebels when he sees it :rolleyes:

Grow up Jesus- Name calling..... really???

If you want to be banned please PM the request to me rather than making other forum users have to see the attempt in a thread.

As an aside I note that your inability to correctly spell 'Goebbels' tells forum users all they need to know about your historical knowledge.
No heavy handed moderation needed for you yet then as your attempt at historical name calling has shown you up for what you are IMO.

Incidentally I will indeed delete your next off topic or breaking charter post.

moderator jonnie goebels...

pesmfor · 28-09-2015 2:37pm

Question for FrattonFred...

"The same goes for the fuss about the supposed shoot to kill policy."

Was it just a fuss when non-IRA members, i.e., innocent nationalists were murdered by the British Security Forces as well?

Your "And yet when 3 of them were killed in Gibraltar, their fan boys cried like babies" comment is in equal bad taste to the gleeful comment regarding the 2 corporals being killed in Belfast. In fact, it was your infantile comment that led to that.

tac foley · 28-09-2015 3:57pm

I prophesy that if you joined in the fun and frolics here just to further your political aims, sundry aspirations and public support of a proscribed terrorist organisation, your time spent will be short indeed.

tac

pesmfor · 28-09-2015 4:04pm

tac foley wrote: »

I prophesy that if you joined in the fun and frolics here just to further your political aims, sundry aspirations and public support of a proscribed terrorist organisation, your time spent will be short indeed.

tac

Relevance?

DarkyHughes · 07-10-2015 3:57pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I mentioned Ballygawley, Lisburn and Buchanan and Breen in particular as they were in direct retaliation for Loughgall, though as you correctly state east Tyrone suffered a lot of losses but it wasn’t the knock out blow the Brits and their fan boys in the media tried to make out. It should also be pointed out that the loyalist gangs were committing dreadful murders weekly in North Armagh at the same against any unfortunate Catholic that happened to be in the wrong place, but no ambushes and shootouts by the Brits and RUC on them of course in their so called counter of ‘ terrorism ‘. But then why would they, since the Brit Dirty tricks dept/RUC/UDR were arming and directing the loyalists all through it.

The line of the two brothers turning up in similar boiler suits to the IRA men was just an excuse put out by the RUC press office and unquestionably carried on in the media of course. The SAS are far from the James Bond type of figures the media like to mega hype them to with tales of how they can survive on rats piss in sub zero weather etc, the fact that most of the SAS are from the Parachute regiment means that they’d be closer to the kind of lowlife you’d see on the Jeremy Kyle show than a 007 character and hence to describe their shooting of the two brothers as trigger happy would be a fair reflection. The surviving man has never been featured on tv vindicating the line that they were in boiler suits or anyone at the scene such as the ambulance crew etc, the fact that they haven’t been allowed to vindicate the boiler suit excuse says it all. But killing of innocents by the RUC and Brits were always reported as “an unfortunate tragedy”, those by the IRA “a heinous, cruel murder “ etc, etc.

The IRA at the time stated they accepted their dead at Loughgall as been killed in war while the unionists and Brits gloated over it but we all knew that retribution would be coming from the Provos and come it did.

Correct. And how would the SAS be able to see what the brothers were wearing, it was pitch black & they were inside a car.
The SAS set up a "kill zone" & nobody was to make it out of that zone alive so there would be only one version of events. The winners write history.

And just to be clear I'm not saying Loughgall was a mistake for the SAS, they were given a job to do - kill as many people as possible. My question was did it help prolong the conflict another 10 years because at around the time of Loughgall Sinn Fein were considering talking to the "enemy" which was made apparent by the 1986 Sinn Fein conference after witch Ruari O'Bradaigh predicted the IRA campaign would be run down & finally stopped.

DarkyHughes · 13-10-2015 2:42am

And also in the 6 weeks after Loughgall the IRA killed 8 British security forces & in July another 4. That's more British security killed in the 5 months before Loughgall.

josephryan1989 · 13-10-2015 9:07am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Looking back with hindsight was the Loughgall ambush in 1987 were the SAS ambushed a killed 8 IRA volunteers a blunder by the British & just helped to prolong the conflict.

At the time the British Army viewed it as one of their greatest success in years. But like John Hume said the conflict was political not military.
The years 1984, 1985 & 1986 were the lowest death tolls per year since 1970. For example 57 people died in 1985 due to the Troubles,1988 the year after Loughgall 104 people were killed almost double the amount from 1985.

The Loughgall funerals were the biggest Republican funerals since the 1981 hunger strikes & gave the Republican movement tonnes of publicity.

All I think Loughgall did was serve as a recruiting Sergent for another generation just as Bloody Sunday & the Hunger strikes did & it meant the IRA could recruit angry young nationalist men to carry on the war for another decade. And the effects were felt straight away. A year after Loughgall the IRA killed 6 British soldiers in a bomb attack in Lisburn the British Armies biggest loss since the Hyde Park bombings in 1982, just 2 months after the Lisburn bombing a bus full of British soldiers was blown up by the IRA killing 8 & injuring 29,the there was the Deals Barracks bombing were 11 British soldiers were killed.

And the death toll per year never went back down like it had done in the mid 1980's. From 1988 until the ceasefire the death toll per year was around the 85 - 100 mark.

And the British seemed to understand this themselves because the SAS team that went to arrest the Armagh Sniping team, which was probably the most ruthless unit since Jim Lynaghs they were ordered not to use force, because they didn't want to make more martyrs & have the peace process ruined.

The increase in Provo activity had more to do with new shipments of Kalashnikovs, ammo and semtex explosive from Gaddaffi during 1980s.

josephryan1989 · 13-10-2015 9:45am

The SAS are far from the James Bond type of figures the media like to mega hype them to with tales of how they can survive on rats piss in sub zero weather etc, the fact that most of the SAS are from the Parachute regiment means that they’d be closer to the kind of lowlife you’d see on the Jeremy Kyle show than a 007 character and hence to describe their shooting of the two brothers as trigger happy would be a fair reflection.

The Parachute Regiment like the Royal Marines which provide most of the SBS recruits have the most intense training of the entire British military. SAS soldiers are generally psychologically tougher and more intelligent than the average Parachute Regiment soldier because the famously sadistic selection weeds out the runts and their backgrounds are varied. Some are working class, some are middle class and others are from the upper crust. The SAS like our own Army Ranger Wing are a special forces unit so they are trained to operate in small units in polar regions, mountains, deserts, jungles and the like. An SAS soldier is given more intensive training in weapons than the average infantryman. The SAS are primarily involved in recon and as a raiders who hit and then run but also are sent into conflict zone to met up with guerrilla forces and train them in the field or in friendly countries are military advisers to the security forces. They also operate closely with the intelligence services and police as watchers who follow individuals (there were special forces soldiers following Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes) and work undercover to infiltrate subversive groups.

The two innocents who were hit at Loughall were shot because they were following immediately behind the van carrying the provo unit. They were wearing the working clothes as the IRA men and sadly got shot. Not because the SAS were trigger happy. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The SAS are neither murderous psychopaths nor troglodytes like Jeremy Kyle guests. They are simply highly professional soldiers.

Snickers Man · 13-10-2015 2:04pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Pyrrhic victory my arse.......

I have no idea what kind of logic gets you to interpret what was very obviously a severe defeat for the IRA into a victory, and to honest I don't care.

Go to an Australian or New Zealander and just say the word Gallipoli and then sit back and listen while they turn a humiliating defeat, which achieved nothing militarily after nearly nine months, into the most glorious narrative of courage, endurance and nation building. It will give you some idea of how the historical imagination can infer some very strange conclusions at great odds with the facts of the matter.

And to be fair to the OP. He didn't say the IRA achieved a victory at Loughgall; the Pyrrhic victory to which he referred was that of the British.

A Pyrrhic victory is when one side wins the day but finds out that in the long term their victory was detrimental to their side. Dates back to the battle of Asculum which the Romans lost to a chap called Pyrrhus but his own losses were so heavy that he commented that any more "victories" of similar expense would ruin him.

So was Loughgall a "Pyrrhic victory" for the British? Probably not. It was just a waste of life because it didn't change anything terribly much. The IRA resumed bombing and shooting British forces and their "collaborators", mainly Protestant policemen, off duty soldiers and construction workers.

The British continued to play at building "special forces" which yielded nothing much but the largely fictional plot lines for "Andy McNab" novels. And finally the good people of Northern Ireland said "enough of this ****" and sorted it out.

Kinda.

DarkyHughes · 13-10-2015 8:36pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The increase in Provo activity had more to do with new shipments of Kalashnikovs, ammo and semtex explosive from Gaddaffi during 1980s.

They got the shipments in 1985 & 1986 which included 9mm Brownings, RPGs, flamethrowers, SAMs, AK-47s, MP5 sub-machine guns, DShk heavy machine guns, FN-MAG machine guns the lovely semtex,

This is how Patrick Kelly & Jim Lynagh of the East Tyrone brigade unit were able to pull of such lightning quick & ruthless attacks on barracks, bases and checkpoints in the first place starting with the brilliant assault on Ballygawley barracks in December 1985.

DarkyHughes · 13-10-2015 9:02pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Go to an Australian or New Zealander and just say the word Gallipoli and then sit back and listen while they turn a humiliating defeat, which achieved nothing militarily after nearly nine months, into the most glorious narrative of courage, endurance and nation building. It will give you some idea of how the historical imagination can infer some very strange conclusions at great odds with the facts of the matter.

And to be fair to the OP. He didn't say the IRA achieved a victory at Loughgall; the Pyrrhic victory to which he referred was that of the British.

A Pyrrhic victory is when one side wins the day but finds out that in the long term their victory was detrimental to their side. Dates back to the battle of Asculum which the Romans lost to a chap called Pyrrhus but his own losses were so heavy that he commented that any more "victories" of similar expense would ruin him.

So was Loughgall a "Pyrrhic victory" for the British? Probably not. It was just a waste of life because it didn't change anything terribly much. The IRA resumed bombing and shooting British forces and their "collaborators", mainly Protestant policemen, off duty soldiers and construction workers.

The British continued to play at building "special forces" which yielded nothing much but the largely fictional plot lines for "Andy McNab" novels. And finally the good people of Northern Ireland said "enough of this ****" and sorted it out.

Kinda.

Yes, but you have to remember the IRA after Loughgall intensified their campaign & it probably helped bring new Volunteers in & it cost the British government a couple of billion pounds with bombs in Bishopsgate, The Baltic Exchange, Manchester, Canary Wharf & dozens of similar bombs in the North. i. Notice how a few weeks after the 1993 Bishopsgate bomb that caused £1.2 billion worth of damage the Downing Street declaration was issued.

So I think it was a Pyrrhic victory, not for the SAS & RUCSB but for the British government.

josephryan1989 · 15-10-2015 10:20am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They got the shipments in 1985 & 1986 which included 9mm Brownings, RPGs, flamethrowers, SAMs, AK-47s, MP5 sub-machine guns, DShk heavy machine guns, FN-MAG machine guns the lovely semtex,

This is how Patrick Kelly & Jim Lynagh of the East Tyrone brigade unit were able to pull of such lightning quick & ruthless attacks on barracks, bases and checkpoints in the first place starting with the brilliant assault on Ballygawley barracks in December 1985.

Brilliant attacks? They were firing at and bombing empty RUC stations.
Not launching an assault on the Schloss Adler

Lynagh and his men were paramilitaries and brave men indeed - I would not have agreed with their politics or the terrorist acts they committed but they were risking their lives unlike hoodlums who were shooting unarmed people dead in other provo attacks - but they had little or no training in combat except shooting on secret ranges in the Donegal or Kerry mountains or maybe some training on gun ranges in the US or in Europe or something like that. They were about as skilled at fighting as you or I or any other Walter Mitty wannbe if someone handed us automatic weapons and showed us the basics of their operation and how to shoot in a tight group.

They did not train as most soldiers do with live fire - crawling on their bellies under barb wire entanglements with machine gun bullets fired over their heads or for repelling ambushes or other tactical scenarios. Training means soldiers have to get used to the crash bang and wallop of the battlefield and being under fire. Men with combat experience have the psychological edge over soldiers who have never been in fear of death and under fire. Civilians who would jump at the sound of a firecracker will go to pieces in an ambush whereas an experienced soldier will keep a cool head and fight back.

So when the SAS opened up on them they panicked and prayed and sprayed - making a lot of noise but little else. The SAS simply shot them down like as if they were paper targets and then reportedly finished them with headshots at point blank.

Most IRA gun attacks were assassinations on off duty police and soldiers with handguns at point range into the head and body rather than open gun battles which caused politically damaging civilians casualties from stray shots.

The heavy weaponry was good for propaganda but practically was of little use since they didn't have the training and carrying these weapons around in the open was high risk and invited SAS ambushes.

josephryan1989 · 15-10-2015 10:32am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Yes, but you have to remember the IRA after Loughgall intensified their campaign & it probably helped bring new Volunteers in & it cost the British government a couple of billion pounds with bombs in Bishopsgate, The Baltic Exchange, Manchester, Canary Wharf & dozens of similar bombs in the North. i. Notice how a few weeks after the 1993 Bishopsgate bomb that caused £1.2 billion worth of damage the Downing Street declaration was issued.

So I think it was a Pyrrhic victory, not for the SAS & RUCSB but for the British government.

What the Loughall Ambush demonstrated was that in an open battle the provos - civilians with very limited weapons training - were no match for trained better equipped soldiers and commandos.

Roadside bombs, booby traps and sniper attacks might kill a few soldiers a year but did not put a real dent in the presence of thousands of British troops in the six counties or British rule. It meant that the six counties were militarized into perpetuity.

The bombing campaign against economic targets in the City of London was the work of men in a workshops building the electronics and mixing the explosives and a handful of people prepared to drive the bomb vehicles to their targets and others who phoned in warnings. It wasn't open battle and was never about taking territory which Lynagh and his men hoped to achieve. Arguably if the provos has used these tactics earlier in the Troubles they would have achieved their political objectives far sooner.

DarkyHughes · 15-10-2015 12:24pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Brilliant attacks? They were firing at and bombing empty RUC stations.
Not launching an assault on the Schloss Adler

Lynagh and his men were paramilitaries and brave men indeed - I would not have agreed with their politics or the terrorist acts they committed but they were risking their lives unlike hoodlums who were shooting unarmed people dead in other provo attacks - but they had little or no training in combat except shooting on secret ranges in the Donegal or Kerry mountains or maybe some training on gun ranges in the US or in Europe or something like that. They were about as skilled at fighting as you or I or any other Walter Mitty wannbe if someone handed us automatic weapons and showed us the basics of their operation and how to shoot in a tight group.

They did not train as most soldiers do with live fire - crawling on their bellies under barb wire entanglements with machine gun bullets fired over their heads or for repelling ambushes or other tactical scenarios. Training means soldiers have to get used to the crash bang and wallop of the battlefield and being under fire. Men with combat experience have the psychological edge over soldiers who have never been in fear of death and under fire. Civilians who would jump at the sound of a firecracker will go to pieces in an ambush whereas an experienced soldier will keep a cool head and fight back.

So when the SAS opened up on them they panicked and prayed and sprayed - making a lot of noise but little else. The SAS simply shot them down like as if they were paper targets and then reportedly finished them with headshots at point blank.

Most IRA gun attacks were assassinations on off duty police and soldiers with handguns at point range into the head and body rather than open gun battles which caused politically damaging civilians casualties from stray shots.

The heavy weaponry was good for propaganda but practically was of little use since they didn't have the training and carrying these weapons around in the open was high risk and invited SAS ambushes.

There was several armed RUC at Ballygawley 2 of whom were killed by the IRA.

There were 36 SAS hiding in bushes + at least 15 RUCSB motioning the ASU vs 8 IRA Volunteers (7 of whom were armed), it would have been rather embarrassing for the British if it had went any other way.
What Loughgall demonstrated was that intelligence was key. Only 4 of the 11 British security forces I mentioned who were killed in the weeks after Loughgall were off duty.

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing & it that it them 28 years to bring them to the negotiating table. Are your claim is counter to a British Army expert who described the IRA as "professional, highly skilled & motivated and one of the most effective "terrorist" organisations in history.

While the loyalist paramilitaries presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community, it said, they were in practice often little more than a "collection of gangsters".

You just have to look at the timeline of actions of the UVF or UDA or even the INLA & IPLO to see it's not as simple as picking up a gun & fighting like you suggest.
And do you really think a bunch of Walter Mittys would be able to plan & execute the biggest prison escape in British history & the biggest in Europe since WW2.

Then why mention the heavy weaponry in the first place?

DarkyHughes · 15-10-2015 12:36pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

What the Loughall Ambush demonstrated was that in an open battle the provos - civilians with very limited weapons training - were no match for trained better equipped soldiers and commandos.

Roadside bombs, booby traps and sniper attacks might kill a few soldiers a year but did not put a real dent in the presence of thousands of British troops in the six counties or British rule. It meant that the six counties were militarized into perpetuity.

The bombing campaign against economic targets in the City of London was the work of men in a workshops building the electronics and mixing the explosives and a handful of people prepared to drive the bomb vehicles to their targets and others who phoned in warnings. It wasn't open battle and was never about taking territory which Lynagh and his men hoped to achieve. Arguably if the provos has used these tactics earlier in the Troubles they would have achieved their political objectives far sooner.

Then how do account for standing battles the IRA won like Drummuckavali, Glasdrumman or Operation Conservation or ones that ended in stalemate like the Newry road battle? There were plenty of battles were the IRA inflicted casualties on British forces.

Yes, I know some the English bombing teams had previous work experience in welding, fixing crap cars etc... stuff like that but not all of them did. James Mcardle one of the Canary Wharf bombers was also a member of the South Armagh single shot sniping team which killed 8 soldiers & 3 RUC. The Barret M82 wasn't an easy weapon to use correctly.

Fratton Fred · 15-10-2015 4:41pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing

And a psychotic student in the US can kill 12 people in a lunch break.

Killing unarmed people in cold blood is nothing to be proud of.

Victor · 16-10-2015 1:02am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

There was several armed RUC at Ballygawley 2 of whom were killed by the IRA.

There were 36 SAS hiding in bushes + at least 15 RUCSB motioning the ASU vs 8 IRA Volunteers (7 of whom were armed), it would have been rather embarrassing for the British if it had went any other way.
What Loughgall demonstrated was that intelligence was key. Only 4 of the 11 British security forces I mentioned who were killed in the weeks after Loughgall were off duty.

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing & it that it them 28 years to bring them to the negotiating table. Are your claim is counter to a British Army expert who described the IRA as "professional, highly skilled & motivated and one of the most effective "terrorist" organisations in history.

While the loyalist paramilitaries presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community, it said, they were in practice often little more than a "collection of gangsters".

You just have to look at the timeline of actions of the UVF or UDA or even the INLA & IPLO to see it's not as simple as picking up a gun & fighting like you suggest.
And do you really think a bunch of Walter Mittys would be able to plan & execute the biggest prison escape in British history & the biggest in Europe since WW2.

Then why mention the heavy weaponry in the first place?

Genuine question: are you masturbating as you write posts like this? You posts come across like those of a 'fanboy' who is utterly incapable of critical thinking.

People died - lots of people. Many more were injured, lost family and friends and were otherwise traumatised - for more than 25 years. These are bad things. They are not to be glorified. Quiet reflection and remembrance would be much more appropriate.

tipptom · 16-10-2015 1:38am

tac foley wrote: »

I prophesy that if you joined in the fun and frolics here just to further your political aims, sundry aspirations and public support of a proscribed terrorist organisation, your time spent will be short indeed.

tac

Yep,when you got all the mods on boards as usual batting for you and combat18 activists there can be no discussion so its easy for you to prophesise against brave people who were not prepared to take it anymore and have stood up and created a more equal and democratic society in NI.

tac foley · 16-10-2015 5:48pm

I'll be charitable and assume that you are actually joking. The moderators on boards.ie are more likely to want to take a bat to my head than 'bat' for me, since I'm a furriner here with an often unwelcome viewpoint, rather like your own, in fact.

However, one of my other less amiable traits is that I tend not to respond to terrorist apologists of any kind, be they green or orange or any other politically-motivated 'shade'. Having been on the receiving end of the violent activities of both sides gives me that right.

So you'll forgive me if I point out that while you are gloating about the activities of your freedom-fighting pals, who will be more remembered for blowing up war memorials surrounded by those paying their respects, bombing buses filled with women and children, crowded pubs and busy high streets, it's a good point to remember that the very large proportion of them were Irishmen, women and children who never got the chances to grow up or older in your 'more equal and democratic society' - a society which, being 'equal and democratic', offers the opportunity for those formerly bent on its destruction to sit down and peacefully discuss its future with former enemies.

I guess that now you'll see that the Moderators will give me a good slapping for this post, and to tell the truth I'd deserve it, but many of us here are pretty much sickened by your glorification of a chapter of history that has not yet closed, no doubt kept open by your heroes in balaclavas and dark glasses.

tac

tac foley · 16-10-2015 5:48pm

I'll be charitable and assume that you are actually joking. The moderators on boards.ie are more likely to want to take a bat to my head than 'bat' for me, since I'm a furriner here with an often unwelcome viewpoint, rather like your own, in fact.

However, one of my other less amiable traits is that I tend not to respond to terrorist apologists of any kind, be they green or orange or any other politically-motivated 'shade'. Having been on the receiving end of the violent activities of both sides gives me that right.

So you'll forgive me if I point out that while you are gloating about the activities of your freedom-fighting pals, who will be more remembered for blowing up war memorials surrounded by those paying their respects, bombing buses filled with women and children, crowded pubs and busy high streets, it's a good point to remember that the very large proportion of the victims were Irishmen, women and children who never got the chances to grow up or older in your 'more equal and democratic society' - a society which, being 'equal and democratic', offers the opportunity for those formerly bent on its destruction to sit down and peacefully discuss its future with former enemies.

I guess that now you'll see that the Moderators will give me a good slapping for this post, and to tell the truth I'd deserve it, but many of us here are pretty much sickened by your glorification of a chapter of history that has not yet closed, no doubt kept open by your heroes in balaclavas and dark glasses.

tac

Was the Loughgall ambush a mistake by the British?

Comments