Civilian targets

K-9

Ok, following on from the other thread that was going off topic but was getting interesting, do you think that civilian death by the IRA were casualties of war, unintentional or was there a targeted campaign to murder civilians?

I'd prefer if we can keep this solely IRA related as I think the vast majority of people are aware of British shoot to kill etc. policies and Loyalist sectarian killers.

Sand

civilian death by the IRA were casualties of war, unintentional or was there a targeted campaign to murder civilians?

Of course there was a targeted campaign to murder civillians. Why do you think they bombed so many main streets, pubs, resteraunts, and other public civillian targets? Thats not even considering the campaign they waged against civillians in their own areas - the punishment beatings, torture and execution of those who offended them.

The Provos did everything possible to avoid engaging military opposition - the Balcombe Street gang are loved by the Provos for throwing nail bombs into London resteraunts at unarmed families, but couldnt surrender fast enough when faced with the prospect of going up against armed and trained soldiers. I mean, the Provos feel its an outrage that when the British shot at them, they intended to kill them...

Pandcoa

K-9 wrote: »

Ok, following on from the other thread that was going off topic but was getting interesting, do you think that civilian death by the IRA were casualties of war, unintentional or was there a targeted campaign to murder civilians?

I'd prefer if we can keep this solely IRA related as I think the vast majority of people are aware of British shoot to kill etc. policies and Loyalist sectarian killers.

There was never an intentional policy by the leadership to directly target civilians. If they had then there would have been a much larger civilian death toll. That is not to say they tried too hard to prevent civvie casualties in operations as many bombings will show, often pubs and discos where bombed purely because they were considered 'soldiers' hangouts - that is just plain lazy and morally corrupt from a supposed professional organisation if you ask me. Other economic targets I feel just not enough pressure was placed upon volunteers to minimise innocent casualties. This didn't matter early in the troubles when British army killings almost equaled IRA killings but later on when the Army did clean up their actions and given a moral high ground, there was more pressure to ensure as little civilian casulties as possible - which was extremely hard to do in that business.

Reprisal killings does challenge this view but reactionary tactics (unjustifable though they are) does not in my mind constitude that the IRA always had the intention of killing innocent people. They were divisive within the organisation themselves. The reason for these horrendous attacks was rooted in a loyalist challenge to the IRA's proud claim that they were defenders of their community, they feared a loss of support in their community and return of "IRA = I ran away". The provos had a simple if brutal attitude towards loyalist killings. To retaliate with excessive but deliberately directed killings on the unionist community to force the UDA/UVF to cease targeting their community. Take Kingsmills for example, this was in retaliation for the murder of 5 catholics. However this only intensified their campaign of killing innocents and for a while tit for tat actions occured each trying to put other out of action. Of course many within recognised that they were extremely counter productive actions that only alienated support, vital support from southern families who offered shelter and land so a restrained retailiation policy by the Army coucil was put in place at some point. To be honest I don't know how effective these actions were in stopping loyalist attacks on the community but the fact that it went on for so long shows it wasn't very.

Pandcoa

Sand wrote: »

Of course there was a targeted campaign to murder civillians. Why do you think they bombed so many main streets, pubs, resteraunts, and other public civillian targets? Thats not even considering the campaign they waged against civillians in their own areas - the punishment beatings, torture and execution of those who offended them.

Economic targets and their operations were not very well carried out either by an apathetic attitude to civilian deaths, poor preparation or simple unrealiable equipment and bombs. They did assume a policing role of their local communities, and honestly they weren't soft on people, joy riding would gain you a beating, robbing houses, drug dealing would get kneecaping an re offenders might even get executed though it's not as common as the media would have liked you to believe. They felt it nessary to do this since many in the nationalist community couldn't approach the RUC. But please don't be so ignorant to believe that something as simple as disagreeing with local men would gain you their attention, that's just laughable.

The Provos did everything possible to avoid engaging military opposition - the Balcombe Street gang are loved by the Provos for throwing nail bombs into London resteraunts at unarmed families, but couldnt surrender fast enough when faced with the prospect of going up against armed and trained soldiers. I mean, the Provos feel its an outrage that when the British shot at them, they intended to kill them...

Cool story bro, got a source?

pwd

Pandcoa wrote: »

Economic targets and their operations were not very well carried out either by an apathetic attitude to civilian deaths, poor preparation or simple unrealiable equipment and bombs. They did assume a policing role of their local communities, and honestly they weren't soft on people, joy riding would gain you a beating, robbing houses, drug dealing would get kneecaping an re offenders might even get executed though it's not as common as the media would have liked you to believe. They felt it nessary to do this since many in the nationalist community couldn't approach the RUC. But please don't be so ignorant to believe that something as simple as disagreeing with local men would gain you their attention, that's just laughable.



Cool story bro, got a source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/315216.stm

Pandcoa

pwd wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/315216.stm

Thanks but I was referring to the accusation that the provos prefered to target civilians than soldiers which to me is downright ludacris. If they had wanted to, they could have killed thousands more civilians and not killed any soldiers by that thinking

Fionnanc

Deliberate murders of civilians.The IRA hoped by murdering English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places they would get what they want. IRA members should be sharing cells with the Serbian leaders in the Hague

A Dub in Glasgo

Fionnanc wrote: »

IRA members should be sharing cells with the Serbian leaders in the Hague

They should be sharing cells with many many others including the British, Americans and Israelis to name three.

K-9

Pandcoa wrote: »

But please don't be so ignorant to believe that something as simple as disagreeing with local men would gain you their attention, that's just laughable.

What did Robert McCartney do?

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

What did Robert McCartney do?

He got in a fight to defend his RIRA mate who sexually harassed the wife of a local republican.

And lost.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He got in a fight to defend his RIRA mate who sexually harassed the wife of a local republican.

And lost.

Even if that was completely true (links btw?), he got what was coming to him?

This is the problem with vigilantes!

Anyway, was Enniskillen a legitimate target?

OhNoYouDidn't

Fionnanc wrote: »

Deliberate murders of civilians.The IRA hoped by murdering English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places they would get what they want. IRA members should be sharing cells with the Serbian leaders in the Hague

If you can name me one IRA bombing that was designed to "murder English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places" I will throw €100 at the charity of your choice.

Mods to referee?

IRISH RAIL

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They should be sharing cells with many many others including the British, Americans and Israelis to name three.

as well as a few Irish the kind who gave you your freedom to post such nonsence.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

Even if that was completely true (links btw?), he got what was coming to him?

This is the problem with vigilantes!

No, it was a horrific murder.

But he was not as squeaky clean as he was presented.

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, was Enniskillen a legitimate target?

Not that place at that time.

IRISH RAIL

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If you can name me one IRA bombing that was designed to "murder English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places" I will throw €100 at the charity of your choice.

Mods to referee?

warrington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks
and you can send the donation to boards santa strike force

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

warrington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks
and you can send the donation to boards santa strike force

Wrong.

The attack was on a gasworks.

As a Republican those two childrens deaths outraged me. It was a callus and careless attack. But the intent was not to kill those kids.

And I really will not take a lecture in morality from a bunker in Tel Aviv

IRISH RAIL

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wrong.

The attack was on a gasworks.

As a Republican those two childrens deaths outraged me. It was a callus and careless attack. But the intent was not to kill those kids.

And I really will not take a lecture in morality from a bunker in Tel Aviv

maybe try reading the article before you jump on your high horse
the second bomb was outside a boots store and an argos how was that not meant to kill anyone?
or is that zionist propoganda and because it did not come from "your sources" it is biased against the republican movement?

as a republican you seem to think im sitting in a bunker in TEL AVIV
as a republican you have shown ignorance and stupidity in the post you wrote
Im sitting in an apartment in dublin.
how many IRA attacks do you condone ?

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If you can name me one IRA bombing that was designed to "murder English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places" I will throw €100 at the charity of your choice.

Mods to referee?

.

Warrington

Canary Wharf

PS. Warrenpoint was army tactical genius as admitted by British Army sources.

Shows you, when well planned, the IRA could target Army targets only.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, it was a horrific murder.

But he was not as squeaky clean as he was presented.

Exactly my point, he didn't deserve what happened to him. Come on admit it, you'll gain respect for admitting it was a wrong murder.

PS. THE second attack. Stop being selective.

At 11:58am on 20 March 1993, the telephone help charity The Samaritans received a coded message that a bomb was going to be detonated outside the Boots shop in Liverpool, fifteen miles away from Warrington. Merseyside Police investigated, and also warned the Cheshire Constabulary (who patrolled Warrington) of the threat, but it was too late to evacuate. At 12:12pm two bombs exploded, one outside Boots on Bridge Street and one outside the Argos catalogue store. It later turned out that the bombs had been placed inside cast-iron litter bins, causing large amounts of shrapnel.

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

.

Warrington

Canary Wharf

PS. Warrenpoint was army tactical genius as admitted by British Army sources.

Shows you, when well planned, the IRA could target Army targets only.

K9 just as a slight ot point can you explain how it was tactical genius
not having a go just curious thats all.

K-9

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

K9 just as a slight ot point can you explain how it was tactical genius
not having a go just curious thats all.

As a guerilla attack that resulted in as many army deaths as possible and no civilian deaths.

AFAIK, it was the biggest death toll in one incident until Omagh. 18 I think.

The first bomb attacked an Army convoy. They hid for shelter.

The second bomb was planted exactly were any Army would hide for shelter.

Classic Guerilla warfare as admitted by a British Army chief. Source may have been The Dirty War, can't remember.

Seanies32 AKA K-9

Just saying when the IRA wanted it, they could plan military targets.

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

As a guerilla attack that resulted in as many army deaths as possible and no civilian deaths.

AFAIK, it was the biggest death toll in one incident until Omagh. 18 I think.

The first bomb attacked an Army convoy. They hid for shelter.

The second bomb was planted exactly were any Army would hide for shelter.

Classic Guerilla warfare as admitted by a British Army chief. Source may have been The Dirty War, can't remember.

Just saying when the IRA wanted it, they could plan military targets.

ah yes narrow water I know it now
wasnt that not warren point ?

ah just re read your post there was mixing up my points with my tons
sorry

K-9

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

ah yes narrow water I know it now
wasnt that not warren point ?

ah just re read your post there was mixing up my points with my tons
sorry

I think it's Warrenpoint, Co. Down.

Anyway, a well planned Guerilla attack. If only the IRA stuck to that policy?

pwd

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly my point, he didn't deserve what happened to him. Come on admit it, you'll gain respect for admitting it was a wrong murder.

a wrong murder huh?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote:

And I really will not take a lecture in morality from a bunker in Tel Aviv

wow. You really established yourself on the moral high ground there alright.

K-9

pwd wrote: »

a wrong murder huh?

Do go on.

IRISH RAIL

I think he was being sarcastic

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

I think it's Warrenpoint, Co. Down.

Anyway, a well planned Guerilla attack. If only the IRA stuck to that policy?

but then there cowardly leadership wou;d have to get up off there asses and work a bit instaead of barking orders in a pub

K-9

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

but then there cowardly leadership wou;d have to get up off there asses and work a bit instaead of barking orders in a pub

Exactly, it became a power thing, as in power over our own Community, as shown by McCartney.

When your people are in fear of you, you've lost the people.

I suppose my point is the IRA could have been a good thing, but human nature ruins it, similar to a thread on Communism on AH!

The IRA did some good things and many terrible things.

A perfect example is the Hunger Strikes. Brave, brave men exploited for political means.

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

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

A perfect example is the Hunger Strikes. Brave, brave men exploited for political means.

QUOTE]

ah yes but they wernt in prision for walking there dog

K-9

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

A perfect example is the Hunger Strikes. Brave, brave men exploited for political means.

QUOTE]

ah yes but they wernt in prision for walking there dog

Indeed, still the sacrifice.

Anything you'd do that for?

pwd

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic

yup

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

.

Warrington

Canary Wharf

If memory serves, the IRA claimed at the time that they either had phoned in a coded warning about where that bomb was, but it detonated early ? Something to that effect anyway. With the public outcry that followed, they had to come up with some excuse. Still, no excuse covers that.

As for Canary Wharf, different matter. The warnings about time and place were precise enough for the Police to have the whole area evacuated. Could have went badly wrong though.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uiuwQtYMC_s

K-9

Duiske wrote: »

If memory serves, the IRA claimed at the time that they either had phoned in a coded warning about where that bomb was, but it detonated early ? Something to that effect anyway. With the public outcry that followed, they had to come up with some excuse. Still, no excuse covers that.

As for Canary Wharf, different matter. The warnings about time and place were precise enough for the Police to have the whole area evacuated. Could have went badly wrong though.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uiuwQtYMC_s

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

IRISH RAIL

K-9 wrote: »

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

of course isnt that where the queen keeps her purse :rolleyes:

so where all the train stations pubs restaurants and hotels they bombed.

And they have the cheek to try and dictate to everyone how people should behave.

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

So Canary Wharf was a legitimate military target?

I'm not an apologist for the IRA. I was just trying to show that if the IRA had been deliberately targeting civilians, there would not have been ANY warnings for the Canary wharf bomb, or any other for that matter.

Military target ? Obviously not. I assume the IRA would have defended it at the time by calling it an economic target.

K-9

Duiske wrote: »

I'm not an apologist for the IRA. I was just trying to show that if the IRA had been deliberately targeting civilians, there would not have been ANY warnings for the Canary wharf bomb, or any other for that matter.

Military target ? Obviously not. I assume the IRA would have defended it at the time by calling it an economic target.

But economic means civilians?

pwd

Canary Wharf was not a legitimate miltary target: It was an economic target. None of the pira's targets were legitimate - they were a terrorist organization which the majority of Irish people did not support.

In 2004 they had killed 644 civilians, 273 RUC members, 163 Republican paramilitaries, 23 prison officers, 7 gardai and Irish army and 5 British police officers. This is a total of 1115people killed who were not British military.

The same study showed they had killed 456 British military (including territorial army), 182 Ulster Defence Regiment and 28 loyalist paramilitaries. This totals 666.

They also injured about 20,000 people, most of whom were civilians.

Duiske

K-9 wrote: »

But economic means civilians?

Thats a question your going to have to put to the IRA leadership of the late 80's/90's i'm afraid. I believe their P.R.O. was a Mr P. O'Neill.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

But economic means civilians?

The theory behind targets like Canary Wharf was twofold.

They could have stayed at war with squaddies and peelers in the north forever, the London goverment gave not a damn. Making life difficult for the population of the English capital brought pressure on the government and cost them a fortune as insurance companies refused to pay out.

Secondly it was a headline grabbing, low risk operation.

I note no-one has been able to call me on my challenge. That is not to interpret me as defending atrocities like Enniskillen and Warrington.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wrong.

The attack was on a gasworks.

That was the first bomb (well, first collection of bombs). The second and third, a month later, were in the city centre.

Armin_Tamzarian

I believe that primarily the PIRA (especially in later years), sought to target the Crown (military, police, politicians), economic targets and to a lesser extent Loyalists.
I.e. Canary Wharf, Narrow Water, South Armagh sniper killings.
I'm aware that there were two civilian deaths in Canary Wharf but it should be noted that the building
had been cleared and they crossed the police barrier and re-entered the building to retrieve takings from the till.

In any conflict where there are going to be deaths then IMO these are the most acceptable type of deaths.
I'm not condoning it, I'm just being analytical about it.
In most cases I would imagine that it would have been a major concern to try to avoid any civilian casualties.


In some other cases attacks went ahead in the knowledge that there would be come civilian deaths,
collateral damage you might call it.
Examples of this would be Mountbatten where two innocent children were killed.
I've read abit about Mountbatten and I've known people who had met him.
He certainly doesn't sound like an enemy of Irish Republicanism but I
suppose from the point of view of the IRA any member of the Royal family was fair game.
I think that cases like this are disgraceful.
How someone can willingly kill two innocent children for the sake of
killing their primary target is beyond me.

Finally we have the last case.
Cases where civilians were purposefully targetted.
The only example that springs to mins is Kingsmill where republicans
murdered civilian construction workers who were working on a RUC / military base.
Possibly the worst part about these killings was the fact that
there was blantant sectarianism at work.
The killers identified the catholic workers (bar one) and let them go.

I think that killings like that were fairly isolated and I'm sure that
the republican movement was only too aware that killings like this were
extremely harmful to the republican movement.

Any attack such as this which sets out primarily to target civilians is beyond revulsion
and is totally indefensible.


To conclude.
I feel that it is too easy to claim that the IRA were more than happy to target civilians but that statement
doesn't stand up to argument.
Unfortunately it did happen, but only I believe in rare incidents and mainly
back in the 70s.

Even in cases like the terrible Omagh bombing.
The intention wasn't to kill civilians.
The person who phoned in the bomb warning was incoheren with
the result being that the location of the bomb was confused.

Fionnanc

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If you can name me one IRA bombing that was designed to "murder English civilians in English towns with bombs in public places" I will throw €100 at the charity of your choice.

Mods to referee?

Warrington bombing killing to boys. Bomb hidden in a bin. Canary wharf bombing killing 2 men. All those pub bombings in the 1970s Guilfortd etc

OhNoYouDidn't

Fionnanc wrote: »

Warrington bombing killing to boys. Bomb hidden in a bin. Canary wharf bombing killing 2 men. All those pub bombings in the 1970s Guilfortd etc

This point may be far too subtle for you, so I'll type it slowly.

The object of the Warrington bomb was not to kill those children. Thats no consolation to their families though.

The guys who died at Canary Warf broke the police cordon and were walking towords the bomb when it went off.

Guilford was an attack on a pub that soldiers drank in.

We can discuss the morality of these actions until the cows come home, but to say that the PIRA set out with the specific intention of killing civilians as a tactic is patently false, whatever your opinion of them.

The UDA/UFF and UVF however, did.

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This point may be far too subtle for you, so I'll type it slowly.

The object of the Warrington bomb was not to kill those children. Thats no consolation to their families though.

Oh so I'm going to assume that Boots and Argos were completely viable targets then? Perhaps some Brit soldiers bought some shelving in Argus or maybe a toothbrush in Boots made it a completely viable target then? The IRA knew exactly what they were doing planting those bombs in a civilian centre where there was no military presence.

The guys who died at Canary Warf broke the police cordon and were walking towords the bomb when it went off.

Oh so it's their fault that they're dead... Nothing to do with the fact the IRA should never have put a bomb there anyway. Again there's no logical reason reason as to why they'd bomb areas with a sustained civilian presence, the fact is the murder of civilians was of no real concern to them.

Guilford was an attack on a pub that soldiers drank in.

Oh so now pubs were off limits to civilians because soldiers had the cheek to drink there? Once again, the murder of civilians was of no real concern to the IRA.

We can discuss the morality of these actions until the cows come home, but to say that the PIRA set out with the specific intention of killing civilians as a tactic is patently false, whatever your opinion of them.

You may be able to try and argue that they didn't intentionally target civilians but you cannot say that they were concerned with trying not to murder civilians.

The UDA/UFF and UVF however, did.

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Armin_Tamzarian

I can't think of any example of the PIRA specifically targetting civilians on English soil.

However, the most heinous of the PIRA's acts were the bombings
that were carried out with the knowledge that there would be civilian
casualties.

The distinction should be made that although the PIRA was happy to accept the loss of civilian lives, that the civilians were never the
intended targets.

Also, in cases like the Birmingham and Warrington bombings.
Bomb warnings were phoned in but ambiguity, confusion and
lack of time were major factors in the loss of life.
It's next to impossible to discern if the ambiguity was intentional on the part of the bombers or if it was due to difficulties understanding accentsm, etc.

But worst of all were the bombs that were preceded with no warning.
How people could leave a bomb in a pub on the basis that the pub
was believed to be frequented by off duty soldiers is completely beyond me.
In all likelihood, the majority of working class pubs in Britain are frequented by off duty members of the British armed forces.

I do believe that in later years the PIRA recognised the atrociousness of such acts and made better efforts to avoid the loss of civilian life.

Armin_Tamzarian

Poccington wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

This statement is simply untrue.

Republicans have been responsible for the deaths of many, many civilians.
The point is that in nearly all these cases the deaths of the civilians wasn't intentional.

However, Loyalists on the other hand made careers out of targetting innocent civilians for death purely on the basis of their religion.
E.g. Greysteel, Silverbridge, Dennis Carville and all the other innocent Catholics who were murdered because of their religion.

It's a little O/T but let's not forget all those heroic Loyalists who braved the cold weather and got out of bed early to pelt stones at groups of 4 and 5 year old girls on their way to school.
So no, both sides were not as bad as each other.

One side was bad but the other was worse.

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so I'm going to assume that Boots and Argos were completely viable targets then? Perhaps some Brit soldiers bought some shelving in Argus or maybe a toothbrush in Boots made it a completely viable target then? The IRA knew exactly what they were doing planting those bombs in a civilian centre where there was no military presence.

You seem to think I am here to defend these attacks. I am not. I'm simply saying, as Armin T is, that there was never an PIRA campaign to target civilians.

A stragegy in the 90's was to attack commercial targets in light of the famous 'acceptible level of violence' strategy London was employing. The provos made a decison that making life difficult for ordinary English folk was the tactic that would get London to the negotiating table.

I'm not offereing an opinion on this strategy

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so it's their fault that they're dead... Nothing to do with the fact the IRA should never have put a bomb there anyway. Again there's no logical reason reason as to why they'd bomb areas with a sustained civilian presence, the fact is the murder of civilians was of no real concern to them.

Logical reason was to cost the London government a couple of hundred million and have middle class Londoners put pressure on the Tories to go to the negotiating table.

Poccington wrote: »

Oh so now pubs were off limits to civilians because soldiers had the cheek to drink there? Once again, the murder of civilians was of no real concern to the IRA.

Possibly not, but thats not whats being discussed.

Poccington wrote: »

You may be able to try and argue that they didn't intentionally target civilians but you cannot say that they were concerned with trying not to murder civilians.

Personally I think that they probably did try to avoid civilians, but that comes down to your ideological stance. Or put another way, they could have killed a hell of a lot more civilians if they wanted.

Poccington wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Thats a spectacularly naive statement. The IRA did not drive around Belfast and Mid Ulster looking for Protestants to aduct, torture and even in some cases sexually molest before executing them. The loyalist campaign was a squalid in that all they could militarily do for god and ulster was target teenagers out for a few pints.

As Armin says "One side was bad but the other was worse."

IRISH RAIL

they just put bombs in peoples taxis and forced them to drive it to police stations.
they just put bombs in pubs because a soilder might have been having a quiet drink there that night.
they just happened to beat a man to death outside a pub because he said something to the wrong person.

get real

OhNoYouDidn't

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just put bombs in peoples taxis and forced them to drive it to police stations.

Never heard that one.

Were you not defending IDF attacks on Palestinian police stations? An Apache killed dozens when they were passing out on a parade ground. Why the double standard?

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just put bombs in pubs because a soilder might have been having a quiet drink there that night.

They did.

I repeat, I am not condoning that tactic.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they just happened to beat a man to death outside a pub because he said something to the wrong person.

Two groups of hardmen had a fight over a woman. It was a savage beating they gave him, but its not the first time a bar brawl went too far.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

get real

from the bloke who defends shelling schools with phosphorous? No thanks.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Never heard that one.

January 2005. CIRA. Could use Patsy Gillespie as a PIRA equivalent though, that was 1990 IIRC. Or the two London cabbies forced to be proxy bombers the same day as the Bishopsgate bomb, that was 1993.

K-9

WTF has Israel got to do with NI?

You shouldn't have to make the comparison if your argument stands up.