Warrenpoint: A case of a Paramilitary force against a conventional army.

Fuinseog

it was a well planned and well executed opertaion. The Brits were unprepared for it and the IRA could predict how they would react.

the Brits counteracted like the americans i.e shooting all directions at antything that moved and in the process shot an innocent English tourist who happened to be bird watching.

there were up to 30,000 british soldiers in the province and the active element of the IRA could have numbered as little as 200.

bombs could be assembled on farms using legal farming equipment. every catholic was a suspect, but it would be impossile to monitor them all

Poccington

Terrontress won't be posting on the Military forum again. Anybody who wishes death upon another user can expect the same treatment.

iceage

As many here have said, reasonable plan with a bit of luck thrown in, PIRA 18- BA 0.

As I said bac on page 1 of this entralling thread the guys involved must have thought all their Xmas's had come at once when the second one went off. Like most things of this nature if you do your homework and plan your attack correctly and bury enough bombs dotted around the place, your bound to get lucky once and in a blue day twice, happy for them I really am. Its the law of averages isn't it. This was the nature of the said paramilitary forces fight with a conventional force back then in the dark old days.

Maybe you could dissect and explain what happened today to me Mussolini and some of the others here who hold, say a slighty different view of said Paramilitary forces. Dark old days...lets hope we don't return to them eh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10975548

Wolfe Tone

iceage wrote: »

As many here have said, reasonable plan with a bit of luck thrown in, PIRA 18- BA 0.

As I said bac on page 1 of this entralling thread the guys involved must have thought all their Xmas's had come at once when the second one went off. Like most things of this nature if you do your homework and plan your attack correctly and bury enough bombs dotted around the place, your bound to get lucky once and in a blue day twice, happy for them I really am. Its the law of averages isn't it. This was the nature of the said paramilitary forces fight with a conventional force back then in the dark old days.

Maybe you could dissect and explain what happened today to me Mussolini and some of the others here who hold, say a slighty different view of said Paramilitary forces. Dark old days...lets hope we don't return to them eh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10975548

Whoever did that it ws not the PIRA. There is a thread on AH on it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67457330#post67457330


I am not some sort of spokesman for the IRA in its various guises ffs. I just thought that some military heads here would like to discuss the military side of the troubles i.e confrontation between the BA and the PIRA such as the Warrenpoint attack.

iceage

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Whoever did that it ws not the PIRA. There is a thread on AH on it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67457330#post67457330

Your guess, is as good as mine.


I am not some sort of spokesman for the IRA in its various guises ffs. I just thought that some military heads here would like to discuss the military side of the troubles i.e confrontation between the BA and the PIRA such as the Warrenpoint attack.[/QUOTE]

Never said you were. They did. Happy now?

Fuinseog

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well the BA were not allowed or supposed to physically cross the border. Often after they carried out their attacks the IRA would withdraw to the Republic were they could not be followed.
And as for being censured, going purely on the BAs record on disciplining soldiers who erred, I highly doubt it. Thats the pessimist in me. Open to correction though.

its intersting the guy was english and not just some paddy. i wonder was there an outcry in Britain at the time or was his death attritubed to the IRA. there was soemthing in the papers yesterday about a 12 year old girl the BA shot 34 years ago.

the border security on the southern side was not very tight. teh SAS went over once to kidnap an IRA leader and to assasinate others.

Wolfe Tone

Fuinseog wrote: »

its intersting the guy was english and not just some paddy. i wonder was there an outcry in Britain at the time or was his death attritubed to the IRA. there was soemthing in the papers yesterday about a 12 year old girl the BA shot 34 years ago.

the border security on the southern side was not very tight. teh SAS went over once to kidnap an IRA leader and to assasinate others.

Indeed. I wonder f the republic ever made formal complaints about BA trespassing?

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Indeed. I wonder f the republic ever made formal complaints about BA trespassing?

The British weren't supposed t cross the border and generally they respected that. Sometimes though, the IRA were taking the piss and it wasn't that unreasonable for the BA to cross.

The IRA never respected any borders, they took the fight to England, Germany and Gibralter and were happy to kill out of uniform/off duty soldiers whenever they felt like it, so why should the same rules not apply the other way around?

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British weren't supposed t cross the border and generally they respected that. Sometimes though, the IRA were taking the piss and it wasn't that unreasonable for the BA to cross.

The IRA never respected any borders, they took the fight to England, Germany and Gibralter and were happy to kill out of uniform/off duty soldiers whenever they felt like it, so why should the same rules not apply the other way around?

So the IRA is the official state army of the ROI?

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the IRA is the official state army of the ROI?

they claimed to be.

Not that i suggested they were. they moved around as they liked though and, as mentioned earlier, staged attacks from inside the ROI knowing full weel the BA c/would not go after them.

I don't think it is surprisin that sometimes the BA decided to inadvertantly cross the border and I don't think it is any surprise that the Irish government turned the odd blind eye.

Fuinseog

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Indeed. I wonder f the republic ever made formal complaints about BA trespassing?

there were "several map reading errors". the eighties saw more co operation between the two states. very few incursions were publicised at it would have enarged public opinion.

if the british estalishment was behind dublin and monaghan and this could have been proven it would have meant a declartion of war between UK and ireland. hence the unwillingness of teh Irish government to investigate.

teh governemnt complained about torture and that was it. they won their case at Strasbourg.

tac foley

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Several times in the early 70's the Brits for up to an hour fired live bullets into the village from the northern side all "jus for a lauf" which I'm sure happened along many other towns and villages along the border.

Total ****e.

tac

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The British weren't supposed to cross the border but they regulairly did. But that was by no means theri worst offence south of the border. I have relations in the county Leitrim village of Kiltyclogher which is about half a mile on the southern side with a river dividing county's Leitrim and Fermanagh ( the bridge between the two counties was blown up by the Brits in the early 70's, just like most of the other bridges and road crossings along the border with devasting economic results for the shop keepers, farmers etc in the area - If that's not terrorism what the f*** is :mad: ).

Several times in the early 70's the Brits for up to an hour fired live bullets into the village from the northern side all "jus for a lauf" which I'm sure happened along many other towns and villages along the border. And ofcourse our great heros in the Dail would at best express " concern " :rolleyes:. Indeed their is a monument in the middle of the village dedicated to 1916 volunteer and signature of the Proclaimation Sean McDiarmuid, which was shot at by the Brits several times, the bullet marks still there to see.

As I said, if that's not terrorism what the f*** is :mad: ).

I thought we were only discussing the military prowess of the Warrenpoint massacre?

Alpha Papa

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes the paras thought that they were under gun fire as the ammunition in the lorry was going off due to the fire caused by the explosion. The English civilian killed by the paras on the Irish side of the border by coincidence was the son of a coachman at Buckingham Palace. Not that this was the first or last civilain murder by the trigger happy Parachute regiment, however no OBE was given out of for this particuliar murder.

I know im late joining this disscussion but interesting topic, when the British soldier fired across the border into the Republic and killed a civilian. Did he go under trial for murder or was he prosecuted by the MOD in the uk?

I didnt see mention of it so far.

Sorry for being off topic just curious of the legal aspect.

Cheers

AP

Fratton Fred

Alpha Papa wrote: »

I know im late joining this disscussion but interesting topic, when the British soldier fired across the border into the Republic and killed a civilian. Did he go under trial for murder or was he prosecuted by the MOD in the uk?

I didnt see mention of it so far.

Sorry for being off topic just curious of the legal aspect.

Cheers

AP

Surely anyone has the right to defend hemselves, regardless of where a shooter is firing from. If there was a tragic mistake made, then i don't see why anyone should be prosecuted, presuming that it was indeed a tragic mistake.

As has already been made clear, the BA thought they were being fired on, so it is not unreasonable for them to return fire and if they genuinely and reasonably thought the person killed was a player, then i don't see why they should stand trial.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely anyone has the right to defend hemselves, regardless of where a shooter is firing from. If there was a tragic mistake made, then i don't see why anyone should be prosecuted, presuming that it was indeed a tragic mistake.

As has already been made clear, the BA thought they were being fired on, so it is not unreasonable for them to return fire and if they genuinely and reasonably thought the person killed was a player, then i don't see why they should stand trial.

Because they violated an international border and killed and wounded innocent people?

Although it is understandable why they shot, doesn't mean they should have though.

Manic Moran

Because they violated an international border and killed and wounded innocent people?

Won't wash. If they honestly believed that they were under attack from the other side of the border, they can shoot across the border. The right to defend yourself trumps everything else. Now, that doesn't mean that they can cross the border in pursuit.

NTM

Alpha Papa

Just out of curiousity was there many instances of this occuring either the NI security forces firing across the border or the Irish Army/Gardai doing the same.

Honestly never heard of this happening much in the history books?

BrianD

RMD wrote: »

It was a great military victory, 18 killed without 1 Ira member even being wounded. Sadly people always seem to forget the 2 innocent tourists shot by the BA after the initial bomb, one later died.

The reason the Ira thrived in Northern Ireland is because they were fighting in their own backgarden so to speak, quite often these were local lads who knew the lay of the land better than any foreign soldiers.

I don't know how you can liken this to a military victory. A military victory is when something meaningful is achieved by one side or the other. The Battle of Waterloo was a military victory. Warrenpoint was nothing more than a successful ambush. There was no defeat of the British army, no territory was denied to them nor was their a change of civilian administration in the area. As we all know, it was politics and not ambushs that led to meaningful change in Northern Ireland.

One has to ask, in retrospect was Warrenpoint a spectacular military failure by the provos?

troubleshooter

Fuinseog wrote: »

it was a well planned and well executed opertaion. The Brits were unprepared for it and the IRA could predict how they would react.

the Brits counteracted like the americans i.e shooting all directions at antything that moved and in the process shot an innocent English tourist who happened to be bird watching.

there were up to 30,000 british soldiers in the province and the active element of the IRA could have numbered as little as 200.

bombs could be assembled on farms using legal farming equipment. every catholic was a suspect, but it would be impossile to monitor them all

Thats just more anti BA propaganda, not based on what occurred.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562283/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-relives-IRA-Paras-bombs.html

....."Convinced they were being shot at from the other side of the water, surviving soldiers opened fire, killing an innocent tourist and wounding another. One soldier spotted movement behind a roadside wall; pointing his gun, he shouted an order to come out with hands up. Several shocked children appeared; they had been picnicking with their mother."........

Fuinseog

troubleshooter wrote: »

Thats just more anti BA propaganda, not based on what occured.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562283/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-relives-IRA-Paras-bombs.html

....."Convinced they were being shot at from the other side of the water, surviving soldiers opened fire, killing an innocent tourist and wounding another. One soldier spotted movement behind a roadside wall; pointing his gun, he shouted an order to come out with hands up. Several shocked children appeared; they had been picnicking with their mother."........

good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.

in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

surely trained soldiers can recognise from where the firing is coming from and not just shoot the first person they see. what kind of equipment did the birdwatcher have that the BA thought he was firing at them?

Fratton Fred

Fuinseog wrote: »

in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

so in your view, the IRA should be able to stand six feet over the border and fire at the British Army without any chance of the British Army firing back and if they did, the Irish army would be entitled to return fire?

Wow, great way to start a war.

troubleshooter

Fuinseog wrote: »

good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.

in any other country if an army fired at another state that country's army would have returned fire.

surely trained soldiers can recognise from where the firing is coming from and not just shoot the first person they see. what kind of equipment did the birdwatcher have that the BA thought he was firing at them?

Of course your account is far more reliable then Gen. Jacksons who commanded the incident response at Warrenpoint :rolleyes:

Read the thread all this has been gone over. There were no "birdwatchers".

PatsytheNazi

tac foley wrote: »

Total ****e.

tac

Yeah, and the Brits didn't shoot civil rights marchers or arm and direct the loyalists. Total sh!te from tac as usual.

PatsytheNazi

Fuinseog wrote: »

good old Gen sir mIke. his testimony is not always the most reliable.

according to him terrorists were shot at bloody sunday after his men had been fired upon.

troubleshooter wrote: »

Of course your account is far more reliable then Gen. Jacksons who commanded the incident response at Warrenpoint :rolleyes:

Yes Fuinseog, but you see troubleshooter believes that the Brits nor their apologists in the establishment media could possibly ever lie - when both are renounded liars and black propagandists throughout the world. He just googles for some quote from a Brit/RUC, posts it and then condemns anyone who doesn't swallow the BS.

Wolfe Tone

Manic Moran wrote: »

Won't wash. If they honestly believed that they were under attack from the other side of the border, they can shoot across the border. The right to defend yourself trumps everything else. Now, that doesn't mean that they can cross the border in pursuit.

NTM

Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?

cyrusdvirus

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?

Any legitimate force would have ROE set up to respect international borders, but as manic said, there more than likely was a 'defend yourself' rule.

Manic Moran

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well there has to be some sort of rules in place regarding firing across international borders? As in that they can only fire if they are fired upon?

That's probably what they were operating under.

You can't fault them for acting on what we now believe with the benefit of hindsight to be an erroneous assumption. If they honestly thought they were being engaged from across the border, then so be it.

NTM

Manic Moran

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yeah, and the Brits didn't shoot civil rights marchers or arm and direct the loyalists. Total sh!te from tac as usual.

Official warning.

You have made an 'interesting' claim which at face value seems improbable. The correct response to being called on it is to back up your claim, not try to divert the thread again or insult the other poster.

NTM

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your view, the IRA should be able to stand six feet over the border and fire at the British Army without any chance of the British Army firing back and if they did, the Irish army would be entitled to return fire?

Wow, great way to start a war.

the good general was hardly neutral when it came to Norn Iron. it was the responsibility of the Irish army to intervene on the Irish side. British army shooting at the repulic is a good way to provoke an armed conflcit.

I doubt very much teh BA would tolerate teh Irish army shooting into NI.

i read memoirs of British generals with interest and am often dismayed with their portrayal of the Irish. Jackson was careful aout his description of events.

his colleagues such as peter de la billiere were less careful and wrongfully labelled innocent civilians terrorists, such as John Boyle, an innocent 16 year old shot in the back by the SAS.

the norn iron 'conflict was a war. why oh why were teh UN not sent in like in Cyprus and other parts.