What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

JustTheOne

tomwaterford wrote: »

She is one person who was far from innocent civilian
It's long been said she was an informer... Going by the Boston tapes

Which also said Gerry was in the IRA And ordered her murder, so can we believe them now?

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

In the case of Warrington, not only did they not avoid civilian casualties, but the first bomb drove people into the path of the second one.

The British army drove into Croke Park on a match day in 1920 and systematically shot dead fourteen unarmed spectators and players.

What was the non civilian target of the IRA when they planted their bombs outside a McDonald's and an Argos on a Saturday afternoon.

The British army opened fire on unarmed civil rights protester's in Derry in 1972, shooting over thirty unarmed protesters, fatally wounding fourteen of them.

Ergo The British army and Isis are the same.

(am I playing this right?)

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Don't forget the Birmingham pub bombings.

Don't forget Bloody Sunday..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Don't forget Bloody Sunday..

Yup

Despicable behaviour by the BA on that day and many others, see the difference is i am not trying to condone the sickening actions of the BA whereas you and others have tried to justify the murders of civilians carried out by the IRA.

barneystinson

Banjo String wrote: »

The British army drove into Croke Park on a match day in 1920 and systematically shot dead fourteen unarmed spectators and players.





The British army opened fire on unarmed civil rights protester's in Derry in 1972, shooting over thirty unarmed protesters, fatally wounding fourteen of them.

Ergo The British army and Isis are the same.

(am I playing this right?)

Were either of the above planned to be carried out that way though, or did they happen because of decisions taken in the field by individuals...?

In either of the above, if they went in intending to massacre people, 14 is a piss poor return, don't you think?

That's not excusing what happened obviously, they were terrible crimes.

gladrags

What the difference between the IRA and ISIS.?

You ask.

ISIS,Al Quaida,Saddam Hussien,Gaddafi,Israel,and Suhartu the Indonesian mass murderer....

Were all armed by the British,the French and the US...to carry out their genocidal atrocities...

As recently as last year in Gaza,were thousands of women and children,were maimed,murdered and beheaded,in an act of Genocide.

ISIS is the end result of US and British policy in Iraq and the middle east.

I see the US now want to talk to the genocidal tyrant in Libya...

Whats the difference between ISIS and Israel.?

None ...

They both presently commit acts of genocide.

Timberrrrrrrr

gladrags wrote: »

What the difference between the IRA and ISIS.?

You ask.

ISIS,Al Quaida,Saddam Hussien,Gaddafi,Israel,and Suhartu the Indonesian mass murderer....

Were all armed by the British,the French and the US...to carry out their genocidal atrocities...

As recently as last year in Gaza,were thousands of women and children,were maimed,murdered and beheaded,in an act of Genocide.

ISIS is the end result of US and British policy in Iraq and the middle east.

I see the US now want to talk to the genocidal tyrant in Libya...

Whats the difference between ISIS and Israel.?

None ...

They both presently commit acts of genocide.

Phoebas

Banjo String wrote: »

[...]

(am I playing this right?)

No, but you're playing it predictably.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

No, but you're playing it predictably.

Ironic post is Ironic phoebe.

Dog of Tears

gladrags wrote: »

What the difference between the IRA and ISIS.?

You ask.

ISIS,Al Quaida,Saddam Hussien,Gaddafi,Israel,and Suhartu the Indonesian mass murderer....

Were all armed by the British,the French and the US...to carry out their genocidal atrocities...

As recently as last year in Gaza,were thousands of women and children,were maimed,murdered and beheaded,in an act of Genocide.

ISIS is the end result of US and British policy in Iraq and the middle east.

I see the US now want to talk to the genocidal tyrant in Libya...

Whats the difference between ISIS and Israel.?

None ...

They both presently commit acts of genocide.

Sometimes you have to admire such blatant disregard for relevance, context and logic in the interest of having a rant.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yup

Despicable behaviour by the BA on that day and many others, see the difference is i am not trying to condone the sickening actions of the BA whereas you and others have tried to justify the murders of civilians carried out by the IRA.

Is that so..
Show me one, just one post where I Justify killing innocent civilians.

Do you also condone the shoot to kill policy of the British Government, or the high level collision with UVF/UFF..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Is that so..
Show me one, just one post where I Justify killing innocent civilians.

Do you also condone the shoot to kill policy of the British Government, or the high level collision with UVF/UFF..

Explain "shoot to kill policy" for me please.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Explain "shoot to kill policy" for me please.

Now Now, you should now that one..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Now Now, you should now that one..

Why?

If you can't explain this "shoot to kill policy" that was in effect during a "war" (your words not mine) then it's pretty irrelevant to the debate.

Eugene Norman

This entire thread is nothing but whataboutary. Can't be anything else. However probably best to have it here rather than whatabouting it's way through other threads.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why?

If you can't explain this "shoot to kill policy" that was in effect during a "war" (your words not mine) then it's pretty irrelevant to the debate.

The shoot to kill policy involved Shooting suspects on sight, with no attempt to arrest them.

The SAS were involved in the most high profile cases I.E Gibraltar and Loughgall..

And as to the why,

You were in the british army for years, surely you were aware of it's inner workings in the north.

Dog of Tears

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Explain "shoot to kill policy" for me please.

Basically, the brave RA boys were only comfortable when ambushing teenagers from a ditch or blowing up crowded pubs from miles away.

If they ever got flushed into the open and had to engage in a proper stand-up fight, they invariable got taken out swiftly by the superiorly trained British forces.

They then tended to whine like bitches that the Brits weren't playing fair by shooting them.

not yet

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Basically, the brave RA boys were only comfortable when ambushing teenagers from a ditch or blowing up crowded pubs from miles away.

If they ever got flushed into the open and had to engage in a proper stand-up fight, they invariable got taken out swiftly by the superiorly trained British forces.

They then tended to whine like bitches that the Brits weren't playing fair by shooting them.

That's one take on it, one that I'm sure your fellow countryman will back up..

Top Brass in the BA have admitted that they had a begrudging respect for IRA volunteers during the troubles..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

The shoot to kill policy involved Shooting suspects on sight, with no attempt to arrest them.

The SAS were involved in the most high profile cases I.E Gibraltar and Loughgall..

And as to the why,

You were in the british army for years, surely you were aware of it's inner workings in the north.

So suspected terrorists were shot on sight and that's bad? Didn't the IRA also have a "shoot to kill policy"?

Loughall

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughgall_ambush

You think they should have been arrested?

An eight-man unit of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) launched an attack on the village's Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base. Three IRA members drove a digger with a bomb in its bucket through the base's perimeter fence, while the rest of the unit arrived in a van and fired on the building. As the bomb exploded, the IRA unit was ambushed and killed

Dog of Tears

not yet wrote: »

I'm sure your fellow countryman will back up..

I guess to be a proper Irishman you have to support the IRA's murderous campaign?

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So suspected terrorists were shot on sight and that's bad? Didn't the IRA also have a "shoot to kill policy"?

Loughall

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughgall_ambush

You think they should have been arrested?

No it's good, just shoot every single suspect on sight and be done with it..
(something I have no doubt you would sanction)

The British Could never let the veil fall and admit to a shoot to kill policy, They shot unarmed men on numerous occasions, You insist the IRA were a terrorist outfit..? well then were tha BA any better if they engaged in the same things..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

No it's good, just shoot every single suspect on sight and be done with it..
(something I have no doubt you would sanction)

The British Could never let the veil fall and admit to a shoot to kill policy, They shot unarmed men on numerous occasions, You insist the IRA were a terrorist outfit..? well then were tha BA any better if they engaged in the same things..

You claimed there was a war on, the IRA laid ambushes and killed soldiers, why was it ok for them to do it but not the BA?

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You claimed there was a war on, the IRA laid ambushes and killed soldiers, why was it ok for them to do it but not the BA?

Simple really...

The British never called it a war.

gallag

not yet wrote: »

The shoot to kill policy involved Shooting suspects on sight, with no attempt to arrest them.

The SAS were involved in the most high profile cases I.E Gibraltar and Loughgall..

And as to the why,

You were in the british army for years, surely you were aware of it's inner workings in the north.

It always astounds me how some think the likes of Gibraltar and Loughgall were foul play? The same people are also usually busy explaning how the likes of warington, Birmingham and bloody Friday etc were actually acts of gentlemanly chivalry .

not yet

gallag wrote: »

It always astounds me how some think the likes of Gibraltar and Loughgall were foul play? The same people are also usually busy explaning how the likes of warington, Birmingham and bloody Friday etc were actually acts of gentlemanly chivalry .

Complete Boll0x..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Simple really...

The British never called it a war.

So they should have allowed the IRA to ambush them without firing back :rolleyes:

Your posts are hypocritical to say the least.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they should have allowed the IRA to ambush them without firing back :rolleyes:

Your posts are hypocritical to say the least.

How can an unarmed man ambush anyone...

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

How can an unarmed man ambush anyone...

Where the IRA unit at Loughall unarmed?

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where the IRA unit at Loughall unarmed?

I'm not talking about loughgall, I'm referring to Aidan Mcanespie, and innocent man shot dead on his way to a footbal match.

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

I'm not talking about loughgall, I'm referring to Aidan Mcanespie, and innocent man shot dead on his way to a footbal match.

Yet you chose to reference Loughall in an earlier lost as an example of this "shoot to kill policy"