What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

not yet

But if you want to talk about loughgall then yes the IRA unit were armed, But no attempt was made to arrest them, the SAS fired over 1500 rounds that day to kill 8 men, bit of overkill there don't you think....

It is also said that they killed 2 of these men who where unarmed and on their backs after the fire fight. Add to this the murder of unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar and you start to see a pattern.

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

But if you want to talk about loughgall then yes the IRA unit were armed, But no attempt was made to arrest them, the SAS fired over 1500 rounds that day to kill 8 men, bit of overkill there don't you think....

It is also said that they killed 2 of these men who where unarmed and on their backs after the fire fight. Add to this the murder of unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar and you start to see a pattern.

Why would they try to arrest them? As for the 1500 rounds? Not excessive at all, they didn't know how many were in the van and what weaponry they had. It may seem overkill to you.

golfball37

The IRA went into a village in Altnveigh in 1922 and systematically murdered women and children for the simple reason they were protestants. The man leading the IRA unit later became Tanaiste and Irelands UN ambassaodor.
ISIS are are more bloody and on a larger scale but can't be desciribed as less discriminate.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why would they try to arrest them? As for the 1500 rounds? Not excessive at all, they didn't know how many were in the van and what weaponry they had. It may seem overkill to you.

So they tought there were 100 in the van then ? They had enough intel on them to know how many were in that asu and also what weapons they had...

''why would they try to arrest them'' smacks of shot to kill..!!

not yet

golfball37 wrote: »

The IRA went into a village in Altnveigh in 1922 and systematically murdered women and children for the simple reason they were protestants. The man leading the IRA unit later became Tanaiste and Irelands UN ambassaodor.
ISIS are are more bloody and on a larger scale but can't be desciribed as less discriminate.

Well hello and welcome...

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

So they tought there were 100 in the van then ? They had enough intel on them to know how many were in that asu and also what weapons they had...

''why would they try to arrest them'' smacks of shot to kill..!!

*Newsflash*

Soldiers will shoot to kill when confronted by other armed soldiers

:rolleyes:

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

*Newsflash*

Soldiers will shoot to kill when confronted by other armed soldiers

:rolleyes:

Oh.. so you admit they were soldiers, that's a bit of a leap from scum..

gladrags

Dog of Tears wrote: »

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

How is the post not relevant ?

How is the post not in Context?

How is it not logical?

Or is it that you're scope for debate has no answers to a wider perspective,to
a clearly loaded question.

not yet

golfball37 wrote: »

The IRA went into a village in Altnveigh in 1922 and systematically murdered women and children for the simple reason they were protestants. The man leading the IRA unit later became Tanaiste and Irelands UN ambassaodor.
ISIS are are more bloody and on a larger scale but can't be desciribed as less discriminate.

Oh by the way...

I could trump your atrocity with any number of them from the BA/ruc/tans/uvf/uff etc..But at the end of the day we would just go round and round..

Dan_Solo

If you want someone dead you make sure the job is done. 1500 rounds in a firefight is pretty normal. Why take chances?
There are plenty of better examples of the British murder policies in NI.

gladrags

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nothing new there then.

Dog of Tears

not yet wrote: »

the SAS fired over 1500 rounds that day to kill 8 men, bit of overkill there don't you think....

Sounds like they used the perfect amount of 'kill' there.

As an unintended but beneficial consequence, the SAS probably saved a few kids from being violently raped later in life as well.

Dan_Solo

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Sounds like they used the perfect amount of 'kill' there.

As an unintended but beneficial consequence, the SAS probably saved a few kids from being violently raped later in life as well.

Exact opposite as the IRA shot pedophiles, as opposed to ignoring them like the Gardai and RUC did.

Dog of Tears

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exact opposite as the IRA shot pedophiles, as opposed to ignoring them like the Gardai and RUC did.

Much as I'm sure you'd like to re-write history.

The IRA moved many of them down to the Republic and allowed them to continue their attacks - except this time, against the children of this State.

Absolute scumbags.

Dan_Solo

When's the next installment comparing the British Army, the US Army, the French Resistance, Teutonic Knights etc to ISIS?

Dan_Solo

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Much as I'm sure you'd like to re-write history.

The IRA moved many of them down to the Republic and allowed them to continue their attacks - except this time, against the children of this State.

Absolute scumbags.

You're inventing again. Expelled and moved are different words with different meanings. Why are you dishonestly using them interchangeably?

RecordStraight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You're inventing again. Expelled and moved are different words with different meanings. Why are you dishonestly using them interchangeably?

In practice, it wasn't calculated to protect children, was it? It was to protect the movement.

"For raping children, you are expelled!...to Dublin."
"Oh no."

RecordStraight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

When's the next installment comparing the British Army, the US Army, the French Resistance, Teutonic Knights etc to ISIS?

Dan, you can start those threads if you want. That's what this forum is for.

Dog of Tears

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You're inventing again. Expelled and moved are different words with different meanings. Why are you dishonestly using them interchangeably?

My my, how we change our tune in a couple of short posts :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exact opposite as the IRA shot pedophiles, as opposed to ignoring them like the Gardai and RUC did.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide some proof of the Gardaí and RUV ignoring paedophiles btw.

I know how much you like the 'proof'.

gladrags

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Much as I'm sure you'd like to re-write history.

The IRA moved many of them down to the Republic and allowed them to continue their attacks - except this time, against the children of this State.

Absolute scumbags.

Were is you're evidence to back this up.?

There is however extensive evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt,that successive FF,FG and Labour governments,and the security forces,colluded with the CC for decades...

In covering up child sexual abuse,that ran the length and breadth of this country.

Dan_Solo

RecordStraight wrote: »

In practice, it wasn't calculated to protect children, was it? It was to protect the movement.

"For raping children, you are expelled!...to Dublin."
"Oh no."

Expelled to? Nope. New definition again. You expel from, not to.
What's with that word causing so much confusion among the antishinners?

Jawgap

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.

But isn't it ok that the death of that poor guy was regrettable?

MacStiofan is on the record as regretting the deaths of innocents and he seems to have thought that should be sufficient.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to hear the IRA and their odious acolytes complaining about being shot at - as I said earlier they're like a boxer showing up for a fight and complaining the other the guy is hitting them - they wanted to fight, but thought the other side should do so blindfolded and with one arm tied behind their back!

gladrags

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exact opposite as the IRA shot pedophiles, as opposed to ignoring them like the Gardai and RUC did.

Big Dan probably thinks that the Kincora sexual abuse scandal,and scandal simmering in the UK at the moment...

Into widespread child sexual abuse,in the UK and Northern Ireland,by politicians and celebrities,is not relevant or in context.

maccored

Jawgap wrote: »

But isn't it ok that the death of that poor guy was regrettable?

MacStiofan is on the record as regretting the deaths of innocents and he seems to have thought that should be sufficient.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to hear the IRA and their odious acolytes complaining about being shot at - as I said earlier they're like a boxer showing up for a fight and complaining the other the guy is hitting them - they wanted to fight, but thought the other side should do so blindfolded and with one arm tied behind their back!

so basically, according to you Aidan Mcanespie was in the IRA (which is your insinuation and not an actual fact) and therefore deserved to be shot. what ****ing bull****.

Jawgap

not yet wrote: »

But if you want to talk about loughgall then yes the IRA unit were armed, But no attempt was made to arrest them, the SAS fired over 1500 rounds that day to kill 8 men, bit of overkill there don't you think....

It is also said that they killed 2 of these men who where unarmed and on their backs after the fire fight. Add to this the murder of unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar and you start to see a pattern.

What about Patsy Kelly and Gary Sheehan - not only was the latter unarmed, the former had laid down his weapon? The main protagonist is active in SF and has shared a platform on more than one occasion with is old boss.

Was Jerry McCabe given the opportunity to draw his weapon before a magazine from an Ak-47 was unloaded into his vehicle?

Frank Hand? Seamus Quaid? Mick Clerkin? All Guards, all murdered by the IRA.......

.......Starting to see a pattern?

not yet

Jawgap wrote: »

What about Patsy Kelly and Gary Sheehan - not only was the latter unarmed, the former had laid down his weapon? The main protagonist is active in SF and has shared a platform on more than one occasion with is old boss.

Was Jerry McCabe given the opportunity to draw his weapon before a magazine from an Ak-47 was unloaded into his vehicle?

Frank Hand? Seamus Quaid? Mick Clerkin? All Guards, all murdered by the IRA.......

.......Starting to see a pattern?

No I'm not, can you give me another hint...

Jawgap

maccored wrote: »

so basically, according to you Aidan Mcanespie was in the IRA (which is your insinuation and not an actual fact) and therefore deserved to be shot. what ****ing bull****.

No, I'm saying that Sean MacStiofan when questioned about the death of innocents said they were 'regrettable' - the necessary cost of 'doing business'

That seems to be good enough for him, so I'm assuming it was good enough for the IRA.

However, when British killed innocents (such as that poor lad) no one would expect them to be 'let off' by simply saying, "Well it was regrettable"

And again, I'm not in anyway insinuating Aidan McAnespie was in anyway associated with the IRA - and I'm not sure how you got that from my original post.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

However, when British killed innocents (such as that poor lad) no one would expect them to be 'let off' by simply saying, "Well it was regrettable"

Could you point us the hefty sentences handed out to British Army or RUC personnel for killing innocent civilians? Was there even an apology?

Eugene Norman

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Sounds like they used the perfect amount of 'kill' there.

As an unintended but beneficial consequence, the SAS probably saved a few kids from being violently raped later in life as well.

They should apply those shooting skills to the british establishment then. Or the lads who ran Kincora.

That said I do think there is too much made of Gibraltar. Killing civilian suspects who are unarmed is one thing, armed is another.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Could you point us the hefty sentences handed out to British Army or RUC personnel for killing innocent civilians? Was there even an apology?

Regret seemed to be sufficient for the IRA and MacStiofan......

UK govt regret at McAnespie killing

Apology after man shot dead by Army in 1974

Bloody Sunday report published

The head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, said he fully supported Mr Cameron's apology.

"The report leaves me in no doubt that serious mistakes and failings by officers and soldiers on that terrible day led to the deaths of 13 civilians who did nothing that could have justified their shooting," he said.

General Sir Mike Jackson, who served in the Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday said: "The Prime Minister made a fulsome apology and I join him in so doing."

The victims families have a right to express outrage at the treatment and lack of punishment of those who killed their loved ones - not the IRA and their camp followers.