What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

not yet · 16-03-2015 02:34PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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.

They were not, repeat not armed at the time they were shot..

TheLastMohican · 16-03-2015 02:36PM

The poster that started this thread wanted to, and succeeded, in driving it to a false dichotomy. The comparison is pisspoor, as is the reason for the thread. However, 'tis still Lent so let the flagellation carry on.
Why are there so many PC bigots on boards these days? There are plenty other forii to spew their bile.

Dan_Solo · 16-03-2015 02:37PM

Jawgap wrote: »

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 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.

Ah now Jawsie, that's only one, and the biggest high profile one with multiple corrupt tribunals whitewashes behind it. And you think nobody at Bloody Sunday either was or subsequently became an IRA member afterwards?

Jawgap · 16-03-2015 02:39PM

not yet wrote: »

They were not, repeat not armed at the time they were shot..

....and while the Guards I listed were - in some cases - armed, in all cases they did not have a weapon in hand when they were shot or lured into an IED killzone by the IRA.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 02:41PM

c montgomery wrote: »

Gerry Adams has yet to deny being in ISIS

He has a beard, which is all the proof needed I think.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 02:42PM

This thread is almost as stupid as that IRA vs Taleban programme.

Banjo String · 16-03-2015 03:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

This thread is almost as stupid as that IRA vs Taleban programme.

TheLastMohican wrote: »

The poster that started this thread wanted to, and succeeded, in driving it to a false dichotomy. The comparison is pisspoor, as is the reason for the thread. However, 'tis still Lent so let the flagellation carry on.
Why are there so many PC bigots on boards these days? There are plenty other forii to spew their bile.

This.

Next up, teletubbies v taliban thread.

Op should get a grip, or buy a book or two FFS.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-03-2015 03:09PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

The poster that started this thread wanted to, and succeeded, in driving it to a false dichotomy. The comparison is pisspoor, as is the reason for the thread. However, 'tis still Lent so let the flagellation carry on.
Why are there so many PC bigots on boards these days? There are plenty other forii to spew their bile.

Banjo String wrote: »

This.

Next up, teletubbies v taliban thread.

Op should get a grip, or buy a book or two FFS.

Erm

It was actually a mod who started this thread as this discussion was taking another thread off topic.

1st post

Mod Note: Here you are folks, a shiny new thread to discuss which of the two above organisations are better/worse than the other. Please keep this kind of stuff off the Sinn Fein thread.

Chrissybhoy · 16-03-2015 03:32PM

Not much difference between loyalists groups & Isis. Didn't loyalists burn Catholics out of their homes. Lucky for them the IRA were around to protect a community.

not yet · 16-03-2015 03:40PM

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

Not much difference between loyalists groups & Isis. Didn't loyalists burn Catholics out of their homes. Lucky for them the IRA were around to protect a community.

No, No, No...you can't be saying that. Get with the programme will you.

Repeat after me: The IRA are scum, infact they are lower then scum, they are worse then ISIS and as bad a the Nazis.

RecordStraight · 16-03-2015 03:46PM

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

Not much difference between loyalists groups & Isis. Didn't loyalists burn Catholics out of their homes. Lucky for them the IRA were around to protect a community.

I agree. The difference, as with the IRA, is just a difference of degree.

Loyalist terrorists are terrorists.
Republican terrorists are terrorists.
Islamic terrorists are terrorists.

Some terrorists are more 'successful' at terror than others, but that's about it.

Dan_Solo · 16-03-2015 03:47PM

not yet wrote: »

No, No, No...you can't be saying that. Get with the programme will you.

Repeat after me: The IRA are scum, infact they are lower then scum, they are worse then ISIS and as bad a the Nazis.

Now there's a thread worthy of the Politics forum's full intellectual might: ISIS v Nazis.

Chrissybhoy · 16-03-2015 03:50PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

I agree. The difference, as with the IRA, is just a difference of degree.

Loyalist terrorists are terrorists.
Republican terrorists are terrorists.
Islamic terrorists are terrorists.

Some terrorists are more 'successful' at terror than others, but that's about it.

How can it be terror when all they could do was turn to violence to protect themselves ? The only people who were there to protect them people were the IRA

RecordStraight · 16-03-2015 03:50PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Now there's a thread worthy of the Politics forum's full intellectual might: ISIS v Nazis.

Feel free to start it Dan.

Meanwhile, the consensus (outside of the Republican community) seems to be that, while both the IRA and ISIS are terrorist groups, ISIS are clearly more indiscriminate and more prolific in their murders, and by those terms, 'worse'.

RecordStraight · 16-03-2015 03:51PM

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

How can it be terror when all they could do was turn to violence to protect themselves ? The only people who were there to protect them people were the IRA

Who was being 'protected' by the bomb that killed those children in Warrington?

johnnyskeleton · 16-03-2015 03:52PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

The poster that started this thread wanted to, and succeeded, in driving it to a false dichotomy. The comparison is pisspoor, as is the reason for the thread. However, 'tis still Lent so let the flagellation carry on.
Why are there so many PC bigots on boards these days? There are plenty other forii to spew their bile.

FYI, the thread was split from the main Sinn Fein thread. I'm amazed that it is still going, but on the other hand kudos to all for keeping it alive!

johnnyskeleton · 16-03-2015 03:54PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Now there's a thread worthy of the Politics forum's full intellectual might: ISIS v Nazis.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet:

RecordStraight · 16-03-2015 04:01PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet:

Nice to see the IRA get a win for once. Jameilia had a couple of good points, I thought.

The Diabolical Monocle · 16-03-2015 04:05PM

This whole thread is ridiculous, its basically a poo throwing fight.

Heres my own earthy turd - what the difference between the British army and the Nazi's after all they both killed ( at minimum) tens of thousands in concentration camps.

In fact the British did it first to the Afrikaners and then later to the Kenyans.

Oooh and they both stole the gold after.

isis is the new hitler, making this a Godwin thread.

johnnyskeleton · 16-03-2015 05:50PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

isis is the new hitler, making this a Godwin thread.

Godwin threads are allowed.

Hell, in these enlightened times, we can even discuss MCD in threads.

meathstevie · 16-03-2015 06:21PM

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.

If someone starts to lay down covering fire with a machinegun to allow the rest of his unit to operate under it's cover vast amounts of ammo are expended in no time.

The likes of Loughall and Clonoe are probably some of the least controversial incidents if you let objectivity slip in for a moment. Participants in an armed conflict having an open engagement in which the superior firepower and training in that type of confrontation by one side caused the opposing party to be annihilated. I can't honestly see a hell of a lot wrong with that from a rules of engagement, legality or human rights point of view.

Phil Mitchell · 16-03-2015 06:24PM

Both ghastly group's filled with young men with psychological issues. The IRA were/are small fry compared to Islamic State.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 06:25PM

What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

RA less likely to wear sandals.

More prone to sunburn.

No swords.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 06:25PM

Phil Mitchell wrote: »

Both ghastly group's filled with young men with psychological issues. The IRA were/are small fry compared to Islamic State.

Ghastly eh? But were they beastly?

not yet · 16-03-2015 07:31PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

This whole thread is ridiculous, its basically a poo throwing fight.

Heres my own earthy turd - what the difference between the British army and the Nazi's after all they both killed ( at minimum) tens of thousands in concentration camps.

In fact the British did it first to the Afrikaners and then later to the Kenyans.

Oooh and they both stole the gold after.

isis is the new hitler, making this a Godwin thread.

Did you not read the rules..?

They state you cannot use any historical events or use them in any way(unless they damn the IRA)
they also state you definitely cannot ever bring any human rights violations perpetrated by the crown into the debate..

Fratton Fred · 16-03-2015 08:48PM

not yet wrote: »

Did you not read the rules..?

They state you cannot use any historical events or use them in any way(unless they damn the IRA)
they also state you definitely cannot ever bring any human rights violations perpetrated by the crown into the debate..

Is that the same rule book that states that killing unarmed members of the British army is a bona fide act of war, but when the British army kill any member of the ira it is murder?

tomwaterford · 16-03-2015 08:51PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that the same rule book that states that killing unarmed members of the British army is a bona fide act of war, but when the British army kill any member of the ira it is murder?

I've never seen anything like this suggested?

16-03-2015 08:51PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I'm the one who introduced ISIS and Al Qaeda.

You should have your own dating show.

/coat, taken

Fratton Fred · 16-03-2015 09:00PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

I've never seen anything like this suggested?

Ok, maybe the cold blooded killing of an informer is justified, but the cold blooded killing of someone in the midst of carrying out a bomb attack is murder?

Both of those have been suggested in this thread alone.

tomwaterford · 16-03-2015 09:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok, maybe the cold blooded killing of an informer is justified, but the cold blooded killing of someone in the midst of carrying out a bomb attack is murder?

Both of those have been suggested in this thread alone.

You'd want to be naive to complain on any of those

It's a well known training fact that ira members when they sign up are told they will most likely end up in jail or a box

What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

Comments