What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

barneystinson

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You should have your own dating show.

/coat, taken

I had to read it twice before I got it, d'oh!

gladrags

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?

When it comes to conflict/war,there is no rule book.

The British,in particular,made sure of that,in their historical conquests and colonisations.

Fratton Fred

gladrags wrote: »

When it comes to conflict/war,there is no rule book.

The British,in particular,made sure of that,in their historical conquests and colonisations.

If all else fails, resort back to the days of imperialism to justify the IRA's actions.

Good work.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If all else fails, resort back to the days of imperialism to justify the IRA's actions.

Good work.

Yep, all the way back to the late 1960's.

RecordStraight

gladrags wrote: »

When it comes to conflict/war,there is no rule book.

The British,in particular,made sure of that,in their historical conquests and colonisations.

I guess we won't be hearing any more complaints about 'shoot to kill' then.

Dan_Solo

RecordStraight wrote: »

I guess we won't be hearing any more complaints about 'shoot to kill' then.

Hang on, you make no distinction between shooting unarmed civilians and armed combatants yourself and you're moaning about the IRA doing X, Y and Z? Bizarre.

RecordStraight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hang on, you make no distinction between shooting unarmed civilians and armed combatants yourself and you're moaning about the IRA doing X, Y and Z? Bizarre.

Are active terrorists counted as 'unarmed civilians'?

tomwaterford

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are active terrorists counted as 'unarmed civilians'?

I wouldn't think so???

Dan_Solo

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are active terrorists counted as 'unarmed civilians'?

No? Has anybody said that these two completely different things are the same? Is there some confusion about this? Can you give us a quote from somebody?

jank

gladrags wrote: »

When it comes to conflict/war,there is no rule book.

The British,in particular,made sure of that,in their historical conquests and colonisations.

If you say that there are no rules in warfare, then one cannot complain about the SAS or loyalist collusion by the British. It seems IRA/Sinn Fein want to have both their cakes and eat it too.

Chrissybhoy

jank wrote: »

If you say that there are no rules in warfare, then one cannot complain about the SAS or loyalist collusion by the British. It seems IRA/Sinn Fein want to have both their cakes and eat it too.

That's fair enough. So I think it's fair that the same people that brand the IRA terrorists should brand the British army terrorists

gladrags

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If all else fails, resort back to the days of imperialism to justify the IRA's actions.

Good work.

Did'nt they destroy Iraq recently,looking those weapons of mass destruction,that opened up the door for Al Quaida and ISIS.?

tomwaterford

jank wrote: »

If you say that there are no rules in warfare, then one cannot complain about the SAS or loyalist collusion by the British. It seems IRA/Sinn Fein want to have both their cakes and eat it too.

One can fairly and squarely complain about the British collusion with loyalists when 80 odd percent of those killed were completely innocent civilians

gladrags

RecordStraight wrote: »

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'.

World consensus,outside you're teeny weeny way of thinking,described the atrocities commited by Israel in Gaza as genocide.

No rhyme or reason,just genocide.

Feel free to defend it,or will you ignore the ugly truth,like many on here.?

Nodin

gladrags wrote: »

Did'nt they destroy Iraq recently,looking those weapons of mass destruction,that opened up the door for Al Quaida and ISIS.?

Ahh that wasn't like the good old days, when ye'd have lads charge ye with spears and muskets over a few hundred yards of open ground, and you could have a cup of tay while you picked them off with your rifles, maxims and field artillery. Loot the place, nip home, get a medal, have a parade...civilisation at its finest.

I can't be sure OP, the RA are somewhere in between Attila and the Huns and ISIS for me. That said though, I'm not in the best position to judge as I didn't listen to ISIS' last 2 albums, just to be straight-up with you before we engage in debate on this startling topic..

RecordStraight

gladrags wrote: »

World consensus,outside you're teeny weeny way of thinking,described the atrocities commited by Israel in Gaza as genocide.

No rhyme or reason,just genocide.

Feel free to defend it,or will you ignore the ugly truth,like many on here.?

Gladrags, you can't make the IRA's crimes go away by pointing at other crimes. The innocents they killed are still dead when we look away.

Timberrrrrrrr

tomwaterford wrote: »

One can fairly and squarely complain about the British collusion with loyalists when 80 odd percent of those killed were completely innocent civilians

And on the other side of that fence was the Irish collusion with the IRA who had no problem killing innocent civilians

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And on the other side of that fence was the Irish collusion with the IRA who had no problem killing innocent civilians

Oh dear. That won't help the smearbots' claims of IRA criminality when they were operating with full Irish State support...

LeeMajors

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh dear. That won't help the smearbots' claims of IRA criminality when they were operating with full Irish State support...

It seems that both states were supporting criminality and terrorism.
Interesting.

Dan_Solo

LeeMajors wrote: »

It seems that both states were supporting criminality and terrorism.
Interesting.

Yes, that's more accurate. If it's state sponsored it tends to be ignored though funnily enough even if it's criminal.

LeeMajors

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, that's more accurate. If it's state sponsored it tends to be ignored though funnily enough even if it's criminal.

Furious backtracking to follow.........

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh dear. That won't help the smearbots' claims of IRA criminality when they were operating with full Irish State support...

Where they operating with full Irish state support? Or where agents of the Irish state quietly supplying them with information and arms?

LeeMajors

Of course the thread was set up to compare the IRA and ISIS.
The PIRA was formed because of the effects on nationalists and Catholics of an orange state that treated them like second class citizens and an ever increasing amount of loyalist terrorism against them.

ISIS on the other hand are trying to create an Islamic Empire and will use whatever means they have at their disposal to do that.
Waging war on various peoples, attacks, murder and mayhem being inflicted in order to create this glorious empire.

No, if we want to compare ISIS to anyone, it should be compared to the british state and their empire building days.

That empire is being completely dismantled over time as will the attempted ISIS empire.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where they operating with full Irish state support? Or where agents of the Irish state quietly supplying them with information and arms?

Is that what you're going to claim the British were doing? None of the collusion was official in any way I suppose. Sure.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is that what you're going to claim the British were doing? None of the collusion was official in any way I suppose. Sure.

Are you going to continue jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting my posts so they say what you think they say?

jaysblades

Here is the difference. The IRA is irish men, fighting for freedom in the island of Ireland .

Isis is Muslim men, from all over the world, fighting to force their religion onto the world.

There is no equation here, Isis are a rabbid dog that needs to be put down. The IRA are a Nobel guard dog defending your right to live free.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you going to continue jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting my posts so they say what you think they say?

Invalid question. I'd have to start that to continue it.

Timberrrrrrrr

jaysblades wrote: »

Here is the difference. The IRA is irish men, fighting for freedom in the island of Ireland .

Isis is Muslim men, from all over the world, fighting to force their religion onto the world.

There is no equation here, Isis are a rabbid dog that needs to be put down. The IRA are a Nobel guard dog defending your right to live free.

Unless you were one of the many innocent people they murdered right?

LeeMajors

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you going to continue jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting my posts so they say what you think they say?

Well, I think this,

"And on the other side of that fence was the Irish collusion with the IRA who had no problem killing innocent civilians;)"

in reply to this,

"One can fairly and squarely complain about the British collusion with loyalists when 80 odd percent of those killed were completely innocent civilians"

would suggest you believe there was brit collusion with loyalist terrorists.


Unless you're backtracking of course