What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

barneystinson

LeeMajors wrote: »

Any chance of a comment on the subject of the thread, i.e the differences between ISIS and the IRA?
Over a 30 year conflict we can see that the PIRA killed 1707 people, including what they classes as legitimate targets (over 1,000 brit security forces)
How does this compare with ISIS?

So the difference between the two is merely scale? ISIS is a bigger and more prolific terrorist organisation?

/thread?

LeeMajors

barneystinson wrote: »

So the difference between the two is merely scale? ISIS is a bigger and more prolific terrorist organisation?

/thread?

I don't know.
I didn't start this most ridiculous of threads.

What was the aim of the PIRA?

What is the aim of ISIS?

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

True..

I'd like to ask for honest opinions from The anti IRA on here.

Where do they think the Catholic population would be today if the IRA had not come back into existence.

During the 40s,50s and 60s catholic's in the north were marginalised, kept out of the best jobs, burned out of their homes (that were slums), attacked in the workplace and generally treated like dirt. Nobody gave a fcuk during this period of time and the space was filled by the IRA..

The majority of the Catholic population in NI rejected the IRA and rejected their political wing when the IRA were active.

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Extremely strange comparison to make..:rolleyes:

One is part of a imperialist armed force that destroys the entire fabric of a country:

The other is, well the other.........:rolleyes:

Some would say the overinflated wages of the ps does the same, but just like your derails those would be for another thread

LeeMajors

Phoebas wrote: »

The majority of the Catholic population in NI rejected the IRA and rejected their political wing when the IRA were active.

How does that compare to ISIS?
On a thread asking for the differences between the IRA and ISIS.

Phoebas

LeeMajors wrote: »

How does that compare to ISIS?

Similar I guess in that the majority of people they claim to represent are sickened by them.

LeeMajors

Phoebas wrote: »

Similar I guess in that the majority of people they claim to represent are sickened by them.

Is that the only similarity you can see?

gladrags

RecordStraight wrote: »

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.

The death of innocent victims of conflict cannot be condoned.

I make no exscuses for any atrocities,be they in NI or Gaza.

The way forward in NI was agreed,by all sides,who were directly and indirectly involved in the conflict.

The British government,the IRA,the Irish government,the UVF,Sinn Fein,the DUP,etc.

The atrocities were on all sides,no one is disputing this...

The Good Friday Agreement,moved forward on the basis of trust,and to go forward,not back.

You cannot choose to single out the IRA,for politcal motives...

While not accepting that all other parties,at the very least were equally culpable...

The British atrocities in NI and the atrocites of there allies,are linked,and relevant.

How can you assume such pretentious horror at IRA actions in NI...

And be so oblivious,to other atrocities,be they by the UVF,the British or the Israelies.?

Bearing in mind that the nationalist community in NI,were second class citizens,and denied civil rights,since the early 20th century.

LeeMajors

gladrags wrote: »

The death of innocent victims of conflict cannot be condoned.

I make no exscuses for any atrocities,be they in NI or Gaza.

The way forward in NI was agreed,by all sides,who were directly and indirectly involved in the conflict.

The British government,the IRA,the Irish government,the UVF,Sinn Fein,the DUP,etc.

The atrocities were on all sides,no one is disputing this...

The Good Friday Agreement,moved forward on the basis of trust,and to go forward,not back.

You cannot choose to single out the IRA,for politcal motives...

While not accepting that all other parties,at the very least were equally culpable...

The British atrocities in NI and the atrocites of there allies,are linked,and relevant.

How can you assume such pretentious horror at IRA actions in NI...

And be so oblivious,to other atrocities,be they by the UVF,the British or the Israelies.?

Bearing in mind that the nationalist community in NI,were second class citizens,and denied civil rights,since the early 20th century.

Because most of the anti-SF lot on here couldn't care less about victims of the PIRA, sexual abuse victims (if they did they'd know and understand that Gerry Adams was sexually abused by his own father, yet as an abuse victim he's constantly vilified) or any other type of victims.

They're only interested in keeping the FFail/FG axis in place, and you'd have to ask why......

gladrags

Phoebas wrote: »

Similar I guess in that the majority of people they claim to represent are sickened by them.

You mean you hope they are.

Speaking of similarities...

I wonder if the thousands on hospital waiting lists,lying on trollies,waiting for hospital appointments...

And waiting since the 1980's,for a decent childrens hospital to be built...

Are sickened

barneystinson

LeeMajors wrote: »

I don't know.
I didn't start this most ridiculous of threads.

What was the aim of the PIRA?

What is the aim of ISIS?

I didnt start it either, it was hived off from another thread. It's sure grown legs though.

LeeMajors

barneystinson wrote: »

I didnt start it either, it was hived off from another thread. It's sure grown legs though.

It's your name on post 1 barney so it's your baby, I'm afraid.

tomwaterford

Phoebas wrote: »

Similar I guess in that the majority of people they claim to represent are sickened by them.

But do the ira not represent those who are socialist republicans.....I've not seen anywhere they claim to represent everyone in ireland???

Phoebas

gladrags wrote: »

You mean you hope they are.

I sure do hope that most right thinking people would be sickened by ISIS.
But there will be some twisted individuals out there that aren't.

Phoebas

tomwaterford wrote: »

But do the ira not represent those who are socialist republicans.....I've not seen anywhere they claim to represent everyone in ireland???

That whole United Ireland thing passed you by. :eek:

LeeMajors

Phoebas wrote: »

That whole United Ireland thing passed you by. :eek:

Having the aim of a united Ireland is 'representing everyone in Ireland'?

barneystinson

LeeMajors wrote: »

Because most of the anti-SF lot on here couldn't care less about victims of the PIRA, sexual abuse victims (if they did they'd know and understand that Gerry Adams was sexually abused by his own father, yet as an abuse victim he's constantly vilified) or any other type of victims.

They're only interested in keeping the FFail/FG axis in place, and you'd have to ask why......

This is the worst kind of deflecting. Especially since this thread is about the IRA. Unless... was Gerry in the IRA?!? :pac:

If Adams was himself a victim then it makes his failure to deal appropriately with the issue even more concerning.

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

The majority of the Catholic population in NI rejected the IRA and rejected their political wing when the IRA were active.

Not the question I asked, try again.

tomwaterford

Phoebas wrote: »

That whole United Ireland thing passed you by. :eek:

The whole point and mission of the ira you seem to have missed
Was to built a United ireland that is also a socialist republic

As a United ireland that enables the like of fg/ff to more power and make the rich richer is not worth losing a nights sleep for


This is a massive difference between Isis and the ira....I've seen nothing to suggest Isis would help the less well off

LeeMajors

barneystinson wrote: »

If Adams was himself a victim then it makes his failure to deal appropriately with the issue even more concerning.

Why, do you not think that someone who was abused might have problems dealing with abuse in later life?

You've plenty of sympathy for Paudie McGahon, yet another abuse victim is vilified.

Why's that barney?

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Some would say the overinflated wages of the ps does the same, but just like your derails those would be for another thread

I don't see how a former serviceman who served in Iraq and a PS worker have anything in common..

It's a lot easier to connect the IRA to the British army then The IRA to a guy working in the PS..:rolleyes::rolleyes:

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Some would say the overinflated wages of the ps does the same, but just like your derails those would be for another thread

Pathetic...:rolleyes:

gladrags

LeeMajors wrote: »

It's your name on post 1 barney so it's your baby, I'm afraid.

Asks a lot of questions,but provides no answers,then expects everyone else to adhere to his rules on how we should respond...

To his loaded questions.

Unbelievable .

gladrags

tomwaterford wrote: »

The whole point and mission of the ira you seem to have missed
Was to built a United ireland that is also a socialist republic

As a United ireland that enables the like of fg/ff to more power and make the rich richer is not worth losing a nights sleep for


This is a massive difference between Isis and the ira....I've seen nothing to suggest Isis would help the less well off

Fine Gael don't help the less well off...

So I suppose there is a comparison there to ISIS.

And were the blueshirts not linked to Mussolini.?

Phoebas

LeeMajors wrote: »

Having the aim of a united Ireland is 'representing everyone in Ireland'?

Having an aim is one thing - the IRA claimed a right to 'engage in warfare' on behalf of the Irish people. That is claiming to represent them.

Green Book wrote:

"The moral position of the Irish Republican Army, its right to engage in
warfare, is based on:

• (a) the right to resist foreign aggression;
• (b) the right to revolt against tyranny and oppression; and
• (c) the direct lineal succession with the Provisional Government of 1916, the first Dáil of 1919 and the second Dáil of 1921".

LeeMajors

Phoebas wrote: »

Having an aim is one thing - the IRA claimed a right to 'engage in warfare' on behalf of the Irish people. That is claiming to represent them.

Where does that say 'a right to engage in warfare on behalf of the Irish people'?

not yet

gladrags wrote: »

Fine Gael don't help the less well off...

So I suppose there is a comparison there to ISIS.

And were the blueshirts not linked to Mussolini.?

And Franco..

Didn't the bishop of the time bless the blueshirts on their way to Spain in 36

Phoebas

LeeMajors wrote: »

Where does that say 'a right to engage in warfare on behalf of the Irish people'?

I even highlighted the relevant line!!
I'm sure you can find a way to put some other interpretation on it.

gladrags

not yet wrote: »

And Franco..

Didn't the bishop of the time bless the blueshirts on their way to Spain in 36

While sexual abuse was rife in the Catholic Church.

And did the blueshirts blow the whistle...

No

They went off to fight for Franco's and Mussolini's fascists.

spongebob89

IRA didn't burn people alive or cut there heads off with a rusty knife.. Why can't these terrorist send there message by a quick death an not so horrific