What are the differences between ISIS and the IRA?

Phoebas

spongebob89 wrote: »

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

The IRA used many incendiary devices. A particularly brutal example was the La Mon attack when many people were burned alive by the IRA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

The IRA used many incendiary devices. A particularly brutal example was the La Mon attack when many people were burned alive by the IRA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing

The Brits used chemical weapons plenty of times, and sold them to juntas that used them on innocent civilians. Can you find a wiki link to that...I'd guess no, because you like many on here have your own narrow agenda and refuse to see the bigger picture. If catholic's had been given a fair shake of the bag we would not have had the ''troubles''..

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

The Brits used chemical weapons plenty of times [...]

Oh well, if the Brits did some other stuff then that's all ok then :rolleyes:

For Reals

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Good work.

So are we talking about today? Interesting to see people cherry pick from history recent or past to justify their view.
Mind you the north is still occupied by British military, but it's all about Kate's dress and her sisters arse these days, not imperialism right?

Jawgap

not yet wrote: »

The Brits used chemical weapons plenty of times, and sold them to juntas that used them on innocent civilians. Can you find a wiki link to that...I'd guess no, because you like many on here have your own narrow agenda and refuse to see the bigger picture. If catholic's had been given a fair shake of the bag we would not have had the ''troubles''..

I'll think you'll find that allegation related to tear gas in Iraq in the 1920s.....hardly what most people would regard as a 'chemical' weapon (yes, I know it's a lachrymatory agent, like the pepper spray Guards use).

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

Oh well, if the Brits did some other stuff then that's all ok then :rolleyes:

No, That's not the point I was making, The point I'm making is you and others seem to willingly ignore all and any actrocities on one side of the conflict...

This in turn leads me to believe there can never be a fair and just debate on the subject. I said in a post some time back that I could not justify some actions of the IRA and the SF leadership have said likewise, but it was a war and war is not clean. But you and other are not willing to look at both sides.

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

No, That's not the point I was making, The point I'm making is you and others seem to willingly ignore all and any actrocities on one side of the conflict...

This in turn leads me to believe there can never be a fair and just debate on the subject. I said in a post some time back that I could not justify some actions of the IRA and the SF leadership have said likewise, but it was a war and war is not clean. But you and other are not willing to look at both sides.

Did you read the thread title at all?

Nodin

Phoebas wrote: »

Did you read the thread title at all?

I did, which is why I find it hard to believe some are taking it seriously.

For Reals

As I understand it, Isis are an international movement based on the belief 'the west' is out to demonise and eradicate the nation of Islam and seem to be doing whatever it takes to fight against this western threat.

The IRA where an organisation created to combat British occupation of their Irish homeland. Fighting against a foreign occupying force and taking the fight to the British.

Isis are still active and moving from country to country.

The IRA are not and some would argue engaged in the diplomatic process of peace.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize we were all here to talk about how the IRA killed people for the craic. Nobody interested in debating Isis at all? Let's compare Isis to the CIA and the IRA to the British then.....
*senses folk chomping at the bit to rail on about the 'shinners!!!!'*

We could compare the IRA to the Klingons, y'know if folk just need a vehicle to demonise the IRA.

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

Did you read the thread title at all?

Not actually I didn't..

Be so kind as to give me your one sided interpretation of it ta..

KwackerJack

ISIS have sand in the boxers while the IRA have Cocaine in their boxers!

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

Not actually I didn't..

That explains a lot.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

I did, which is why I find it hard to believe some are taking it seriously.

I preferred the joke that was going around Dublin in the 1980s after the Raglan House gas explosion.....

What's the difference between the IRA and Dublin Gas......

......at least the IRA give you 15 minutes to clear the place

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

That explains a lot.

Do tell..

Jawgap

For Reals wrote: »

As I understand it, Isis are an international movement based on the belief 'the west' is out to demonise and eradicate the nation of Islam and seem to be doing whatever it takes to fight against this western threat.

The IRA where an organisation created to combat British occupation of their Irish homeland. Fighting against a foreign occupying force and taking the fight to the British.

Isis are still active and moving from country to country.

The IRA are not and some would argue engaged in the diplomatic process of peace.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize we were all here to talk about how the IRA killed people for the craic. Nobody interesting in debating Isis at all? Let's compare Isis to the CIA and the IRA to the British then.....
*senses folk chomping at the bit to rail on about the 'shinners!!!!'*

We could compare the IRA to the Klingons, y'know if folk just need a vehicle to demonise the IRA.

Worth noting they weren't overly fond of the Republic of Ireland (or the Free State as they called it).....

Commitment to the Republican Movement is the firm belief that its struggle both military and political is morally justified, that war is morally justified and that the Army [IRA] is the direct representative of the 1918 Dail Eireann Parliament, and that as such they are the legal and lawful government of the Irish Republic, which has the moral right to pass laws for, and to claim jurisdiction over the territory, air space, mineral resources, means of production, distribution and exchange and all of its people regardless of creed or loyalty.

.....the Army are the legal and lawful Army of the Irish Republic which has been forced underground by overwhelming forces.

etc

etc

etc

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Oh well, if the Brits did some other stuff then that's all ok then :rolleyes:

We could flip this...

'Oh well, if the 'RA did some other stuff then that's all ok then' :rolleyes:

For Reals

Jawgap wrote: »

Worth noting they weren't overly fond of the Republic of Ireland (or the Free State as they called it).....





etc

etc

etc

Your point? To be fair I'm not up on the fine print of the Isis manifesto. Where as the Brits is simple enough, invade and kill for profit/land. Much more justifiable. Apart from the sad joke that is the Falklands of course.

Jawgap

For Reals wrote: »

Your point?

That their terroristic acts weren't directed at the British exclusively - they had little time and much contempt for the Republic.

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

We could flip this...

'Oh well, if the 'RA did some other stuff then that's all ok then' :rolleyes:

That would be equally stupid.

Iwasfrozen

There are huge parallels between the IRA and IS. Same ideologically motivated murder. Same casual disregard for human life.

The Diabolical Monocle

What are the similarities between the rebel alliance (of star wars fame) and the Ira ? Same casual disregard for imperial rule.

not yet

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are huge parallels between the IRA and IS. Same ideologically motivated murder. Same casual disregard for human life.

Complete and utter sh1te..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

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:

Really?

I would equate a staunch SF supporter more with the IRA than someone who happened to serve in Britains armed forces.

JacquesDeLad

If you made a fool of an ISIS supporter on an internet message board he probably wouldn't report you for it.

Jawgap

Well if you turn on to RTE you'll see the difference between the IRA and ISIS......


........ISIS don't feature in The Quiet Man

gladrags

Jawgap wrote: »

That their terroristic acts weren't directed at the British exclusively - they had little time and much contempt for the Republic.

As did the majority of nationalists and unionists,in Northern Ireland,

The same could be said about the UK,and successive UK govs.

Hate,might be a more descriptive word.

gladrags

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are huge parallels between the IRA and IS. Same ideologically motivated murder. Same casual disregard for human life.

Those comparisons could easily be made with any organisation,group or army involved in war/conflict.

With the same criteria you refer to.

If you want to find a similarity,that is,for a self serving purpose.

gladrags

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that allegation related to tear gas in Iraq in the 1920s.....hardly what most people would regard as a 'chemical' weapon (yes, I know it's a lachrymatory agent, like the pepper spray Guards use).

The British supplied chemical weapons to Syria...

That Syria used to make Sarin gas...

That they then used,in the present conflict,gassing men,women and children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-reports-claim-british-firms-supplied-chemicals-used-to-manufacture-sarin-gas-9593522.html

Maybe ISIS got there hands on it,since then.

Sarin gas ffs.

Jawgap

gladrags wrote: »

The British supplied chemical weapons to Syria...

That Syria used to make Sarin gas...

That they then used,in the present conflict,gassing men,women and children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-reports-claim-british-firms-supplied-chemicals-used-to-manufacture-sarin-gas-9593522.html

Maybe ISIS got there hands on it,since then.

Sarin gas ffs.

They didn't supply sarin.

British companies supplied the precursors, some of which are chemicals as common as isopropyl alcohol - that's hardly the British government.

And any half competent graduate chemist can whip up a batch of sarin - making the stuff isn't that difficult, the challenge is delivering it with suffering blowback!

Who sold the Syrians the delivery system 140mm and 330mm rockets they used in the attack?

For Reals

Jawgap wrote: »

They didn't supply sarin.

British companies supplied the precursors, some of which are chemicals as common as isopropyl alcohol - that's hardly the British government.

And any half competent graduate chemist can whip up a batch of sarin - making the stuff isn't that difficult, the challenge is delivering it with suffering blowback!

Who sold the Syrians the delivery system 140mm and 330mm rockets they used in the attack?

The Romulans?

*just giving the thread the respect it deserves*