ISIS vs The IRA ?

smash

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Do ISIS sympathisers get tattoos of dead martyrs on their arms? Or an outline of the Islamic State? Do they go on holidays to dreadful resorts in Spain to sit around drinking lager and listening to their equivalent of the Wolfe Tones?

Only non alcoholic lager.

Elmer Blooker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

ISIS obviously, they have more money.

Indeed, interesting that no one ever asks who's funding them.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Jihad Tones, favourite band of infidel haters the world over.

A rousing chorus of "Oh, the fun we had the day we died for Jihad".

Hans Bricks

I suppose this is the closest simulation you'll get OP. :pac:

fergus1001

Dre as in Dray wrote:

Enda Kenny Vs A Kitten

Dre as in Dray wrote:

Who would win.

The kitten because enda would be taken in by the cuteness then the kitten would pull a knife and cut a son bitch

DarkyHughes

anncoates wrote: »

You sound like you have a hard on writing that.

Yeah they were good operations. If that the US army or something it they would have been considered 100% successful.

Simon2015

We could also throw some Football Hooligans into mix.

And have them fight each other in a large carpark and show it live on Sky Sports.

DarkyHughes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

ISIS obviously, they have more money and a far larger population of weirdos to call upon.

So did the US but they still lost in Vietnam. Giap was a much better General than Westmoreland as well.

ScumLord

It would be a pretty disappointing conflict. How are they going to bomb organisations that don't have any physical infrastructure?

JillyQ

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be a pretty disappointing conflict. How are they going to bomb organisations that don't have any physical infrastructure?

they have more caves

Father Ted Crilly

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Go home, Ted. You're drunk.

Dougal, have you been studying that diagram like I told you?

LordSutch

I would put my money on ISIS in a "one on one" fight :-)

ISIS are well armed with many modern weapons including surface to air missiles, they also have tanks (stolen) + many 4x4 vehicles with heavy duty machine guns strapped on the back. ISIS also have bigger knives which they would use to cut off IRA heads to great effect!

The IRA would try to respond with fertilizer bus bombs + semtex car bombs, the IRA would also have ex Lybian surface to air missiles which could be used to attack the ISIS road vehicles, however, the one area the IRA would lose out would be in the knife department. This is where ISIS would triumph in hand to head combat, leaving IRA heads strewn all over the place.

Result = ISIS due to bigger knives.

Father Ted Crilly

If we're talking about the modern IRA then there are only like 200 people in it. Add a few zeros to that and you've got ISIS.

And if this 'fight' was to take place, I'd be surprised if it happened in Ireland. A few hundred thousand black guys with bombs and guns coming into the country without attracting attention, I don't think so.

I think I heard somewhere that ISIS is Al Qaeda. Is this correct?

wendell borton

It would be a rather unfair fight since the IRA have decommissioned their weapons.

DarkyHughes

LordSutch wrote: »

I would put my money on ISIS in a "one on one" fight :-)

ISIS are well armed with many modern weapons including surface to air missiles, they also have tanks (stolen) + many 4x4 vehicles with heavy duty machine guns strapped on the back. ISIS also have bigger knives which they would use to cut off IRA heads to great effect!

The IRA would try to respond with fertilizer bus bombs + semtex car bombs, the IRA would also have ex Lybian surface to air missiles which could be used to attack the ISIS road vehicles, however, the one area the IRA would lose out would be in the knife department. This is where ISIS would triumph in hand to head combat, leaving IRA heads strewn all over the place.

Result = ISIS due to bigger knives.

I'm pretty sure the British would have had longer knives than the IRA & still weren't able to beat them. They had a death toll of 3 to 1 in their favor against the most sophisticated army in Europe.

The fight would have to take place in Ireland. The IRA's ideology is that Ireland should be a United Republic, so they'd have no reason to go to the Middle East. ISIS's ideology is that the whole world should be governed by a mad interpretation of Sharia law so their ideology would demand of them to come to Ireland. This would also probably have the effect of temporarily uniting all the Republican & Loyalists paramilitaries against ISIS's. So it would be ISIS vs IRA, UVF, UDA, INLA, IPLO & the LVF. The real question then is who was better at decapitating bodies - the Shankill Butchers of the UVF or the ISIS head chopping units.

Galwayguy35

ISIS might have better weapons but the IRA were smarter.

Father Ted Crilly

All of the countries of the world should join together and when another country starts some mad religious army like ISIS we should all annihilate them. It would work the same way as the death penalty in America. It would be the best way to prevent terrorism.
I have an ever better solution but I don't want to be seen as sadistic so I'll leave it for when I become president of the world.

I am sick of hearing about "ISIS this, ISIS that." Sometimes I wonder what the hell is wrong with people.

Elmo

The Taliban V IRA

But is the An Taliban cosuil le an t-IRA?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFljrJ7M4A

end of the road

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

the IRA were beaten ISIS wont be

they weren't beaten. they forced the British government to the table and brought the BA to a stailmate. it was a fantastic achievement. isis won't be beaten though that is true

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

they weren't beaten. they forced the British government to the table and brought the BA to a stailmate. it was a fantastic achievement. isis won't be beaten though that is true

The British would only agree to go to the table if the IRA disbanded unconditional to the terms of the agreement. The IRA agreed and decommissioned their weapons unconditional to the terms of the agreement. That's a defeat.

Father Ted Crilly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA agreed and decommissioned their weapons unconditional to the terms of the agreement. That's a defeat.

So why are we still hearing about IRA attacks on British people?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they weren't beaten. they forced the British government to the table and brought the BA to a stailmate. it was a fantastic achievement. isis won't be beaten though that is true

It's almost like when our football team draw and the fans break into "you'll never beat da Irish" to celebrate!

end of the road

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

All of the countries of the world should join together and when another country starts some mad religious army like ISIS we should all annihilate them. It would work the same way as the death penalty in America. It would be the best way to prevent terrorism.
I have an ever better solution but I don't want to be seen as sadistic so I'll leave it for when I become president of the world.

I am sick of hearing about "ISIS this, ISIS that." Sometimes I wonder what the hell is wrong with people.

bad news for you. the bombing raping and slaughtering in countries such as iraq for example was supposed to prevent more terrorism, it failed. just like the butcher chambers (sorry death penalty) is a complete flop

Irelandcool

IRA would win if we were talking about the provisional IRA not the current group. They had better training, weapons and experience in guerrilla warfare.

I've seen the ISIS special forces video and it wasn't all that special really. What you see in the propaganda videos is just pure crap.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The British would only agree to go to the table if the IRA disbanded unconditional to the terms of the agreement. The IRA agreed and decommissioned their weapons unconditional to the terms of the agreement. That's a defeat.

untrue. it was a win. they force the british to the table, and if the british didn't agree there would be more bombs.

LDN_Irish

"The Provos won!"

"The Provos were miserably defeated!"

It's clear as day that the truth is in the middle of these 2 statements. They didn't achieve a United Ireland but they smashed the Orange state and ensured nationalist representation in the North. Neither victory nor defeat. I've lived in England a large portion of my life and know a few British soldiers and none of them have ever said they consider the conflict a British military victory, and I have asked. You don't invite the people you've beaten in to government unless you have no other choice.

So, they might not have "won" the war, but SF quote obviously gained more than any other group. The British won the right to subsidise a failed statelet to the tune of 12 billion a year. Makes you wonder why they put up the fight when they obviously never had a legitimate claim in the first place and no, "we successfully displaced enough natives and replaced them with our own, then carefully drew a border around the place to ensure a unionist majority forevermore" is not a legitimate claim.

MonkieSocks

Heads or Harps

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

untrue. it was a win. they force the british to the table, and if the british didn't agree there would be more bombs.

Winning sides don't agree to decommission unconditional to the terms of the agreement. The IRA were forced to come to the table as they realized long before their armed campaign wasn't going to work.

Father Ted Crilly

The British were a big bunch of immoral psychopaths.
They couldn't stop the IRA. Good always triumphs over evil.
They shouldn't have been trying to stop us because they shouldn't have come here in the first place.
The Wolfe Tones are very accurate when they write songs. In their song 'Rock on Rockall' we hear phrases such as "The greedy eye of England" and "Britain's greedy hands". So true, so true.

The British caused the Potato Famine.

If I ever get my hands on a time machine, a big ass gun and a vast quantity of bullets, I know where I'm going.

LordSutch

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the British would have had longer knives than the IRA & still weren't able to beat them. They had a death toll of 3 to 1 in their favor against the most sophisticated army in Europe.

Thing is though, you can't really compare a professional sophisticated world class army, to an embedded terrorist movement who hide among the community like ticks! I also doubt that such a professional army would be unto knives as say ISIS or the IRA.