ISIS vs The IRA ?

LDN_Irish

Final answer: morally unjustified. Killing people with no hope of actually achieving anything can't be justified just because they have no right to be armed on soil they've taken illegitimately. It's more like killing for revenge than any other reason.

No idea if they're gangsters and drug dealers. I've never seen any convictions and I keep hearing that they're inept and riddled with informers. Weird then that they'd be the most successful conviction evaders who've ever dealt drugs.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

SF are/were the political wing of one of the most lethal European terrorist organisations, namely the Provisional IRA (Provo's) for short. The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit. Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

Ahhh Sutch. Tis ever my labour to educate ye....
https://youtu.be/OMpV5jnZhq8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers%27_Council_strike

Not to mention they were a party dedicated for most of their existence to keeping the place a sectarian statelet.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Attacking economic targets is a valid tactic used by pretty much every army and insurgency ever. Very few phone ahead to clear civilians. I doubt Hitler had many calls from Churchill warning him to get his civilians out of Dresden and that killed somewhere in the region of 23000 civilians. Hey, Britain had the decency to actually declare war thay time so the deaths were more morally justified. Approval or not, the economic targets were a key part of the campaign and were as effective as killing soldiers here and there. The soldiers were signed up to be shot whereas the shopping centres were meant to make money.

Erm, tough one really. Politically and tactically unjustified, morally less justified than PIRA (because of the conditions imposed on their communities then and now) but more justified than any of the last 3 British military campaigns.

How can you call bombing a pub an economic target?

And, in the bizarre world where a pub, or a McDonald's is possibly an economic target, why bomb them at their busiest times?

LordSutch

So this tongue in cheek/silly thread started off about the IRA Vs ISIS, yet every few posts its dragged back into a British army/Northern Ireland thread.

The same few posters just won't give up, presumably because they don't like their IRA heroes being compared to another terrorist organisation? hence they keep dragging the British army into the equation for reasons . . . . .

Cathy1985

Sorry clearly the wrong post lol dunno how I done this 😅

osarusan

Cathy1985 wrote: »

Hey, any advice from previous T CD students who studied the Masters in Social Work RE: working part-time would be so appreciated. I start in September and I'm wondering if I'll be able to keep my current position at the weekends😊😊 or is it possible time wide 😬

Is this terrorist code?

LDN_Irish

LordSutch wrote: »

So this tongue in cheek/silly thread started off about the IRA Vs ISIS, yet every few posts its dragged back into a British army/Northern Ireland thread.

The same few posters just won't give up, presumably because they don't like their IRA heroes being compared to another terrorist organisation? hence they keep dragging the British army into the equation for reasons . . . . .

I'm debating what I am because "who would win, the IRA or ISIS?" is good for a laugh for a minute but not exactly thought provoking or interesting. Not because I don't like comparisons to IS which are ludicrous in the extreme.

Considering IS now control the areas they operate in a consistent position would be anyone attacking those areas are terrorists and IS are the legitimate rulers. They took it fair and square after all. Maybe they can gerrymander a majority of their supporters in to an area and then keep it for the next 100 years. If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'm debating what I am because "who would win, the IRA or ISIS?" is good for a laugh for a minute but not exactly thought provoking or interesting. Not because I don't like comparisons to IS which are ludicrous in the extreme.

Considering IS now control the areas they operate in a consistent position would be anyone attacking those areas are terrorists and IS are the legitimate rulers. They took it fair and square after all. Maybe they can gerrymander a majority of their supporters in to an area and then keep it for the next 100 years. If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

By your logic, the way to defeat ISIS is to blow up a corner shop.

Father Ted Crilly

LDN_Irish wrote: »

If Iraqis and Syrians are anything like the Irish the vast majority of them will call anyone who uses armed insurrection against them terrorists.

It's the British calling the IRA terrorists. The Irish never called anyone a terrorist and I'm pretty sure the Iraqis and Syrians do call ISIS "terrorists".

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can you call bombing a pub an economic target?

And, in the bizarre world where a pub, or a McDonald's is possibly an economic target, why bomb them at their busiest times?

Oh, I thought we were talking about shopping centres. Are you talking about the Birmingham pub bombings where they attempted to phone in a warning but the phone box was vandalised? So they say anyway. I thought the idea was to damage the area rather than the actual pubs but what would I know? I have no more inside info than you do. Presumably you think they just really wanted to kill some Birmingham drinkers but it's not really that plausible a theory when you consider that there are places where you could cause much more civilian casualties if you were that way inclined.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By your logic, the way to defeat ISIS is to blow up a corner shop.

Yeah but only at it's "busiest time" apparently. The comparisons don't work when they get so literal Fred.

Edit: If IS successfully hold the area they do now for the next 20 years to pick a number at random , would guerilla warfare against them by locals be justified?

Edit again: Only if they leave the pubs and McDonalds alone?

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Oh, I thought we were talking about shopping centres. Are you talking about the Birmingham pub bombings where they attempted to phone in a warning but the phone box was vandalised? So they say anyway. I thought the idea was to damage the area rather than the actual pubs but what would I know? I have no more inside info than you do. Presumably you think they just really wanted to kill some Birmingham drinkers but it's not really that plausible a theory when you consider that there are places where you could cause much more civilian casualties if you were that way inclined.

So the people responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings were those who vandalised the telephone box?
If you don't plant the explosive device in the first place the problem of faulty telephone communication doesn't arise.

ScumLord

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if the ira stopped at killing soldiers or politicians then you'd have a point.

Tell me why Warrington or Birmingham were bombed? What was the purpose other than to slaughter innocent people.

How is a Jihadist gunning down someone for drawing cartoons of Mohammed any different to murdering a kids tv presenter on his doorstep because he offered a reward for information about an IRA cell?

How is an American bomber bombing a city any better or worse? War always has civilian targets. The fact is we live in democracies so why should the average citizen expect to be ignored by the enemies of their state? Their the main target because their the ones that can affect change.

I'm not saying that ISIS are waging a war that will get them any kind of result. Guerrilla warfare doesn't work against modern states, we ignore it and it only prolongs a conflict and makes a victory by any side next to impossible. At this stage I think the people in charge of groups like the IRA or ISIS use the conflict to protect their criminal enterprises.

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

So the people responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings were those who vandalised the telephone box?
If you don't plant the explosive device in the first place the problem of faulty telephone communication doesn't arise.

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Fratton Fred

ScumLord wrote: »

How is an American bomber bombing a city any better or worse? War always has civilian targets. The fact is we live in democracies so why should the average citizen expect to be ignored by the enemies of their state? Their the main target because their the ones that can affect change.

I'm not saying that ISIS are waging a war that will get them any kind of result. Guerrilla warfare doesn't work against modern states, we ignore it and it only prolongs a conflict and makes a victory by any side next to impossible. At this stage I think the people in charge of groups like the IRA or ISIS use the conflict to protect their criminal enterprises.

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

Guerrilla warfare is valid. deliberately detonating a bomb in a pub or a shopping centre at its busiest time isn't guerrilla warfare, it is an act of terrorism.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Not deflection then, no?

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

What did that strawman ever do to you?

Now that you mention it, sentencing whoever vandalised the phone box would have been more justified than who they actually jailed.

Evasion.
The devices were planted. You can't pass the responsibility off onto others.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not deflection then, no?

How is that deflection? The post was a complete strawman. I didn't imply or say that whoever vandalised the phone box was responsible, if indeed there was a vandalised phone box. I'm amazed you even thanked that post considering how ridiculous the implication was. I didn't have you down as someone who just thanks any post that looks like it's on the same side of the debate as yours.

Junkyard Tom

ScumLord wrote: »

But guerrilla warfare is as valid as any other type of warfare.

Although the death of civilians is a consequence of conflict the targeting of pubs and shopping districts full of people cannot be justified (unless of course you're Lordsutch who would describe combatants living amongst communities as 'hiding').

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

Evasion.
The devices were planted. You can't pass the responsibility off onto others.

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

the intent could have been what then?

a) to kill innocent people
b) to cause an act of terror

Eitherway, it is an act of terrorism.

LDN_Irish

Just so we can drop the inane phone box sideline and to be really clear:

Obviously, the PIRA were responsible for those deaths. I don't think they intended to intentionally kill those civilians for the reason I gave a page or so back, primarily because they could have killed more civilians elsewhere but also because it was massively damaging to republicanism.

Fred, do you consider the British victims? Can you name some conflicts where you'd peg the British as "the bad guys" and the other side as justified?

Fratton Fred

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Fred, do you consider the British victims? Can you name some conflicts where you'd peg the British as "the bad guys" and the other side as justified?

Victims of what?

Britain had one of the biggest empires in its day, all empires had conflicts where they were the bad guys. I don't see what the relevance of that is.

I wouldn't consider the PIRA campaign as unjustified considering the way Catholics in the north were treated, just a lot of the tactics they employed.

LDN_Irish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Victims of what?

Britain had one of the biggest empires in its day, all empires had conflicts where they were the bad guys. I don't see what the relevance of that is.

I wouldn't consider the PIRA campaign as unjustified considering the way Catholics in the north were treated, just a lot of the tactics they employed.

God knows what we're debating then. I'm sure I said similar to you yesterday. If the question is "do I think targeting pubs I justified?" Then it depends on the circumstances is really the only answer I can give you. I don't think deliberately targeting civilians in a pub is justified and I don't think that's what the intent was, but that doesn't bring anyone back to life unfortunately.

I'm guessing from your name and presence here that were from similar backgrounds. Are you England born to Irish parents too?

Edit: If the question is "does that constitute terrorism?" Then I suppose it could. But terrorism is applied to everyone who dares challenge any larger regime with armed action and I think can equally be applied to any type of war, except maybe the trench type warfare of WWI. The semantics of it aren't really that important to me.

indioblack

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Yeah, quite obviously. Where did I say the vandal was responsible? I'm talking to Fred about intent rather than outcome. The outcome is a matter of public record and it was one of the worst atrocities of the conflict, that's a given. The intent is what's debatable.

The intent was to detonate an explosive device in a public place.
Maybe there was no desire to kill people.
Once the device is planted and the bomber has left there is less control over what will happen next.
Hence, if the device is not planted in such a location, the rest becomes irrelevant.
When, as in this case, this operation, allegedly, went wrong don't be surprised if people come to their own conclusions as to the intent.

Father Ted Crilly

GaryTLynch wrote: »

Fr. Ted Crilly,
Could you please summarise the events that led to the outbreak of the Troubles, the war that ensued and the eventual signing of the Good Friday Agreement (as YOU see it).

This should be good.

I'm sorry if these events are not in the correct order.

Ok well there was this little humble and lovely nation called Ireland.
Then this English king called William of Orange was so obsessed with Oranges that he decided he'd poison all of Ireland's potatoes and replace them with Oranges. Then he sent his army over who started stealing the Irish people's land and homes and killing and raping them and selling them as slaves.
Then one day our heroes came and named themselves the Irish Republican Army. They fought those tyrants off with spirit, pride and determination.
King William had all Easter eggs replaced with Terry's Chocolate Oranges, the Irish had had enough. This sparked the 1916 Easter Rising.

Anyway, we got a Republic in exchange for 6 counties which is ridiculously stupid.
This brings us to The Troubles. Those Northerners were cheeky enough to say that the North should stay with the UK. The smart guys AKA the PIRA starting nuking them and the Northerners were scared into making some sort of agreement called the "Belfast Good Friday Agreement".


On to the next thing, all I can say is that ISIS is a big bunch of religious wackos and the IRA have better reasons for what they did.

LDN_Irish

indioblack wrote: »

The intent was to detonate an explosive device in a public place.
Maybe there was no desire to kill people.
Once the device is planted and the bomber has left there is less control over what will happen next.
Hence, if the device is not planted in such a location, the rest becomes irrelevant.
When, as in this case, this operation, allegedly, went wrong don't be surprised if people come to their own conclusions as to the intent.

No arguments there. No surprise either.

smurgen

Irish people are horrified by war.i know I am myself.for people so disgusted by ira bombings you'd think the British would be slow to enter more and more wars and inflict hardships on other folk.Its almost as if they love war and the perpetual cycle of hate.

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

Irish people are horrified by war.i know I am myself.for people so disgusted by ira bombings you'd think the British would be slow to enter more and more wars and inflict hardships on other folk.Its almost as if they love war and the perpetual cycle of hate.

try some sugar on those sour grapes.

Father Ted Crilly

Fratton Fred, are you of British decent? I can smell British people from a mile away. If I'm right about this and I have no reason to doubt myself, it would explain your biased opinions.