What if the Internet had been around during the 'Troubles'

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm perfectly calm.
I'm hysterically laughing though at those who are frantically trying to pretend that the internet during the troubles would not have exposed the lies and cover-ups of the two governments.

I didn't say it wouldn't have. I was just making a lighthearted comment about the way people use the likes of Facebook to push their agendas. I think you have a very good point.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

I didn't say it wouldn't have. I was just making a lighthearted comment about the way people use the likes of Facebook to push their agendas. I think you have a very good point.

I wasn't laughing at you.

Glenster

Calm down ladies.

RustyNut

LordSutch wrote: »

I have this vision of you & Junkyard Tom (together) sitting in your bedroom in a place like Ballyfermot, wearing balaclavas, string vests & hobnail boots, listening to the Wolfe Tones LOUD, with a large poster of Gerry Adams in a tight polo neck sweater on the wall looking down on you, as you sip on a shandy

You old rebels . . . .

Do you be giving your lad an oul rub while you are having these visions? It just sounds like a supressed fantasy or something.

LordSutch

RustyNut wrote: »

Do you be giving your lad an oul rub while you are having these visions? It just sounds like a supressed fantasy or something.

More like a humorous Farther Ted moment (amongst all the bickering & mud slinging), well that was the intention anyway.

In the current climate its hard to know how to respond online to people who openly support terrorism, so after many serious posts I injected that vision into the thread (as they took it in turns to justify & excuse the Provo's own particular brand of terrorism) as described in posts #16 and 34.

I'm not sure much would have changed, more "Stand With Warrington" or "Stand With Kingsmill" type contributions.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

More like a humorous Farther Ted moment (amongst all the bickering & mud slinging), well that was the intention anyway.

In the current climate its hard to know how to respond online to people who openly support terrorism, so after many serious posts I injected that vision into the thread (as they took it in turns to justify & excuse the Provo's own particular brand of terrorism) as described in posts #16 and 34.

Understanding why something happened is not the same as 'excusing' it.

Violence begets violence. You can play semantics all day long with silly words like 'terrorism'.

I asked you before, how do you think a middle eastern person views those who rain bombs on them from a heroic 10,000 feet and fly home to 'die in bed', so to speak.
'Terrorists'?

RustyNut

LordSutch wrote: »

More like a humorous Farther Ted moment (amongst all the bickering & mud slinging), well that was the intention anyway.

In the current climate its hard to know how to respond online to people who openly support terrorism, so after many serious posts I injected that vision into the thread (as they took it in turns to justify & excuse the Provo's own particular brand of terrorism) as described in posts #16 and 34.

Terrorism is such a subjective term. I would be no apologist for or supporter of the provos but things must be seen in context.

The nationalist population of the North were dominated, oppressed and discriminated against for generations. A classic case of the tyranny of the majority. They had 2 choices, suck it up or resist

. Some chose to resist by force of arms. That's when it becomes subjective, mindless terrorism or legitimate resistance.

Both sides murdered innocents during the conflict but to label one side as terrorists and the other as somehow legitimate just doesn't wash with me.

I still have never heard a definition of terrorism that couldn't be applied to both sides of any conflict.

Anyway enjoy your visions.

LordSutch

Subjective!

Subjective indeed.

But then what do you call the planting of a bomb in a shopping centre or pub or a bus or train? What do you call it when people are blown or shot/stabbed to bits?

I call it terrorism.

RustyNut

LordSutch wrote: »

Subjective!

Subjective indeed.

But then what do you call the planting of a bomb in a shopping centre or pub or a bus or train? What do you call it when people are blown or shot/stabbed to bits?

I call it terrorism.

So do I. Just like shooting protesters, killing people on the way to football matches, dropping bombs on hospitals or shelling kids playing on beaches.If you terrorise innocent people you are a terrorist.


Whats your definition of a terrorist?

LordSutch

RustyNut wrote: »

Whats your definition of a terrorist?

The people who attacked London bridge the other night, or the Paris attackers, or more generally, people who plant bombs in public places like town centres, pubs, buses etc with the intent of killing or maiming people.

The PIRA, INLA, UFF, UDA, UFF & more recently ISIS all come to mind.

Sweetemotion

LordSutch wrote: »

The people who attacked London bridge the other night, or the Paris attackers, or more generally, people who plant bombs in public places like town centres, pubs, buses etc with the intent of killing or maiming people.

The PIRA, INLA, UFF, UDA, UFF & more recently ISIS all come to mind.

What about the British Army?

tomwaterford

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What about the British Army?

Shush......dont mention collusion among other things

RustyNut

LordSutch wrote: »

The people who attacked London bridge the other night, or the Paris attackers, or more generally, people who plant bombs in public places like town centres, pubs, buses etc with the intent of killing or maiming people.

The PIRA, INLA, UFF, UDA, UFF & more recently ISIS all come to mind.

They are all good examples of terrorists and I agree with them all but the question I asked was whats your definition of a terrorist?

steddyeddy

LordSutch wrote: »

Subjective!

Subjective indeed.

But then what do you call the planting of a bomb in a shopping centre or pub or a bus or train? What do you call it when people are blown or shot/stabbed to bits?

I call it terrorism.

What do you call it when you gun down unarmed civil rights protesters. Terrorism.

Sweetemotion

tomwaterford wrote: »

Shush......dont mention collusion among other things

The way he answered RustyNuts question was quite telling.

Shooting protesters=Fine.
Dropping bombs on hospitals=Fine.
Shelling kids on beaches=Fine

But if you retaliate and fight back against the oppressor=Terrorist.

All My Stars Aligned

Amazing, 77 replies and **** all actually answering OP's question!

Perhaps an Arab Spring type situation may have developed, and some the 3,000 plus victims may have been spared.

steddyeddy

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The way he answered RustyNuts question was quite telling.

Shooting protesters=Fine.
Dropping bombs on hospitals=Fine.
Shelling kids on beaches=Fine

But if you retaliate and fight back against the oppressor=Terrorist.

The same poster said he admired the actions of the security forces in a debate about the security forces working with loyalist terrorists to plant bombs ect. Terrorism is good as long as it's British it seems. Ignore.

Sweetemotion

steddyeddy wrote: »

The same poster said he admired the actions of the security forces in a debate about the security forces working with loyalist terrorists to plant bombs ect. Terrorism is good as long as it's British it seems. Ignore.

I've said if his grandfather fought on the other side, he would be the staunchest Republican here.

steddyeddy

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I've said if his grandfather fought on the other side he would be the staunchest of a Republican.

Yea. It's not terrorism that's the problem. It's the fact they're not British.

Sweetemotion

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yea. It's not terrorism that's the problem. It's the fact they're not British.

Ahh get you.

Must be horrible.

Regarding the OP, I would think if the internet or importantly mobile phones were around during the troubles.
The world would have seen more atrocities committed by the British Army.

Like what we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ahh get you.

Must be horrible.

Regarding the OP, I would think if the internet or importantly mobile phones were around during the troubles.
The world would have seen more atrocities committed by the British Army.

Like what we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Presumably they would have seen more atrocities committed by all sides, phones would have been whipped out to photograph broken children being carried out of a fish shop after the Shankill Road Bombing, a pub drenched in blood in Greysteel and so on. In fact, the excesses of the British Army such as the executions at Loughgall might still have been the less photographed events as they were shrouded in secrecy.

It might have made the conflict all round a bit more real, and seen more people talk about it in terms of casualties rather than freedom fighting or military operations. It's hard to find images of many of the atrocities by all sides now.

blackcard

I think a lot of people were afraid to give their views of the IRA. The internet would have liberated some. Others may still have had reservations, thinking their identity might still be revealed

Persephone kindness

blackcard wrote: »

I think a lot of people were afraid to give their views of the IRA.

I wasn't I think they are murderers.

RustyNut

Maybe if tinder was around then the hormonal youth might have found better ways to pass their time.

If the lads from the Shankill went over to the Falls for a feel rather than a fight and the lads from the Falls hit the Shankill for a shag rather than fire a few shots, things might have worked out completely differently.

Brits getting blown in the Bogside,Provos getting pussy in Portadown,Peelers getting knobed in Newry.

Could have been a generation of making love not war.

Persephone kindness

steddyeddy wrote: »

What do you call it when you gun down unarmed civil rights protesters. Terrorism.

a tragic mistake

Persephone kindness

And regarding bloody quite frankly no one should have been encouraging 17 yr olds to go to an interment march when their was rioting at that time on the streets and the British Army and any public figure who did so was selfish and blind.

steddyeddy

Persephone kindness wrote: »

a tragic mistake

That's quite naive PK. No different from people who say IRA bombs killed people by mistake.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's quite naive PK. No different from people who say IRA bombs killed people by mistake.

They didn't make many mistakes. The very cold execution of Protestants at Kimgsmill was calculated and sectarian, they divided the bus by religion and left the one Catholic go with instructions to run and not look back while they executed civilian after civilian. The incendiary device at La Mon was to ensure victims burned to death.

Junkyard Tom

Persephone kindness wrote: »

And regarding bloody quite frankly no one should have been encouraging 17 yr olds to go to an interment march when their was rioting at that time on the streets and the British Army and any public figure who did so was selfish and blind.

Subtle victim blaming.

Classy.