IRA statement

mycroft

tomMK1 wrote:

SF and others are working on justice campaigns for those killed by the british and loyalist death squads. Its obvious that they wont campaign for IRA victims, considering it was a war. You obviously dont seem to understand that. Did britain campaign to help those they killed during WW2? Obviously not.

So why doesnt the british use the same logic to show rank indifference to the victims of its war.

And there are several examples of the UK both saluting it's "heros" while investigating the victims of it's war.

as what you expect the republicans to be doing.

You meaning holding their own members accountable for their actions. No you just demand they're acquited.

... theres many who dont seem to be helping the investigation .. im waiting for you to give out about them.

A) Your first two links are broken.

What does this fine piece of "whataboutrey" have do with the IRA indifference to the campaign for justice.

So Im a liar now then eh? I cant defend or vouch for the IRA actions, so dont try to 'win' your argument on that front. the basic point is that it wasnt IRA policy to kill civillians.

You can't or won't so why did you say

"the IRA never targeted civilians"

That seems like a clear defence of the IRA campign, so either you didn't know the IRA have targeted civilians, or, or er, you theres no, "no", you have defended IRA actions, and you can't claim the IRA didn't target civilians when the IRA clearly have.

Maybe because of the armed struggle? They sell things made by prisioners so that makes ]the SF leadership in the IRA. Fantastic logic .. i just sooo envy you.

Yes everything made on the SF website was handspun by IRA prisoners in the Maze. Tom, you're hilarious.

where is your proof that it will?

Wheres your proof that it won't. You've the IRA's "word" that they'll cease all activities, an organisation for the past six year while on ceasefire has continued to "recruit" "train" "arm" continue "fundraising" and "community policing". My cyncism has a healthy foundation your delusion has your fantasy that the IRA just "accidently" targetted and killed civilians over and over again.

see above .. and please, stop living in the past.

I do so love this, it's not like republicans live in the past it's that the live in the past, build a holiday home and camp there on weekends as well. And when they rant on past incidents by the british and get called on past IRA campaigns, they tell us to stop living in the past.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

see above

See what above? You didn't answer the questions?

Was the Guildford, Birmingham and Warington bombings moral/justifiable or immoral/unjustifable? Simple question, yet you continue to avoid it using SF style "I was regretable" type answers.

Was the bombing of a crowded pub a legitamate military action, or was it (as I think it was) a war crime?

Also please explain what was the military siginficance of these targets (if of course you believe they were legitamate)

You have gone on and on about the British army selecting illegitamate targets (something I agree with) but you won't explain how a pub full of civilians (including children) is a legitamate target, how off duty British soldiers are legitamate targets, how a crowded shopping mall is a legitamet military target

tomMK1 wrote:

.. and please, stop living in the past.

tomMK1 (on another thread) wrote:

then you should ask yourself what ireland has done by making people in the north live that way - or do you just not care?

:rolleyes:

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

See what above? You didn't answer the questions?

Was the Guildford, Birmingham and Warington bombings moral/justifiable or immoral/unjustifable? Simple question, yet you continue to avoid it using SF style "I was regretable" type answers.

Was the bombing of a crowded pub a legitamate military action, or was it (as I think it was) a war crime?

Also please explain what was the military siginficance of these targets (if of course you believe they were legitamate)

You have gone on and on about the British army selecting illegitamate targets (something I agree with) but you won't explain how a pub full of civilians (including children) is a legitamate target, how off duty British soldiers are legitamate targets, how a crowded shopping mall is a legitamet military target





:rolleyes:

as i said, I cant justify IRA actions. why are you insisting I do?

Avoiding the main points that the IRA are out of business?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

as i said, I cant justify IRA actions. why are you insisting I do?

Thats not what I asked you (you really should run SF)

Do you believe the IRA campaign was justifable/moral/legal or unjustifable/immoral/illegal?

Do you believe the actions the IRA took were wrong?

Its a simple question. You either support what they did, or you condone it as wrong/immoral?

Sherlock

I heard Danny Morrison on the radio the other day repeating the republican lie that the IRA never targeted civilians. Apparently the reason all the people who died in pub bombings (just a thought, if you wanted to avoid killing people but cause damage, wouldn't you bomb empty office blocks at night rather than crowded pubs) were due to "mistakes" or incompetent police work. Even Eamonn McCann who was on the same show found this a bit rich, and he was arguing for the case that Al-Quaida had legitamit political motives!

Sherlock

Hit send a bit quick on the last post.....
Meant to say that the modus operandi of the IRA's bombing campaign was to plant bombs in crowded places and give vague warnings so it made it hard for the police to evacuate in time. That way they could blame the police for incompetance. Even the RIRA did the same in Omagh, making a series of vague and contradictory warnings.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Thats not what I asked you (you really should run SF)

Do you believe the IRA campaign was justifable/moral/legal or unjustifable/immoral/illegal?

Do you believe the actions the IRA took were wrong?

Its a simple question. You either support what they did, or you condone it as wrong/immoral?

even though its got nothing to do with this thread (as in my personal beliefs ont he IRA) I'll appease you .. if only to stop you waffling on about this.

I believe the IRA campaign was justifiable, but no war can be morally right, as people get killed in them ... so im sorry, I cant follow your wording there.

I believe IRA actions were in general right (oh im sure you'll be talking about that for a few posts) except in cases like Enniskillen and warrington where innocents were killed. We'lll never know if there was sufficent and unacted upon warnings or not. At the same time, it was a war, so its hard to fit things into your nice cosy explainations. same way that republicans and innocent people get killed byt the SAS (like loughgall) - these things happen.

Ever asked yourself why british army camps are usually positioned near nationalist housing areas or schools/colleges? is that moral?

Sherlock wrote:

Even the RIRA did the same in Omagh, making a series of vague and contradictory warnings.

there are links around here somewhere that shed doubt on wheather such things were due to the RIRA or the RUC not acting on information

Sherlock

It was an active IRA team that were killed in Loughall, not innocents out for a drink. They were out to kill that night.
Were the Enniskillen,Guildford and Woollich pub bombings justified?, the Birmingham pub bombings?, Bloody Friday in Belfast?, the Shankill fish shop bomb?, Warrington where two innocent kids were killed?.
Were the Dublin bombs justified?

tomMK1

one innocent civillian in his car was killed, the other person in the car seriously injured.

Go on all you want about what was justified and what wasnt - as I said before ... im not justifying a war that raged for 35 years in the north of ireland. Please find something else to 'debate'.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sherlock wrote:

It was an active IRA team that were killed in Loughall, not innocents out for a drink. They were out to kill that night.

The 2 civilians targetted by the SAS team were just 'collateral damage' then? They were expendable in order to ensure that the IRA team were all killed and nobody bats an eyelid.

MrPudding

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The 2 civilians targetted by the SAS team were just 'collateral damage' then? They were expendable in order to ensure that the IRA team were all killed and nobody bats an eyelid.

If they were targetted then they are obviously not collateral damage. Collateral damage is an term used to descride persons killed "accidentally" not targetted.

So were they targetted or were they killed accidentally?

If they were killed accidentally that is most unfortunate. I always do feel bad when innocents are killed accidentally when the security forces are trying to deal with murdering scum.

MrP

A Dub in Glasgo

Here-in lies the play with words. They were allowed into the killing zone and one was killed and the other critically wounded by the SAS.

Was it

a) a mistake
b) murder

Answers on the back of a postcard to 'The play with words game' PO Box 666, Belfast

tomMK1

MrPudding wrote:

If they were targetted then they are obviously not collateral damage. Collateral damage is an term used to descride persons killed "accidentally" not targetted.

So were they targetted or were they killed accidentally?

If they were killed accidentally that is most unfortunate. I always do feel bad when innocents are killed accidentally when the security forces are trying to deal with murdering scum.

MrP

the first part of your post doesnt answer anything - it seems to attempt to muddy the waters really.

in the second part, didnt you meant when terrorists were murdering murdering scum?

mycroft

tomMK1 wrote:

there are links around here somewhere that shed doubt on wheather such things were due to the RIRA or the RUC not acting on information

Its the lack of responsibilty that staggers me. It's not the fault that the PIRA planted a massive bomb, it's all the RUCs fault for not reacting to the warning.

rsynnott

mycroft wrote:

Its the lack of responsibilty that staggers me. It's not the fault that the PIRA planted a massive bomb, it's all the RUCs fault for not reacting to the warning.

On this board, my first instinct was to assume you were serious.

supersheep

Sherlock wrote:

It was an active IRA team that were killed in Loughall, not innocents out for a drink. They were out to kill that night.
Were the Enniskillen,Guildford and Woollich pub bombings justified?, the Birmingham pub bombings?, Bloody Friday in Belfast?, the Shankill fish shop bomb?, Warrington where two innocent kids were killed?.
Were the Dublin bombs justified?

Weren't the Dublin bombs 'Loyalist' bombs? (and by that, I mean Force Research Unit bombs, cos no way in hell the Loyalists could have made those bombs at that time) The Shankill fish shop bomb was an attempt to kill leaders of the UDA which went horribly wrong. The others, in my opinion, were totally unjustifiable.

oscarBravo

supersheep wrote:

The Shankill fish shop bomb was an attempt to kill leaders of the UDA which went horribly wrong. The others, in my opinion, were totally unjustifiable.

Thankfully, we have radically different definitions of "justifiable".

supersheep

And what is your definition of justifiable? My definition of a justifiable attack in war is an attempt to kill a legitimate target - for example, members of the UDA. If citizens are killed, that doesn't make it unjustifiable, unless disproportionate force is used. Of course, that doesn't make a justifiable attack right...

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

And what is your definition of justifiable? My definition of a justifiable attack in war is an attempt to kill a legitimate target - for example, members of the UDA. If citizens are killed, that doesn't make it unjustifiable, unless disproportionate force is used. Of course, that doesn't make a justifiable attack right...

But was it a war? Not according to any normal definition.

murphaph

supersheep wrote:

And what is your definition of justifiable? My definition of a justifiable attack in war is an attempt to kill a legitimate target - for example, members of the UDA. If citizens are killed, that doesn't make it unjustifiable, unless disproportionate force is used. Of course, that doesn't make a justifiable attack right...

Would this be disproportionate force, considering these are the innocent people that were killed?

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

But was it a war? Not according to any normal definition.

I would apply the same definition of justifiable to any conflict, guerrilla war, liberation struggle, or 'terrorist' campaign.
Murphaph, like I said, the Shankill fish shop bombing was an attempt to kill loyalist terrorists which went horribly wrong. The fuse was supposed to allow the people killed to escape the shop, while killing the UDA men above it (who, I believe, had left before the bomb exploded). If the bomb had been made correctly, none of those people would have died.
So, no, I do not think that the attack was disproportionate. I think it was unsuccessful, and the deaths of innocents is always wrong and to be regretted.
But if that was Iraq and not the Shankill, they'd have a word for it: collateral damage.

county

pretty moving links there murphaph,most of all IRA attacks have have killed innocent bystanders but they lead you to believe that is not there fault,enniskillin for example they even tried to blame the british army with some cock and bull story of army technology setting of the bomb they had planted,how can these people live with themselves,do they sleep easy at night

county

well bloodly sunday was also collatral damage!!

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

But if that was Iraq and not the Shankill, they'd have a word for it: collateral damage.

"Oh, George Bush does it. That means it's okay". Are the IRA going to start locking random people in prison camps and torturing them, as their next feat? Are they in the market for a "pain beam"? No? Well, then, stop justifying their murder with American murder.

Flex

county wrote:

pretty moving links there murphaph,most of all IRA attacks have have killed innocent bystanders but they lead you to believe that is not there fault,enniskillin for example they even tried to blame the british army with some cock and bull story of army technology setting of the bomb they had planted,how can these people live with themselves,do they sleep easy at night

Who, the British Army or the IRA?

Do these pictures "move you" aswel?Each has committed horrible acts. Not just 1

county

sorry but i need to have superhuman vision to see your point!

sceptre

supersheep wrote:

Murphaph, like I said, the Shankill fish shop bombing was an attempt to kill loyalist terrorists which went horribly wrong. The fuse was supposed to allow the people killed to escape the shop, while killing the UDA men above it (who, I believe, had left before the bomb exploded). If the bomb had been made correctly, none of those people would have died.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3149256&postcount=289
Back up the page on this very thread.


Flex, your pictures are the size of small stamps and could picture members of my family ice-skating for all I can make out from them.

Flex

sceptre wrote:

Flex, your pictures are the size of small stamps and could picture members of my family ice-skating for all I can make out from them.

Yeah, sorry about that. Im not familiar with moving pictures around im afraid. Needless to say there pictures of victims of Bloody Sunday

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

Yeah, sorry about that. Im not familiar with moving pictures around im afraid. Needless to say there pictures of victims of Bloody Sunday

I never did follow the logic of "they shot some people; let's blow up some children".

Flex

rsynnott wrote:

I never did follow the logic of "they shot some people; let's blow up some children".

Me neither. Whats your point? Did i post something to give the idea i supported that or condoned it? If i did, then just post where i did and show me, otherwise shut up accusing me of things like that. OK?