IRA statement

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

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?

These threads always degenerate into "who can show pictures of the worst atrocity".

Flex

rsynnott wrote:

These threads always degenerate into "who can show pictures of the worst atrocity".

Whatever. Where did i condone blowing up some children? And i posted those pics in response to someone posting other pics, because each side carried out horrible acts.

rsynnott

Ah, I saw your post as being an attempt to justify said attrocity, as most other posts of that type are. Obviously, however, you just posted it because you enjoy posting random pictures of dead people. My sincerest apologies.

Flex

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, I saw your post as being an attempt to justify said attrocity, as most other posts of that type are. Obviously, however, you just posted it because you enjoy posting random pictures of dead people. My sincerest apologies.

you quoted something i posted and then posted yourself

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

Was there something in my post that condoned blowing up some children?

And in that post i didnt try to justify anything, i posted pictures (rubbish ones too) to point out how bout sides, British and Irish, have committed horrible acts because someone posted other pictures. Did I say "Here, **** you's with your pictures, they did this first, so it was justified". You can interpret that as me posting random pictures of dead people for my own 'enjoyment' if thats what you want.

mycroft

Flex wrote:

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?

how about

Flex wrote:

However, when the time comes that the majority vote for a UI, if loyalists started threatening war to prevent a UI being created, Id fight.

And

Flex wrote:

Emmm, how about the fact that they gunned down marchers, and then went around patrolling NI with their guns and armoured cars? That sounds like terrorism to me, because if a foreign army showed up in Dublin and gunned down my neighbours because they felt a need to "put us in our place" for being a bunch of uppity Taigs, Id be pretty ****in terrorized for my own saftey and my familys. Especially since these people wouldnt be held accountable or punished (for decades).

One post shows your williness to commit violence to bring about a unitied ireland and the other is a list of british atrocties the IRA have been using for decades to justify their campaign of terror.

Holding up some pictures of corpses in answer to another bunch of corpses is just sick, do you feel that bloody sunday justifies the Shankill road bomb?

Otherwise why did you post them as a rebuttal to rysnnot.

supersheep

sceptre wrote:

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

A slight difference. Omagh (or was that Enniskillen?) was abandoning the bomb knowing civilians could be hurt by it. The Shankill was a failed attempt to kill enemies - analogous to a misdropped bomb. Note that I am not saying these things are right, only justifiable - something that will become illegal in Britain soon.
Rsynnott, the point was that civilians are killed in war...

MrPudding

tomMK1 wrote:

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

I was referring to the fact that the poster said the innocent bystanders were "collateral damage" and then in the same post said they were "targetted." My point was they could be one or the other, not both.

tomMK1 wrote:

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

That may be your opinion but it is certainly not mine. For me it was a case of proper soldiers dealing with murdering scum. I have no problem with that. I would have issues if they had of walked into a pud or into their home and killed them but not when they were on their way to a "job."

I do not consider the British Army operating in NI to be terrorists. I am a NI born Catholic and I have a lot more respect for the BA than I ever had or will have for the murdering scum that try to pass themselves off as an army and claimed to be acting in my best interest.

Your best SF lines. lies, spin and excuses will never change that.

MrP

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

Rsynnott, the point was that civilians are killed in war...

Yes, they are. There is no war in Northern Ireland. If there was, treatment of the terrorists would be far more harsh than it is.

supersheep

Sorry, that reply was rushed, had to go back to work.
Civilians are also killed in low-intensity conflicts. And, while the Troubles may not have been a war, it definitely was one of those. In my opinion, the same rules apply anyways - targetting civilians is unjustifiable, but if civilians are killed in an attack on a legitimate target, it is justifiable. Wrong, but justifiable. And that goes for everyone - army, terrorist, freedom fighter, whatever.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

Sorry, that reply was rushed, had to go back to work.
Civilians are also killed in low-intensity conflicts. And, while the Troubles may not have been a war, it definitely was one of those. In my opinion, the same rules apply anyways - targetting civilians is unjustifiable, but if civilians are killed in an attack on a legitimate target, it is justifiable. Wrong, but justifiable. And that goes for everyone - army, terrorist, freedom fighter, whatever.

So, I shoot some people who have red hair, and when charged with murder, say, oh no, it was a low-intensity conflict; I'm on a crusade to rid the world of unsightly red hair. Result; I get charged with terrorism, put in a political prison, my praises are sung by tens of thousands, and I'm released under a political deal. Hmm.

A Dub in Glasgo

rsynnott wrote:

So, I shoot some people who have red hair, and when charged with murder, say, oh no, it was a low-intensity conflict; I'm on a crusade to rid the world of unsightly red hair. Result; I get charged with terrorism, put in a political prison, my praises are sung by tens of thousands, and I'm released under a political deal. Hmm.

What you should do is shoot somebody 7 times in the head and then claim you thought that he was a danger to the public... you will probably get a medal and a promotion.

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

So, I shoot some people who have red hair, and when charged with murder, say, oh no, it was a low-intensity conflict; I'm on a crusade to rid the world of unsightly red hair. Result; I get charged with terrorism, put in a political prison, my praises are sung by tens of thousands, and I'm released under a political deal. Hmm.

Are they civilians? Then your terrorist crusade isn't justifiable.

tomMK1

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.

yeah, damned those provos, bombing omagh and then claiming it was the real ira eh ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What you should do is shoot somebody 7 times in the head and then claim you thought that he was a danger to the public... you will probably get a medal and a promotion.

Will someone please explain to me the logic behind the continued "Well sure, but look what the other side did" arguments that are raging on this thread ...

If the IRA blow up a pub killing children, how is the justification of that act connected to the BA shooting marchers in Derry ... its not, except in the minds of those trying to justify each act ... the continued "Everyone cares if the IRA/BA does this, but no one bats an eyelid if the BA/IRA does this", which to be honest is complete bulls**t.

People have to get out of the mind set that if someone claims that what the IRA did was immoral/illegal and unjustiable, it doesn't mean you are condoning what the British Army does.

Seriously, it is like being school when you get calling infront of the teacher for fighting and you start listing off what Timmy did ... "I know Ms. but Timmy kicked Billy in the leg Ms" ... :rolleyes:

tomMK1

MrPudding wrote:

I was referring to the fact that the poster said the innocent bystanders were "collateral damage" and then in the same post said they were "targetted." My point was they could be one or the other, not both.



That may be your opinion but it is certainly not mine. For me it was a case of proper soldiers dealing with murdering scum. I have no problem with that. I would have issues if they had of walked into a pud or into their home and killed them but not when they were on their way to a "job."

I do not consider the British Army operating in NI to be terrorists. I am a NI born Catholic and I have a lot more respect for the BA than I ever had or will have for the murdering scum that try to pass themselves off as an army and claimed to be acting in my best interest.

Your best SF lines. lies, spin and excuses will never change that.

MrP

are you insinuating Im a liar?

Its your right if you decide to apply one set of rules to one group of people and a contradictory set to another

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Will someone please explain to me the logic behind the continued "Well sure, but look what the other side did" arguments that are raging on this thread ...

If the IRA blow up a pub killing children, how is the justification of that act connected to the BA shooting marchers in Derry ... its not, except in the minds of those trying to justify each act ... the continued "Everyone cares if the IRA/BA does this, but no one bats an eyelid if the BA/IRA does this", which to be honest is complete bulls**t.

People have to get out of the mind set that if someone claims that what the IRA did was immoral/illegal and unjustiable, it doesn't mean you are condoning what the British Army does.

Seriously, it is like being school when you get calling infront of the teacher for fighting and you start listing off what Timmy did ... "I know Ms. but Timmy kicked Billy in the leg Ms" ... :rolleyes:

I dont know why no-ones copped on to the fact that the IRA have stepped down. yeah yeah, certain people wont believe that until they see disarming as usual, and even then they wont be happy, but the fact remains - the IRA have stood down ... lets move forward and stop arguing about the past

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

lets move forward and stop arguing about the past

It is the fact that people find that the actions of the IRA over the last 30 years were justifable and moral that is scary to me. It is all very well saying that they have stepped down, but it is important to reflect over what they did, so that the idea that what they carried out were acceptable actions doesn't resurface in 6 months, 1 year, 10 years ... don't forget the IRA have gone and come back more times than I care to remember ...

(not that I put any great importance in Boards.ie to do that of course )

tomMK1

well look - i find it freaky that some people believe when the IRA do things then its a terrorist offence, yet when the military does exactly the same thing, then its ok. that line of thought to me is confused .. but it doesnt get away from the fact its time to move on.

tomMK1

and its not just important to reflect on what the IRA did - considering they didnt create the troubles - but its important to reflect on what the IRA, the other republican paras, the loyalists paras, the various british army guises (UDR, RIR, The Army) and the various version s of the police force (RUC, PSNI) have done through out those times as well since personally I dont wish to see any atrocity being repeated. The IRA werent the only ones. believe it or not.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

The IRA werent the only ones. believe it or not.

What has that got to do with whether what the IRA did was moral or not?? Are you saying that what the IRA did (the pub bombings, the assinations, the robberies etc) were justified because the other side was doing the same thing? How does that work?

For someone who goes on and on about people not condoning the Loyalists/British Army enough, you seem very unwilling to condone the IRA, even though they are, in your own words, doing the exact same thing. If you believe what the British Army did was illegal/immoral/unjustified, then do you not feel the same about the IRA?

Instead of constantly asking "Why is it ok for the BA to do it" (a claim I am not sure anyone, especially not myself, is even making), maybe you should be asking "Why is it wrong for the Loyalists/BA to do it, but it is justified when the IRA do it" ... because after all the IRA are supposed to be "our army", they are supposed to act in our name, so therefore I think we are right in caring just that little bit more about whether what they do is justifiable or not.

tomMK1

yes indeed. Ive decided to not reply mainly because I havent a clue where you;re going. get over it and move on.

MrPudding

tomMK1 wrote:

are you insinuating Im a liar?

Its your right if you decide to apply one set of rules to one group of people and a contradictory set to another

No not really. Where did I call you a liar?

What rules am I applying to one group and not the other?

The murdering scum were on their way to plant a bomb. They were ambushed by a superior force and were killed. Boo Hoo. Two inncocent people were also killed, I do find this very regrettable. I would question why they were allowed into such a dangerous position but I do not have any details as to how the operation was carried out or why they may have been allowed into the ambush zone.

Are you trying to imply that murdering scum planting a bomb in a pub in order to kill off duty soldiers and killing innocent bystanders can be compared to the ambush above?

MrP

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

yes indeed. Ive decided to not reply mainly because I havent a clue where you;re going. get over it and move on.

Its quite clear .. what you are saying (and what Sinn Fein and other Republicans also seem to say) is that what the IRA did was morally justifiable, but what the B.A/Loyalists did was not morally justiable, but they both did exactly the same things (i.e. you can't condone the IRA without also condoning the British Army and vis-versa).

Which, by any stretch of the imagination, doesn't make sense.

So if you claim what the IRA did was justifable, how can you then claim that the British response was not justiable? Why do you condone something like Bloody Sunday as being wrong, yet say that something like Birmingham was justifed? Both actions resulted in the death of civilians, innocents who had not miltiary or strategic importance. Both were so far outside the bounds of legitimate miltary tactics in modern "war" that they by any definiton were war crimes.

I don't know if you are a supporter of the early release for IRA members, but if you are are you also of the view that those responsible for Bloody Sunday should not be punished, as it was a war time event?

tomMK1

lets put this to rest since you cant help but pretend you know what ive been saying.

If you accept that the British Army are as much terrorists as the IRA (as you have said, they both do the same things) then I'll gladly accept that both the british army and the IRA had an unjustifiable war going.

Hows that?

The problem is though, that you created your own argument there.

All my point has been is that since the IRA and the BA both do the same things (your words there) then they obviously are either terrorists or soldiers - but whatever you call one you have to call the other.

You - although you agree they both do the same things, keep calling the IRA terrorists yet say the british have every right to do what they have done.

Sop basically, the minute you typed

but they both did exactly the same things p

you effectively contradicted yourself.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

If you accept that the British Army are as much terrorists as the IRA (as you have said, they both do the same things) then I'll gladly accept that both the british army and the IRA had an unjustifiable war going.

Any terrorist action that the British Army did that you can describe to me how it was terrorist in nature, I will gladly say it was terrorist in nature. Of the top of my head I can't think of any with relation to Northern Ireland, but you seem convinced there were some, so I am all hears.

They have to actually be "terrorist" in nature. So far you have failed to show the terrorist intent behind events such as the SAS assination of IRA members, or events like Bloody Sunday. They are war crimes, ciminal acts of immoral and unjustifable acts of volience. But they were not terrorist acts, simply because the motivation behind them was not terrorist.

tomMK1 wrote:

All my point has been is that since the IRA and the BA both do the same things (your words there) then they obviously are either terrorists or soldiers - but whatever you call one you have to call the other.

A terrorist can be a soldier and a soldier can be a terrorist. They are not mutaliy exclusive definitions.

As I have (repeatable, and obviously to no effect) told you already, "terrorist" is not a description of the justifablity of an action, or a rating of its morality.

Put it another way, the British Army can do a much worse action than the IRA, and that action would not be terrorism unless it fits the description of terrorism.

For example, the holocaust was one of the worse crimes ever commited by a army (the German army), much worse than anything the B.A or IRA have ever done. But that wasn't "terrorism" Its motivation wasn't terrorism, its purpose wasn't terrorism. And saying that doesn't mean I put what the IRA did above the holocaust. Because I call the IRA terrorists and I don't call the Nazi's (or the BA) terrrorists you seem to think I am saying what they did was justifable, which is silly nonsense.

tomMK1 wrote:

You - although you agree they both do the same things, keep calling the IRA terrorists yet say the british have every right to do what they have done.

Simply by that quote alone you are either purposely misrepresenting what I say for your own agenda (you are a SFer after all), or you simply can't read, because I have repeatly (as in over and f**king over) said to you that I in no way justify what the British did in N.I. It was immoral, illegal and unjustiable. It simply wasn't terrorism, in the same way the holocaust wasn't terrorism. So which is it?

jman0

Wicknight wrote:

Any terrorist action that the British Army did that you can describe to me how it was terrorist in nature, I will gladly say it was terrorist in nature. Of the top of my head I can't think of any with relation to Northern Ireland, but you seem convinced there were some, so I am all hears.

What a bloody hypocrit, and in the same thread too!
:rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3133656&postcount=191

Wicknight wrote:

You are right it would. What the Paratrooper regiment did on Bloody Sunday was a mixture of revenge and intimedation of N.I Catholics. I think it is pretty well established now that they aimed for civilians in an attempt to frighten and coerces the N.I Catholics into being to affraid to "cause trouble". That was an act of terrorism.

Zombrex

jman0 wrote:

What a bloody hypocrit, and in the same thread too!
:rolleyes:

Ummm ... yes I just love debating on Boards.ie with people you don't read what I write fully ... Bloody Sunday was not sanctioned by the British Army as an official tactic ... it was soldiers acting on their own "initative" ... unless you know something about Bloody Sunday we don't

As I have already said (bangs head), a soldier can be a terrorist and a terrorist can be a solider ...

In the same way the Northern Bank robbery was carried out by IRA members and Sinn Fein members it wasn't an act of Sinn Fein (was it??)

So I ask again ... an action by the British Army where terrorism was used as an offical tactic?? Because nearly all P-IRA actions terrorism was used as a offical tactic. I am actually being very restraint in not mentioning unoffical IRA activities because I know it would just get the usual "That was not sanctioned by the P-IRA" response. But you know, if you want to get into that debate ...

jman0

jman0 wrote:

What a bloody hypocrit, and in the same thread too!
:rolleyes:

It would be nice if you could point out the problems you have with a post without the name calling at the poster.
1 week ban

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

Sop basically, the minute you typed you effectively contradicted yourself.

If a man stabs his wife cause his dinner is cold, and a stranger stabs a black girl on the train cause she is black, both have done exactly the same thing, but one is a domestic assault, the other is a race crime.

One isn't worse than the other, but they are both different actions, with different motivations and reasons. To deny that is just stupid, as it means living in a world of black and white and illogical assumptions, ignoring the reason for events.

tomMK1

look, i give up alright? you dont have to keep going on and on and on and on and on.

basically you told me that the IRA and the BA do the same things, and you told me the IRA were terrorists - so Im happy as that means the bA are terrorists too.

No need to explain any more or go to all that trouble thinking up things about wifes and knifes (that rhymes!)

ta very much like

yours sincerely

/me