IRA statement

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

No, it's trying to move away from the utterly insane theory that terrorism can be defined by a single criterion; said criterion being defined at will by whoever has a particular point to make.

as far as Im aware, that theory wasnt proposed by anyone who was arguing on the republican side here .. that was thrown in I presume as some kind of smokescreen to confuse the issue. I certainly never made such a point.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

maybe because it doesnt matter if a soldier if off duty or not?

To justification for killing a soldier is if he/she is physically stopping you from a goal or target. An off duty soldier has no strategic importance. He may do when he comes back on duty, but then you kill whatever soldier is directly stopping you from reaching your target. You don't just try and kill ever off duty soldier on the off chance that one of them in the future may be a soldier in your way. That is unjustifiable, immoral and a war crime. You can't just kill a soldier because he is a soldier. You need a justifable reason to kill him.

tomMK1 wrote:

All soldiers are critical to the army.

True, but the IRA killing random soldiers for the hell of it gains them no tactical advantage over the British Army. As I said, the off duty soldiers (and their families) had no military significance to the war.

Just like there would be no military point to the IRA bombing a British Army base in Hong Kong, there is not military point in bombing off duty officers. They did it as an act of terrorism

tomMK1 wrote:

the theory probably was that if soldiers realised they might die, then they mightnt really want to go there

Doubtful, considering a soldier doesn't have much say in where they are posted. They did it for the wider political idea of changing the general public's idea of the war. It is common tactic of terrorist to target soft targets (undefended police stations in Iraq for example) in an effort to cause maximum damage for least effort. If the IRA simply wanted the specific soldiers dead they could have shot them in their homes. They wanted the effect of the pub bombing, because they weren't actually interested in the deaths of the soldiers, they were interested in the effect that the bombing would have on the general public.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

To justification for killing a soldier is if he/she is physically stopping you from a goal or target. An off duty soldier has no strategic importance. He may do when he comes back on duty, but then you kill whatever soldier is directly stopping you from reaching your target. You don't just try and kill ever off duty soldier on the off chance that one of them in the future may be a soldier in your way. That is unjustifiable, immoral and a war crime. You can't just kill a soldier because he is a soldier. You need a justifable reason to kill him.

In a 'war' situation I dont think that applies. or more correctly, I dont think the soldiers enemies would give a toss.

True, but the IRA killing random soldiers for the hell of it gains them no tactical advantage over the British Army. As I said, the off duty soldiers (and their families) had no military significance to the war.

Just like there would be no military point to the IRA bombing a British Army base in Hong Kong, there is not military point in bombing off duty officers. They did it as an act of terrorism

of course theres a military point to killing off duty officers. really, does that need explaining cus its pretty obvious to me?

Doubtful, considering a soldier doesn't have much say in where they are posted. They did it for the wider political idea of changing the general public's idea of the war. It is common tactic of terrorist to target soft targets (undefended police stations in Iraq for example) in an effort to cause maximum damage for least effort. If the IRA simply wanted the specific soldiers dead they could have shot them in their homes. They wanted the effect of the pub bombing, because they weren't actually interested in the deaths of the soldiers, they were interested in the effect that the bombing would have on the general public.

it stops people joining the BA in the first place. I dunno - after reading your last quote about there being no military point in shooting off duty officers - as if its pop out of the uniform and alls ok - after reading that I dont think we're on the same page here at all.

rsynnott

tomMK1 wrote:

of course theres a military point to killing off duty officers. really, does that need explaining cus its pretty obvious to me?

Yes, there is. There's also a military point to killing civilians. That doesn't make it acceptable.

And really, are the IRA trying to wipe out the entire British army? No, they're trying to make themselves feel important..

tomMK1

eh ... just what is the military point in killing civillians?

make themselves feel important? whatever you reckon yerself like.

tomMK1

you should fix that link in http://sitevaluer.com/ btw

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

In a 'war' situation I dont think that applies. or more correctly, I dont think the soldiers enemies would give a toss.

Of course it applies in a 'war' situation ... is there any justification for killing a soldier for any reason in a peace time situation?? :rolleyes:

tomMK1 wrote:

of course theres a military point to killing off duty officers. really, does that need explaining cus its pretty obvious to me?

What is the military point of killing off duty officers? What does it achieve? What military significance does it make? How is Ireland any "freer" when they are dead? Did they have any significance to the occupation of Northern Ireland at all?

tomMK1 wrote:

it stops people joining the BA in the first place.

It stops people joining the British Army? Are you serious? That was the IRA's plan, to defeat the british army through stopping people joining them? Thats a joke right ...

tomMK1 wrote:

I dunno - after reading your last quote about there being no military point in shooting off duty officers - as if its pop out of the uniform and alls ok - after reading that I dont think we're on the same page here at all.

An off duty officer is pretty much a civilian ... they have no power at that moment ... sure why doesn't the IRA just start killing UK children in case they grow up to be British soldiers ..

I would love to hear an explination about how an off duty soldier has any military significance to removing the British Army from N.I ... so far all you have said is it stops people joining the army, which, no offence, is a ridiculous statement considering the size of the BA

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

eh ... just what is the military point in killing civillians?

the reason the IRA targetted civilians was terrorism ... isn't that clear?

tomMK1

calm blue waters ...calm blue waters ..god this place would drive one around the bend the 'debates' (very loose term) seem to rotate so much.

As I notice you arent bothering one bit to listen to anything ive been saying, I'll leave you and your 'terrorism' fanatisism to yer own devices as Im bored of it at this stage.

If people are going to argue points, yo normally take some heed to what others say and then reformulate your thoughts. That isnt happening. Im hearing the same rubbish about what 'terrorism' apparently is, and no-ones getting any answers ... though Im sure some reckon they supply cool and tredny answers though.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

yo normally take some heed to what others say and then reformulate your thoughts.

I've been listen to what you are saying -

You are saying that the IRA don't target civilians - That isn't true, the IRA plant bombs in civilian areas knowing that civilians will get killed, and in some cases counting on it (Warington springs to mind, unless you think Argos is some military significant outpost).

You are saying that the British Army carried out a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland - That isn't true. They carried out a campaign of violence and harrasment, but it was not, by any stretch of the definition, for a terrorist purpose. You still don't seem to understand what terrorism is. Maybe you should actually listen to what others are telling you. I explained days ago that terrorism was not simply someone terrorising another person, yet you mentioned that in your last post. You can be terrorised by your neigbours, it doesn't mean your neighbours are terrorists

You are saying that it is justifable in war time to kill off duty soldiers - Not according to the modern standards of war (IHL). Off duty soldiers are considered civilians and illegitiamate targets unless they actually fight back. Getting blown up in a pub hardly gives them a chance to fight back now does it.

tomMK1

fact one - i said I couldnt say the IRA targetted civillians, whereas you KNOW they do apparently. proof anyone?

Yes the britis are terrorists. its plain to see to anyone who has any idea of whats going on.

DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SIR!

If you bother going back to read what I said about off duty soldiers, you will see i said that

"In a 'war' situation I dont think that applies. or more correctly, I dont think the soldiers enemies would give a toss." when did i say anything of the sort was justifable?

Do me a favour - lie about other people if you wish but DO NOT post i have stated things I havent stated.

Its quite plain to me that you really dont have enough understanding of whats happening in the north to debate it. in fact i'd say 70% of the posters in this forum havent much of an idea. makes for a horrible place to 'debate' politics' give me a room of monkeys anyday. And i dont give a toss if that gets me banned .. the mods should do something about the trolling that goes on around here

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

when did i say anything of the sort was justifable?

Are you taking the piss??

I said that off duty soldiers are not justifable military targets and you spent that last 10 posts disagree with me. Now you are saying you also believe that off duty soldiers are not justifable military targets ... seriously, are you taking the piss?

rsynnott

tomMK1 wrote:

eh ... just what is the military point in killing civillians?

make themselves feel important? whatever you reckon yerself like.

Intimidation. Deliberate killing of civilians in war is sadly, a common theme for most of human history. You are far less likely to support a war if a bomb is going to be dropped on your house tomorrow, or the train to work is machine-gunned by planes every now and again.

And I say make themselves feel important because there is no other obvious reason to do it; they set back their alleged cause immesurably with the image they show to the world, and they have no chance of winning with military might.

supersheep

oscarBravo wrote:

How can something be wrong, but justifiable? Also, what non-civilians would you kill in the pursuit of gay rights?

I believe it is wrong to kill someone. However, I believe also that at times, to achieve a goal, it may be necessary. To me, that means it is justifiable. And just because something is justifiable doesn't mean I support it.

Wicknight wrote:

So off duty soldiers in a pub enjoying a pint, who have no critical importance to the British Army pressence in the North, and whos deaths will have no direct effect on the BA pressence in the North, are justifiable targets?? Why?
Simply being a soldier in the British Army means the IRA are justifed in blowing you up, along with your family and friends?
It is a war crime to target off duty soldiers ... what makes the IRA any different to that moral judgement?

Nothing... Now I wasn't totally sure about my attitude to this point until a few seconds ago, but now I am. Off-duty soldiers are effectively civilians - after all, they aren't fighting. Off-duty soldiers on a base, however, I would probably class as 'collateral damage'.

Wicknight wrote:

The IRA target civilians .... if you blow a bomb up in a pub to kill one soldier in there you are targetting civilians .. your aim might be to kill that one soldier, but you know you are also going to kill everyone else in the pub ... or put it another way, the IRA don't take any care not to kill civilans

I can't think of many reasons for an on-duty soldier to be in a pub full of civilians... But not taking care not to kill civilians is only very very marginally better than deliberately killing them.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

I can't think of many reasons for an on-duty soldier to be in a pub full of civilians... But not taking care not to kill civilians is only very very marginally better than deliberately killing them.

When someone bombs a pub, it's exactly the same.

Why is this a "war", anyway. What are you hoping to achieve? The British Army's capitulation. No, you're just harming any chances of a peaceful solution.

supersheep

Hey, I prefer peaceful struggle myself. But I support the right of people to a violent insurrection where it has a reasonable chance of success and is justifiable, and other methods are not the best way to bring this about.

sceptre

supersheep wrote:

justifiable

I may have missed your definition or explanation but given that it keeps appearing and hence appears to be a cornerstone of your point of view, it'd be a great help if you explained what you think that word that you keep using means (just in case I don't think it means the same thing in advance of any potential worthwhile discussion from my end) or how you mean it to mean as "justifiable" on its own can be pretty subjective as justification. If you've already done that I'd appreciate the few seconds taken to point me to where as it'll make it easier for me. Something simple without using real-world examples (i.e. from first principles) would be good. Thanks.

supersheep

This is gonna be a toughie, I'm not too hot on the explanation of concepts. But here's my shot.
Justifiable means an action which, although I may not agree with or think of as morally right, I can see a rationale for, and would accept as a legitimate act. I don't think I can explain it any better, sorry, unless you want to ask supporting questions.
For example, war is justifiable, although not morally right. Can you see where I'm coming from?

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

For example, war is justifiable, although not morally right. Can you see where I'm coming from?

I think "understandable" would be a better word to use there. You can understand why something is done, even if you don't agree with it. Justifable implies you believe that the person had a vaild justification for doing what they did, ie. you believe that the response was correct and morally right for the sitution.

For example, if my girlfriend cheats on me with my best friend, and I burn her house down, you could say you understood why I did what I did, even if you didn't agree with it, even if you though it wasn't a justifiable response.

Likewise, you can understand why people go to war, you know the reasons, you understand why the IRA blow up pubs, but you don't always have to think the reasons are right or justifiy the response.

Anyway, just a thought, don't mean to put words in your mouth.

supersheep

I use the word justifiable to distinguish actions. If I used understandable, I couldn't distinguish between the IRA bombing pubs and the IRA bombing soldiers. I can understand both, but I can't justify the first.

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

I use the word justifiable to distinguish actions. If I used understandable, I couldn't distinguish between the IRA bombing pubs and the IRA bombing soldiers. I can understand both, but I can't justify the first.

Yeah I see what you mean ... still i think "justify" is the wrong word you are looking for ... "justify" implies that you believe what happened was a morally approprate response in relation to the trigger, ie. the IRA were justifed in blowing up the soldiers coach because the British Army are occuping Northern Ireland .. or the IRA were not justified in blowing up the pub, even though the British Army are occcuping Northern Ireland

supersheep

It's the best word I can think of, but I'm open to suggestions. I think that justifiable responses are appropriate responses, but not morally appropriate.

Zombrex

supersheep wrote:

It's the best word I can think of, but I'm open to suggestions. I think that justifiable responses are appropriate responses, but not morally appropriate.

Not to get bogged down on this, but that doesn't really make sense ... if you think something is immoral you believe that it the wrong thing to do based on your moral code, that it is not justifiable as a response.

Justice is defined as Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.. If a response is justifiable in your opinion then it means it was a response that conformed to your moral code, that the action was not "wrong" morally. If you believe a response was immoral then it is hard to see how you could also call it justified because whether or not you believe something was justified or not is based on whether or not you believe it was a moral or immoral thing to do.

Anyways, not really important ....