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

RustyNut · 07-06-2017 02:38AM

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Well if how do I explain. Would you like the next generation to feel secure and happy in their home like normal peeps or suspicious and uncomfortable?

You see YOU might be toughened and hardened to these things. But maybe that is because of all those horrible things you went through. Let the souls of the dead rest in peace.

The reality is the character of public figures NOW.
The British army were not terrorists. Some of them did bad things. And we are right to condemn them. But it's not on par with Republican level violence. And SF has characters NOW who were doing this. And their psychology is warped. And it's not simply a thing on paper you can tell from their body language. etc. And maybe it's BECAUSE i am a snowflake i can tell. They scare me.

I want all people to feel happy and secure in their homes, no matter where they live.

I don't think my kids or my grand kids would describe me as
toughened and hardened, in fact quite the opposite I'm the biggest softy there is.

The dead should indeed be left to rest in peace but those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

You say The reality is the character of public figures NOW.

I couldn't agree more, FG have just elected a new leader, an openly gay man, something I never thought I would see in my lifetime.He nor his party will be getting my vote but I think it is a great thing for Ireland that he holds the position he does. That is galactic progress from the time I was a kid. The reality is the character of public figures NOW. Women had to leave state jobs when they married, homosexual acts were illegal and the bishops had more power than the government, all these things have now been addressed.

One last thing, you might be kind enough to tell me what's your definition of a terrorist?

LordSutch · 07-06-2017 06:09AM

I gave up after the reply in post#73.

If it gets to the stage where the security forces are lumped in with the PIRA/INLA/UVF (as fellow terrorists) then there's really no more arguments for me to make, is there

tomwaterford · 07-06-2017 06:18AM

LordSutch wrote: »

I gave up after the reply in post#73.

If it gets to the stage where the security forces are lumped in with the PIRA/INLA/UVF (as fellow terrorists) then there's really no more arguments for me to make, is there

The truth hurts i guess

LordSutch · 07-06-2017 06:26AM

That's exactly what I mean ^

So every armed group are terrorists. The Army, Police, Counter terrorist groups, they're all terrorists according to you guys. This, because you don't like the Provo's and their actions being associated with the words Terrorism/Terrorists.

Adios.

tomwaterford · 07-06-2017 06:59AM

LordSutch wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean ^

So every armed group are terrorists. The Army, Police, Counter terrorist groups, they're all terrorists according to you guys. This, because you don't like the Provo's and their actions being associated with the words Terrorism/Terrorists.

Adios.

Political violence anywhere in the world is known as terrorism

You just don't like being pointed out that the PIRA didn't sink as low the British allowed themselves to,in colluding with has loyalists

This info is the exact example of why internet is different....over 20 years since section 30 ended and all the info abaivble...knowledge is power kid

Yover had a lifetime of only hearing 1 side,everyone knows what the PIRA did...but events like ballymurphy etc are almost unknown

LordSutch · 07-06-2017 07:06AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Political violence anywhere in the world is known as terrorism

You just don't like being pointed out that the PIRA didn't sink as low the British allowed themselves to,in colluding with has loyalists

Well all I can say is that thankfully the London Metropolitan variety of terrorists stopped the Islamic terrorists from stabbing any more people in London.

See how crazy that sounds.

I suspect that if the internet had been around during the Troubles, then the IRA wouldn't have got away with half the attacks/murders they carried out.

tomwaterford · 07-06-2017 07:09AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Well all I can say is that thankfully the London Metropolitan variety of terrorists stopped the Islamic terrorists from stabbing any more people in London.

See how crazy that sounds.

This has what to do with the troubles?

Assuming as your admitting to here,that this attack was politically motivated,what policies if any have any parties put forward in England for the election in relation to what's politically motivating these young men,

tomwaterford · 07-06-2017 07:12AM

LordSutch wrote: »

I suspect that if the internet had been around during the Troubles, then the IRA wouldn't have got away with half the attacks/murders they carried out.

Pray tell what jumps of logic caused you to arrive at this juncture??

Do you think wound up indignation of nobodies on the internet would have caused them to stop?

If anything through the use of Google maps etc it would have made navigating unknown cities etc easier??
(A chilling taught mind)

Esel · 07-06-2017 08:50AM

blackcard wrote: »

When I see the comments about attacks by IS, I wonder how history would have been changed if the Internet had been around during the 'Troubles'

More hacking, less bloodshed - maybe....

FrancieBrady · 07-06-2017 10:09AM

LordSutch wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean ^

So every armed group are terrorists. The Army, Police, Counter terrorist groups, they're all terrorists according to you guys. This, because you don't like the Provo's and their actions being associated with the words Terrorism/Terrorists.

Adios.

If you use terror, you are by any definition a 'terrorist'.

So glad you have got it finally.

RustyNut · 07-06-2017 10:20AM

LordSutch wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean ^

So every armed group are terrorists. The Army, Police, Counter terrorist groups, they're all terrorists according to you guys. This, because you don't like the Provo's and their actions being associated with the words Terrorism/Terrorists.

Adios.

Well no, I'm quite happy to call out the provos and their fellow travellers as terrorists. They used terror as part of their campaign. You still haven't given your definition of a terrorist.

LordSutch · 07-06-2017 10:56AM

RustyNut wrote: »

Well no, I'm quite happy to call out the provos and their fellow travellers as terrorists. They used terror as part of their campaign. You still haven't given your definition of a terrorist.

Pretty much the same definition as you say above (Provo's + fellow travellers) + modern day equivalents, currently in the form of ISIS.

A group who decide upon themselves (without widespread civilian or State support) to start killing civilians & security personnel, in order to achieve their own aims, by means of violence.

Planting bombs in civilian town centres, planting bombs in parked cars, in buses, pubs & chip shops ....shooting off duty policemen in front of their kids, stabbing people on the streets, that kind of thing, or knee capping young wayward lads who step out of line, I would class all if that that as Terrorism.

Some posters on here equate the security forces with terrorism due to certain events like Bloody Sunday, but the fact remains that the state backed security services usually start the day trying to thwart terrorism, while the terrorists themselves might start the day by planning or carrying out "an operation" designed to kill & maim as many people as possible (this being their reason to exist), while the security services generally start the day trying to stop such events....

Hope this answers your question.

FrancieBrady · 07-06-2017 11:02AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Pretty much the same definition as you say above (Provo's + fellow travellers) + modern day equivalents, currently in the form of ISIS.

A group how decide upon themselves (without widespread civilian or State support) to start killing civilians & security personnel, in order to achieve their own aims, by means of violence.

Planting bombs in civilian town centres, planting bombs in parked cars, in buses, pubs & chip shops ....shooting off duty policemen in front of their kids, stabbing people on the streets, that kind of thing, or knee capping young wayward lads who step out of line, I would class all if that that as Terrorism.

Some posters on here equate the security forces with terrorism due to certain events like Bloody Sunday, but the fact remains that the state backed security services usually start the day trying to thwart terrorism, while the terrorists themselves might start the day by planning or carrying out "an operation" designed to kill & maim as many people as possible (this being their reason to exist), while the security services generally start the day trying to stop such events....

Hope this answer your question.

They start the day 'trying to thwart' violence against them and will use any means available to them, if it comes to it. Including the killing of innocents.
They have even killed innocents in an effort to thwart the current wave of violence.

They have killed innocents/used terror attempting to control parts of the world for their own benefit and then cry foul when those actions come back to bite their own innocents. Cyclical lunacy, endorsed by people like you. But the shame is, just like in Ireland, the errors will eventually be realised. Much too late for many people.

end of the road · 07-06-2017 03:45PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Pretty much the same definition as you say above (Provo's + fellow travellers) + modern day equivalents, currently in the form of ISIS.

A group who decide upon themselves (without widespread civilian or State support) to start killing civilians & security personnel, in order to achieve their own aims, by means of violence.

Planting bombs in civilian town centres, planting bombs in parked cars, in buses, pubs & chip shops ....shooting off duty policemen in front of their kids, stabbing people on the streets, that kind of thing, or knee capping young wayward lads who step out of line, I would class all if that that as Terrorism.

Some posters on here equate the security forces with terrorism due to certain events like Bloody Sunday, but the fact remains that the state backed security services usually start the day trying to thwart terrorism, while the terrorists themselves might start the day by planning or carrying out "an operation" designed to kill & maim as many people as possible (this being their reason to exist), while the security services generally start the day trying to stop such events....

Hope this answers your question.

the security forces in northern ireland were involved in terrorism. almost every one of the acts you mention the security forces also had involvement in either directly or indirectly.

LordSutch · 07-06-2017 04:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

the security forces in northern ireland were involved in terrorism. almost every one of the acts you mention the security forces also had involvement in either directly or indirectly.

But for the security forces a lot more people would have died in the Troubles, at the hands of the PIRA, INLA, UFF etc ...

buried · 07-06-2017 04:12PM

What the IRA should have done was hire some engerlan football hooligan thugs to violently fight off a foreign sectarian ideology intent on forever stamping it's boot heel on the throats of the native people. Then for a lot of people up in this internet forum, the IRA would have been a f**king grand job and great work

RustyNut · 07-06-2017 05:44PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Pretty much the same definition as you say above (Provo's + fellow travellers) + modern day equivalents, currently in the form of ISIS.

A group who decide upon themselves (without widespread civilian or State support) to start killing civilians & security personnel, in order to achieve their own aims, by means of violence.

Planting bombs in civilian town centres, planting bombs in parked cars, in buses, pubs & chip shops ....shooting off duty policemen in front of their kids, stabbing people on the streets, that kind of thing, or knee capping young wayward lads who step out of line, I would class all if that that as Terrorism.

Some posters on here equate the security forces with terrorism due to certain events like Bloody Sunday, but the fact remains that the state backed security services usually start the day trying to thwart terrorism, while the terrorists themselves might start the day by planning or carrying out "an operation" designed to kill & maim as many people as possible (this being their reason to exist), while the security services generally start the day trying to stop such events....

Hope this answers your question.

That answers it ok. Double standards.

blackcard · 07-06-2017 06:41PM

I worked in the UK for a couple of years during the 'Troubles' but no one ever spoke to me about the situation in the North. I think if Social Media had been around, it would have been a catalyst for anti-Irish sentiment similar to the anti-Islamic sentiment now. In fairness to the British people that I encountered, they were very decent people

FrancieBrady · 08-06-2017 10:23AM

blackcard wrote: »

I worked in the UK for a couple of years during the 'Troubles' but no one ever spoke to me about the situation in the North. I think if Social Media had been around, it would have been a catalyst for anti- sentiment similar to the anti-Islamic sentiment now. In fairness to the British people that I encountered, they were very decent people

Correct, as were Irish people. We didn't generalise either.

RustyNut · 09-06-2017 09:53AM

end of the road wrote: »

the security forces in northern ireland were involved in terrorism. almost every one of the acts you mention the security forces also had involvement in either directly or indirectly.

I think the Noam Chomsky quote covers the LordSutch attitude.

It's only terrorism if they do it to us. When we do much worse to them, it's not terrorism

riverrocked · 09-06-2017 09:56AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correct, as were Irish people. We didn't generalise either.

As an English person who spent time in Ireland during that period, I can categorically say that was not true for me. I was met with a lot of 'Brits Out' rubbish.

FrancieBrady · 09-06-2017 10:09AM

riverrocked wrote: »

As an English person who spent time in Ireland during that period, I can categorically say that was not true for me. I was met with a lot of 'Brits Out' rubbish.

If it had been a majority opinion then the 'Brits' would be out.

Brits Out never referred to British people, it was directed at the B Army.

There was plenty of anti-Irish sentiment in the UK but it wasn't the prevailing attitude. Same as here.

riverrocked · 09-06-2017 10:17AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was plenty of anti-Irish sentiment in the UK but it wasn't the prevailing attitude. Same as here.

As I said, that isn't what I experienced as an English person in Ireland during the early 80s. I suppose not being Catholic didn't help my situation either. I can't speak for all English people in Ireland but for me personally it was not good at all. Even the principal of the school I went to was in on it, she was extremely old and republican and did not take fondly to English/non-Catholic children coming into her school. and wasn't afraid to point the finger directly at us for the cause of all of Ireland's woes.

FrancieBrady · 09-06-2017 10:47AM

riverrocked wrote: »

As I said, that isn't what I experienced as an English person in Ireland during the early 80s. I suppose not being Catholic didn't help my situation either. I can't speak for all English people in Ireland but for me personally it was not good at all. Even the principal of the school I went to was in on it, she was extremely old and republican and did not take fondly to English/non-Catholic children coming into her school. and wasn't afraid to point the finger directly at us for the cause of all of Ireland's woes.

And as I said, both countries had their problems with anti-Irish sentiment and anti-British sentiment.
But it wasn't the norm in either jurisdiction.

Glenster · 09-06-2017 02:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brits Out never referred to British people, it was directed at the B Army.

I know that's what it was SUPPOSED to mean....

But its like the Leave campaign in brexit. Leave meant leave the EU, but people voted leave because they wanted brown people to leave the UK.

FrancieBrady · 09-06-2017 02:49PM

Glenster wrote: »

I know that's what it was SUPPOSED to mean....

But its like the Leave campaign in brexit. Leave meant leave the EU, but people voted leave because they wanted brown people to leave the UK.

It's a nonsense and a lie to say that ordinary Irish people had a problem with the presence of ordinary British people living here. They didn't (with maybe a few small exceptions) they had a problem with British people in military uniforms being here.

If the anger that was manifest throughout the country after Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes had been taken out on British people, there would have been bodies on the street to show evidence of that.
The anger was taken out on symbols of British power instead i.e. the embassy.

Glenster · 09-06-2017 04:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a nonsense and a lie to say that ordinary Irish people had a problem with the presence of ordinary British people living here. They didn't (with maybe a few small exceptions) they had a problem with British people in military uniforms being here.

If the anger that was manifest throughout the country after Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes had been taken out on British people, there would have been bodies on the street to show evidence of that.
The anger was taken out on symbols of British power instead i.e. the embassy.

Yeah you're right. no civilians were murdered in northern Ireland in 1981.

Good point.

RustyNut · 09-06-2017 04:47PM

Glenster wrote: »

I know that's what it was SUPPOSED to mean....

But its like the Leave campaign in brexit. Leave meant leave the EU, but people voted leave because they wanted brown people to leave the UK.

I don't think that's the case. I think most working class people in the UK felt more threatened by cheap Eastern European labour than anything to do with skin color.

FrancieBrady · 09-06-2017 04:48PM

Glenster wrote: »

Yeah you're right. no civilians were murdered in northern Ireland in 1981.

Good point.

I know you are being pedantic but I will clarify before you attract a crowd - the usual crowd.

I was talking about the south and I was talking about people being killed/attacked solely because they were British.

FrancieBrady · 09-06-2017 04:50PM

This came up in the Election thread.

If you want an idea of how the internet might have worked have a look at just one selection of social media posts that are telling the British public just what the DUP stand for.

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=%23DUP&src=tyah

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

Comments