"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 12:40pm

DoireNod wrote: »

When I watched this I was struck by how unimaginative it was. It could have been an hour shorter for what it contained.

I think the people who decided what 'could have happened' overlooked so many things. Like the reasons behind the clashing with the cops. The documentary acknowledged that it was a riot sparked by a loyalist parade, but as Éamonn McCann pointed out, to the people who suffered, the parade was like a demonstration and celebration of 'Catholic second-class citizenship'. The whole 'second-class citizenship' notion seems to have been glossed over, but I feel it should have received much more emphasis. For example, would the international community have frowned so much on the Irish government for seeking to confront and address the blatant disregard for the civil rights of the Catholic Nationalist Irish community in the North? I mean, one need only look at some of the support the hunger-strikers received to get an indication of how the plight of people who weren't 'terrorists' might have been received.

Also, there seems to have been a convenient case of alzheimer's when it came to acknoweldging the welcome support that an Irish invasion would have had in the Nationalist community in the North. There would have been mass revolution had there been a state backed invasion. Instead though, they (and not just the Irish gov.) let it get to a stage where it took events like Bloody Sunday to militarise an oppressed community.

" would the international community have frowned so much on the Irish government for seeking to confront and address the blatant disregard for the civil rights of the Catholic Nationalist Irish community in the North? " Exactly DoireNod, it would have triggered an International responce sympathetic to Ireland. As I have pointed out in the examples of Suez and the Cod War.

I didn't watch the programm because I knew the object of the programm would be to paint the worst scenario possible for nationalist Ireland and protry Lynch and co. as sensible statesmen etc. RTE is full of political cronies appointed to run the thing, it's too much to expect anything better from them.

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 12:42pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why should they take an un-necessary risk? They had the helicopters, why not use them?

The Brits aren't afraid to fight. But, correctly, they're reluctant to risk men for little or no gain.

NTM

The fact that they could only fly around parts of the six counties in helicopters was a mega international embarrasment to them. They certainly didn't want to run the risk of more Warrenpoints trying to have foot patrols etc and the resultant effect on opinion on the ' mainland '.

Stev_o · 06-09-2009 2:29pm

McArmalite wrote: »

The fact that they could only fly around parts of the six counties in helicopters was a mega international embarrasment to them. They certainly didn't want to run the risk of more Warrenpoints trying to have foot patrols etc and the resultant effect on opinion on the ' mainland '.

Dunno about that one helo can cover more ground then several foot patrols and the lack of IRA AA means that they where safe enough in the skies. Makes sense really you see alot more from up high then in the narrow streets.

captainblack · 06-09-2009 3:27pm

pat78monday6 wrote: »

why is it so popular for posters to glorify the british army and all their so called accomplishments, according to those posters our people would not have stood a chance against the brits, well lets see did the brit army not have to fly into their base at crossmaglen as they were afraid of our snipers.and what about the brighton bombwhere was the mighty brit army then. the bomb almost took out rusty ass thacher and her cabinet.just imagine how it would have went if the irish army had crossed into the north east and carried out there duty , they would have found their fellow irishmen just waiting to join them . so please fellow irishmen cut out the doomsday approach to this argument remember ireland was great when they had the celtic tiger and they can have it again.

Hmmm. Another Irishman who labours under the impression that The UK Army was fighting militant Republicanism as a war. Far from it. The UK Army was there in support of the civil police with the aim of pacifying Northern Ireland. Had it chosen to fight The IRA as enemy soldiers, it could have bombed Crossmaglen into the middle of next week - and Dundalk as well for that matter. The 'cutting edge' of the 'war' against Republican insurrectionists were the Loyalist paramilitaries.

06-09-2009 3:39pm

McArmalite wrote: »

They certainly didn't want to run the risk of more Warrenpoints trying to have foot patrols etc and the resultant effect on opinion on the ' mainland '.

These types of incidents hardened public opinion against the IRA, would have resulted in calls for more troops and more assertive action, not the exact opposite.

It would also have put the Irish ex-pat population in GB at greater risk of intimidation.

Kalashnikov_Kid · 06-09-2009 5:00pm

captainblack wrote: »

Hmmm. Another Irishman who labours under the impression that The UK Army was fighting militant Republicanism as a war. Far from it. The UK Army was there in support of the civil police with the aim of pacifying Northern Ireland. Had it chosen to fight The IRA as enemy soldiers, it could have bombed Crossmaglen into the middle of next week - and Dundalk as well for that matter. The 'cutting edge' of the 'war' against Republican insurrectionists were the Loyalist paramilitaries.

Haha, they could could just 'choose' to bomb Dundalk. Don't make me laugh - you know what the consequences would have been for the British if that ever happened. (I remind you of the fact that Dundalk is, contrary to some beliefs, actually in the Republic of Ireland).

You just exposed your sectarian bias (again) right there.

captainblack · 06-09-2009 5:15pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Haha, they could could just 'choose' to bomb Dundalk. Don't make me laugh - you know what the consequences would have been for the British if that ever happened. (I remind you of the fact that Dundalk is, contrary to some beliefs, actually in the Republic of Ireland).

You just exposed your sectarian bias (again) right there.

What would the consequences have been?

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 5:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

These types of incidents hardened public opinion against the IRA, would have resulted in calls for more troops and more assertive action, not the exact opposite.

It would also have put the Irish ex-pat population in GB at greater risk of intimidation.

Yet again :rolleyes: - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Kalashnikov_Kid · 06-09-2009 5:42pm

captainblack wrote: »

What would the consequences have been?

Would have been interpreted as the UK calling war on the Republic, leading to increased IRA membership north and south and increased violence on both sides. And the British would have not looked very smart from an international point of view.

I don't mean to keep bringing this up but you really just have to look at Bloody Sunday to see what the consequences would have been - probably multiplied x100

Sir Molle · 06-09-2009 5:49pm

It's not too late.

Dartz · 06-09-2009 5:50pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Would have been interpreted as the UK calling war on the Republic, leading to increased IRA membership north and south and increased violence on both sides. And the British would have not looked very smart from an international point of view.

I don't mean to keep bringing this up but you really just have to look at Bloody Sunday to see what the consequences would have been - probably multiplied x100

......*roll eyes*

Didn't stop the US in the last few years did it?

Anyway, what you're all forgetting is that the IRA is a treasonous organisation which sees it's own army council as the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, not the democratically elected Dáil in Leinster House.

The IRA are *not* the good guys, never have been the good guys, and never will be the good guys. They are terrorists and criminals.

On both sides of the bloody border.

Never mind that partition has it's benefits (Like speed testing my car on the M1 just outside of Belfast, or cheap stuff when the exchange rate gets good)

Kalashnikov_Kid · 06-09-2009 6:06pm

Didn't stop the US in the last few years did it?

So because the US are state-sponsored it gives them the right to embark on an illegal war in Iraq and to continuously abuse human rights, all in the name of 'freedom fighting' and not terrorism? You might not have meant to imply that but it's an interesting point isn't it?

In that respect, the notion of 'terrorism' is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

......*roll eyes*
Anyway, what you're all forgetting is that the IRA is a treasonous organisation which sees it's own army council as the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, not the democratically elected Dáil in Leinster House.

The IRA are *not* the good guys, never have been the good guys, and never will be the good guys. They are terrorists and criminals.

On both sides of the bloody border.

What you are forgetting is that there was widespread support for the IRA at the time in question (1969 not 2009 :rolleyes:) from both sides of the border and from all walks of life, well-off middle-clas Dubliners included. Maybe take some time to read up about it if it wouldn't bother you too much.

Or maybe you got your first impressions of NI from Nutley Lane which would explain something. Tell me this, were you pleasantly surprised with your recent trips to Sainsbury's and IKEA?

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 6:07pm

Dartz wrote: »

......*roll eyes*

Didn't stop the US in the last few years did it?

Anyway, what you're all forgetting is that the IRA is a treasonous organisation which sees it's own army council as the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, not the democratically elected Dáil in Leinster House.

The IRA are *not* the good guys, never have been the good guys, and never will be the good guys. They are terrorists and criminals.

On both sides of the bloody border.

Never mind that partition has it's benefits (Like speed testing my car on the M1 just outside of Belfast, or cheap stuff when the exchange rate gets good)

Would you count the murder of 33 people in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974 by UVF/SAS as one of the benefits of partition ?

06-09-2009 6:08pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Yet again :rolleyes: - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

You obviously have no regard for the Irish living in the UK!

Dartz · 06-09-2009 6:40pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

So because the US are state-sponsored it gives them the right to embark on an illegal war in Iraq and to continuously abuse human rights, all in the name of 'freedom fighting' and not terrorism? You might not have meant to imply that but it's an interesting point isn't it?

In that respect, the notion of 'terrorism' is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

What you are forgetting is that there was widespread support for the IRA at the time in question (1969 not 2009 :rolleyes:) from both sides of the border and from all walks of life, well-off middle-clas Dubliners included. Maybe take some time to read up about it if it wouldn't bother you too much.

Or maybe you got your first impressions of NI from Nutley Lane which would explain something. Tell me this, were you pleasantly surprised with your recent trips to Sainsbury's and IKEA?

And yet yous're the ones acting like they're the heroes of the story today. This topic is so full of retarded fail it's not funny anymore.

And to be quite frank, I really don't give a crap about people who died 35 years ago.... because it was 35 years ago and it's outside my monkeysphere. What I care about is saving a hundred euro on the price of the weekly shop.

Yeah it's horrible, but one has a daily effect on my life, the other doesn't.

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 6:50pm

Dartz wrote: »

And yet yous're the ones acting like they're the heroes of the story today. This topic is so full of retarded fail it's not funny anymore.

And to be quite frank, I really don't give a crap about people who died 35 years ago.... because it was 35 years ago and it's outside my monkeysphere. What I care about is saving a hundred euro on the price of the weekly shop.

Yeah it's horrible, but one has a daily effect on my life, the other doesn't.

So if you don't " give a crap about people who died " why are you denouncing the IRA ? I suppose it's just the ones killed by the IRA and not those killed by your heros in the brits/UVF ?

captainblack · 06-09-2009 6:50pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Would have been interpreted as the UK calling war on the Republic, leading to increased IRA membership north and south and increased violence on both sides. And the British would have not looked very smart from an international point of view.

I don't mean to keep bringing this up but you really just have to look at Bloody Sunday to see what the consequences would have been - probably multiplied x100

What were the consequences of 'bloody sunday' and how would bombing Crossmaglenn and/or Dundalk have been worse?

captainblack · 06-09-2009 6:55pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

What you are forgetting is that there was widespread support for the IRA at the time in question (1969 not 2009 :rolleyes:) from both sides of the border and from all walks of life, well-off middle-clas Dubliners included. Maybe take some time to read up about it if it wouldn't bother you too much.

I see. Would that explain why The UVF had no issue with bombing Dublin in '74, confident they would be hitting IRA supporters?

Dartz · 06-09-2009 7:00pm

McArmalite wrote: »

So if you don't " give a crap about people who died " why are you denouncing the IRA ? I suppose it's just the ones killed by the IRA and not those killed by your heros in the brits/UVF ?

What, where the **** did that come from? Who the **** are you to put words into my mouth, or thoughts into my head? How ****ing arrogant are you and your Tallaght Republicans who consider spraying 'Up the PIRA' on the back-end of a Garda van to be a heroic and noble act

They're all terrorists... UVF/LVF/IRA/INLA doesn't matter what side they were on, they were all murderers and criminals, and good bloody riddance when it's all gone.

I don't give a rats flying **** about people I don't know... and be honest here people, not many of you do either, except when you know it will make you look cool to your mates... At least I'm honest enough to admit I don't care. You all snark back from your smug hypocrisy.

I'll tell you what the peace process means to me.... it means me being able to drive from Dublin to Belfast, buy stuff, and drive home without being shot at, blow up, called a fenian bastard, or pulled in to pay 'taxes' to some paramilitary dickheads in South Armagh.... and that just such a peaceful trip is a routine and everyday occurance.

And it's a sign of how far things have come, that I can do that. Braindead morons on both sides who bleat 'up the IRA' or 'no surrender' will only get in the way of forward progress.

ejmaztec · 06-09-2009 7:06pm

Dartz wrote: »

What, where the **** did that come from? Who the **** are you to put words into my mouth, or thoughts into my head? How ****ing arrogant are you and your Tallaght Republicans who consider spraying 'Up the PIRA' on the back-end of a Garda van to be a heroic and noble act

They're all terrorists... UVF/LVF/IRA/INLA doesn't matter what side they were on, they were all murderers and criminals, and good bloody riddance when it's all gone.

I don't give a rats flying **** about people I don't know... and be honest here people, not many of you do either, except when you know it will make you look cool to your mates... At least I'm honest enough to admit I don't care. You all snark back from your smug hypocrisy.

I'll tell you what the peace process means to me.... it means me being able to drive from Dublin to Belfast, buy stuff, and drive home without being shot at, blow up, called a fenian bastard, or pulled in to pay 'taxes' to some paramilitary dickheads in South Armagh.... and that just such a peaceful trip is a routine and everyday occurance.

And it's a sign of how far things have come, that I can do that. Braindead morons on both sides who bleat 'up the IRA' or 'no surrender' will only get in the way of forward progress.

A quote from the History and Heritage forum::eek:

McArmalite wrote: »

" got on with the next job " Bombing Libya for Lockerbie ? Good old Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a hero true and true. Nice ot see the brits getting their noses rubbed in it once again.

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 7:23pm

Dartz wrote: »

What, where the **** did that come from? Who the **** are you to put words into my mouth, or thoughts into my head? How ****ing arrogant are you and your Tallaght Republicans who consider spraying 'Up the PIRA' on the back-end of a Garda van to be a heroic and noble act

They're all terrorists... UVF/LVF/IRA/INLA doesn't matter what side they were on, they were all murderers and criminals, and good bloody riddance when it's all gone.

I don't give a rats flying **** about people I don't know... and be honest here people, not many of you do either, except when you know it will make you look cool to your mates... At least I'm honest enough to admit I don't care. You all snark back from your smug hypocrisy.

I'll tell you what the peace process means to me.... it means me being able to drive from Dublin to Belfast, buy stuff, and drive home without being shot at, blow up, called a fenian bastard, or pulled in to pay 'taxes' to some paramilitary dickheads in South Armagh.... and that just such a peaceful trip is a routine and everyday occurance.

And it's a sign of how far things have come, that I can do that. Braindead morons on both sides who bleat 'up the IRA' or 'no surrender' will only get in the way of forward progress.

So, in your book, their not " murderers and criminals " so long as they wear a british uniform ?

McArmalite · 06-09-2009 7:26pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

A quote from the History and Heritage forum::eek:

Ok, I was a bit naughty over there. Still, you don't seem to ever get offence from those who justify the murder of innocents in Dublin and Monaghan like as Capt Black above ?

Dartz · 06-09-2009 7:29pm

McArmalite wrote: »

So, in your book, their not " murderers and criminals " so long as they wear a british uniform ?

McArmalite wrote: »

Ok, I was a bit naughty over there. Still, you don't offence form those who support the murder of innocents in Dublin and Monaghan like as Capt Black above ?

Alright... that's it. I don't care if I get banned or not for this. It must be said, and deservedly so.

You Sir, are an IGNORANT MORON.

Good day to you. I'm out of here for a few weeks.

ejmaztec · 06-09-2009 7:35pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Ok, I was a bit naughty over there. Still, you don't seem to ever get offence from those who justify the murder of innocents in Dublin and Monaghan like as Capt Black above ?

I'm still trying to figure out why you should be admiring the convicted Lockerbie bomber.

I don't admire killers, whatever side they're on.

Kalashnikov_Kid · 06-09-2009 7:43pm

captainblack wrote: »

What were the consequences of 'bloody sunday' and how would bombing Crossmaglenn and/or Dundalk have been worse?

Bloody Sunday - 14 casualties

Dundalk - population ~25,000 at the same time.

I dunno, how about you do thee ****ing maths if it's not beyond your neanderthal levels of comprehension.

/discussion with you. You are trolling again, not going to bother taking it any further.

Dartz wrote: »

Alright... that's it. I don't care if I get banned or not for this. It must be said, and deservedly so.

You Sir, are an IGNORANT MORON.

Good day to you. I'm out of here for a few weeks.

LOL the irony...

How about we conclude this discussion/thread with the assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's good enough for me. I am now going to attempt to self-ban myself from this thread...

06-09-2009 7:43pm

Warning! beware of the Agent Provocateur.

06-09-2009 7:48pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

How about we conclude this discussion/thread with the assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's good enough for me. I am now going to attempt to self-ban myself from this thread...

Fair enough, even though the original thread was referring to two legitimate armies possibly getting involved in a conflict as opposed to illegal organisations fighting!

Dartz · 06-09-2009 7:50pm

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Bloody Sunday - 14 casualties
How about we conclude this discussion/thread with the assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's good enough for me. I am now going to attempt to self-ban myself from this thread...

Is still a murderer, no matter what side he is on. If you kill innocent men, women and children with no warning, you are a murderer. That applies to *everyone*

Manic Moran · 06-09-2009 8:02pm

Dartz wrote: »

Alright... that's it. I don't care if I get banned or not for this. It must be said, and deservedly so.

Can I vote for an amnesty or pardon for this infraction?

NTM

DoireNod · 06-09-2009 9:18pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can I vote for an amnesty or pardon for this infraction?

NTM

:pac:

Attack the post, not the poster!

If people want to attack the poster, they should at least be articulate and eloquent about it, or try to make it subtle. Then maybe an amnesty or pardon might be accepted.

"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

Comments