Manassas61 wrote: » Against terrorists. They killed Gardai. Decent law abiding people doing a job.
Charlie Rock wrote: » Despite your moving of the goalposts from '300 Orangemen' to a particular attack I have no problem condemning acts such as that. I recently told you that I suspected you'd spend a lot of your time on boards.ie engaging in moral equivocation and whataboutery - I'd like to add 'moving the goal posts' to the list.
SoulandForm wrote: » I wonder should you add in sneaking regarding?
Manassas61 wrote: » Most people remember them as cowardly murderous thugs.
Charlie Rock wrote: » Huh?
Charlie Rock wrote: » Huh? Edit: Got it. So we've arrived at the victim blaming now? How depressing.
SoulandForm wrote: » Do they really?
A senior military officer said: "They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.''
tdv123 wrote: » The British Army didn't see them as cowards anyway.http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.598672
SoulandForm wrote: » I really dont understand the will of some people to make believe that the Provos were worse than actually were as if the troubles as they happened were not brutal and nasty enough.
Fratton Fred wrote: » The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.
Painted Pony wrote: » There is a familiar approach here from those who criticise the IRA (in all its modern guises) which is to (understandably) focus on innocent victims (Enniskillen, Warrington etc.). There is also a less used line being pushed here, which is that the IRA were as bad as the loyalists. Unfortunately this plays right in to the hands of those who would defend the IRA. The latter point is plainly not true, the loyalist were much more abhorrent. As to the former argument, well they can credibly point out that when violence is utilised, by anyone, there is an inevitable likelihood that innocents will be killed. The focus should be on the willingness by republicans to use violence in the first place. Resorting to force is a very extreme course of action and anyone who does so should have considerable justification. The IRA’s purpose and their reason for using violence was political, to end the British “occupation” of Ireland, as they would put it. And certainly the vast majority of Irish nationalists agreed with this end but they made is abundantly clear that they did not favour violence means to bring this end about. But the IRA, with a blatant disregard of the very notion of what republicanism is about, decided that the Irish people didn’t really know what was best for them and they could be simply ignored. (Interestingly, while they engaged in this behaviour they simultaneously decried British imperialism!). There is a lot of debate about attitudes to republicans with some bizarre accounts for the distrust some of us have for them. But the oft repeated mantra from the troubles era of “not in my name” neatly explains the reason for this distrust.
Rubeter wrote: » Why do soldiers wear Camoflage gear in battle? What is the purpose of a Tank? What was the 50mm sniper rifle invented for? Why were Drones invented? What is artillery for? Head on assaults my arse. Get real.
FTA69 wrote: » Yeah, you'd want to be a right pussy to risk death and imprisonment fighting one of the most effective armies in the world. :rolleyes:http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BATTLE-ANNUAL-1983-84-FLEETWAY-action-boys-book-world-war-II-soldier-german-UK-/200963118080 Is this where you're getting your perspective on war from Fred?
Fratton Fred wrote: » I used the term head on assaults to distinguish between engaging an armed soldier who is able to defend themselves and shooting an unarmed unsuspecting RAF officer and his six month old daughter in Germany, or two unarmed unsuspecting New recruits at a Lichfield train station. Then there's the numerous RUC officers, judges, politicians etc shot in front of their families.
Fratton Fred wrote: » I genuinely thought you were better than that.
Rubeter wrote: » Because death is death, personally I prefer the limitations of a surgical strike taking out someone as an individual rather than taking out a whole building containing many people just to get the one. Of course you could think it better to loose many more individuals on both sides for some 17th century code of "honour" or some sense of "fair play" gotten from reading too many Biggles books. War is hell Freddy and the point is to get rid of the enemy at the least cost to yourself, Stalin would be proud of your "cannon fodder" ideals.
SoulandForm wrote: » No its actually a fair point; compared to the PIRA the UK government had massive resources at its disposal so of course conventional warfare wasnt a serious option for them.
Fratton Fred wrote: » What the actual **** are you on about? The poster was lauding the brave heroes of the IRA, I pointed out that a great many, if not the majority, of the IRA's attacks were in fact easy soft targets, yet when the tables were turned they cried foul.
Rubeter wrote: » You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant. Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.
Rubeter wrote: » You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant. Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts. Odd that your heroes the BA and yanks in the middle east have no prob taking out a whole family to get a major Al-K figure yet you moan about people being killed in front of their family. Is it only ok if the whole family are killed?
Fratton Fred wrote: » What is done and what people should be proud of are two different things. Should someone be considered a hero for walking up to an unarmed unsuspecting teenager and shooting them in the head, or for shooting a judge (and his family) outside a church? Because that is what is happening.
Ooh, quick edit. Your post need a bit of ad hominem for good measure did it?
Rubeter wrote: » Just pointing out the realities of war Fred, I see no moral difference in someone walking up to someone in a street and shooting them in the back of the head or dropping a million dollar smart bomb on them, no moral difference whatsoever. The only difference is one method is a hell of a lot more precise. Edit yep, makes the point nicely.
Fratton Fred wrote: » But apparently if you bomb a shopping centre and call it an economic target you're a brave hero.
Rubeter wrote: » You aren't putting words in my mouth by any chance are you? Just because I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling one method of killing cowardly and not yet not doing so for another similar one.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Err, aren't you the one that started on about Stalin, "my heroes the BA" and drone attacks? And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth, OK.
FTA69 wrote: » but please spare me the silly narrative of 'brave squaddies' and the 'cowardly, sneaky Irish.'
Should you not have mentioned Cromwell and the famine in there?
Now you're making up non existant arguments. Point out when I said anything of the sort
We have posters on here who insist that they only attacked political, military and economic targets and weren't terrorists (yet run away when challenged on it)
