ISIS vs The IRA ?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Terrorist scum vs terrorist scum.

I predict terrorist scum would win.

You're right. British squaddies vs ISIS would be a far more realistic battle. Which group of terrorist scum would win though?

the_syco wrote: »

Nationalist bias aside, are SF that much different than DUP?

Oh come on. If you're against militant republicanism because you're against violence in any circumstances then that's a position I respect, (leaving aside the few that excuse any violence from British or Americans) The only comparison that can be made been SF ad the DUP is that they maintain power through a sectarian political structure, which isn't to say SF are inherently sectarian but they do benefit from it because "Catholics" will often vote for them purely because they feel they have to vote for the biggest Nationalist party.

SF are a secular, progressive, liberal party. They fight for rights for everyone in society, gays, ethnic minorities, religious minorities. The DUP are driven by Christian fundamentalism and have made it clear that they hate everyone that isn't like them, multiple times. They can't make it any clearer. And in fact nearly all of the parties thay register as unionist are like that, NI21 is an exception. They're actually registering as neutral some time in the future because registering as unionist is a bit like registering as a dinosaur. It's no coincidence that it was almost exclusively unionist parties that supported the DUP's conscience clause (the RCC did too!) and nearly all the Nationalist parties were against it. Catholics of a certain age actually know what it's like to be legally discriminated against.

I've seen a good few of your posts and you speak a lot of sense a lot of the time, but thay question shows that you're quite out of touch with the politics up there. I really do implore you to read some of Nodins links above, even just a random selection. The DUP are more extreme than UKIP, Le Pen's National Front in France, probably even the BNP. They have a lot more power than the BNP too which makes them so much more dangerous.

If the DUP holds the balance of power in the UK elections (off chance but possible) then we'll either see them say absolutely nothing in front of what they call "the mainland" or they will be exposed as the lunatics they are and probably do irrepairable damage to whoever is desperate enough to do business with them.

You probably won't believe me, but hand on heart, I don't vote SF or any of the "dissident" republican groups.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA weren't religious fanatics were they?

No. Some were hardline Catholics but they were not a religious organisation taking their justification from religious scripture. Or are you making a joke about IS being freedom fighters so it must be the IRA who are the religious fanatics? I can't tell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see how someone can call ISIS terrorists and the IRA freedom fighters. That's all.

The IRA were fighting to free a part of Ireland from British rule. Even if you disagree with them doing that, the way they went about it, or any other aspect of the conflict that's still a fact. IS are importing fundamentalist Muslims from all over the world to subjugate the local population in to accepting their interpretation of Islam. It's really easy to see how someone could say something like that.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cause is irrelevant, it is the tactics employed that make an organization a terrorist one.

like shock and awe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Criticism_of_execution

LordSutch wrote: »

The DUP in the other hand are not affiliated to any such terrorist outfit.

It was only the DUP's founder and religious lunatic Ian Paisley who was the most instrumental individual in stoking the flames of sectarian strife in the north in the years leading up to the Troubles. It was Ian Paisley who continuously split the Unionist vote when it looked like there was anything resembling a rapprochement with Nationalists before, during and after the Troubles.

Yes the DUP might err on the side of Protestant fundamentalism, but they do not have a back catalogue or connection to hundreds of grizzly deaths.

Scratch the surface and you'll see plenty of shady DUP connections to people who committed sectarian violence and murder in both state forces and paramilitary groups.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cause is irrelevant, it is the tactics employed that make an organization a terrorist one.

There's no other way to fight the British empire. By your logic everyone should just accept the status quo, if a country can't beat an invading army at their own game on a battlefield then they should just accept their faith.

Guerrilla warfare is no worse than any other form of warfare. If anything it's more surgical than what the Americans and British do with their large armed forced.

ISIS have taken it to it's extreme but there's basically no other way of using violence against their enemy effectively.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

ISIS obviously, they have more money and a far larger population of weirdos to call upon.

That and they have tanks and people who actually know how to use weaponry, as opposed to da ra with nothing but shifty eyed looking knackers with pistols stuffed down their tracksuits.

I still think that isis video proclaiming that using a jcb as a firing platform represented "modern technology" was hilarious. Bless their little cotton socks.

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Religious fanatic terrorists vs freedom fighers?

What a stupid debate. It's like debating who would win between British squaddies and Barnardo's volunteers

Only you cannot call the IRA "freedom fighters". They used to be. Now they're nothing but drug-dealing, fuel/fag smuggling knackers.

If you spot any, tell them i want my gate back.