ISIS vs The IRA ?

Fratton Fred · 13-05-2015 12:24PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's ridiculous to think they had any interest in slaughtering anyone beyond those directly involved with British oppression in Ireland.
You dont have to see the IRA as heroic freedom fighters to recognise that. From a purely selfish, amoral point of view it simply benefited them, their goals and their support in no way whatsoever to do otherwise. It was directly counterproductive.

So why plant bombs in pubs, hotels and shopping centres then?

Or was Birmingham bullring a hot bed of British oppression? Maybe the leadership of the UVF decided to hold a Saturday lunchtime meeting in McDonald's Warrington.

You know full well they carried out a significant number of attacks where they deliberately targeted innocent people.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 12:44PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Waa waa waa how many kiddies did the RAF blow to bits? The high estimate puts the civilian death toll at 600,000, but you'll wear a poppy and pull yourself to the queen.

Where are all the posters who would quickly criticise such irrelevant comments as whataboutery, if this were a thread about British military crimes?

130Kph · 13-05-2015 12:54PM

Tough and unpleasant question.

Its like trying to decide between bubonic plague and pancreatic cancer.

LDN_Irish · 13-05-2015 02:05PM

osarusan wrote: »

Where are all the posters who would quickly criticise such irrelevant comments as whataboutery, if this were a thread about British military crimes?

Deflection! Deflection! SomethingBot!

HTH Hun xxx

LordSutch · 13-05-2015 02:09PM

Definitely ISIS.

golfball37 · 13-05-2015 02:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why plant bombs in pubs, hotels and shopping centres then?

Or was Birmingham bullring a hot bed of British oppression? Maybe the leadership of the UVF decided to hold a Saturday lunchtime meeting in McDonald's Warrington.

You know full well they carried out a significant number of attacks where they deliberately targeted innocent people.

I can't think of any off hand where a warning wasn't given in advance. And I'm not defending them by any means.

I just think its de facto correct now to say they slaughtered women and children and intended doing so, when my memory of the 1980s was that this wasn't the case. They brought shame on Ireland but were nothing like modern day Islamic terrorists.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 02:40PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Deflection! Deflection! SomethingBot!

HTH Hun xxx

I'm not sure what you are on about, but it is the posters saying 'what about all the Brit killings' that are doing the deflecting.

Fratton Fred · 13-05-2015 02:59PM

golfball37 wrote: »

I can't think of any off hand where a warning wasn't given in advance. And I'm not defending them by any means.

I just think its de facto correct now to say they slaughtered women and children and intended doing so, when my memory of the 1980s was that this wasn't the case. They brought shame on Ireland but were nothing like modern day Islamic terrorists.

If I give you a five minute warning that I'm about to burn your house down and your elderly bed ridden aunt dies in the blaze, along with all your family who are trying to get her out, am I a good guy for giving you five minutes to get her out, or have I just murdered your entire family?

And no, warnings were not given, or incorrectly given in a lot of instances.

In Warrington they detonated two device two minutes apart at either end of the high street, so people fleeing the first would get caught up in the second. They also did it at midday on a Saturday.

But I would agree with them being choir boys compared to ISIS and the Taliban for that matter. Especially after this morning's atrocity in Pakistan.

Crooked Jack · 13-05-2015 03:36PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why plant bombs in pubs, hotels and shopping centres then?

Or was Birmingham bullring a hot bed of British oppression? Maybe the leadership of the UVF decided to hold a Saturday lunchtime meeting in McDonald's Warrington.

You know full well they carried out a significant number of attacks where they deliberately targeted innocent people.

Yeah, why bomb commercial streets and centres during an economic campaign. Daft question.

You might like saying they deliberately targeted innocent people but the fact is they didnt. They didnt gain any military, political or propaganda victories from doing so. it was totally counterproductive offering propaganda victories to their enemies.

If the IRA was out to kill innocent people then why offer warnings, why abort missions, why attack the military and why were the numbers of deaths so low? Surely an army with it's level of weaponry and expertise could have killed thousands with ease if they wished.

Your claims just dont stack up and are typical of certain attitudes on this site whereby people feel free to just throw whatever guff they want out there without any basis in fact.

And it's a neat trick there, talking about McDonald's but of course the target was the commercial centre of the town, not the specific building the bomb was outside.

Fratton Fred · 13-05-2015 04:50PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, why bomb commercial streets and centres during an economic campaign. Daft question.

You might like saying they deliberately targeted innocent people but the fact is they didnt. They didnt gain any military, political or propaganda victories from doing so. it was totally counterproductive offering propaganda victories to their enemies.

If the IRA was out to kill innocent people then why offer warnings, why abort missions, why attack the military and why were the numbers of deaths so low? Surely an army with it's level of weaponry and expertise could have killed thousands with ease if they wished.

Your claims just dont stack up and are typical of certain attitudes on this site whereby people feel free to just throw whatever guff they want out there without any basis in fact.

And it's a neat trick there, talking about McDonald's but of course the target was the commercial centre of the town, not the specific building the bomb was outside.

So if the buildings and not the people were the targets, why time the bombs to go off at the busiest times?

And an economy of over one trillion pounds is going to be affected by a bomb in a small town centre?

You are trying to reconcile your fan boy adoration of the ira with your own conscience. You are trying to convince yourself not me.

LordSutch · 13-05-2015 04:56PM

Unless of course you add in Hamas, then there would be fireworks

I'd say ISIS would still win though.

Crooked Jack · 13-05-2015 05:25PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So if the buildings and not the people were the targets, why time the bombs to go off at the busiest times?

To cause the most amount of disruption. Obviously.

And an economy of over one trillion pounds is going to be affected by a bomb in a small town centre?

This is daft. you could take any single action from any war and ask would the outcome have been different if that single action had not been carried out.
Would it have been different if one less soldier had been killed at the Somme? Would the outcome had been different if just that last soldier had been spared? That's not how it works, you can take it out of context like that. It was part of a much wider campaign.

You are trying to reconcile your fan boy adoration of the ira with your own conscience. You are trying to convince yourself not me.

Im under no illusions about the absolute horror of what happened and take issue with a number of action carried out by the IRA. However, i am able to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that rather than the daft "The IRA just liked killing people" waffle that you get from the usual suspects here.

Now would you care to answer any of the questions I posed regarding why an organisation that was "out to slaughter innocents" would give warnings, abort missions, attack the military, issue apologies or kill such relatively small numbers of people, mostly inadvertently.

LordSutch · 13-05-2015 05:30PM

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

golfball37 · 14-05-2015 10:35AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

They both recruited heavily from the diaspora in Britain is another similarity I can think of.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 10:49AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Why am I the only poster mentioning ISIS?

ISIS Vs the IRA.

Well what do you mean? All of ISIS vs all of the IRA? The IRA ran for 30 years. Nigh on a hundred years actually. Are we talking about all IRA members ever, given that ISIS is relatively new. Or are we talking about putting a hit team together of each of their best units. Are they gonna go full tilt field warfare or both use guerrilla tactics?

It doesn't make any sense the two groups arent comparable. The only comparisons between ISIS and the IRA are the same comparisons you could make between ISIS and any army, ie..they have guns etc...

ISIS and the IRA are actually polar opposites in most ideological senses.

ISIS are imperialists, seeking to take over territory and set up a religious state. The IRA were anti imperialists seeking a democratic republic.
ISIS are religiously driven, while IRA men may have had individual beliefs the organisation was very much agnostic.
ISIS have no qualms whatsoever, indeed take great pride, in slaughtering mass numbers of civilians, the IRA clearly did not (see previous posts in the thread on this).

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 10:51AM

golfball37 wrote: »

They both recruited heavily from the diaspora in Britain is another similarity I can think of.

Youre wrong there. The IRA actually had plans and material in place to destroy all power stations in London, basically wipe out all electricity in the city.
The reason it was never carried out was because it would have required about 40 active volunteers in London, which they didnt have

indioblack · 14-05-2015 10:59AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To cause the most amount of disruption. Obviously.

This is daft. you could take any single action from any war and ask would the outcome have been different if that single action had not been carried out.
Would it have been different if one less soldier had been killed at the Somme? Would the outcome had been different if just that last soldier had been spared? That's not how it works, you can take it out of context like that. It was part of a much wider campaign.

Im under no illusions about the absolute horror of what happened and take issue with a number of action carried out by the IRA. However, i am able to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that rather than the daft "The IRA just liked killing people" waffle that you get from the usual suspects here.

Now would you care to answer any of the questions I posed regarding why an organisation that was "out to slaughter innocents" would give warnings, abort missions, attack the military, issue apologies or kill such relatively small numbers of people, mostly inadvertently.

I doubt if the IRA were "out to slaughter innocents". But, by the very nature of their campaign, it was inevitably going to happen.
The only disruption in Warrington was to peoples bodies.
You may wish to claim that this was part of a wider strategy, that it was war.
From the British perspective, not surprisingly, it would not be regarded as war. Enough people in Ireland would think the same. Governments in Dublin, too.
Years ago I mentioned the bombing campaign in mainland Britain to an Irish relative, and the reply was, "That's war".
To which I answered, "OK, if it's a war, then don't complain when the other side, (the British), behave badly.
Warrington, like Bloody Sunday, simply gives the moral high ground to the other side.

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 11:53AM

The PIRA got dragged down in a tit for tat on occasions. Responding to attacks from loyalists mostly. They should never have let themselves get dragged there. Martin McGuinness showed how it's done in Derry when he ran the local operation.

Reiver · 14-05-2015 12:06PM

South Armagh.

Now that was war.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 12:16PM

indioblack wrote: »

I doubt if the IRA were "out to slaughter innocents". But, by the very nature of their campaign, it was inevitably going to happen.

Yes, if only Irish people in the north had rolled over and accepted their station as second class citizens then none of this would have happened.
People often forget that the IRA was the last to enter the Troubles and the first to call an end to it. It was not their war, it was the British state's war.

The only disruption in Warrington was to peoples bodies.

Well that's simply untrue. A gas storage facility was destroyed and a main shopping centre was shut down. (When responding to this try and stick to the point were discussing instead of coming back with some daft accusation about how I'm trying to say that justifies it when it clearly does not.)

You may wish to claim that this was part of a wider strategy,

It clearly was, are you actually arguing it wasnt part of a wider bombing campaign in england?

that it was war.

Put whatever name you like on it, the causes and consequences were the same

From the British perspective, not surprisingly, it would not be regarded as war.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/british-won-the-war-on-ira-claims-writer-taylor-30616888.html
The British won the war in Northern Ireland, according to veteran journalist Peter Taylor.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jul/07/highereducation.news

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/face-to-face-when-british-soldiers-met-ex-members-of-the-ira

Put whatever name you feel comfortable with on it but dont pretend to speak for anybody else. Numerous brit govs, ministers and members of the military have referred to it as a war.

Enough people in Ireland would think the same. Governments in Dublin, too.
Years ago I mentioned the bombing campaign in mainland Britain to an Irish relative, and the reply was, "That's war".
To which I answered, "OK, if it's a war, then don't complain when the other side, (the British), behave badly.
Warrington, like Bloody Sunday, simply gives the moral high ground to the other side.

Of course you can complain, just cause it's a war doesnt mean you have to like it. What sort of nonsensical waffle is this? Did widows and orphans during WWII go "oh well, at least it was a legitimate war, now i dont miss them." And war or not war there is no comparison between a bomb which very sadly but ultimately inadvertently killed two children, and the deliberate massacre of unarmed civil rights protesters.

Your points are all over the place here and youre getting hung up on the word war. Here's what Britain has to decide; either it was a war and they acknowledge the causes of it and their role in it and admit their actions, or it wasnt a war and they face endless court cases and inquests about "criminals" they ordered extrajudicial killings on.

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 12:30PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well that's simply untrue. A gas storage facility was destroyed and a main shopping centre was shut down. (When responding to this try and stick to the point were discussing instead of coming back with some daft accusation about how I'm trying to say that justifies it when it clearly does not.).

if the purpose was to shut down Warrington town centre (which is, by no stretch of the imagination a "main" shopping centre) why did the bomb it at midday on a Saturday.

If it had been bombed at 3am on a Tuesday, it would have closed it down. Even bombing it at 7am in a Saturday morning would have meant fewer people around and still no Argos and McDonald's open for the day.

if the reason for bombing Le Mon restaurant was economic, why do it on a Friday evening when it was full, why not do it at a quieter time.

Why put sugar in the petrol?

indioblack · 14-05-2015 12:33PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

(When responding to this try and stick to the point were discussing instead of coming back with some daft accusation about how I'm trying to say that justifies it when it clearly does not.)

You're answering your own post, now!
If you can do that, you don't need me.

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 12:39PM

indioblack wrote: »

You're answering your own post, now!
If you can do that, you don't need me.

You have no answer.

LordSutch · 14-05-2015 12:52PM

Reiver wrote: »

South Armagh.

Now that was war.

Eh no, it was a disgusting terrorist campaign in a place rightly called Bandit country "at the time".

Thankfully the army kept a lid on the situation, although sadly not without the loss of life on their side.

Now if only ISIS bad been there to mop up the undesirables instead of the BA, then the PIRA would have been slaughtered at a much faster rate, the down side being that half the innocent population would also have been killed by those mercyless animals.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 12:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if the purpose was to shut down Warrington town centre (which is, by no stretch of the imagination a "main" shopping centre) why did the bomb it at midday on a Saturday.

Bombs went off at all days of the week, all times of day and night for an endless number of operational reasons. Anyway, wouldnt a saturday be a main trading day? Regardless, the fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that people were the target. Warnings were given, a previous attack had taken place on a gas station, the IRA had nothing to gain and everything to lose from attacking civilians. They issued a statement after saying as much. It may suit your agenda to try and portray the IRA as mindless bloodthirsty killers but every serious historian out there would disagree with you.

If it had been bombed at 3am on a Tuesday, it would have closed it down. Even bombing it at 7am in a Saturday morning would have meant fewer people around and still no Argos and McDonald's open for the day.

Ah the old McDonalds and Argos spiel again. it's quite clear the target was the main shopping thoroughfare, not the specific shops the bombs happened to be outside.

if the reason for bombing Le Mon restaurant was economic, why do it on a Friday evening when it was full, why not do it at a quieter time.

La mon is a hotel. it was gonna be full of people at any time. if anything the middle of the night could have been more dangerous.

After planting the bomb, the IRA members tried to send a warning from the nearest public telephone, but found that it had been vandalised.[6][7] On their way to another telephone they were delayed again when forced to stop at an Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) checkpoint.[7] By the time they were able to send the warning, only nine minutes remained before the bomb exploded at 21:00.[4] The RUC base at Newtownards had received two further telephone warnings at 20:57 and 21:04.[8] By the time the latter call came in it was too late. When an officer telephoned the restaurant to issue the warning he was told "For God's sake, get out here – a bomb has exploded!".[8]

The day after the explosion, the IRA admitted responsibility and apologised for the inadequate warning.[4] The hotel had allegedly been targeted by the IRA as part of its firebomb campaign against commercial targets; however, the resulting carnage brought quick condemnation from the Irish nationalist community, with one popular newspaper comparing the attack to the 1971 McGurk's Bar bombing.[13] Sinn Féin's then president Ruairí Ó Brádaigh also strongly criticised the operation.[13] In consequence of the botched attack, the IRA Army Council gave strict instructions to all units not to bomb buses, trains or hotels.[7]

La mon was an absolute tragedy, I doubt you'll find anyone who would say otherwise. The fact remains that people in the hotel were clearly not the target. A bad operation carried out by inexperienced and ill equipped volunteers. It deserves to be roundly criticised but it was patently not an attempt to kill anyone.

Why put sugar in the petrol?

It's a standard component of any home made incendiary device

L.Jenkins · 14-05-2015 12:56PM

I love how this thread has descended into what the IRA did and why they did it as opposed to the IRA versus ISIS. When it comes down to who would win, if all were fair in war and neither were at an advantage, it would be a hard one to gauge.

Otherwise, it would depend on the location. Take it to the Middle east and the RA, would be at a disadvantage, given the terrain and temperatures. Bring it over here and they'd know nearly every hiding hole to launch an ambush from.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 01:00PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Eh no, it was a disgusting terrorist campaign in a place rightly called Bandit country "at the time".

It certainly was. Thankfully we sent the bandits back to england.

Thankfully the army kept a lid on the situation, although sadly not without the loss of life on their side.

And we certainly honour those who lost their lives keeping a lid on the situation

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g1573324-d1572544-i80406694-Slieve_Gullion_Lodge_at_Ti_Chulainn-Mullaghbane_County_Armagh_Northern_I.html

Now if only ISIS bad been there to mop up the undesirables instead of the BA, then the PIRA would have been slaughtered at a much faster rate, the down side being that half the innocent population would also have been killed by those mercyless animals.

Look at you, ever the reasonable man, taking the high road. So your solution to the conflict in Ireland would have been to send in ISIS. :rolleyes: yeah, we can totally have a reasonable discussion here

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 01:02PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Bombs went off at all days of the week, all times of day and night for an endless number of operational reasons. Anyway, wouldnt a saturday be a main trading day? Regardless, the fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that people were the target. Warnings were given, a previous attack had taken place on a gas station, the IRA had nothing to gain and everything to lose from attacking civilians. They issued a statement after saying as much. It may suit your agenda to try and portray the IRA as mindless bloodthirsty killers but every serious historian out there would disagree with you.

Ah the old McDonalds and Argos spiel again. it's quite clear the target was the main shopping thoroughfare, not the specific shops the bombs happened to be outside.e

The warnings given said the bomb was in Liverpool.

So the commercial premises weren't in fact the target, it was a street? Bit pointless bombing a street isn't it? Wouldn't the actual shops makes sense, if it was an economic target?

Why were there two bombs, one at either end of the street?

osarusan · 14-05-2015 01:12PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It may suit your agenda to try and portray the IRA as mindless bloodthirsty killers but every serious historian out there would disagree with you.

I agree with you on this.

You've argued that if their aim was to kill civilians, then they were very bad at it, and I'd agree.

But you can use the same logic to make the opposite argument - how could the IRA, with nothing to gain and everything to lose, with such considerable expertise (that you mentioned earlier), with all their care to avoid civilian deaths, still have managed to kill so bloody many?

They were pretty bad at avoiding civilian deaths too.

I dont think it is fair to characterise them as mindless bloodthirsty killers, but it's equally possible to exaggerate or mislead the extent of the care and efforts they made to avoid civilian deaths.

PM me nudes · 14-05-2015 01:13PM

The one distinct advantage ISIS have is great weather.

ISIS vs The IRA ?

Comments