ISIS vs The IRA ?

Nodin · 14-05-2015 01:40PM

LordSutch wrote: »

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.

You mean the British Army. Yeah, they kept such a lid on it they couldn't use the roads for 30 years.

You're a gas man Sutch. Choose anyone but a Republican.

LDN_Irish · 14-05-2015 01:45PM

osarusan wrote: »

They were pretty bad at avoiding civilian deaths too.

Less per capita than any other group active in the conflict, including the British "security forces." How odd. 65% of republican kills were combatants, that's a fact. Compare that rate with the "conventional" armies that have been warring recently and the truth is that republican "terrorists" were either as good or better at targeting combatants and avoiding civiliand than many western state forces that haven't been proscribed.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 01:47PM

osarusan wrote: »

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.

I dont think so because the cold hard figures are there to analyse and they lean way way more towards my assertion.
Here are some undeniable facts.
Of all the groups involved in the conflict the IRA had the lowest percentage of civilian casualites. Depending on your source anywhere in and around 30 -35%.
Of all those marked down as civilian many of them were not civilians in the context that we're talking about here, ie. uninvolved bystanders, passers by, people with no link to the conflicts etc... Many were informers, criminals, members of the government or judiciary or people who had made themselves targets such as the british businessman, whose name currently escapes me, who put a bounty on the heads of several IRA members.
The IRA set off anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 explosive devices and fired countless bullets. If anything they were remarkably discriminatory in their targeting and given the huge numbers of bombs and the increasing power of them over the years, it cant really be argued that they "killed so bloody many," (remember, I'm talking about the cold hard stats here, not getting into the morality of it all, of course any loss of innocent life was too much) in fact they killed remarkably few when you consider that. A number of historians have actually argued that one of the reasons it took so long to get the attention of the british government was because they avoided civilian casualties, or, as TPC put it, failed to "go for the juggular."
Even look at the cases where large numbers of people were killed, such as La Mon. That was still in the relatively early days of the troubles, when a lot of crude devices were still being used and was more down to mistakes and inexperience then anything else.
Fast forward a few decades to the enormous bombs exploded in ENgland, bombs of an almost conventional size, and casualties are tiny. The Docklands bomb killed two people who didnt evacuate the area when the police told them. The manchester bomb killed nobody.
I mean the intention was to kill people they could have massacred hundreds with just one of those devices.

osarusan · 14-05-2015 01:51PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont think so because the cold hard figures are there to analyse and they lean way way more towards my assertion.
Here are some undeniable facts.
Of all the groups involved in the conflict the IRA had the lowest percentage of civilian casualites. Depending on your source anywhere in and around 30 -35%.
Of all those marked down as civilian many of them were not civilians in the context that we're talking about here, ie. uninvolved bystanders, passers by, people with no link to the conflicts etc... Many were informers, criminals, members of the government or judiciary or people who had made themselves targets such as the british businessman, whose name currently escapes me, who put a bounty on the heads of several IRA members.

Lets reduce it to...say...20%.

Still, they killed civilians 20% of the time. It's still not great is it. I wouldn't call it 'remarkably discriminatory'.

Santa Cruz · 14-05-2015 01:53PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont think so because the cold hard figures are there to analyse and they lean way way more towards my assertion.
Here are some undeniable facts.
Of all the groups involved in the conflict the IRA had the lowest percentage of civilian casualites. Depending on your source anywhere in and around 30 -35%.
Of all those marked down as civilian many of them were not civilians in the context that we're talking about here, ie. uninvolved bystanders, passers by, people with no link to the conflicts etc... Many were informers, criminals, members of the government or judiciary or people who had made themselves targets such as the british businessman, whose name currently escapes me, who put a bounty on the heads of several IRA members.
The IRA set off anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 explosive devices and fired countless bullets. If anything they were remarkably discriminatory in their targeting and given the huge numbers of bombs and the increasing power of them over the years, it cant really be argued that they "killed so bloody many," (remember, I'm talking about the cold hard stats here, not getting into the morality of it all, of course any loss of innocent life was too much) in fact they killed remarkably few when you consider that. A number of historians have actually argued that one of the reasons it took so long to get the attention of the british government was because they avoided civilian casualties, or, as TPC put it, failed to "go for the juggular."
Even look at the cases where large numbers of people were killed, such as La Mon. That was still in the relatively early days of the troubles, when a lot of crude devices were still being used and was more down to mistakes and inexperience then anything else.
Fast forward a few decades to the enormous bombs exploded in ENgland, bombs of an almost conventional size, and casualties are tiny. The Docklands bomb killed two people who didnt evacuate the area when the police told them. The manchester bomb killed nobody.
I mean the intention was to kill people they could have massacred hundreds with just one of those devices.

We must remember to complement them on their efficiency. It must be a great relief to people that they were so efficent

LDN_Irish · 14-05-2015 01:56PM

osarusan wrote: »

Lets reduce it to...say...20%.

Still, they killed civilians 20% of the time. It's still not great is it. I wouldn't call it 'remarkably discriminatory'.

You think a 20% collateral rate is bad in an armed conflict of that nature? You must be Jon Snow so.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 01:57PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

It closed down the entirety of the main shopping thoroughfare. How can you not see that that would cause more economic damage than two individual shops on the street?

And the warnings didnt say the bombs were in liverpool, they just named the shops the bombs were outside. The police then sent people to shops in liverpool and warrington. That sounds like it was more down to volunteers being unfamiliar with the area. But like I said, there are many perfectly legitimate criticisms can be made of specific operations and the IRA in general but warrington was clearly not an attempt to kill anybody, the evidence does not support that in any way, no matter how much you would like it to.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 02:00PM

osarusan wrote: »

Lets reduce it to...say...20%.

Still, they killed civilians 20% of the time. It's still not great is it. I wouldn't call it 'remarkably discriminatory'.

I would

http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians-killed-and-wounded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

Still doesnt make a single one of those deaths right, mind, but it does show the lengths the IRA went to to avoid civilian casualties even when compared to conventional armies

osarusan · 14-05-2015 02:03PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The police then sent people to shops in liverpool and warrington. That sounds like it was more down to volunteers being unfamiliar with the area.

IRA Statement on Warrington:

Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings

Crooked Jack wrote: »

but warrington was clearly not an attempt to kill anybody

But yet they still did kill people.

Why not blow up the same targets at night, when the likelihood of civilian deaths is minimised even further?

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 02:07PM

osarusan wrote: »

IRA Statement on Warrington:

But yet they still did kill people.

Why not blow up the same targets at night, when the likelihood of civilian deaths is minimised even further?

This has all been gone over already in the thread. Bombs went off at all hours of the day and night for all sorts of operational reasons.
If the targets were economic it would make sense to target them during their biggest trading day and time.
The fact is nobody has produced any evidence to suggest the IRA was targeting civilians or even provided a reason as to why they would do so.
I have produced plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise

osarusan · 14-05-2015 02:10PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If the targets were economic it would make sense to target them during their biggest trading day and time.

Blow them anytime, the economic targets will be unable to function anyway.

Or, given a choice between minimising the risk civilian deaths and targeting them during their biggest trading day and time, the IRA chose the latter over the former?

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 02:17PM

osarusan wrote: »

Blow them anytime, the economic targets will be unable to function anyway.

Or, given a choice between minimising the risk civilian deaths and targeting them during their biggest trading day and time, the IRA chose the latter over the former?

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the target was not simply the two buildings the bombs were outside, it was to close down the entire commercial thoroughfare. Where is the economic damage in doing that in the middle of the night.
As I have also repeatedly pointed out, there are many criticisms can be leveled at certain operations but nobody has produced and evidence that the IRA sought to attack civilians or any reason as to why they would.

Warrington, like several other botched attacks, were tragedies but the facts clearly show that the IRA did not target civilians and had no reason to target civilians. Youre making assertions on an entire movement and 30 year campaign based on one attack and ignoring the tens of thousands of other devices the IRA set off, including city destroying devices, that clearly show the IRA had no interest in attacking civilians and in fact went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, remarkably so when you look at civilians deaths in other conflicts. It's completely out of context.

osarusan · 14-05-2015 02:26PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the target was not simply the two buildings the bombs were outside, it was to close down the entire commercial thoroughfare. Where is the economic damage in doing that in the middle of the night.
As I have also repeatedly pointed out, there are many criticisms can be leveled at certain operations but nobody has produced and evidence that the IRA sought to attack civilians or any reason as to why they would.

Again, would the entire commercial thoroughfare not have been closed for days anyway, causing similar economic damage, if they detonated bombs in the middle of the Friday night?

I have never said that they sought to attack civilians - I'm using this as an example of how their efforts to avoid civilian deaths were not as exhaustive as you are making out.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Youre making assertions on an entire movement and 30 year campaign based on one attack and ignoring the tens of thousands of other devices the IRA set off, including city destroying devices, that clearly show the IRA had no interest in attacking civilians and in fact went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, remarkably so when you look at civilians deaths in other conflicts.

We obviously have a different view on just how far they 'went out of their way' to avoid civilian casualties.

RandomName2 · 14-05-2015 02:30PM

osarusan wrote: »

But yet they still did kill people.

The IRA always intended killing civilians. They are the archetypal terrorist however: they only wanted to kill a few and hope that they would gain power and influence from the terror that they may subsequently choose not to hold back.

However, the IRA were always less efficient at killing people (even when they meant to) than ISIS (or any of its antecedents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq). It also wasn't able to keep itself very much in order (with several different versions of the IRA springing up - which proved greater foes than Loyalist paramilitaries). They were unable to fight conventional battles (both too scared to - they didn't like dying - and never got enough equipment or men). Compare this to ISIS who launch whole scale battles even when being bombed by drones and being totally outmatched in numbers.

In any hypothetical far fetched scenario where they faced off against one another ISIS would eat up the IRA faster than you could say "I will pay you the tax of the subjugated if you let me live".

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 02:44PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It closed down the entirety of the main shopping thoroughfare. How can you not see that that would cause more economic damage than two individual shops on the street?.

One bomb going off at 6am would have had the same effect.

Why have two go off at midday on a Saturday?

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 02:47PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Less per capita than any other group active in the conflict, including the British "security forces." How odd. 65% of republican kills were combatants, that's a fact. Compare that rate with the "conventional" armies that have been warring recently and the truth is that republican "terrorists" were either as good or better at targeting combatants and avoiding civiliand than many western state forces that haven't been proscribed.

So in other words, rather than capturing IRA members, the British army should have executed them in cold blood (as the IRA did) so that their stats would look better?

What's that about lies, damn lies and statistics?

LDN_Irish · 14-05-2015 03:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So in other words, rather than capturing IRA members, the British army should have executed them in cold blood (as the IRA did) so that their stats would look better?

What's that about lies, damn lies and statistics?

You see that the BA killed more civilians than combatants and the only thing you can think is that maybe they should have killed more combatants to fix up the figures? Incredible.

Congrats on thanking another historically illiterate post by the way. You might not think so but when you mindlessly thank posts just because they're coming from the same side of the debate as you it really does weaken your argument as a whole.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 03:19PM

osarusan wrote: »

Again, would the entire commercial thoroughfare not have been closed for days anyway, causing similar economic damage, if they detonated bombs in the middle of the Friday night?

I've no idea if it would have been closed longer or if it would have been largely opened again by the next day. I would question, however, whether a main commercial district is going to have few people around on a Friday night and whether or not the average actions by people of an average friday night are going to make an evacuation easier or more difficult.

But again, this is all speculation. This particular attack was clearly not designed or intended to kill.

I have never said that they sought to attack civilians - I'm using this as an example of how their efforts to avoid civilian deaths were not as exhaustive as you are making out.

We obviously have a different view on just how far they 'went out of their way' to avoid civilian casualties.

Again, I'm comparing it to other conflicts. I provided links to back this up. They're way waaay below civilian casualties in other conflicts.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 03:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

The IRA always intended killing civilians.

The evidence says other wise.

They are the archetypal terrorist however: they only wanted to kill a few and hope that they would gain power and influence from the terror that they may subsequently choose not to hold back.

Ah, now youre making loads of sense. The IRA sought to instill terror by killing a small number of people

However, the IRA were always less efficient at killing people (even when they meant to) than ISIS (or any of its antecedents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq).

Well obviously, ISIS are clearly less discriminatory than the IRA. The IRA picked targets, ISIS just roll up to a place and kill everyone who looks at them sideways. Wrong religion, culture, gender, nationality, sexual orientation etc...

It also wasn't able to keep itself very much in order
(with several different versions of the IRA springing up - which proved greater foes than Loyalist paramilitaries).
They were unable to fight conventional battles (both too scared to - they didn't like dying - and never got enough equipment or men).

Far be it from me to correct you so I'll leave it to the brits themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

Compare this to ISIS who launch whole scale battles even when being bombed by drones and being totally outmatched in numbers.

You seem to know very little about ISIS

In any hypothetical far fetched scenario where they faced off against one another ISIS would eat up the IRA faster than you could say "I will pay you the tax of the subjugated if you let me live".

Well at any one time the IRA had around 1000 active members and smaller numbers again when you go into ASUs. ISIS has anywhere between 50,000 and 250,000 members. That's why this whole debate is so daft.

If you've anything to say based in reality or backed up by fact I'd be happy to hear it

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 03:32PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

We must remember to complement them on their efficiency. It must be a great relief to people that they were so efficent

How many times am i going to have to point out that im referring to the cold, hard stats and not the morality of it.
This type of pious shite only proves that you have nothing to counter my claims so you resort to this type of waffle when I've already pointed out, several times for the benefit of dimwits who cant read, that this is not what Im referring to

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 03:41PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One bomb going off at 6am would have had the same effect.

Why have two go off at midday on a Saturday?

It clearly would not. Im baffled as to how you could possibly think this.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So in other words, rather than capturing IRA members, the British army should have executed them in cold blood (as the IRA did) so that their stats would look better?

What's that about lies, damn lies and statistics?

Firstly, they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Breslin

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/british-armys-secret-terror-unit-military-reaction-force-shot-dead-innocent-civilians-in-northern-ireland-claim-29772266.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughgall_ambush

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18491093

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergal_Caraher

Secondly, you hear less about the times they tried to do it and failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Conservation

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 03:49PM

The uncomfortable fact for many is that the PIRA were actually the good guys. They can never admit to that, to do so would change their whole reality.

Chips Lovell · 14-05-2015 03:52PM

Who needs enemies.....?

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 03:56PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Who needs enemies.....?

War is dirty. Look at what the Allies did in WW2, it's important to stay with the side that's right, the side that's fighting against injustice and against the bullies. In this case it was the PIRA, people may not like that but them's the facts.

Chips Lovell · 14-05-2015 03:59PM

As I said...

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 04:10PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As I said...

Care to offer anything more than that or is that all you've got?

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 04:22PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You see that the BA killed more civilians than combatants and the only thing you can think is that maybe they should have killed more combatants to fix up the figures? Incredible.

I don't think that at all, I'm just demonstrating how stupid it is to use kill ratios as some way of deciding who did a good job. The simple fact of the matter is, the ira killed 723 innocent people.

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 04:30PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It clearly would not. Im baffled as to how you could possibly think this]

what, you seriously think that if a bomb went off at 4am the place would be open for business as usual at 9?

You do know what a bomb is don't you?

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 04:31PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think that at all,

It's what you said

I'm just demonstrating how stupid it is to use kill ratios as some way of deciding who did a good job.

It's stupid to put a conflict in context and examine the facts of it in order to make a judgment on the aims and motives of one of the groups involved?

The simple fact of the matter is, the ira killed 723 innocent people.

Firstly, as has been pointed out numerous times, that number is heavily disputed. Secondly, without the context of the conflict that number is meaningless. It's a purely emotive thing to post but pointless because nobody here is arguing that it was good that any innocent people were killed.

Crooked Jack · 14-05-2015 04:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what, you seriously think that if a bomb went off at 4am the place would be open for business as usual at 9?

You do know what a bomb is don't you?

The building it was outside? Probably not.
The entire commercial thoroughfare? Why not? Cordon off the immediate area. Clear debris. Be done in a few hours. Belfast did it for years. These werent the city destroyers of Manchester or London. They werent even car bombs. They were relatively small devices placed in bins.

ISIS vs The IRA ?

Comments