ISIS vs The IRA ?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 11:13AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why detonate the bombs at midday on a Saturday (or Friday evening in the case of La Mon and Birmingham) if civilians were not the targets.

Go back and read the the thread fred, this has been covered a million times. you have nothing to add in rebuttal so youre reposting the same stuff again and again

The IRA weren't the cold blooded killers that ISIS are, but they clearly needed to instil an atmosphere of terror in people, something they had been doing since the S Plan. Too many deaths reduced their support, but a terror campaign needs a few dead and wounded to have the desired effect.

Drivel! What is the perfect number of deaths then? WHere's that sweet spot where you can kill enough to inspire terror but not lose support? Do you hear yourself? There was no terror campaign from the IRA. Terror didnt get them anywhere. Hitting the brits in the pocket got results. You have no understanding of the IRA, britains history in Ireland or the most recent conflict. As early as the 70s the IRA were advocating economic targets because costing the brits money got their attention.

You just don't want to see it because you hero worship these guys. You seriously need to open your eyes and see the IRA campaign for what it was.

No, you dont see it for what it was because you are determined to demonise them because you are ignorant of the causes, motivations and actions of the conflict. Go and educate yourself on these matters before making ill informed, baseless allegations.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 11:25AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Go back and read the the thread fred, this has been covered a million times. you have nothing to add in rebuttal so youre reposting the same stuff again and again

I'm reposting it, because you have not answered the question, other than to give vague suggestions about "operational reasons".

Why did the ira hit those, as well as other targets, at their busiest times?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 11:29AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm reposting it, because you have not answered the question, other than to give vague suggestions about "operational reasons".

Why did the ira hit those, as well as other targets, at their busiest times?

To. create. as. much. disruption. as. possible. and. have. the. biggest.economic.effect.possible.

Please save this post and reread it next time you feel the need to ask a question asked and answered numerous times

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 11:34AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To. create. as. much. disruption. as. possible. and. have. the. biggest.economic.effect.possible.

Please save this post and reread it next time you feel the need to ask a question asked and answered numerous times

Disruption to who? As has already been pointed out, two bombs going off at 4am would have the same effect, those businesses would not open that day.

Why two bombs, one would close the entire area?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 11:42AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption to who? As has already been pointed out, two bombs going off at 4am would have the same effect, those businesses would not open that day.

Why two bombs, one would close the entire area?

And as I pointed out; no they wouldnt. The point was not to close the businesses the bombs were outside but the entire street.
These were not the huge city destroyer bombs of Manchester and London, these were much smaller devices. Given their size it would have been quite easy to cordon off the area directly affected, clear the debris and reopen the street in a number of hours. It happened in belfast all the time.
Bombs at both ends shut off the entire street instead of just on side of it.
I have written all this before. You clearly have no interest in actually reading any responses and just want to post the same old baseless guff over and over

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 11:57AM

So you are claiming the sole purpose of the Warrington bomb attacks was to close a few shops in a town centre for a few hours?

Not much of an economic consequence there.

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 12:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you are claiming the sole purpose of the Warrington bomb attacks was to close a few shops in a town centre for a few hours?

Not much of an economic consequence there.

And once again you post something already posted before and once again Im forced to write the same thing back to you.

It was part of a much wider campaign of attacking economic and infrastructure targets in Britain.
You can take any single action in any war and claim that it alone was pointless.
You could pick one single soldier from the Somme and ask "was it utterly necessary to shoot this particular soldier? Would the outcome have been any different if he hadnt been shot?"
Once again, you are taking a single incident completely out of context and displaying your total ignorance of the conflict.

Once again, please save this post and reread it when you feel the need to ask questions that have been previously asked and answered numerous times.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 12:17PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

And once again you post something already posted before and once again Im forced to write the same thing back to you.

It was part of a much wider campaign of attacking economic and infrastructure targets in Britain.
You can take any single action in any war and claim that it alone was pointless.
You could pick one single soldier from the Somme and ask "was it utterly necessary to shoot this particular soldier? Would the outcome have been any different if he hadnt been shot?"
Once again, you are taking a single incident completely out of context and displaying your total ignorance of the conflict.

Once again, please save this post and reread it when you feel the need to ask questions that have been previously asked and answered numerous times.

Lots of small attacks on civilian targets. It's called a terrorist campaign. It's as simple as that. It was never just an economic war, it's only become that as revisionists try to justify their support for it. that is why there is no point discussing this with you, you have swallowed hook line and sinker the IRA spiel.

Thankfully the majority of people disagree with you, even Martin McGuinnes called it shameful.

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 12:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lots of small attacks on civilian targets. It's called a terrorist campaign. It's as simple as that. It was never just an economic war, it's only become that as revisionists try to justify their support for it. that is why there is no point discussing this with you, you have swallowed hook line and sinker the IRA spiel.

Thankfully the majority of people disagree with you, even Martin McGuinnes called it shameful.

None of the links I put up or information I used came from IRA sources. Nobody is revising anything. Once again you have provided nothing to back up your opinion. The death of two children was indeed shameful. Who is arguing otherwise. The question is were civilians the target. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates no. Im sorry that doesnt suit your agenda but there you have it

Nodin · 15-05-2015 12:30PM

LordSutch wrote: »

The SDLP were/are far bigger men, and not once did they stoop to murder.

The stoop downs stooped to much else.

LordSutch wrote: »

Admittedly they were eventually overtaken by the Shinners,.........

*sniff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHK0eao7Qlk

Nodin · 15-05-2015 12:34PM

LordSutch wrote: »

In a proper war the British Army would of course destroyed the PIRA in about a week (using tanks, harrier jump jets, jaguar ground attack jets, mobile heavy guns, helicopter gunships, and everything at their disposal).

. . . the problem for the army was of course that many innocents would have died too in such a war (seeing as the IRA were embedded in parts) of that NI population! The army always had one hand tied behind their back during the troubles.

'the British army' sutch.

Yeah, seein as they were next door to home. If it had been Africa they would have carried on like they usually did , with a few more massacres and village burnings, concentration camps.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 12:38PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

None of the links I put up or information I used came from IRA sources. Nobody is revising anything. Once again you have provided nothing to back up your opinion. The death of two children was indeed shameful. Who is arguing otherwise. The question is were civilians the target. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates no. Im sorry that doesnt suit your agenda but there you have it

So what was the target then?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 12:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what was the target then?

youre just being deliberately dense now fred. If you genuinely dont know then go and read the thread where this has been asked and answered a dozen times already. If you still cant grasp it when it's written down in front of you then im afraid theres little anyone can do to help you

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 01:03PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

youre just being deliberately dense now fred. If you genuinely dont know then go and read the thread where this has been asked and answered a dozen times already. If you still cant grasp it when it's written down in front of you then im afraid theres little anyone can do to help you

I asked disruption to who, but you avoided answering. Who or what was the target, if it was not civilian?

Who, or what, was the target in Birmingham and why was Birmingham bombed on a Friday evening when those pubs were packed.

What was the Balcombe street gang's (bizarrely referred to as "our Mandelas) targetwhen they threw a bomb in to a busy restaurant in Mayfair. What was their target when they shot Ross McWhirter on his doorstep.

Before you answer, Google Birmingham pub bombings and tell me why they weren't bombed at a quieter time of day?

Then tell me if these were terrorist attacks or war crimes?

Junkyard Tom · 15-05-2015 01:09PM

LordSutch wrote: »

the problem for the army was of course that many innocents would have died too in such a war of that NI population!

Many innocents did die. The UDR regiment of the BA was the principle source of weapons and support to loyalist paramilitaries who murdered over 800 innocent unarmed Catholic civilians. Also the BA itself murdered over 150 civilians including quite a few children whose names you no doubt have no clue of.

(seeing as the IRA were embedded in parts)

The British Army were embedded in parts of Britain. By your own poor reasoning they were hiding amongst the population.

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 01:13PM

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.

What happened in Birmingham & Warrington were in excusable. But these type of tragedies were the exception not the norm. 10,000 plus bombs detonated by the IRA between 1970 & 1994. If Birmingham was the norm the IRA would have killed 210,000+ people.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 01:15PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

What happened in Birmingham & Warrington were in excusable. But these type of tragedies were the exception not the norm. 10,000 plus bombs detonated by the IRA between 1970 & 1994. If Birmingham was the norm the IRA would have killed 210,000+ people.

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 01:17PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

I said they were inexcusable.

Is a atrocity not tragedy as well?

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 01:20PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I said they were inexcusable.

Is a atrocity not tragedy as well?

an atrocity is both, a tragedy is just a tragedy.

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 01:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I asked disruption to who, but you avoided answering. Who or what was the target, if it was not civilian?

I answered it numerous times already. Here it is again, please actually read it this time and note the post number as i wont be repeating it for you again. The main commercial thoroughfare as part of a wider campaign against the british economy and infrastructure. If you feel the need to ask this question yet again please refer yourself to the previous sentence.

Who, or what, was the target in Birmingham and why was Birmingham bombed on a Friday evening when those pubs were packed.

What was the Balcombe street gang's (bizarrely referred to as "our Mandelas) targetwhen they threw a bomb in to a busy restaurant in Mayfair. What was their target when they shot Ross McWhirter on his doorstep.

Before you answer, Google Birmingham pub bombings and tell me why they weren't bombed at a quieter time of day?

Then tell me if these were terrorist attacks or war crimes?

Again, all part of a campaign against the British economy and infrastructure. Being the early 70s these were obviously less sophisticated devices.
Two warnings were given but due to a broken phone they didnt give the 30 minute warning required by the IRA.
Again I stress, you asked why and these are the reasons. I am not in any way justifying the killing of civilians. Greater care to ensure they had access to a working phone to send warning should have been taken. No doubt you will ignore this sentence and attempt to accuse me of justifying their deaths, which i am not, but i suppose that's the price you pay for engaging with blind zealots.

McWhirter was a bigot who wanted to put nazi style restrictions and markers on Irish people in Britain and put up £50k bounty for information leading to the death or capture of IRA volunteers. Frankly, fuck him, he brought that on himself. No explanation needed for that one.

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 01:31PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but I do take exception when people do try to excuse them.

And they were atrocities, not tragedies.

Who is excusing them? Once again you arent getting the answer you like so you throw around blind accusations. You asked why certain places were targeted and I told you. No justification, no excuses, just the facts. Just because those facts doesnt suit your agenda doesnt mean you can then accuse me whatever you like

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 01:38PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

an atrocity is both, a tragedy is just a tragedy.

I don't want to get into a debate over words.

The people who created a real atmosphere of terror was the British Arny & Loyalists who together killed close 1000 innocent people. Including a joint operation in Dublin that left 34 dead including an entire family & several babies.
You want to talk about the busiest times of day, hows 5.30 on a Friday afternoon when Dublin is packed with people coming home from work & the shops full with Friday shoppers. The terror of that afternoon was such that the memories of it had to be suppressed for 20 years.

maccored · 15-05-2015 01:38PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Members of the IRA May have joined for their own personal reasons, but the IRA was never about civil rights, it was about creating a socialist republic. They refused to recognise the Dublin government ffs and they certainly didn't represent the majority of people in the north.

To try and claim the ira were fighting for civil liberties is nothing but revisionism

No Fred - it's called reality. A place it seems you rarely visit on that very tall horse of yours.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 02:10PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I answered it numerous times already. Here it is again, please actually read it this time and note the post number as i wont be repeating it for you again. The main commercial thoroughfare as part of a wider campaign against the british economy and infrastructure. If you feel the need to ask this question yet again please refer yourself to the previous sentence.

Again, all part of a campaign against the British economy and infrastructure. Being the early 70s these were obviously less sophisticated devices.
Two warnings were given but due to a broken phone they didnt give the 30 minute warning required by the IRA.
Again I stress, you asked why and these are the reasons. I am not in any way justifying the killing of civilians. Greater care to ensure they had access to a working phone to send warning should have been taken. No doubt you will ignore this sentence and attempt to accuse me of justifying their deaths, which i am not, but i suppose that's the price you pay for engaging with blind zealots.

McWhirter was a bigot who wanted to put nazi style restrictions and markers on Irish people in Britain and put up £50k bounty for information leading to the death or capture of IRA volunteers. Frankly, fuck him, he brought that on himself. No explanation needed for that one.

a bomb can not target an economy. It can have an indirect effect on the economy, but it can not actually target the economy itself. It needs a direct target.

A thoroughfare is just that, no business is done there and bombing it is pointless, so what was the actual intended target of the Warrington, and Birmingham bombs, the direct target that is, not the indirect one.

You've already spoken about disruption, but disruption to who?

Ross McWhirter had a right to life, it us not up to some gung ho kid to decide his fate.

I suppose people in Scott's restaurant had it coming as well?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 02:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

a bomb can not target an economy. It can have an indirect effect on the economy, but it can not actually target the economy itself. It needs a direct target.

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

A thoroughfare is just that, no business is done there and bombing it is pointless, so what was the actual intended target of the Warrington, and Birmingham bombs, the direct target that is, not the indirect one.

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

You've already spoken about disruption, but disruption to who?

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

Ross McWhirter had a right to life, it us not up to some gung ho kid to decide his fate.

Ross McWhirter was a bigot who directly involved himself in a conflict. He took a gamble with his own right to life and lost. Soldiers going into a war have a right to life but that doesnt mean the other side arent gonna shoot them.

I suppose people in Scott's restaurant had it coming as well?

Is this how this is gonna go on indefinitely? Youre proven to be talking utter guff on incident so you quickly drop it and leap to the next? All the while ignoring the overall facts and context which are:

:Anywhere beteween 10,000 and 20,000 bombs set off by the IRA
:Literally, countless bullets fired
:The lowest percentage of civilian deaths than any group involved and well below the civilian kill ratio in other conflicts
:Offered bomb warnings as policy
:Aborted attacks to avoid civilian casualties
:The vast majority of attacks carried out against a heavily armed military
:The vast majority of other attacks carried out against economic, infrastructure or symbolic targets
:A remarkably low number of overall deaths
:Gained nothing from attacking civilians. It was counterproductive in fact.
:Apologised for any civilian deaths that did occur

It's simply completely disingenuous to try and claim that the IRA had any interest in attacking civilians. It would only lose them support and precious materials.

Your claims thus far, none of which have been backed up with anything other than the gnashing of your teeth, have highlighted only your ignorance of the IRA, the conflict and British involvement in Ireland

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 03:09PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

Pedantic waffle. Youre either being deliberately obtuse or are simple beyond all talking to

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

LDN_Irish · 15-05-2015 03:17PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

Is that like pedantic waffle or waffling pedantically?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 03:26PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It isn't pedantic waffle, it is a very important point.

The reason you do not want to argue is because those bombs, in fact all of those incidents above, directly targeted civilians and or civilian targets.

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 03:57PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

You haven't been arguing anything, you have been putting your fingers in your ears and spouting the same thing and providing vague answers, because you know the simple truth is that all of these incidents directly targetted civilians.

Civilian pubs, civilian shops, civilian restaurants.

So, war crimes, or terrorist attacks. Which is it.

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 04:00PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Fred, Ive been arguing this point with you for pages. you keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions over and over. Then you offer nothing to back up your point of view.
I think it's quite clear your goal hear is to just leave me too exasperated to keep answering the same questions over and over leaving you free to claim some sort of "victory".

Plus he fails to respond to the British Armies & Loyalists joint terror campaign. Even high ranking loyalists themselves acknowledge that they couldn't have been half as effective without British Int help. The vital intelligence like Fred Holroyd & Collin Wallace describe.

ISIS vs The IRA ?

Comments