ISIS vs The IRA ?

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 04:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Ive had no choice but to say the same thing. you keep asking the same questions. Like I said, it's fairly clear what your plan is here. Pretty pathetic

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 04:12PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

The difference between Loyalists & Republicans was that Loyalists considered a large death of Catholic civies a great success, Republicans regarded the deaths of any civilians as a disaster.

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 04:14PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

I've given him all the facts and plenty of links, he clearly doesnt care about debate, he just wants to continue spouting his own nonsense.
The text is there for anyone interested to read and make up their own mind, he's just after a row.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 04:17PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings.

The difference between Loyalists & Republicans was that Loyalists considered a large death of Catholic civies a great success, Republicans regarded the deaths of any civilians as a disaster.

The loyalists paramilitary were just a bunch of murdering Scum, but that does not give the ira any justification for carrying out many of their atrocities.

Fratton Fred · 15-05-2015 04:19PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets. If they wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't have given warnings..

Canary wharf and Bishops gate could be construed as economic targets.

A pub, restaurant or shopping centre are simple acts of terrorism.

Junkyard Tom · 15-05-2015 04:23PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They were economic targets.

In fairness the Birmingham bombings were just bombings with no defined goal other than to spread fear. If we're to condemn 'loyalists' for bombing McGurks bar then we should be equally critical of the IRA for doing similar.

Kieran Conway, a former senior officer of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, formally admitted that the terrorist group had committed the Birmingham pub bombings in 2014, adding that he was "appalled and ashamed" at the atrocity, and that other senior IRA officials shared his opinion the bombings had been immoral and detrimental to the objectives of the republican movement.

wikipedia.org

Crooked Jack · 15-05-2015 04:37PM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

In fairness the Birmingham bombings were just bombings with no defined goal other than to spread fear. If we're to condemn 'loyalists' for bombing McGurks bar then we should be equally critical of the IRA for doing similar.

But nobody's arguing that they werent "appalled and ashamed". Im sure they were. They put a ban on any more attacks in the area.
The question is were people the target and the evidence provided thus far says no. McGurks was a deliberate attempt to just kill catholic civilians. A no warning bomb planted by a group who boasted about the number of deaths afterwards and whose history shows that that catholic civilians were their main targets.

No comparison.

Birmingham was horrendous enough without attempting to paint it as something it wasnt

Junkyard Tom · 15-05-2015 05:04PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No comparison.

The results were comparable. Listen, planting bombs in places packed with civilians is a pretty callous thing to do - even if you're not intending to kill people there's a strong possibility something could go wrong which it did.

The PIRA itself prohibited the targeting of pubs for that very reason.

I agree with you about loyalists btw - they celebrated mass murder and those who carried them out.

DarkyHughes · 15-05-2015 05:23PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Canary wharf and Bishops gate could be construed as economic targets.

A pub, restaurant or shopping centre are simple acts of terrorism.

The bombings all happened in London's West End were all the most expensive shops & restaurants in the country maybe even Europe were. The bombings were designed to hurt Britain finical heart not to cause terror. If their goal was to cause terror they would have planted lets a dozen bombs in the center of London, primed them to go of 2-3 minutes after the first went of, 2-3 mins after the second, 2-3 mins after the third etc... and not phoned a warning. That would have been real terror.

And the IRA were more than just bombs they put their own lives at risk. The East Tyrone Brigades destruction of rural RUC stations & British army checkpoints, the assaults on stations at Ballygawley The Birches & the Loughgall (RIP) were the best examples of this. There's plenty of other cases were seeked out the enemy & engage them in battles. The Armagh sniper was another one, he killed 9 enemy forces with a single shot.

RandomName2 · 15-05-2015 07:48PM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Okay you've invented a fantasy world where you get to decide what a battle is which only underscores that you're still clueless. Step away from the Xbox and enter the real world.

Ah you're one of those causa nostra types; the one who describes gang members as "soldiers", ey? The IRA is a terrorist group, not an army.

What is a battle?
"a sustained fight between large organized armed forces."

sustained = greater than hours
fight = armed combat on both sides
large = greater than hundreds
organised = what it says on the tin
armed = again
forces = again

Try finding anything that resembles that with the IRA. Firebombing a hotel? Ah... close enough.

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

They were defending their homes from actual criminal gangs called loyalists valiantly.

Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries. Over 35 % of the people they killed were civilians. Valiant, indeed!

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

As I've already shown, you're clueless - keep embarrassing yourself if you please.

I admire your self-belief.

Reiver · 15-05-2015 07:50PM

At Crossbarry the IRA outfought and outmarched the British Army, they were well capable of it when they wanted to.

RandomName2 · 15-05-2015 07:54PM

Reiver wrote: »

At Crossbarry the IRA outfought and outmarched the British Army, they were well capable of it when they wanted to.

That was the 1920s IRA - presumably unrelated in a thread talking about contemporary armed forces such as ISIS...

Reiver · 15-05-2015 07:56PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

That was the 1920s IRA - presumably unrelated in a thread talking about contemporary armed forces such as ISIS...

Everyones going about the 70s 'Ra as well so like when's the cut off point?

indioblack · 15-05-2015 08:10PM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

The results were comparable. Listen, planting bombs in places packed with civilians is a pretty callous thing to do - even if you're not intending to kill people there's a strong possibility something could go wrong which it did.

The PIRA itself prohibited the targeting of pubs for that very reason.

I agree with you about loyalists btw - they celebrated mass murder and those who carried them out.

So what were the pub bombings?
Incompetence, faulty communications, bad luck?
You gave the answer yourself - callousness.
An indifference to what might happen if it went wrong.
No need to debate if it was part of an economic strategy or not.

Junkyard Tom · 15-05-2015 08:10PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries.

Loyalist gangs not loyalist paramilitaries. Back to the good-versus-evil children's fairy tale books with you.

DarkyHughes · 16-05-2015 11:01PM

Reiver wrote: »

Everyones going about the 70s 'Ra as well so like when's the cut off point?

I'm with you on this. The United Irishmen were Republicans & their army was a Irish Republican one.

DarkyHughes · 16-05-2015 11:25PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah you're one of those causa nostra types; the one who describes gang members as "soldiers", ey? The IRA is a terrorist group, not an army.

What is a battle?
"a sustained fight between large organized armed forces."

sustained = greater than hours
fight = armed combat on both sides
large = greater than hundreds
organised = what it says on the tin
armed = again
forces = again

Try finding anything that resembles that with the IRA. Firebombing a hotel? Ah... close enough.

Really? They didn't kill many loyalists.

Only 2.7% of those killed by Republicans were Loyalist paramilitaries. Over 35 % of the people they killed were civilians. Valiant, indeed!

I admire your self-belief.

51.5% of those killed by British forces were civilians over 15% than the IRA killed. And if the British had carried on like they had from from 1970 - 1972 it would have been a lot higher. The Falls road massacre (the first massacre of civilians during the troubles), The Ballymurphy massacre, Blood Sunday & the Springfield massacre all committed by the British within in less than two years. The only reason they stopped this policy of massacring civilians was because they realized it was given the IRA a propaganda victory & it was allowing them successfully to paint them as a army of occupation worldwide not because they gave a s!!t about the nationalist population.

When I watched that Peter Taylor series a few years ago the first was called Provo's, the second Loyalists & the third Brits. As much a I disliked the Loyalists & had no respect for them I could tell they were genuine & speaking the truth. I couldn't say the same for the Brits, I could tell they were trying to put on a show for the cameras & just wanted to make themselves look good.

Junkyard Tom · 16-05-2015 11:56PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

As much a I disliked the Loyalists & had no respect for them I could tell they were genuine & speaking the truth.

Those bloodthirsty cowards were the lowest form of filth when it came to the troubles. When the INLA assassinated a couple of their 'soldiers' they retaliated by spraying a pub full of civilians watching a match.

The very fact that mass murderer, and torturer of Catholics, Lenny Murphy's gravestone had 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-05-2015 12:17AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Those bloodthirsty cowards were the lowest form of filth when it came to the troubles. When the INLA assassinated a couple of their 'soldiers' they retaliated by spraying a pub full of civilians watching a match.

The very fact that mass murderer, and torturer of Catholics, Lenny Murphy's gravestone has 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

Some ex UVF members have said that the UVF organised the Murphy hit through communication with the PIRA. They realised he was a loose cannon and needed to be taken out.

Also it's pretty much accepted that the UVF organised Billy Wright's killing through their influence in the NI Prison Officers Union, contact was made with INLA prisoners in that case. The UVF were at war with each other at the time with Wright breaking off and forming the LVF with his supporters.

Junkyard Tom · 17-05-2015 12:36AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some ex UVF members have said that the UVF organised the Murphy hit through communication with the PIRA. They realised he was a loose cannon and needed to be taken out.

Also it's pretty much accepted that the UVF organised Billy Wright's killing through their influence in the NI Prison Officers Union, contact was made with INLA prisoners in that case. The UVF were at war with each other at the time with Wright breaking off and forming the LVF with his supporters.

Your first point is a fact afaia. I was unaware of UVF collusion but I suspected that king of the degenerates was marked by forces outside the prison.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post though.

130Kph · 17-05-2015 01:57AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Those bloodthirsty cowards were the lowest form of filth when it came to the troubles. When the INLA assassinated a couple of their 'soldiers' they retaliated by spraying a pub full of civilians watching a match.

The very fact that mass murderer, and torturer of Catholics, Lenny Murphy's gravestone had 'here lies a [UVF] soldier' carved on it says it all about those sub-human degenerates.

I disagree. In my opinion a gang of self-appointed, fratricidal sociopaths consistently rejected by the majority of their own community, throughout the troubles, are on a lower rung. How many catholics & innocent protestants did the provos kill, hundreds? Of course the loyalist murders were despicably evil also - almost all after the provos kicked off.

Picture the scene: its November 1974. Imagine being a 20 year old catholic looking up while being beaten to death with an iron bar by two smiling, sneering psychopaths from his own community for some reason - typically, being suspected of being an informer. These two oxygen thieves can't believe their luck. They're able to enjoy the primal violence of savagely beating someone to death (oh I mean protecting him from the BA) and then slapping each other on the back. Afterwards, they know they'll be admired by their comrades once word gets out on the street. It really was heaven for sociopaths in those days.

The only path for nationalists once the civil rights protesters were beaten off the streets was civil disobedience and paradoxically continuing persistent peaceful protest. I will admit that this was / is a very hard thing to do esp with orange provocations. However, it was / is the only wise & sane option. Sooner rather than later, the nationalists would have been given equal rights. The settlement of 1998 would have happened in 1970/71 but less the 3,000 dead. The troubles were an excellent example to the world of what not to do in divided societies. A futile, unnecessary, avoidable conflict that is a permanent stain on those that chose the path of violence.

The war fighting stage of this conflict ended in 1921. That was the settlement, however unsatisfactory. Try a little realpolitik now that we have the benefit of 45 years hindsight.

You can see footage from the late sixties of sane nationalists passionately pleading with others not to go down the road of violence; that it would be madness to even consider it. But the provos / inla 'felt' differently. To this day, those who defend their 'beautiful' legacy couldn't give two f*cks what others think.

The path the troubles took once the provos started their 'war' especially once they decided to try to reverse the 1921 treaty could have been predicted by a 12 year old. I mean it really was obvious at the time, given the limited support the provos had from nationalists.

As for ISIS, I wonder if there is an SDLP equivalent party in Raqqa or Mosul? Maybe the pro-provos on here should be on the side of ISIS. You guys know what its like when only you are right and everyone else just can't see the light; so maybe ISIS are right. Maybe their model is superior? Mmmm

TLDR: The provos & INLA were seriously deluded, political pygmies suffering from a bad dose of historical myopia.

Junkyard Tom · 17-05-2015 02:27AM

130Kph wrote: »

In my opinion a gang of self-appointed, fratricidal sociopaths consistently rejected by the majority of their own community, throughout the troubles, are on a lower rung.

I simply do not care about your opinion. The facts speak for themselves despite your over-emotional rambling.

'Loyalists' raison d'etre was the murder of people because they were born into a religion. 85% of loyalist killings were innocent Catholics going about their business. As a normally sympathetic to loyal/unionism Irish sycophant said:

There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated. And then there was Lenny Murphy and his merry gang, the Shankill Butchers, who for years in the mid-1970s abducted, tortured and murdered Catholics -- usually by cutting their victims' throats.

independent.ie

Go ahead and continue to attempt elevate these mass murdering degenerates from the bottom rung if you wish - it says more about your own morals, or lack thereof, than anything about the realities of the conflict.

130Kph · 17-05-2015 03:07AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I simply do not care about your opinion. The facts speak for themselves despite your over-emotional rambling.

I am in agreement with you on this point. I know it was a long post but I said:

To this day, those who defend their 'beautiful' legacy couldn't give two f*cks what others think.

All the sickening loyalist atrocities happened after the provos chose the path of violence. That is a fact also. Not one you like to dwell on however.

I am not elevating them. I put the UVF etc as low as possible on the totem pole of shame and put the provos in turn below them.

In the final analysis it all comes down to where to set the bar for going to war. I think we can all agree that "war is the end of everything human" (said by a French woman who lived through the Nazi occupation).

You, Gerry, Martin and the rest set the bar at point X. The rest of us set it at point Y.

Are you saying if we could use a time machine and reset time to 1969 you would make the same decision again to choose the path of violence?

Also, any comment on ISIS seeing themselves as right and everybody else wrong?

Junkyard Tom · 17-05-2015 04:58AM

130Kph wrote: »

All the sickening loyalist atrocities happened after the provos chose the path of violence. That is a fact also.

You're another member of the 'clueless propaganda swallower's brigade'. Loyalist violence pre-dated the provos.

You should probably stop embarrassing yourself now - your lack of knowledge of the facts will see you retreat from this discussion when you realise just how little you know just as your ill-informed ilk always do.

130Kph · 17-05-2015 08:15AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

You're another member of the 'clueless propaganda swallower's brigade'. Loyalist violence pre-dated the provos.

You should probably stop embarrassing yourself now - your lack of knowledge of the facts will see you retreat from this discussion when you realise just how little you know just as your ill-informed ilk always do.

Ah yes, Gusty.

"It wasn't me Sir". "They started it, Sir".

Don't flatter yourself that I'm being fooled by propaganda. What a joke. Those facts are widely known by anyone who takes more than a passing interest in the troubles ffs.

The provos poured petrol onto a smouldering fire. After that, the misery levels inflicted on both communities exploded.

You're the same as Bush & Blair with their immoral low threshold for war in Iraq.

Ghandi you ain't.

17-05-2015 09:04AM

Is this a joke? People arguing whether Loyalist or Provo terrorists were all round better people?

"The people who opened fire on a pub in Greysteel were a bad bunch, but those who burned all the victims at La Mon weren't so bad, while those who blew up kids in Warrington were only reacting to the fellows that shot the crowd at Milltown Cemetary..." and on and on and on.

They were all utter scumbags. Why the need for some hierarchy?

noway12345 · 17-05-2015 02:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this a joke? People arguing whether Loyalist or Provo terrorists were all round better people?

"The people who opened fire on a pub in Greysteel were a bad bunch, but those who burned all the victims at La Mon weren't so bad, while those who blew up kids in Warrington were only reacting to the fellows that shot the crowd at Milltown Cemetary..." and on and on and on.

They were all utter scumbags. Why the need for some hierarchy?

Why have you left out the British army?

Junkyard Tom · 17-05-2015 03:48PM

noway12345 wrote: »

Why have you left out the British army?

Because, surprise surprise, he has created a hierarchy and ignored that the UDR regiment of the British Army was the principle source of weapons and training to loyalist murder gangs as well as providing killers.

Glenanne Gang

Lethal Allies claims that permutations of the group killed about 120 people – almost all of whom were "upwardly mobile" Catholic civilians with no links to Irish republican paramilitaries. The Cassel Report investigated killings attributed to the group and found evidence that British soldiers and RUC officers were involved in of those. John Weir claimed his superiors knew he was working with loyalist militants but allowed it to continue

wikipedia.org

He's probably also ignored the covert BA gangs who executed people and the regular ol' British soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry and Belfast or shot people in the back from lookout towers.

You couldn't make them up.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 04:19PM

It's like terrorist top trumps.

I play Boko Haram and choose most killings in a single place.

130Kph · 17-05-2015 04:38PM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Because, surprise surprise, he has created a hierarchy and ignored that the UDR regiment of the British Army was the principle source of weapons and training to loyalist murder gangs as well as providing killers.

He's probably also ignored the covert BA gangs who executed people and the regular ol' British soldiers who opened fire on civilians in Derry and Belfast or shot people in the back from lookout towers.

You couldn't make them up.

What f*cking planet are you on?

I presume you accept what I posted earlier that war is the end of everything human.

What level of moronic analysis of this conflict are you at? Do you know that going to war isn't kids play? What part of this are you not getting?

So, you think the provos could kick back at Gusty and then the BA and have no consequent response. Is this what you really think? You think war is about playing fair? Jesus H Christ, you really are at square no. 1.

Did you not read Battle or Warlord comics when you were younger? Do you not watch war films. Do you not read about other wars. Your understanding of what war actually means is embarrassing.

I'd sincerely recommend you read some books about the profundity of going to war.

ISIS vs The IRA ?

Comments