the ira

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Jimsour

Quote:

Originally Posted by gokufusionss1

I was going to leave this alone due to the fact that obviously some people have such differing views on the subject that they'd never agree, but i must point out that
A. British troops are on British territory, my hometown has an army base of 4000, so i'm fairly used to seeing soldiers on the streets it isn't that horific.
B.The army's "excuse" to be in Ulster was not because of the IRA it was to protect catholic republicans from increasing attacks and civil disorder from Prodestant Loyalists as it were.
Note: i don't consider policemen combat targets.

Don't talk bollocks mate. The army's excuse does not pretect on catholic republican. Now if you had any idea about the history of this country you would automatically know that the PIRA started in 1969 in protection of the Catholic and Republican people because of British army, Police and Loyalist colaberation. They have no excuse to stay now that the "threat" (the IRA) is gone.

Your hometown has an army base of 4000 for an army of your own country, yes? Picture it being another countries army, you wouldn't be very happy about that, would you?

I do consider policemen who colaberate with Loyalists a target, I do not consider police who do thier job correctly and unbiasedly a combat target. Remember, not every republican agrees with bomb campaigns, not every republican agrees with the end of armed struggle, either.

Quote:

these places were filled with civillians. or would i be right in claiming that 9-11 was an attack on commerce in the wtc rather than civillian targets?

Thats what warnings are for. The Al Qaeda are 100 times more ruthless than the IRA, who don't recognize civilians from military personel.

Stop getting your answers from half arsed news reports. Live through it and see the "terrorism" with your own eyes.
08-01-2005, 07:02 PM
Cloud No.9

"Thats what warnings are for." what use is a warning? it never worked. that's why 207 were injured in manchester. it was not enough.
08-01-2005, 10:59 PM
Cuchulainn

The difference is indeed the warnings given prior to detonation. As I've said they weren't always enough but if deliberately killing as many civilians is your goal why in HELL give a warning 3 hour prior?

Again i stress, the killing of civilians, deliberate or not is not the element that differentiates a terrorist from an Army.

A. British troops are on British territory as much as them being in India was British territory.

B. The Army's excuse was to protect Catholic civilians, initially this was true, and Catholics welcomed them, made them food, tea, homed them. Then the B Specials influenced them, Catholic support waned a bit, then Bloody Sunday flipped everything up. It was that moment that they stopped getting welcomes in Catholic Estates.

And Policemen are combat targets if they kill & act in combatant ways, as thew RUC frequently done. If they collude with Loyalists, as they frequently done, if they discriminate, as they frequently done.

This situation was complex and dirty on all sides & not ONE side has blood free hands. You would do well to try & understand that.
08-01-2005, 11:08 PM
Cloud No.9

why was commerce a legitimate target anyway? why was blowing up harrods acceptable? the canary wharf bomb? manchester? it doesn't seem a correct target.
08-01-2005, 11:16 PM
Cuchulainn

It was an attempt to cripple Britain's economy to the point where holding on to Northern Ireland was a liability stronger than their economy could handle. Interviews with British Diplomats showed it was starting to work. Bombs were also a statement. A big exclimation mark. They were often done after something bad on the Republican side. I.E. Hunger Striker deaths, collapse of the first ceasefire, bloody sunday etc. Bombs were the 'reply'.

Britain during WWII obliterated Dresden to the point were hundreds of thousands of lives were lost....for the same reasons IRA did it.
08-01-2005, 11:27 PM
Cloud No.9

but i don't think that can be true justification.

i'm in two minds about the ira. i can't make up my mind.
08-01-2005, 11:58 PM
Cuchulainn

We don't ask or expect anyone to agree 100% with everything that has been done on our side. We ask for you to understand why it all started, why we felt the need for it's existence & why it had the popular support of Catholics. There are a lot things unjustified here, the things done on the British governments side may well never be held accountable. The things done on our side are held accountable each & every day we live under the Union Jack.

I don't blame English or Britons for their views, one can only know what one finds out. I do, however, take exception to people demonising one side without properly studying their own side's actions. Dismissing without proper study the mere notion that the Queens Forces would do anything outside Geneva. Every action has a reaction & there was a lot of both here for over 30 years.

The IRA, publically, had little support, privately they had the strong support of the Catnholic people. They were the only ones fighting for us. Even the Irish Republic disowned us. The Catholic people here are good people. People pressed to unimaginable actions by unimaginable hardships. The lack of equal rights was not an invention. The Police discrimination & Loyalist collusiuon was not an invention. The Police, Army & Loyalist murders were not invented. It helps Briton's sleep easy to believe you were fighting demons. But, we have come a long way, and for that, I'm thankful.
08-05-2005, 06:16 PM
eestlinc

If Britain would just get the hell out of NI the IRA wouldn't even need to exist.
08-05-2005, 08:43 PM
War Angel

Quote:

If Britain would just get the hell out of NI the IRA wouldn't even need to exist.

The problem isn't the IRA's existence (an organisation to free Northern Ireland from British occupation), but their actions, which are unlawful mass and individual killings of innocent targets.
08-05-2005, 08:57 PM
gokufusionss1

Quote:

Originally Posted by eestlinc

If Britain would just get the hell out of NI the IRA wouldn't even need to exist.

hmm yes if the world was simple and a majority of the people in NI weren't British.
08-05-2005, 09:01 PM
eestlinc

British occupation of NI is a vestige of the British Empire and there's no reason short of pride that Ulster should remain part of Britain when it very clearly should be part of Ireland. Whether or not a large number of Brits live there is really irrelevant. A lot of Brits lived in every occupied territory before independence. They'll get over it or move back.
08-05-2005, 10:15 PM
gokufusionss1

You want to tell over a million people to either accept Irish rule or move back?
08-05-2005, 10:43 PM
eestlinc

if you live in Ireland you should accept Irish rule.
08-06-2005, 12:04 AM
Cuchulainn

Eest basically owned all your arguments which leave me but one point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by War Angel

The problem isn't the IRA's existence (an organisation to free Northern Ireland from British occupation), but their actions, which are unlawful mass and individual killings of innocent targets.

Find me one armed force that hasn't killed innocent people without batting an eyelid. I'll give you a clue, definately DON'T start looking at your own first. Happy hunting.
08-06-2005, 02:24 AM
War Angel

Quote:

Find me one armed force that hasn't killed innocent people

I could, possibly. However, it'd be much easier to find many armed organisations that do not TARGET civilians. And yes, planting bombs in commercial centres and what-not is considered targeting civilians targets. A stray shell from a cannon isn't.

Quote:

I'll give you a clue, definately DON'T start looking at your own first.

Oh, but I always do. And no, I wouldn't want to get into THAT issue with someone that appearently supports terrorism.

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page