BF2S Forums IRA

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

IRA are not terrorists as they do not target civilians. Military and Police units are acceptable but they have never intentionally harmed a civilian.

So they didnt blow up Enniskillin or Manchester or Harrods or Canary Wharf or try to blow up Tesco in Dungannon in 2002 after the ceasefire?  Oh silly me, Manchester shopping centre is full of soldiers and RUC isnt it!  And so is the Jewellary counter at Harrods.

This is what I woke up to one Saturday morning. My house is just out of the picture. I couldn't get to the shops to get milk for my tea. Why? Because thousands of loyalist & their bands wanted to march past my door. They had been doing it for years, dressed in paramilitary uniform waving UVF and UDA flags, the same guys who were routinely murdering ppl from the area. It got too much for the residents of the lower Ormeau road when the bi-yearly march stopped outside a book makers 20m from my house were only weeks earlier 2 UDA gunmen walked in and shot 5 Innocent ppl. Five people, including 15-year-old schoolboy James Kennedy and 66-year-old pensioner Jack Duffin, were killed in the attack.  Hardly threatening targets. One of the guns which was used to fire 50 shots was a Browning 9mm pistol was given back to the UDA by the RUC's Special Branch, this gun was used in 6 more murders. More daming evidence that the Police who were supposed to be helping and protecting the people were conspiring with murders to basically murder inocent ppl. The loyalist band stopped outside the bookies shop and played their songs, the band members taking it in turns to spit in the front window of the shop, shout profanities and insults about how its good they are dead etc. After that the residents of the road said no more and for the next 5 years were dragged off the road and beaten by the RUC to let the same bands walk down the Road. Eventually the Parades commission banded the march from passing the bookies shop.

That above is one of many stories I have. Yes its from a republican side. But its incidents like this that strengths ppls resolve and should go to explain how the troubles self perpetuate. But everyone, on every side has similar stories. The IRA were bad, but so were the Loyalist paramilitaries who by the way killed ALOT MORE PPL THAT THE IRA ever did over the troubles. The IMC report says the IRA is out of business. That is them out of the way. Now its time for the loyalist paramilitaries to disarm as their reason for existence was to protect the protestant ppl from the IRA. Its interesting how they seam reluctant to do so, it goes to show that they had turned from Protestant protectors to protestant killers, pedaling drugs and misery to their own communities while murdering as many protestants as catholics, mainly over drugs and power. Its time to stop talking about the IRA, that chapter is gone. Its time to start talking about getting rid of the remaining guns and armed groups and then everyone can be on a level playing field.

Last edited by JahManRed (2006-10-14 04:28:08)

fadedsteve wrote:

I am curious as to why England still feels the need to control northern Ireland. . .

Those of you who have more knowledge on the subject, please enlighten the rest of us who arent too well versed. . .

In a nut shell simply because up until  the other day Protestants have refused to share power with Catholics, and the Catholics have refused to support the Police force which equals no devolved government for N.Ireland. They have yet to mention marching which I doubt has gone away as an Issue to prevent shared government.  As for the referendum on reunification? Protestants should take a look at all their new neighbours from Poland, Latvia etc..etc.. who have made their homes here now and come from former occupied countries, how do you think they would vote in a referendum? not to mention those from good Catholic countries like Portugal? yeah right you keep telling yourselves that you're the majority in N.Ireland, however this is the age of Eurocentric Neo-plantationalism baby, you're gonna be hoist by your own petard..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-10-14 07:21:38)

I remember when I was 8 years old, I was in London on vacation, and we went to Harrods.  I got a balloon from a clown in the toy section, and on our way out it popped.  Everyone in the hall froze, and one person kinda yelped.  Must've been pretty scary to live in England with the IRA doing all sorts of sh*t.

EricTViking wrote:

But the IRA didn't wage a mans war soldier vs soldier, they went after hiding bombs in busy high street shops during the christmas rush. They blew up pubs full of largely civilian people. They murdered a popular childrens TV presenter on his doorstep in front of his wife (McWhirter).

I'm not condoning the killing of innocent people but this raises the interesting question of what defines the boundary between freedom fighter and terrorist. Civilians fund the war, soldiers fight it. Would you object to the killing of govt. officials? They're civilians. The TV guy, who knows his deal. Maybe he was innocent, maybe his actions were contrary to the IRA's views.

You wouldn't call the US military a terrorist entity, would you? How many Iraqi civilians were killed? So the US doesn't openly support targeting civilians yet remeber the ICRC Feb. '04 Report? The Brits have killed innocent Irish, the IRA has killed innocent Brits. Using rules to make war "civilized" is like polishing a turd, it just looks a little better on the surface.

Long story short, being a civilian doesn't automatically make one innocent.

BN wrote:

Pug wrote:

I do not know much, so don't shoot me for asking - but wasn't there some car bombs in London?  Was that IRA or someone else?

really??? Then who set off that bomb on the hammersmith bridge that almost blew my head off??

Let me rephrase - I know nothing about the IRA.  And I know that a small group doesn't represent the whole, and I also thought that everyone's at least kind of happy.  So its really a none question - I'm going back to work my cattle.

EricTViking wrote:

The IRA can be classified as terrorists as their actions were intended to cause nothing but terror.

Correction: some of the actions of the IRA constituted terrorism, some of their actions constituted freedom fighting. Also - to try and draw comparisons between the cause of Al Qaeda and the idealised purported cause of the 70s era Provisional IRA is somewhat laughable.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-14 18:35:15)

EricTViking wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

EricTViking wrote:

The IRA can be classified as terrorists as their actions were intended to cause nothing but terror.

Correction: some of the actions of the IRA constituted terrorism, some of their actions constituted freedom fighting. Also - to try and draw comparisons between the cause of Al Qaeda and the idealised purported cause of the 70s era Provisional IRA is somewhat laughable.

A murderer need commit only a single murder to be branded a murderer.
Why not compare Al-queda and the IRA? They are both organisations that have carried out acts of terror, and what we are discussing in this thread is the labeling given to organisations that carry out acts of terror.
Are you honestly going to say that the IRA that carried out the bomb attacks mentioned previously was not a terrorist organisation?

That is why the IRA were terrorists - because they committed several acts of terror. My gripe was that you seem to believe, through your use of the words 'nothing but', that terror for terror's sake was all that the IRA wished to achieve, which is incorrect. Yes you can compare the IRA to Al Qaeda certainly. To draw comparisons between the two radically diverse ideals/causes (rather than the organisations themselves) in order to paint a particular erroneous picture in the mind of another is deserving of critical comment however.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-14 19:27:46)

EricTViking wrote:

Since you're from the states, would you say it was fair to call the Al-queda world trade center bombers "freedom fighters"?

From their p.o.v., yes. From ours, no. Thin about it, why would anyone anyone who got slapped in the face brush it off like "man I had it coming to me". Of course they're terrorists but you must also realize this is coming from my perspective. One perspective does not equal a constant.

EricTViking wrote:

War is all about using rules, what about the Geneva convention? What about people that are punished for war crimes?

As the old saying goes, "the winners write history." Look who recieved punishment for Abu Ghraib. A handful of enlisted got jail time while a one star got busted down to full bird. You think the interrogators/chain of command are going to feel any wrath? No. You think the liars who duped the American public into going along with their agenda will face punishment? No. The decision makers will see no time. The Geneva Convention is a fucking joke when Bush won't even state his definition of torture (in regards to Gitmo/secret prisons).

EricTViking wrote:

To use your example, the US military follow rules of engagement - they do not bomb civilian targets deliberately. They are not terrorists as their aim is not terror. Al-queda deliberately bomb civilian targets - they are terrorists as their aim is simply to terrorise. The IRA can be classified as terrorists as their actions were intended to cause nothing but terror.

Deliberatley, bad intel, when a school is bombed is their a fucking difference? Believe me this shit happens. Houses thought to be meeting places of "high value targets", kids shot who were mistaken for terrorists. It doesn't fucking matter if you set out to do so or if it just happens time and time again. I never stated 'such and such' follow 'such and such' procedures 100% of the time. I claimed the obvious difference in outright intention (between opposing parties) doesn't necessarily present  itself outright (blatently stating an intention versus "oops! my bad" moments).

I feel very fortunate to be an American. I think about the odds of my birth and the big "what ifs" I landed in a wasteland. Though, with the fuckedupness of our entry into the war (Iraq), I feel hesitant on making a blanket statement on this matter.

In regards to Al-Qaeda (9/11 attacks per se), my gut response is fuck 'em. Waste 'em all. But you have to remember that we funded a lot of these fucks in the Afghan/Soviet war. Plants germinating weeds. The innocent (us) are not so innocent...

MorbidFetus wrote:

EricTViking wrote:

Since you're from the states, would you say it was fair to call the Al-queda world trade center bombers "freedom fighters"?

From their p.o.v., yes. From ours, no. Thin about it, why would anyone anyone who got slapped in the face brush it off like "man I had it coming to me". Of course they're terrorists but you must also realize this is coming from my perspective. One perspective does not equal a constant.

EricTViking wrote:

War is all about using rules, what about the Geneva convention? What about people that are punished for war crimes?

As the old saying goes, "the winners write history." Look who recieved punishment for Abu Ghraib. A handful of enlisted got jail time while a one star got busted down to full bird. You think the interrogators/chain of command are going to feel any wrath? No. You think the liars who duped the American public into going along with their agenda will face punishment? No. The decision makers will see no time. The Geneva Convention is a fucking joke when Bush won't even state his definition of torture (in regards to Gitmo/secret prisons).

EricTViking wrote:

To use your example, the US military follow rules of engagement - they do not bomb civilian targets deliberately. They are not terrorists as their aim is not terror. Al-queda deliberately bomb civilian targets - they are terrorists as their aim is simply to terrorise. The IRA can be classified as terrorists as their actions were intended to cause nothing but terror.

Deliberatley, bad intel, when a school is bombed is their a fucking difference? Believe me this shit happens. Houses thought to be meeting places of "high value targets", kids shot who were mistaken for terrorists. It doesn't fucking matter if you set out to do so or if it just happens time and time again. I never stated 'such and such' follow 'such and such' procedures 100% of the time. I claimed the obvious difference in outright intention (between opposing parties) doesn't necessarily present  itself outright (blatently stating an intention versus "oops! my bad" moments).

I feel very fortunate to be an American. I think about the odds of my birth and the big "what ifs" I landed in a wasteland. Though, with the fuckedupness of our entry into the war (Iraq), I feel hesitant on making a blanket statement on this matter.

In regards to Al-Qaeda (9/11 attacks per se), my gut response is fuck 'em. Waste 'em all. But you have to remember that we funded a lot of these fucks in the Afghan/Soviet war. Plants germinating weeds. The innocent (us) are not so innocent...

So the IRA are not terrorists then?

ATG wrote:

The Iraqis fighting American forces are not terrorist. The Iraqis killing Iraqis are.

The IRA, imop, was engaged in a legitimate effort to shirk the yoke of tyranny, and unfortunatly the line between warfare and terrorism was occasionally blurred.

You've been watching too many Mel Gibson films.

JahManRed wrote:

EricTViking wrote:

To use your example, the US military follow rules of engagement - they do not bomb civilian targets deliberately. They are not terrorists as their aim is not terror.

The targeting of a CLEARLY marked mini bus/ambulance full of injured ppl including a British journalist by 3 tanks, is Terrorism IMO. I could go on..................

Good for you in reaching that conclusion!

Now feel free to discuss it in another thread so it isn't off topic.

usmarine2005 wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_eu/northern_ireland

"The IRA killed 1,775 people — including nearly 300 police officers — from 1970 to a 1997 cease-fire."

Would the IRA have been classified as terrorists, insurgents, or something else?

Seeing as how we are talking about classifying killers as "terrorists, insurgents, or something else?" And in the context of the modern blurred battlefield, I was answering the question by comparing another IMO terrorist organization the Bush Administration to the topic,  to try and debate as to were the IRA fits in this modern world or terror etc.  Not of topic at all. If you think the post is of topic Eric then ignore it.