IRA Scum

Remove all ads!

Terroist scum, the IRA have announced they are giving up their violent campaign in favour of a peaceful aproach. That's good of them.
I bet they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the recent bombings and world outcry, and now they don't have America on their side.

Scum. I don't know why we keep releasing them, they should all have been hanged years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4720863.stm

Now we have to defeat Al Queda as we did the IRA, and we did defeat them, no question.

 

Not so sure if they will all lay down their weapons. Lately the IRA have been acting more like an organised crime organisation then like a terrorist group, and for robbing banks you still need guns. I also don't believe that when one man gives an order, the entire IRA falls in line. I'm not sure here, but i bet there's a whole bunch of big ego's within that organisation that all have agenda's of their own.

 

Yeah, I have to agree with Pac man on this one. I don't think anything will really change - it really seems like the various groups have shifted into being criminal organizations instead of political change seekers.

I was in Belfast a couple of week-ends ago and I was speaking to a couple of the locals. I was surprised to find out that a large part of the violence there over the last couple years has been between two seperate Protestant groups who have been fighting over their share of the drug trade.

 

Not to belittle the problem, but given the choice between terrorist activities and organized crime, isn't organized crime the lesser of the two evils? I mean, organized crime generally doesn't target random civilians - usually only people who have specific business deals with them.

 

it was never terrorism, the IRA were fighting a war against immeasurable odds and insurmountable force they used the only tactic available to them - guerilla warfare

 

Point-of-view, Shoshino. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Unfortunately, you are in the minority with the rest of the world -- the IRA has been considered a terrorist organisation for decades.

Guerrilla warfare is unacceptable in today's world. It is typically viewed as the coward's tactical choice.

 

Aldeth...organised crime includes robbing banks and whatnot, prostitution, drugs, assasinations, and kidnapping. Personally i wouldn't know what's worse, the occasional bombing, or the constant presence of crimelords who'll do just about anything for a quick buck.

 

... Of course the IRA are terrorists, [snip].

They go around blowing stuff up in the name of religion or whatever else. it surely can't be to give all Ireland Irish rule...

[Warning pending.] -Tal

[ July 29, 2005, 01:51: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Guerrilla warfare is unacceptable in today's world. It is typically viewed as the coward's tactical choice.

At least by those who employ stealth bombers and cruise missiles.
I'm amazed how this crap can be repeated so often, sure propaganda has it's place, but if it so transparant it should hardly fortify the will to combat the "terrorists"

 

Arawn, who were the targets of the bombs and missiles? Sorry, but I DO see a difference in targeting an enemy (be it terrorist or military) and targeting the civilian population (including/especially women and children). It is truly sad that so many do not see that difference.

 

T2Bruno, I agree that targeting civilians is cowardly no matter who does it but there is still a place for Guerrilla warfare against military targets. Assuming that it is necessary to fight. With stealth bomber and cruise missiles war gets so impersonal that we will forget that human beings are being killed.

 

T2Bruno, that's a complety different point. You label those who attack their enemies while sacrificing their own lives cowards. Which tacitly, I presume, means that those who has an overwhelming military technical superiority are brave. I find this simply laughable.

I'm sure the US would prefer the insurgents to stand shoulder to shoulder so that marines can valiantly clusterbomb them, but then it wouldn't be much of a war would it?

And concerning your last post, You do realize that the "terrorists" has only killed a fraction of the civilians that is on the conscience of US armed forces? Those death's were deliberate, A price that America was willing to pay to reach it's objectives.

So to recapitulate: American's killing muslims where the latter cannot fight back are brave.
Americans killing civilians are not terrorist, they are inflicting "collateral damage"


A rose by a different name may smell as sweet and that.

 

Scuds and stealth bombers target civilian targets as often as not. They target what the politicians and generals think will help reach the objective. Do not delude yourself into thinking morals come in to it.

I have also always found it hysterically funny that someone can view lunatics who blow themselves up and fight a force a thousand times stronger are viewed as the cowards while the ones that kill from a thousand feet up or hundreds of miles away are viewed as brave, couragous and honorable warriors.

 

I tried to avoid posting in here, but...

Its now up the the US to accept responsibility for arming such terror groups here (thus aiding in killing civillians), instead of taking credit for the IRA disbanding (as recent news reports on the BBC show). Look at al-Qaeda.

Britian is also wrong for giving early release to IRA prisoners, expecially when they can new lock up Muslims for 3 months without trial... Can you imagine the dread local Catholics have when being announced that scum like that are being sent back to their neighbourhoods?

Though I hate the IRA (actually all terrorist groups), I can say that they have never raped women or children, unlike civillians under US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

Barmy's original post in this thread is sadly a confirmation of the often quoted line to the effect that, "Britain needs to learn more about Irish history and Irelands needs to forget some of it."

Characterising the IRA as simply 'scum' is a cop out
from having to deal with the fact that everyone in N.Ireland has blood on their hands, British army, Loyalists, Republicans, anyone we choose to name. The appeal to emotive ,'hang em all' type thinking is not productive with regards to N.Ireland , it also ignores the complexity of the situation and the root reasons why the organisation that is the IRA exsists. The IRA (as it exsists now at least) and it's various offshoots are in many ways an outgrowth of the exsistence of what was in effect an apartheid state formed on institutionalised sectarianism and errected illegally against the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland in 1921. If you go further back the IRA and the 'physical force' tradition in Ireland are a reaction against what was seen to be the failure of political parties like John Redmond's or Parnell's to secure Home Rule by legitimate political measures. The general line of thinking (with some truth behind it to it must be said) was that Britain never kept to any agreements it made and kept trying to slip free of them.

Of course, that paragraph above is a simplfiied view of why the organisation came into being and if it would not bore people silly we could trace it's distants roots back to the time of the French revolutionary period and the effect that had in Ireland etc.

Also, one reason why the IRA is not overwhelmingly rejected by nationalist in N.Ireland and why they are ambigous about it is that in the event of a repeat of events like the mass burnings and refugee situation of 1969 they feel it might very well provide the last level of defence available to them. Many of the people there can remember when 30,000 or so people were displaced from their homes and had to leave the area, many ending up in camps set up in the Republic by the Irish Defence forces to try and house them*.

The IRA are a complex organisation that have at times represented both that which is worst and best in Ireland. Any solution to the ongoing running sore that is N.Ireland has to be arrived at with dialogue and input from ALL parties. Any solution or process that excludes them will only end up with an inevitable return to the Troubles at their height.

* A situation that nearly led to Britain and Ireland going to war again, which considering the inherent mismatch in that scenario would have hideous consequences for all concerned.

 

Nakia, you are, of course, correct. I was looking at too narrow a viewpoint for guerrilla warfare.

Along a similar line: Arawn; I actually consider those fighters who target the military quite brave. Bin Laden took on the Russian army for years -- that's courage. I certainly do not think the men and women who attack the American and Iraqi forces are cowards -- they are attacking their enemy and doing so valiantly (I don't agree with their beliefs, that is not the issue here). I include the bombers attacking the military checkpoints and snipers targeting soldiers in this (again, I don't agree with them, but I'm biased).

Those groups who use suicide bombers to attack civilian populations ARE cowards. Those groups who kidnap civilians and behead them ARE cowards.

And joacqin, you are wrong. Flat and simple. The military may make mistakes and bombs may miss their intended targets, the intel on a specific target may be incorrect, but intentionally targeting civilians is not done (at least by the US). When you consider the sheer number of bombs and missiles that hit, the percentage that hit civilian targets is quite low (a few out of thousands).

 

This is but

Do you remember the TV tower and the chinese empassy in Belgrade? The TV tower was bombed intentionally and, as far as the chinese embassy is concerned, I simply cannot accept that an organization like the US army didn't know that their target was the embassy of a foreign country.

 

Sorry, but I know many pilots. It is easy for me to believe that they could hit the wrong target. For example, the idiots flying low in Italy who cut the cable.

Most pilots are extremely professional, but some are a little detached and prone to make mistakes. Usually, these careless or skittish pilots are taken care of by the system and either booted out or they simply kill themselves with a mistake.

 

I think that you are not familiar with these two incidents, they have nothing to do with pilots hiting the wrong target. TV tower was bombed in order to stop broadcasting and General Clark has said that the chinese embassy was bombed by mistake because CIA gave to airforce old maps and they thought that this building was housing services of the serb regime (and that is exactly what I can't accept).

 

I am not going to spend three hours digging up links and sources that most likely would just be dismissed out of hand. In my mind however there is no doubt that the US military like any other military is ruled by pragmatism and if the objectives will be reached by bombing a day care center then that is what they will do, period.

Especially during the 80's the US and US trained and sponsored units went on a rampage in south and middle America openly attacking civilians with the objective of breaking peoples reluctance to be ruled by fascistic dictators who in return for US support let American corporations do whatever they pleased in their countries.

There is no such thing as a "moral" and "good" country when it comes to politics. They do what is in their best interest, whatever that might be. That is true for all countries. The main reason people get a bit annoyed by the US is that they actually manage to convince both large parts of their own populace, a big chunk of the world and even factions of their own government that what they do they do for the greater good of all man and that they are a shining beacon of freedom, justice and general goodness.

I mean, the Russians and the Chinese have/had the same rhetorics when they went in both here and there but no really took them seriously when they claimed to liberate people X or hunt down vile viscious terrorists Y. They went through the motions but no one paid that any mind, especially not the Chinese or Russians themselves. It was generally viewed for what it was, actions taken out of selfinterest with no heed at all paid to the fact that a few hundred thousand innocents might get killed in the meanwhile. Same with the French in Algeria and in quite a few other places, heck, the French spent a decade more or less comitting genocide in Algeria and their attempts at making it into actions done out of the goodness of their hearts was probably not believed.

So why is it that the US is so different? What makes it different than any other political entity to have ever existed on this planet?

This is most likely widely off-topic but to me there exists no moral high ground in armed conflicts. To me there is no difference between someone who blows up a schoolbus with homemade explosives or someone who blows up a squadron of tanks from a stealth bomber. It is all done for the same reason and with just as little respect for "morality" and the lives of innocents. The two parts are fully interchangable.