07 Jul 20
@shavixmir saidYeah it was Al-Qaeda I was referring to in regard to 911 and the predominantly Saudi perpetrators whose main aim was to get Western / US military forces out of Saudi in particular and Muslim lands in general.
The difference is that ISIS is invading countries and laying down a law according to religious beliefs... and the IRA was not...?
Just thinking out loud here...
But we’re actually debating wether PIRA was a terrorist organisation regardless of whether, like me, you agree with a Unified Ireland under an Irish government based in Dublin. You also have to wonder if glorifying the armed terrorist groups of either persuasion that operated during the Troubles is the best way to achieve that, or whether it might become a drag on efforts to bring the two communities together.
As for the ISIS thing, no matter how disgusting their politics and actions I’m sure they would argue that they are trying to reconstitute a Caliphate that was partly destroyed by invading infidels looking to grab land and resources etc.
07 Jul 20
@kevcvs57
And on that front, if ISIS would be satisfied by just ruining their countries with Califate BS and Shira law, I would say let them have it if they give up the idea of destroying the US and Israel and Iran stopping the work on nukes.
You are right the Brits and others came in and just took over because they could, and got the oil lands.
Maybe in a thousand years ISIS would calm down and become civilized.
And the oil thing would probably not even be that big a deal now that we are on the way to electrifying and using solar and safer nuclear supply and hydrogen power with advanced converters and such, we could give up the oil from the middle east and do it ourselves, wave, wind, solar and nuke could do all our energy needs for the next thousand years if they do it right. Hydrogen powered jets for instance.
07 Jul 20
1 edit
@sonhouse saidLol I wouldn’t want to be seen as an ISIS sympathiser there are much better ways for the Middle East to unite peacefully and I’m sure without the option of divide and conquer the west would simply leave and most westerners would celebrate.
@kevcvs57
And on that front, if ISIS would be satisfied by just ruining their countries with Califate BS and Shira law, I would say let them have it if they give up the idea of destroying the US and Israel and Iran stopping the work on nukes.
You are right the Brits and others came in and just took over because they could, and got the oil lands.
Maybe in a thousand y ...[text shortened]... r energy needs for the next thousand years if they do it right. Hydrogen powered jets for instance.
When you mix any kind of political or military struggle with sectarian grudges it becomes a very toxic and intractable issue given how tribal people can be about their national and religious identities.
07 Jul 20
@kevcvs57 saidI would say that Al Qaeda’s tactics were, indeed, more reaction than instigation.
Yeah it was Al-Qaeda I was referring to in regard to 911 and the predominantly Saudi perpetrators whose main aim was to get Western / US military forces out of Saudi in particular and Muslim lands in general.
But we’re actually debating wether PIRA was a terrorist organisation regardless of whether, like me, you agree with a Unified Ireland under an Irish government based i ...[text shortened]... e a Caliphate that was partly destroyed by invading infidels looking to grab land and resources etc.
And I would say the same is true for the IRA.
“Terrorist” is really nothibg more than a label. The English called George Washington a terrorist and Hitler called the Dutch and French resistence terrorists.
I think the actual point that you should discuss is if the IRA’s tactics were justified within the context of the situation.
That’s much clearer and refrains from using political laden phrases like freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists and soldiers.
07 Jul 20
@kevcvs57 saidWow; I didn't think the most ardent and strident Brit apologist would adopt such a ridiculous position. My time is limited until later tonight, but the idea that the British supported murder gangs were some belated reaction to the PIRA is historically laughable. And as have shown, their targets were overwhelmingly civilian, unlike the IRA.
Stop lying about the loyalist terrorists being allies of the British Army they were a direct response to PIRA’s decision to turn a righteous protest campaign against anti catholic policies and practices by the then still powerful Protestant hegemony in the six counties into an armed conflict against the British State and loyalist population in general. A conflict that was pe ...[text shortened]... ic civilians.
In short your figures are based on a lie of your own making and therefor meaningless.
I'll get back to this later, but the extensive links and cooperation between the Loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC and other security forces is a matter of accepted historical fact.
07 Jul 20
@shavixmir saidThe whole point of using such labels are to avoid such discussions.
I would say that Al Qaeda’s tactics were, indeed, more reaction than instigation.
And I would say the same is true for the IRA.
“Terrorist” is really nothibg more than a label. The English called George Washington a terrorist and Hitler called the Dutch and French resistence terrorists.
I think the actual point that you should discuss is if the IRA’s tactics were jus ...[text shortened]... rains from using political laden phrases like freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists and soldiers.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
07 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidTo No1 ....I wonder if you could answer this question I posed earlier? Thanks
Interesting. Could you split the 1034 between us (British security forces) and Loyalist Paramilitaries?
of course you can, but we both know why you chose not to
I see you are attempting to 'join' the 2 together in your discussion with another poster.
Could you just clarify ....are you claiming that every civilian death perpetrated by the loyalist paramilitaries was done so with the full knowledge and co operation of the British security forces?
07 Jul 20
1 edit
@blood-on-the-tracks saidAre you claiming the British government didn’t sanction or have first hand, early, knowledge of any Loyalist paramilitary attacks?
To No1 ....I wonder if you could answer this question I posed earlier? Thanks
I see you are attempting to 'join' the 2 together in your discussion with another poster.
Could you just clarify ....are you claiming that every civilian death perpetrated by the loyalist paramilitaries was done so with the full knowledge and co operation of the British security forces?
I would suggest reading the De Silva report.
It came out in the 80’s (I think, perhaps very early 90’s?). It made clear connections between the security forces, the army, loyalists and attacks.
I believe the report concluded that something like 80% of loyalist attacks were known before hand by the security forces, with the security forces even supplying information, etc.
Or maybe the Glenanne group. They murdered civilians in the Republic of Ireland and consisted of loyalists and members of the British army.
Don’t for a second think that the protestants, the army or the British government were innocent or not involved up to their teeth in the violence.
Even if you argue against IRA tactics (which I find a totally acceptable position), you can’t claim that what the IRA did was inherently worse than what the loyalists and British were doing.
07 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidSurely then as a long standing PIRA apologist it shouldn’t be a problem refuting my timeline.
Wow; I didn't think the most ardent and strident Brit apologist would adopt such a ridiculous position. My time is limited until later tonight, but the idea that the British supported murder gangs were some belated reaction to the PIRA is historically laughable. And as have shown, their targets were overwhelmingly civilian, unlike the IRA.
I'll get back to this later, ...[text shortened]... yalist paramilitaries and the RUC and other security forces is a matter of accepted historical fact.
Oh backtracking to the RUC ahh I see because before you seemed to suggest some kind joint operation between the British mainland security forces giving the impression that the British forces were prone to joint operations with groups like the UVF. I’m sure if you could find some collusion between the RUC and certain loyalist terror groups on account of PIRA having a habit of shooting RUC officers on their doorstep and planting bombs under their cars.
But anyway it’s irrelevant because your magic trick is meant to be convincing everyone that PIRA were not a terrorist organisation not that terrorism is justified. You could change your mind and argue that if you like, it’s a much easier argument to make.
07 Jul 20
@blood-on-the-tracks saidThe numbers are in the link I provided.
To No1 ....I wonder if you could answer this question I posed earlier? Thanks
I see you are attempting to 'join' the 2 together in your discussion with another poster.
Could you just clarify ....are you claiming that every civilian death perpetrated by the loyalist paramilitaries was done so with the full knowledge and co operation of the British security forces?
07 Jul 20
@shavixmir saidLinks surely you have links proving that British soldiers attacked targets in the Republic of Ireland.
Are you claiming the British government didn’t sanction or have first hand, early, knowledge of any Loyalist paramilitary attacks?
I would suggest reading the De Silva report.
It came out in the 80’s (I think, perhaps very early 90’s?). It made clear connections between the security forces, the army, loyalists and attacks.
I believe the report concluded that somethin ...[text shortened]... n’t claim that what the IRA did was inherently worse than what the loyalists and British were doing.
Why is it relevant whether or how the British military killed members of Republican terror groups. How does that make PIRA not a terrorist group?
No ones claiming sainthood for British military / security machine they would have been operating covert ops inside loyalist and Republican terror groups.
07 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidBut you’ve twisted the numbers by lumping the British Army tally in with the tally of mad dog loyalist terror groups rendering your numbers a fabricated caricature of the original data.
The numbers are in the link I provided.
The data is quite clear for all to see British Army 9% split between active terrorist targets and civilians.
Your Boston barroom propaganda does not outrank the data.
Why are you even arguing this when your supposed to be proving that PIRA was not a terrorist organisation?
07 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidIt isn't "either/or". Both.
The figures show that about 80% of those killed by Loyalist Paramilitaries and over half those killed by British Security forces were civilians. The figure for the Nationalist Forces is about 1/3.
Again, who was the "terrorists"?
07 Jul 20
@kevcvs57 saidOver half of those killed by British security forces were civilians.
But you’ve twisted the numbers by lumping the British Army tally in with the tally of mad dog loyalist terror groups rendering your numbers a fabricated caricature of the original data.
The data is quite clear for all to see British Army 9% split between active terrorist targets and civilians.
Your Boston barroom propaganda does not outrank the data.
Why are you even arguing this when your supposed to be proving that PIRA was not a terrorist organisation?
True or false?