08 Jul 20
The Brits lied about the facts on Bloody Sunday (the unit commander was giving a commendation by the Queen) before finally in 2010:
"British paratroopers on that day had no reason to believe they were under threat from the victims, gave no warnings before firing, and lied to the far-reaching official inquiry into the seminal event, the inquiry concluded."
https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/15/uk.bloody.sunday.inquiry/index.html
08 Jul 20
@kevcvs57 saidhttps://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/collusion/index.html
Links surely you have links proving that British soldiers attacked targets in the Republic of Ireland.
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.
However, you can easily google the De Silva report or collusion between Ulster paramilitary and UK.
You’ll find the links.
08 Jul 20
I believe I have presented a preliminary case for the proposition that:
"the IRA campaign was a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the UK and its Loyalist supporters against a peaceful civil rights campaign."
I await evidence for a contrary conclusion.
08 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidI think one route of argumentation that sheds light on the matter is the question: why didn’t Glasgow go down the same road as Belfast?
I believe I have presented a preliminary case for the proposition that:
"the IRA campaign was a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the UK and its Loyalist supporters against a peaceful civil rights campaign."
I await evidence for a contrary conclusion.
The basic answer, I have no time to go into details, is that the unions managed to keep the majority of workfloors mixed. This failed in Northern Ireland.
This failing enlarged a workplace and economic divide between the Catholic and protestant communities.
“If you don’t work for less wages, we’ll have to allow catholics in to take your jobs.”
An exaggeration, but the sentiment is what I’m driving at.
Less jobs and lower wages for Catholics, combined with the ever present menace of protestant jobs being given to Catholics fueled resentment in both camps.
This, combined with the British intimidation of the Catholic population, created friction in a situation which was already stooped in centuries of oppression.
08 Jul 20
@athousandyoung saidKnee-capping to keep a community in line.
I haven't seen any specific examples of the IRA doing terrorist things in this thread.
08 Jul 20
@athousandyoung saidYeah. Right.
Specific pls when where who
Like I have time to look into details of that kind.
But if you really want to dive into the depths... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary_punishment_attacks_in_Northern_Ireland
Scroll to references and knock yourself out.
08 Jul 20
@shavixmir saidThat is a losing position in a debate.
Yeah. Right.
Like I have time to look into details of that kind.
But if you really want to dive into the depths... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary_punishment_attacks_in_Northern_Ireland
Scroll to references and knock yourself out.
08 Jul 20
1 edit
@no1marauder said“ the IRA campaign was a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the UK and its Loyalist supporters against a peaceful civil rights campaign."
I believe I have presented a preliminary case for the proposition that:
"the IRA campaign was a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the UK and its Loyalist supporters against a peaceful civil rights campaign."
I await evidence for a contrary conclusion.
Not by a country mile! You might like to think that giving a list of a states crimes and misdemeanours excuses terrorism and I’m not sure anyone would disagree but what of your claim that you would prove that PIRA was not a terrorist organisation. Why do you keep calling it the IRA when you must know that’s incorrect? They adopted the prefix ‘Provisional’ because of the schism that developed between them and the Official IRA which did not sanction or support their terrorist campaign in the North.
Your earlier claim of lineage between the IRA that fought the British State during and after the Dublin uprising and PIRA that conducted a classic terrorist campaign ( before Bloody Sunday ) in the North with little success or support from the Catholic / Republican community there was and is bogus.
Bloody Sunday apart from being an atrocity was a classic own goal by the British Security forces in that it acted as a recruiting Sargent for PIRA and other republican terrorist groups like the INLA in much the same way as the US / Western invasion of Iraq and years of support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians was a boon to terrorist groups emanating from the Middle East.
If we apply your grievance based logic then the term terrorism is meaningless. As I mentioned earlier, by your logic ISIS and Al-Qaeda are not terrorist organisations but soldiers waging “ a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the” West led by the US and it’s murderous puppet regime allies in the Middle East.
Terrorism is defined as
“ the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
I’m sure there are other definitions from other sources but they will not stray to far from this.
Terrorists are defined by their strategies and actions and (arguably unfairly) whether or not they have the legal backing of a recognised lawful government.
If your arguing that the concept of terrorism is null and void then that’s not the same as singling out PIRA and removing them from the list of terrorist organisations based on the above definition.
08 Jul 20
@kevcvs57 saidFirst post, page 6:
“ the IRA campaign was a legitimate war of self-defense and liberation triggered by a brutal and murderous campaign by the UK and its Loyalist supporters against a peaceful civil rights campaign."
Not by a country mile! You might like to think that giving a list of a states crimes and misdemeanours excuses terrorism and I’m not sure anyone would disagree but what of your cl ...[text shortened]... g out PIRA and removing them from the list of terrorist organisations based on the above definition.
"What definition of "terrorist" are you using?
I prefer the one where the group so designated actually targets civilians with intent to kill them. AQ was such a group; OBL specifically declared that he believed civilians in "Crusader" nations were legitimate targets of war."
08 Jul 20
@athousandyoung saidEveryone knows about kneecapping.
That is a losing position in a debate.
In a debate you don’t have to explain every axioma.
08 Jul 20
@no1marauder saidWhy don’t you pick a definition and see if you can extract PIRA from it
First post, page 6:
"What definition of "terrorist" are you using?
I prefer the one where the group so designated actually targets civilians with intent to kill them. AQ was such a group; OBL specifically declared that he believed civilians in "Crusader" nations were legitimate targets of war."
If you bomb a pub you are targeting civilians by definition, if you bomb a high street you are targeting civilians by definition if you bomb a barracks you are targeting the civilian family members and workers in that barrack by definition.
The fact that PIRA and their apologists claim that they were not targeting civilians is meaningless when stacked up against the fact that killed civilians in operations that were bound to kill civilians and the idea that PIRA were not targeting civilians as part of their campaign to force the Brits to the table is disingenuous to say the least.
08 Jul 20
@shavixmir saidwikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Everyone knows about kneecapping.
In a debate you don’t have to explain every axioma.