The "Troubles" Debate Thread

@no1marauder said
If you bomb a pub known to be primarily frequented by soldiers, you are not targeting civilians. Some civilians may get killed, but they were not targets. It's cold blooded perhaps but every military accepts the idea of "collateral damage"; by your definition every army in every war has been "terrorists".

Is that such a hard concept to understand?

@athousandyoung said
What is the relevance of that list to your argument?

@kevcvs57 said
Of course your targeting civilians along with the bar staff, your being utterly ridiculous.
If you wanted to call yourself a soldier and not a terrorist you would target enemy soldiers in a combat scenario not plant a bomb in pub clearly frequented by civilians and skulk back into the shadows.
You clearly have no real argument here. If it walks like a duck etc.

@no1marauder said
If you bomb a pub known to be primarily frequented by soldiers, you are not targeting civilians. Some civilians may get killed, but they were not targets. It's cold blooded perhaps but every military accepts the idea of "collateral damage"; by your definition every army in every war has been "terrorists".

Is that such a hard concept to understand?

What you cannot seem to grasp is that they weren’t a “military’ they were a para military organisation that targeted civilians along with military. They were conducting a war of terror against the British State actively killing and maiming civilians and enforcing their own brand of justice on their own communities without legal representation for the accused.
If there is such a thing as a terrorist then PIRA were among their ranks as much as the INLA and the UVF.
They represented no lawful government and if you think all they have to do to absolve themselves is to falsely claim that civilians stupid enough to frequent shops and pubs were collateral damage then you are about as wrong as it gets.

@kevcvs57 said
What you cannot seem to grasp is that they weren’t a “military’ they were a para military organisation that targeted civilians along with military. They were conducting a war of terror against the British State actively killing and maiming civilians and enforcing their own brand of justice on their own communities without legal representation for the accused.
If there is su ...[text shortened]... pid enough to frequent shops and pubs were collateral damage then you are about as wrong as it gets.

@no1marauder said
No, it is your argument that is ridiculous. If the RAF bombed the Headquarters of the 1st SS , it would not be "terrorists" because it killed some civilian janitors or clerks there.

Similarly, if the Maquis saw a large group of German soldiers in a cafe, they could attack them under the rules of war even if it was possible or even likely some civilians would be killed. ...[text shortened]... IRA did not have to muster up in a field so British tanks, planes and artillery could massacre them.

@shavixmir said
Do you reckon regular soldiers can be terrorists?

@kevcvs57 said
Legally and by definition no they cannot, but they can be war criminals and tried as such, which they often are, although clearly not often enough. Same with the politicos who ultimately command them.

@shavixmir said
Okay, so now forget labels.

A group of armed men are committing violent crimes.
If you protest, you get shot. What do you do?

And that’s the only way to look at these kinds of situations. Oppressor is a label given by victims, terrorist is a label given by rulers.

So the question is not whether the British army, the loyalists or the IRA were terrorist or oppressors or whatever, but were their actions justifiable within the context of what was happening.

@kevcvs57 said
Of course your targeting civilians along with the bar staff, your being utterly ridiculous.
If you wanted to call yourself a soldier and not a terrorist you would target enemy soldiers in a combat scenario not plant a bomb in pub clearly frequented by civilians and skulk back into the shadows

@blood-on-the-tracks said
Well said, Kev

A brave band, this IRA

I wonder if the brave soldier who planted a bomb in a waste bin in Warrington , presumably at 4am (wouldn't want to run into any nasty policeman) received the IRA equivalent of the VC. What a hero

Ps...thought your 'Robin Hood and His Merry Men' was excellent

@no1marauder said
Ever handle any explosives, BOTT?

Do you really think you have any qualifications to judge the personal bravery of average men who, outnumbered, faced one of the best trained and equipped armies in the world?

I doubt it.

@kevcvs57 said
What you cannot seem to grasp is that they weren’t a “military’ they were a para military organisation that targeted civilians along with military. They were conducting a war of terror against the British State actively killing and maiming civilians and enforcing their own brand of justice on their own communities without legal representation for the accused.
If there is su ...[text shortened]... pid enough to frequent shops and pubs were collateral damage then you are about as wrong as it gets.

@no1marauder said
Having shown the IRA's war was justified and that they did not deliberately target civilians, I await something other than screeching from you or BOTT. I really thought there would be some attempt at rational refutation of my position, but I've yet to see it.