187 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that was justifiable, and bloody sunday either come to that.


I find the concept of 'war crimes' odd.

for example the RAF bombed germany cities and their population in the belief that it would help win the war: whether that strategy was the correct one-and there's plenty of evidence and argument to show that it wouldn't is besid the point.

My thoughts relate to the reasoninbg behind an act: for instance thr rape of Nanking. There was no military objective there-the victory had been won, the same with the mass rape of german civilians by thr soviet army, the bengal famine.

The Bengal famine was caused by the Japanese invading Burma and cutting off the rice supply to India.

My your argument it's okay to kill civilians indiscriminantly just as long as there is a political motive. That would make any number of attrocities perfectly okay.

[Marauder]

They didn't always give adequate warnings.

Didn't they PIRA's first contact was with the local newspaper office, if the newspapers failed to pass the info on in time do you think that they would openly state this fact.

[Northern Sol]

So it's the newspapers fault that people died and nothing to do with the bomb?

[Phil]

Well that was convincing.

unlike most of the cobblers you're coming out with. My parents are Irish and I have many relatives there. I've spent many a summer holiday in Derry but I daresay I know nowt about it

[Northern Sol]

Then you should be able to make a coherent point.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The Bengal famine was caused by the Japanese invading Burma and cutting off the rice supply to India.

My your argument it's okay to kill civilians indiscriminantly just as long as there is a political motive. That would make any number of attrocities perfectly okay.

the uk government could have alleviated the famine but chose not to.

nothing is 'ok' war is an atrocity

[Phil]

Then you should be able to make a coherent point.

oh for ######s sake!!! I have done, Back up some of your claims or don't contribute eh?

[Marauder]

So it's the newspapers fault that people died and nothing to do with the bomb?

The point I made was PIRA gave a warning and the Loyalists never, your argument then was they never always gave a warning and my argument is the local newspapers always got given (In code) a warning, the only time a warning would not be given is if the target was the Security Forces.

Even on bloody friday (22 bombs, 1972) warnings had been given to the local press.



One of two bomb attempts on my life in 1977, the warning,for this one at Donegal Pass police station was the hijacked tankers driver, luckily he bottled it at the first sleeping policeman.

Edited by Marauder, 20 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Northern Sol]

the uk government could have alleviated the famine but chose not to.

There was a war going on at the time.

nothing is 'ok' war is an atrocity

There are degrees of "not OK".

The Falklands wasn't okay but it was cleaner than most conflicts; few civilians died.

Northern Ireland was a low-level conflict with relatively low casualties considering it went on for 30 years but it was far from being clean.

WW2 was about as bad as it gets.

Saying "war is an attrocity" equalises the situations when they aren't equal.

[Northern Sol]

The point I made was PIRA gave a warning and the Loyalists never, your argument then was they never always gave a warning and my argument is the local newspapers always got given (In code) a warning, the only time a warning would not be given is if the target was the Security Forces.

Even on bloody friday (22 bombs, 1972) warnings had been given to the local press.

The IRA never gave warnings when they shot people. Civilians at that

Edited by Northern Sol, 20 November 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Northern Sol]

oh for ######s sake!!! I have done, Back up some of your claims or don't contribute eh?

What would constitute a back-up that Paiseley is a hard-line unionist not a loyalist?

[Phil]

What would constitute a back-up that Paiseley is a hard-line unionist not a loyalist?

They're the same thing as I and others have repeatedly stated. Now back up your claim that they're different. Sources would also be an advantage but you've just stated you wouldn't know what they are.

[Northern Sol]

No, I'm saying that you wouldn't accept them because you have already made your mind up.

So I'll ask again, what source would you accept?

Edited by Northern Sol, 20 November 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

There was a war going on at the time.



There are degrees of "not OK".

The Falklands wasn't okay but it was cleaner than most conflicts; few civilians died.

Northern Ireland was a low-level conflict with relatively low casualties considering it went on for 30 years but it was far from being clean.

WW2 was about as bad as it gets.

Saying "war is an attrocity" equalises the situations when they aren't equal.

the falklands wasn't a 'war' the UK didn't attack the Argentine mainland. It was a limited operation to recover territory.
which countries were involved in Northern Ireland? Only one-it was an internicene conflict

'clean' isn't an adjective I'd use for either of them or for any armed conflict. It is impossible to 'equalise' armed conflict since circumstances are unique to each.

[Northern Sol]

the falklands wasn't a 'war' the UK didn't attack the Argentine mainland. It was a limited operation to recover territory.
which countries were involved in Northern Ireland? Only one-it was an internicene conflict

'clean' isn't an adjective I'd use for either of them or for any armed conflict. It is impossible to 'equalise' armed conflict since circumstances are unique to each.

Of course it was a war, we may not have attacked the mainland (unproven because there are all kinds of rumours of SAS activity) but that just makes it a contained war.

I agree that Northern Ireland was not a war, neither the IRA nor the loyalists made any effort to follow the Geneva Convention.

[Northern Sol]

And Phil seems to have conveniently disappeared.

[Phil]

And Phil seems to have conveniently disappeared.

I'm ignoring you

[Northern Sol]

http://pubs.socialis...sr236/stack.htm

From the Socialist Review.

Let's see him diss that.

[Northern Sol]

I'm ignoring you

Oh no and I thought we had the makings of a friendship.

[Marauder]

The IRA never gave warnings when they shot people. Civilians at that

We are talking bombs not shootings.

• The UVF’s 1966 shooting of four Catholics, one fatally, outside a Belfast pub. This attack was the first major act of sectarian violence since Ireland was divided, and it spurred Catholic activism, which soon turned violent.
• The UVF’s 1969 bombing of a power station near Belfast. Initially attributed to the IRA, this attack also helped trigger the Troubles.
• The UVF’s 1971 bombing of a Belfastpub, which killed fifteen people.
• A pair of UVF bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, both in the Republic of Ireland, on May 17, 1974, that killed thirty-three civilians, making this day the deadliest of the conflict.
• Not bad for starters