Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

They fought and died for our freedom

188 posts in this topic

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.

IIRC, the biggest killer of Catholics during "The Troubles" was PIRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having stopped all three (Adam, McGuinness & Paisley) at a VCP during the 70's only one was abusive towards the soldiers and he was the Loyalist one, I was also there during the period when the PIRA attacked the OIRA and got a bloody nose.

As bad as the PIRA where they always gave a bomb warning where the Loyalists never.

They didn't always give adequate warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the biggest killer of Catholics during "The Troubles" was PIRA.

True. Still the loyalists were worse though because Paiseley was rude. Not that Paiseley was a loyalist, he was a hardline unionist that on occasion flirted with loyalism.

But in most cases the IRA targetted Protestants and unsurprisingly most of their civilian victims were Protestants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't always give adequate warnings.

Indeed not.

But they were polite so, y'know, you can forgive them the murder of several thousand people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Not that Paiseley was a loyalist, he was a hardline unionist that on occasion flirted with loyalism.

the difference being? In the context of Northern Ireland Loyalist and Unionist are the same thing. Your ignorance of the historical, political and religious background to the troubles is quite astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the difference being? In the context of Northern Ireland Loyalist and Unionist are the same thing. Your ignorance of the historical, political and religious background to the troubles is quite astounding.

No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.

Until you know the basic difference between the two groups then perhaps using the word "ignorance" is ill-advised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not usually deliberately. That generally comes under the heading of "war crimes".

would the RAF bomber offensive come under that?

the german flying bomb offensive unguided missiles sent into the heart of cities

the air offensive in Iraq after the first world war, devised by Churchill and Arthur Harris

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

The Tokyo Fire Raids

the strafing of refugees to create chaos amongst retreating armies by both sides in world war 2 and Korea

war isn't a game the idea of having rules is nonsensical

the idea is to win using whatwever means are considered necessary.

what is a civilian? Civilians are part of a country's was effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.

No its not like that at all. The terms 'Loyalist' and 'Unionist' are much more indistinct. To be a loyalist without being a unionist would be nonsensical. It is true that loyalism is a term used by paramilitaries from the protestant tradition but that is largely because of the psychology of swearing oaths and pledges of loyalty present in most military organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loyalists might be unionists by implication but unionists aren't loyalists.

Again republicans might be nationalists but nationalists aren't republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would the RAF bomber offensive come under that?

the german flying bomb offensive unguided missiles sent into the heart of cities

the air offensive in Iraq after the first world war, devised by Churchill and Arthur Harris

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

The Tokyo Fire Raids

the strafing of refugees to create chaos amongst retreating armies by both sides in world war 2 and Korea

war isn't a game the idea of having rules is nonsensical

the idea is to win using whatwever means are considered necessary.

what is a civilian? Civilians are part of a country's was effort.

Many of those things, including the RAF, would come under war crimes thse days and should have at the time.

However, blowing children (and fortunately the IRA bomb plot against a cub scout parade in Enniskillen was a failure) was okay because those kids might have grown up to be unionists then then this is monsterous.

It would be like me justifying killing random Asians on the grounds that they might support Al Qaeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of those things, including the RAF, would come under war crimes thse days and should have at the time.

However, blowing children (and fortunately the IRA bomb plot against a cub scout parade in Enniskillen was a failure) was okay because those kids might have grown up to be unionists then then this is monsterous.

It would be like me justifying killing random Asians on the grounds that they might support Al Qaeda.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they aren't that's like saying that nationalist and republican are the same.

Until you know the basic difference between the two groups then perhaps using the word "ignorance" is ill-advised.

absolute tripe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not like that at all. The terms 'Loyalist' and 'Unionist' are much more indistinct. To be a loyalist without being a unionist would be nonsensical. It is true that loyalism is a term used by paramilitaries from the protestant tradition but that is largely because of the psychology of swearing oaths and pledges of loyalty present in most military organisations.

It is difficult to define the two, or where the boundary lies, but Loyalism was more about loyalty to the Crown, whereas Unionism stressed the importance of the constitutional link with Great Britain. At certain times some loyalists proposed an independent Ulster, still with the Queen as head of state, but outside of the Union. Similarly, I do know someone from Ulster who would class himself as a unionist but his view is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be a republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An independent Ulster is what is known as the "Ulster third way". It's associated with unionists and the occasional nationalist as well. When I say "unionists" I mean that they were unionists up to the point when they started coming out with the 3rd way stuff and would probably still consider themselves British.

Loyalists might be loyal to the crown as you say but not to the state since they take up arms outside its authority. Unionists aren't always nice people but they prefer state power to violent militias; partly because they often come from the historically dominant Church of Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't always give adequate warnings.

Didn't they :wacko: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

53MCAMLSA3UCAFOF5EDCAXPF1QBCAZSGH81.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017