Political Crossfire Forums

[red dragon]

De Bhaldraithe wrote: Tell it to the parents of Jack Duddy.

I wonder how long we could go on naming victims here. I also wonder how much good it would do. I wonder who would run out of victims' names first.


You started it, I'll finish it. Why do you also make no mention at all of the total number of Catholics killed and maimed by the IRA. It is almost twice as high as the army and unionists combined. Your very own population was being victimised and brutalised by their very own supposed saviours. Out of 3523 total deaths in NI, 2054 were carried out by the Republican movement!! That's almost 2/3 of total deaths in NI were carried out by the IRA and it's various splinter groups!!! And you say our troops are savages!!!

Did you know that the IRA killed 47% more catholics from it's own community than the Protestants and army combined!!! The second highest figure was by the Protestant movement and the army in last place. So all the blaming of the army which you continue, it's your own communities which are the savages, the poor bloody army is sent in to keep both sides under control and are labelled savages. Do the army bomb old age pensioners at memorial cenotaphs?? Do the army bomb towns killing 30-40 people at a time??? You claim your not an apologist, but to me and I think quite a few others you are.

[De Bhaldraithe]

AKAMad wrote: De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Oh your soldiers must be commended. They killed so few children. Very decent of them altogether. Tell it to Julie Livingstones mother.

I have already pointed out your 'heroes' propensity to kill women and children. Let me add to it their propensity to hide behind them as well. This makes a level of what our Americans friends, but I do not, call 'collateral damage' inevitable.

You could always suggest to the IRA that they stand in a field and put on a uniform, then see how many children we kill.


It was a guerilla war. Would you suggest to the Viatnamese to come out and face the Yankees with a uniform on a field? Did I say any of these men were or are my heroes? Why do you put a word in quotation marks that you haven't quoted from me? What in under God is wrong with you? What term would you use then, when referring to "colateral damage"?

AKAMad wrote:
Of course, if we really were the animals you like to portray us as, you would have found a lot more Irishmen willing to 'fight' and die like men. I know that because hundred of thousands of Irish men did, in defense of Western Civilisation. Unfortunately the memory of their sacrifice has been diminished, and at Inniskillen, spattered in blood.
The only Republicans the English really consider worthy of respect are Bobby Sands et AL. Not just from a moral point of view, it was the only time we were rattled. Non-violence scared us after Gandhi, but we always thought that the idea that you could bomb Blitz veterans into surrendering was sign of Irish stupidity or poor history teaching.

:lol: See - it's all your fault. :lol:


No no, I assume it was just a way of getting your attention, though I wasn't involved so I couldn't really elaborate on the exact details. Probably the same reason why they brought the war to England...


AKAMad wrote:
As a Brummie, my list goes to 21 mothers, so let's just not go there.
Why don't you make a list of the Irish children we knee-capped in revenge. When there are 250,000 'legitimate targets' living among us, you would expect it to be a long one.

I wouldn't even know where to begin....

AKAMad wrote:
The funny thing is when I tell the Muslims that live round here that they are 'the New Irish', they seem to laugh and breath a sign of relief. :!?:
Not that they would ever consider going to NI, 'Are you mad ? I've seen how they treat white people'. :shock:


I hope that's a joke. You tell people they are the "New Irish" based on the fact that they are Muslim. What does that mean? You taunt them? Discriminate against them? Bully them? Harass them?

AKAMad wrote:
De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Why do you have to make rediculous comparisons?

Oh no, you have caught me out in another gross exaggeration. :!oops:
The best estimate is that the Germans exterminated 20% of the Polish population. The best estimate for the Norman invasion of 1066 and after, is only 10% of the English.
Is there any chance of forgiveness for this one. :!?:
Do you really thing that the FRENCH invasion of England was any less brutal than the FRENCH invasion of Ireland or Wales or Scotland :!?:
There is a joke we tell about the half-truths and lies that pass Irish history.
When does an Irishman instantly become an Englishman ? A. When he buys a Black man. :lol:

You might find it easier to move into the future, if you were a bit more realistic about the past.

It wasn't the exaggeration that bothered me - just the fact that you ill-foundedly chose to compare the two. They are incomparable. It would be like comparing the holocaust with the British army killing children here. Both bad things but on much different scales.

[thundertaker]

Quote: I hope that's a joke. You tell people they are the "New Irish" based on the fact that they are Muslim. What does that mean? You taunt them? Discriminate against them? Bully them? Harass them?

I think it's because they have a similar reputation nowadays for bombing stuff.......

[De Bhaldraithe]

Funny.

[Lucky Luke]

red dragon wrote: What bloody difference does it make they would all turn in on themselves and tear eachother apart if it wasn't for the police force and some resemblance of law and order. You should ask these apologists how they feel about the IRA kidnapping innocents wives and kids and making the father drive a suicide bomb into a police checkpoint. As what has happened before, they learnt that from their friends the PLO........

The IRA was the biggest freedom fighting movement in Europe for a long time, now Bliar arrest me!



:-D
:-D

[thundertaker]

Lucky Luke wrote: red dragon wrote: What bloody difference does it make they would all turn in on themselves and tear eachother apart if it wasn't for the police force and some resemblance of law and order. You should ask these apologists how they feel about the IRA kidnapping innocents wives and kids and making the father drive a suicide bomb into a police checkpoint. As what has happened before, they learnt that from their friends the PLO........

The IRA was the biggest freedom fighting movement in Europe for a long time, now Bliar arrest me!



:-D
:-D

Did you ever get deployed to NI when you were in the Army? Just curious.....

[red dragon]

SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH some questions should not be asked in presence os cedrtain people!! :h :h :h :h \/ \/

[thundertaker]

red dragon wrote: SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH some questions should not be asked in presence os cedrtain people!! :h :h :h :h \/ \/

What, like former comrades who might be pissed off with his IRA-worship?

[mulberrymagnet]

Lucky Luke wrote: red dragon wrote: What bloody difference does it make they would all turn in on themselves and tear eachother apart if it wasn't for the police force and some resemblance of law and order. You should ask these apologists how they feel about the IRA kidnapping innocents wives and kids and making the father drive a suicide bomb into a police checkpoint. As what has happened before, they learnt that from their friends the PLO........

The IRA was the biggest freedom fighting movement in Europe for a long time, now Bliar arrest me!



:-D
:-D

Aside from killing innocent men, women and children, MP's etc and shooting soldiers from great distances, it wasn't too hot though was it? With all that manpower, I thought they could have done a little better than what they did. Perhaps they were just badly lead.

Does planting bombs in shops and pubs make you tough?

[AKAMad]

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
It was a guerilla war. Would you suggest to the Viatnamese to come out and face the Yankees with a uniform on a field? Did I say any of these men were or are my heroes? Why do you put a word in quotation marks that you haven't quoted from me? What in under God is wrong with you? What term would you use then, when referring to "colateral damage"?

Your comparisons are a hell of a lot worse than mine. Mostly the Vietnamese did :!:
Their field, jungle, is just a lot easier to hide in. :!:
A Guerrilla is not the same as a Terrorist, and both kind of acts can occur.
Since collateral damage has now replaced legitimate target as the most detested mealy-mouthed euphemism, let's just stick to dead children. If you call something by it's true name, then you start to take it seriously enough.
My practice is to use double quotes for direct quotes and single quotes to indicated a different meaning eg.

Some 'men' fight and become 'heroes' by killing children and some men 'fight' and become heroes by starving themselves to death.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
No no, I assume it was just a way of getting your attention, though I wasn't involved so I couldn't really elaborate on the exact details. Probably the same reason why they brought the war to England...

See above, for not being personal with the quotes.
I wouldn't say that 40 attacks on London in a 12 month period was just to attract our attention, but it certainly backfired. They tried to instill terror, but all they created was nostalgia.
My Grandmother was right after all "A little bit of bombing is good for you, stops you going soft".

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
I wouldn't even know where to begin....

The number of Irish children knee-capped in England in the last 30 years is slightly less than 1, but you knew that already.
We all know why they bombed the mainland, to provoke the English. It is a good job they didn't succeed, you would have had a million refugees to deal with.
I know you won't believe this, but the people in Birmingham who really hate the IRA are Irish. :!: They knew that they were being used.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
I hope that's a joke. You tell people they are the "New Irish" based on the fact that they are Muslim. What does that mean? You taunt them? Discriminate against them? Bully them? Harass them?


:lol: Yeah that's right :!: People really do laugh and breath a sign of relief when you throw a brick through their living-room window. :lol:

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
It wasn't the exaggeration that bothered me - just the fact that you ill-foundedly chose to compare the two. They are incomparable. It would be like comparing the holocaust with the British army killing children here. Both bad things but on much different scales.

20% to 10% is a "much different scale"
But, when it comes to the death of hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Saxons, I would compare your attitude to holocaust denial.

[De Bhaldraithe]

AKAMad wrote:
Your comparisons are a hell of a lot worse than mine. Mostly the Vietnamese did :!:
Their field, jungle, is just a lot easier to hide in. :!:


These statements are contradictory of each other.

AKAMad wrote:
A Guerrilla is not the same as a Terrorist, and both kind of acts can occur.


Hang on a wee second, I'm sick and tired of this completely ignorant tossing around of the word "Terrorist" - very fashionable these days isn't it. What is to stop me from calling the British army terrorists? They're bombing and killing and maiming innocent civilians aren't they?

AKAMad wrote:
My practice is to use double quotes for direct quotes and single quotes to indicated a different meaning eg.

Some 'men' fight and become 'heroes' by killing children and some men 'fight' and become heroes by starving themselves to death.


Understood. Thought so, but you never can tell.

AKAMad wrote:
See above, for not being personal with the quotes.
I wouldn't say that 40 attacks on London in a 12 month period was just to attract our attention, but it certainly backfired. They tried to instill terror, but all they created was nostalgia.
My Grandmother was right after all "A little bit of bombing is good for you, stops you going soft".


Well the campaign here didn't seem to be making a lot of progress at the time - when the moved onto "the mainland" the story fairly changed.

AKAMad wrote:
The number of Irish children knee-capped in England in the last 30 years is slightly less than 1, but you knew that already.
We all know why they bombed the mainland, to provoke the English. It is a good job they didn't succeed, you would have had a million refugees to deal with.


I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. What is your point exactly though? They didn't bring the campaign to "the mainland" to provoke the English you silly person. It was to get the English to act to get them the hell out of our country. The IRA was never a huge organisation. Well not as far as armies go anyway. If they had have had the intentions to provoke the English, it would have been awfully foolish - they'd have been slaughtered. And probably tortured too - given the reputation of your 'heroic boys' - oh look I've copped on to that wee quotes thing, super! :lol:

AKAMad wrote:
I know you won't believe this, but the people in Birmingham who really hate the IRA are Irish. :!: They knew that they were being used.


What do you mean they were being used?

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
:lol: Yeah that's right :!: People really do laugh and breath a sign of relief when you throw a brick through their living-room window. :lol:


Jesus if yout think that's funny, you should be there when a squad of British soldiers bust down your door and beat the s**t out of your da and brothers in front of you, while throwing your furniture all over the house - as well as plates, cutlery, etc, etc. All the while calling your mother a "stinking Irish w****". It's a sketch altogether.


De Bhaldraithe wrote:
20% to 10% is a "much different scale"
But, when it comes to the death of hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Saxons, I would compare your attitude to holocaust denial.


Where do you get your figures from? Please enlighten me. Also, I wasn't referring simply to the figures - the time scales are very different as well as the situation. It was a silly comparison just.

[red dragon]

Quote: Jesus if yout think that's funny, you should be there when a squad of British soldiers bust down your door and beat the s**t out of your da and brothers in front of you, while throwing your furniture all over the house - as well as plates, cutlery, etc, etc. All the while calling your mother a "stinking Irish w****". It's a sketch altogether.

Well it's better than being threatened by six provos like I did in Haverdford West dockyard with being shot with an AK 47.

[AKAMad]

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Hang on a wee second, I'm sick and tired of this completely ignorant tossing around of the word "Terrorist" - very fashionable these days isn't it. What is to stop me from calling the British army terrorists? They're bombing and killing and maiming innocent civilians aren't they?

f**k ME something we agree on.
The definition of terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Armies are required by the Geneva Convention to takes reasonable steps to avoid the killing of civilians. It also requires them to wear uniforms and forbids them from using the civilian population as 'human shields'.
I don't mind you claiming the IRA is an army, it just makes them War criminals, like the US Army, which is doing all the killing in Iraq.
Pinning it on the Brits again.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Well the campaign here didn't seem to be making a lot of progress at the time - when the moved onto "the mainland" the story fairly changed.

The campaign didn't make any progress, here or there, it just made it worse. Terrorism does tend to be decisive not uniting.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. What is your point exactly though? They didn't bring the campaign to "the mainland" to provoke the English you silly person. It was to get the English to act to get them the hell out of our country. The IRA was never a huge organisation. Well not as far as armies go anyway. If they had have had the intentions to provoke the English, it would have been awfully foolish - they'd have been slaughtered. And probably tortured too - given the reputation of your 'heroic boys' - oh look I've copped on to that wee quotes thing, super! :lol:


How many dead English women and children make for a 'provocation' exactly. It seems to be a lot more than Irish ones.

AKAMad wrote:
I know you won't believe this, but the people in Birmingham who really hate the IRA are Irish. :!: They knew that they were being used.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
What do you mean they were being used?

Terrorism lesson no. 1
Kill enough children and you will create the overreaction and repression by the authorities and population that you need to recruit more terrorists.
Don't tell me you didn't know that.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
AKAMad wrote:
:lol: Yeah that's right :!: People really do laugh and breath a sign of relief when you throw a brick through their living-room window. :lol:


Jesus if yout think that's funny, you should be there when a squad of British soldiers bust down your door and beat the s**t out of your da and brothers in front of you, while throwing your furniture all over the house - as well as plates, cutlery, etc, etc. All the while calling your mother a "stinking Irish w****". It's a sketch altogether.

I know that Americans don't get irony, but I didn't realise the Irish didn't get it either.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Where do you get your figures from? Please enlighten me. Also, I wasn't referring simply to the figures - the time scales are very different as well as the situation. It was a silly comparison just.

When you insist on that your country was invaded by Englishmen who spoke French like natives, or people from a country that was created until 538 years later, silly comparison are the only thing appropiate.

[mulberrymagnet]

AKAMad wrote: De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Hang on a wee second, I'm sick and tired of this completely ignorant tossing around of the word "Terrorist" - very fashionable these days isn't it. What is to stop me from calling the British army terrorists? They're bombing and killing and maiming innocent civilians aren't they?

f**k ME something we agree on.
The definition of terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Armies are required by the Geneva Convention to takes reasonable steps to avoid the killing of civilians. It also requires them to wear uniforms and forbids them from using the civilian population as 'human shields'. It also forbids the waging of war on the people of their own country and following the internationaly recognised rules of war etc. We didn't target civilians, those vile scum did.

I don't mind you claiming the IRA is an army, it just makes them War criminals, like the US Army, which is doing all the killing in Iraq.
Pinning it on the Brits again.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Well the campaign here didn't seem to be making a lot of progress at the time - when the moved onto "the mainland" the story fairly changed.

The campaign didn't make any progress, here or there, it just made it worse. Terrorism does tend to be decisive not uniting.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. What is your point exactly though? They didn't bring the campaign to "the mainland" to provoke the English you silly person. It was to get the English to act to get them the hell out of our country. The IRA was never a huge organisation. Well not as far as armies go anyway. If they had have had the intentions to provoke the English, it would have been awfully foolish - they'd have been slaughtered. And probably tortured too - given the reputation of your 'heroic boys' - oh look I've copped on to that wee quotes thing, super! :lol:


How many dead English women and children make for a 'provocation' exactly. It seems to be a lot more than Irish ones.

AKAMad wrote:
I know you won't believe this, but the people in Birmingham who really hate the IRA are Irish. :!: They knew that they were being used.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
What do you mean they were being used?

Terrorism lesson no. 1
Kill enough children and you will create the overreaction and repression by the authorities and population that you need to recruit more terrorists.
Don't tell me you didn't know that.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
AKAMad wrote:
:lol: Yeah that's right :!: People really do laugh and breath a sign of relief when you throw a brick through their living-room window. :lol:


Jesus if yout think that's funny, you should be there when a squad of British soldiers bust down your door and beat the s**t out of your da and brothers in front of you, while throwing your furniture all over the house - as well as plates, cutlery, etc, etc. All the while calling your mother a "stinking Irish w****". It's a sketch altogether.

I know that Americans don't get irony, but I didn't realise the Irish didn't get it either.

De Bhaldraithe wrote:
Where do you get your figures from? Please enlighten me. Also, I wasn't referring simply to the figures - the time scales are very different as well as the situation. It was a silly comparison just.

When you insist on that your country was invaded by Englishmen who spoke French like natives, or people from a country that was created until 538 years later, silly comparison are the only thing appropiate.

[De Bhaldraithe]

AKAMad wrote:
f**k ME something we agree on.
The definition of terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Armies are required by the Geneva Convention to takes reasonable steps to avoid the killing of civilians. It also requires them to wear uniforms and forbids them from using the civilian population as 'human shields'.
I don't mind you claiming the IRA is an army, it just makes them War criminals, like the US Army, which is doing all the killing in Iraq.
Pinning it on the Brits again.


Something we agree on, yet you still find a psot to argue from. I think you have a problem.

By the way, it is not just the Americans that have been killing "colateral damage" - the Brits have their share of the blame too. It doesn't help either when you see videos of them kicking the s**t out of some kids that were throwing stones at them but ah well - they're British, let's forget about it!

AKAMad wrote:
The campaign didn't make any progress, here or there, it just made it worse. Terrorism does tend to be decisive not uniting.


Well, in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, without the war, SF and the republican people would not have been at the negotiating table today. Again I repeat that this is just my opinion.

AKAMad wrote:
How many dead English women and children make for a 'provocation' exactly. It seems to be a lot more than Irish ones.


I'll answer that with an equally ignorant question - how many dead Irish children does it take for the British army to start acting firmly and consistently? Better yet, I'll ask you how long is a piece of string? I think I'd get a more definitive answer for the latter.

AKAMad wrote:
Terrorism lesson no. 1
Kill enough children and you will create the overreaction and repression by the authorities and population that you need to recruit more terrorists.
Don't tell me you didn't know that.


Right so from this statement, would I be right in asying a radical statement along the lines of "The more babies the British army kills, the more recruits the republican movement shall have." ????
Or maybe it'd be best to leave children out of it, and just talk about the women they raped and tortured? Or why not just talk about the ordinary Catholic working man, going to his job to be spat at on the way?


AKAMad wrote:
I know that Americans don't get irony, but I didn't realise the Irish didn't get it either.


That wasn't irony. You were close though - it began with the same letter. It's called ignorance. Good effort though, maith thú.

[/quote]


AKAMad wrote:
When you insist on that your country was invaded by Englishmen who spoke French like natives, or people from a country that was created until 538 years later, silly comparison are the only thing appropiate.

Right ok so if you're going to make mad comparisons, I suggest we talk about Bloody Sunday and it's comparison with the holocaust. Sure a few Jews were killed, but so many innocent Catholics were killed by the British Army. Go away - you are annoying and you have no proper argument.

[red dragon]

Quote:
Something we agree on, yet you still find a psot to argue from. I think you have a problem.

By the way, it is not just the Americans that have been killing "colateral damage" - the Brits have their share of the blame too. It doesn't help either when you see videos of them kicking the s**t out of some kids that were throwing stones at them but ah well - they're British, let's forget about it!

Why are you lying?? You know perfectly well that they had grenades thrown at them and pipe bombs. But yet again they could have meated out the punishment which you seem to think is fine IE kneecappings like your beloved community police force the ~IRA, after all they give punishment beatings just for hearsay that you may have stolen a car. What would they have done if a grenade was tossed around?

[De Bhaldraithe]

red dragon wrote: Quote:
Something we agree on, yet you still find a psot to argue from. I think you have a problem.

By the way, it is not just the Americans that have been killing "colateral damage" - the Brits have their share of the blame too. It doesn't help either when you see videos of them kicking the s**t out of some kids that were throwing stones at them but ah well - they're British, let's forget about it!

Why are you lying?? You know perfectly well that they had grenades thrown at them and pipe bombs. But yet again they could have meated out the punishment which you seem to think is fine IE kneecappings like your beloved community police force the ~IRA, after all they give punishment beatings just for hearsay that you may have stolen a car. What would they have done if a grenade was tossed around?

I didn't know that mate - sorry I wasn't there. No matter. Is that reason enough for a so-called professional outfit manifested in her majesty's armed forces to kick the sweet s**t out of a sixten year old fighting for the freedom of his country?

[red dragon]

Quote:
I didn't know that mate - sorry I wasn't there. No matter. Is that reason enough for a so-called professional outfit manifested in her majesty's armed forces to kick the sweet s**t out of a sixten year old fighting for the freedom of his country?

Yes it is, if iot had been the Americans there would have been 10 dead 16 year olds and numerous casualties. The same if it had been the local Iraqies.

[De Bhaldraithe]

red dragon wrote:
Yes it is, if iot had been the Americans there would have been 10 dead 16 year olds and numerous casualties. The same if it had been the local Iraqies.

It's a good thing we're not talking about Americans or Iraqis then isn't it?

How in under God's green earth can you have such an opinion while you continue to berate the IRA - for knecapping scumbags none the less.

[red dragon]

De Bhaldraithe wrote: red dragon wrote:
Yes it is, if iot had been the Americans there would have been 10 dead 16 year olds and numerous casualties. The same if it had been the local Iraqies.

It's a good thing we're not talking about Americans or Iraqis then isn't it?

How in under God's green earth can you have such an opinion while you continue to berate the IRA - for knecapping scumbags none the less.

I think there is a vast difference of hitting youths throwing pipe bombs and grenades and summary execution, torture and local kneecapping of petty criminals without any moral or legal authority......don't you?