Why is the British Army not branded a terrorist organisation but the IRA is?

OP

Original post by marcusfox

So what? The original year of manufacture is irrelevant.

With illegal weapons, you use what you can get your hands on.

It doesn't justify what you were getting at at all, indeed it wholly contradicts it. What you were getting at was that there weren't members of the IRA there at the Bloody Sunday incident, armed or otherwise.

congratulations. You just missed the point not once, but twice.

The IRA at the time had very little by the way or weapons or men. The fact that the most important member west of the Bann at the time had a gun up to half a century old shows they were scrapping the barrell. The last thing they wanted to do was to hand out their only weapons to young radicals to have the young prospective members sent to a POW camp and have the guns end up in the hands of the army. I really have no idea what you are getting at to be honest. No guns were found on the dead, so maturestudent's comment and your argument here is completely ill-founded.

I never once said there wasn't IRA members present on bloody Sunday. You would be deluded to think otherwise given not long before they were holding military check points where ever they wished in the area. Again, not sure what you are getting as given that that is not an excuse to kill civilians, regardless if they threw a stone at you 5minutes before or not.

Reply 42

bestofyou

congratulations. You just missed the point not once, but twice.

The IRA at the time had very little by the way or weapons or men. The fact that the most important member west of the Bann at the time had a gun up to half a century old shows they were scrapping the barrell. The last thing they wanted to do was to hand out their only weapons to young radicals to have the young prospective members sent to a POW camp and have the guns end up in the hands of the army. I really have no idea what you are getting at to be honest. No guns were found on the dead, so maturestudent's comment and your argument here is completely ill-founded.

So, your point saying that:

...However, members of the IRA [being there], armed with real weapons and firing them or at least pointing them at the soldiers in early 1972 before any serious IRA recruitment or armament had begun? Highly doubtful.

and taken to mean

a: Highly unlikely there were IRA members there, and
b: Highly unlikely there were weapons there.

was actually intended to mean

a: There was at least one IRA member there, and
b: There was at least one weapon there?

Whatever...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 43

Hyde

Most western governmental militaries could rightfully be deemed as terrorists - it's just their indoctrinated population who believe they are "good"

Reply 44

Original post by bestofyou

I never once said there wasn't IRA members present on bloody Sunday. You would be deluded to think otherwise given not long before they were holding military check points where ever they wished in the area. Again, not sure what you are getting as given that that is not an excuse to kill civilians, regardless if they threw a stone at you 5minutes before or not.

When you say

...However, members of the IRA, armed with real weapons and firing them or at least pointing them at the soldiers in early 1972 before any serious IRA recruitment or armament had begun? Highly doubtful.

The plain language reading of this is that you are denying both the presence of IRA members and weapons.

Especially as you qualify that with the "before any serious IRA recruitment or armament" part of that quote.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 45

OP

Original post by Drewski

I guarantee you that if you're hit by a bullet from a weapon from 1919 you're no less injured/dead than one from a weapon from 2013.

Hell, I could clobber you with a stone age club. That's 10,000+ yrs old. You'd still be in a rather large amount of pain...

Not what I was getting at. Just so you know, you are joining part of an argument that has been side-tracked by someone who never understood what I said in a comment not directed at them. So feel free to continue, but you will be wasting both of our time.

I replied to the (incorrect) comment "it was also odd that only fighting aged males were shot" and I referred to the fact that the IRA at the time had little by the way of men, even among the few volunteers they did have they didn't have enough weapons to go around. Hence why I said the even IRA commander was scrapping the bottom of the barrel with a gun that probably got into the country in the very early 1920s.

I was in no way saying 'it doesn't matter if he had a Thompson gun, it was made in 1920 and wouldn't kill a fly' as you seemed to think I did. Otherwise I doubt you would have tried to convince me it is just as deadly as a modern gun.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 46

Original post by Hyde

Most western governmental militaries could rightfully be deemed as terrorists - it's just their indoctrinated population who believe they are "good"

And your mum's a fascist when she tells you to tidy your room, presumably...

Reply 47

Hyde

Original post by marcusfox

And your mum's a fascist when she tells you to tidy your room, presumably...

Why do you assume I live with my mum
Fascist

Reply 48

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by bestofyou

congratulations. You just missed the point not once, but twice.

The IRA at the time had very little by the way or weapons or men. The fact that the most important member west of the Bann at the time had a gun up to half a century old shows they were scrapping the barrell. The last thing they wanted to do was to hand out their only weapons to young radicals to have the young prospective members sent to a POW camp and have the guns end up in the hands of the army. I really have no idea what you are getting at to be honest. No guns were found on the dead, so maturestudent's comment and your argument here is completely ill-founded.

I never once said there wasn't IRA members present on bloody Sunday. You would be deluded to think otherwise given not long before they were holding military check points where ever they wished in the area. Again, not sure what you are getting as given that that is not an excuse to kill civilians, regardless if they threw a stone at you 5minutes before or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

Finally came out of service with the US army in 1971. So the age is irrelevant.

Blood Sunday was a turning point. Of that there is no doubt. However, violence was increasing before that point, so you can't say that it was definitely the turning point.

Reply 49

Drewski

19

Anyway, to answer the thread title; because intent matters.

And to the people debating Bloody Sunday.. really? Massively complex affair, none of you were there for, none of you were involved in it or the subsequent inquiries... what the hell do you think you'll achieve other than going round and round in circles getting angrier and angrier? Nothing anyone says will ever change the events of the day, especially not a bunch of students on a webforum, most of whom are massively biased or, in some cases, hugely hypocritical (I'm looking at you, bestofyou, all those threads condemning the British military/Government coupled with threads asking about how to join the British military? Seriously, pack it in).

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 50

OP

Original post by marcusfox

So, your point saying that:
and taken to mean
a: Highly unlikely there were IRA members there, and
b: Highly unlikely there were weapons there.
was actually intended to mean
a: There was at least one IRA member there, and
b: There was at least one weapon there?
Whatever...

Original post by marcusfox

When you say
The plain language reading of this is that you are denying both the presence of IRA members and weapons.
Especially as you qualify that with the "before any serious IRA recruitment or armament" part of that quote.

When I said:

However, members of the IRA, armed with real weapons and firing them or at least pointing them at the soldiers in early 1972 before any serious IRA recruitment or armament had begun? Highly doubtful.

I was referring to those of fighting age who were shot on Bloody Sunday and how it was highly doubtful that they were in the IRA, or if they were that they had been armed with a weapon.

This is what happens when you:

a) take quotes out of contexts

and

b) reply to comments that were not directed to at you and that you didn't fully understand in the first place.

I should have ignored your smug little 'Martin McGuinness' comment from the second I saw it as it clearly indicated you were replying to something you knew nothing about.

Reply 51

AccountingBabe

I hate Northern Ireland! Roll on September to move away from this bull****!!!

Reply 52

Original post by bestofyou

When I said:

I was referring to those of fighting age who were shot on Bloody Sunday and how it was highly doubtful that they were in the IRA, or if they were that they had been armed with a weapon.

This is what happens when you:

a) take quotes out of contexts

and

b) reply to comments that were not directed to at you and that you didn't fully understand in the first place.

I should have ignored your smug little 'Martin McGuinness' comment from the second I saw it as it clearly indicated you were replying to something you knew nothing about.

Even with all that you have said above it still does nothing to show anything other than that you were intending to give the impression that there weren't armed IRA members there on the day.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 53

Huto

If you join the army then you are also to blame for helping the criminals. It's like paying an assassin to kill someone- the assassin is also responsible.

Reply 54

OP

Original post by MatureStudent36

(EDIT Providing they were a legitimate traget as per rules of engagemnt to begin with.)

Which it has been proven they were not.

We also know that in insurgency conflicts some times one side is short of weapons and take the weapons away with them. It also has the benefit of creating a public outcry with 'unarmed civilian shot.'

True, and this was covered in the inquiry so it is a moot point in this context. Regardless, as I previously said, people were shot holding white flags and with hands in the air. If all those shot had guns as you seem suspicious of, then surely at least one would have been found with a gun, it is unlikely that all the guns could have been recovered and I am some what certain we would have heard a little more from the military side of it complaining that most of those killed were armed but had the weapons taken away.

You seem to forget that I'm not defending the Para's in bloody Sunday.

Well with your last comment it seems you have a funny way of showing that, no offence.

Northern Ireland , as well as being an armed counter insurgency conflict, was a war of politics, intelligence and propaganda.

So without British Troops on the ground in Northern Ireland, why is the IRA still killing people?

Because they are retarded, why the hell else?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 55

OP

Original post by marcusfox

Even with all that you have said above it still does nothing to show anything other than that you were intending to give the impression that there weren't armed IRA members there on the day.

There were armed IRA members present on that day.

Those killed have been proven not to have been armed. I was saying supporting this argument after it was hinted they might have been armed, which is why I referred to the state of the IRA in terms of volunteer numbers and weapons in early 1972. At which point you burst onto the scene, uninvited and misinformed, taking my quote out of context and come out with 'Martin McGuinness' as if that is supposed to mean anything in relation to what I had just said.

If you cannot grasp this rather simple concept there is no hope for you in this argument Marcus, good-bye.

Reply 56

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Huto

If you join the army then you are also to blame for helping the criminals. It's like paying an assassin to kill someone- the assassin is also responsible.

I've been called Fascist and baby killer. Never an assassin or criminal.

Reply 57

Huto

Original post by MatureStudent36

I've been called Fascist and baby killer. Never an assassin or criminal.

If you willingly decided to join the army (which is currently taking part in huge war crimes), you're all of those things. No offence bro. Th good people in the army left as soon as the illegal wars began.

Reply 58

OP

Original post by MatureStudent36

Stormont is a den of Vipers on both sides of the divide, so no thanks.
.

PS that was a joke.

I was having a dig a NI politicians who play the game of, "yeah our side did that, but your side did this which is way worse", which was in reply your *cough, cough* comment which is basically a day in the life of an SF/DUP/UUP/TUV politician.

Reply 59

Psyk