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

Watch
This discussion is closed.
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#21
Report 6 years ago
#21
(Original post by ImNew)
Ahh so the Taliban aren't terrorists.
Some would argue they are, some would argue they're not. They considered themselves as the Government of Afghanistan. But the International government at the time didn't except for Saudi and Pakistan.
0
ImNew
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 6 years ago
#22
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes:


  • serious violence against a person;
  • serious damage to a property;
  • a threat to a person's life;
  • a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or
  • serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system.



Technically even the rebels involved in Syria are terrorists by Syrian law. But as Syria isn't a democracy there is a grey area for rebels and terrorists.

AQ elements in Syria tend to be foreign fighters. i.e. they're not Syrian. They're there to support a political/relgious Islamist agenda.
Every person bearing arms in the world is fighting for some sort of political agenda. Every military in the world fights for the agenda of their government just like Islamist rebel fighters fight for an Islamist state and pro democracy rebel fighters fight for their political agenda of a democratic state.
0
Silver060
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 6 years ago
#23
The hatred for the british army from the nationalists is more to do with the oppression that catholics of that era had to deal with and the 'brits' were just an easy target since they had the unfortunate job of trying to police the country.
1
GR3YFOXXX
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 6 years ago
#24
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Cough Warrenpoint.
Cough Guidlford
Cough Birmingham
Cough Brighton Bombing.
Cough http://victims.org.uk/s08zhk/index.p...=183&Itemid=81

Cough. Demonstrations combined with situations where people have to be armed in order to defend themselves when dealing with demonstrations is never a good mix.

Interestingly enough though, I served with somebody who was their and got called the the inquiry. He still maintains he heard 4 to 5 rounds from a Thompson sub machine gun first, and it was also odd that only fighting aged males were shot. However I believe that the full background of Bloody Sunday will never be fully known.

What a ridiculous assertion to make about bloody Sunday! A 14 year long, £200 million pound inquiry cannot be cast into doubt because your biased mate says otherwise! How dare you imply that 17 year old innocent victims are considered to be suspiciously of "fighting age", and that this somehow compromises their judicially upheld innocence. Furthermore, most of the victims were shot in the back. Your comments are disgusting.
3
ImNew
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 6 years ago
#25
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Some would argue they are, some would argue they're not. They considered themselves as the Government of Afghanistan. But the International government at the time didn't except for Saudi and Pakistan.
International government? There is no international government. Any international government that gives vetos to undemocratic countries *cough China is irrelevant and unrepresentative of the people so should be ignored.
0
doggyfizzel
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 6 years ago
#26
The government backing aspect is key, the British army is under the control and takes its orders from the British government. They have a level of accountability that other groups do not. Simply committing an act in which civilians are killed does not make a group a terrorist group, and the fact they civilians haven't been killed doesn't mean a group isn't a terrorist group. State sponsored terrorism is something else and almost certainly something the UK and the British Army backed during the Troubles.
1
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 6 years ago
#27
(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
The British Army is a force for good, any civilian casualties that result from their actions are unintentional and are to be prevented at all costs.

The same cannot be said for the IRA or other terrorist groups out there.
"Good" is a word with no objective meaning.
0
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#28
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Cough Warrenpoint.
Cough Guidlford
Cough Birmingham
Cough Brighton Bombing.
Cough http://victims.org.uk/s08zhk/index.p...=183&Itemid=81
Have you finished your degree MatureStudent? If so you should apply for a job in Stormont, you could make deputy first minister within a month and first minister after a year.

Demonstrations combined with situations where people have to be armed in order to defend themselves when dealing with demonstrations is never a good mix.
Well then I guess we should send the PSNI to Afghanistan and maybe the could win the war without killing a single person. After all if the army had to resort to murder to 'defend' themselves and the PSNI can do exactly the same thing without a single civilian death, I guess they must be invincible.

Interestingly enough though, I served with somebody who was their and got called the the inquiry. He still maintains he heard 4 to 5 rounds from a Thompson sub machine gun first, and it was also odd that only fighting aged males were shot. However I believe that the full background of Bloody Sunday will never be fully known.
Incorrect.

The full background as to who fired the first shot will never be known. What we do have is facts that unarmed civilians were killed. Civilians with white flags and hands in the air among them. There is simply no excuse for that, in any war.

As for the ridiculous 'fighting aged males' comment, I suppose the 37yr old Peggy Deery was an active and 'on duty' member of the IRA on the day was she? Is that why they shot her? All the victims had been running away, most shot in the back. A number of those dead were engaged in the rioting more than likely. 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.
1
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report 6 years ago
#29
(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
The British army has never seen a single prosecution for;

-Bloody Sunday
-Operation Motorman
-Loyalist collusion
-Miami show band massacre
-Ballymurphy massacre
-Murder of Pat Finucane
-Activities of the Glenanne Gang
-Infiltration by Loyalist paramilitaries

etc etc etc...
I'm a little confused, I mean, either they found people guilty of breaches of International Law in those situations or they didn't?

Oh right, you mean there was no trial. Well without a trial or even a charge, it's pretty obvious that you won't be finding anyone guilty of anything.

So it doesn't change my point one single bit.
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report 6 years ago
#30
(Original post by bestofyou)
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.
Martin McGuinness.
0
Obiejess
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 6 years ago
#31
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgRg...e_gdata_player

In no way do I condone violence.
Unless it gets results.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#32
Report 6 years ago
#32
(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
The British army has never seen a single prosecution for;

-Bloody Sunday

Investigation under review with the possibility of prosecution.
-Operation Motorman
No case there. Motorman was opening up no go area's in Belfast. PIRA had barricaded the area and blocked off roads. The roads were cleared.
-Loyalist collusion

-Miami show band massacre

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

"Two serving Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers and one former UDR soldier later received life sentences after having been found guilty of murder"

-Ballymurphy massacre

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

I'll give you that, but the early 70's was a bad time. I don't believe that the Para's just started randomly gunning people down. Fear, Adrenalin, the fog of war all create situations where people with guns do make mistakes. I'm not defending their actions on this one, but as I wasn't there I can't comment.

Would you like to comment about these though.

http://thedisappearedni.co.uk/about/

Or possible this.

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



-Murder of Pat Finucane

Activity of a Loyalist Paramilitary group, and as such it was prescribed as a terrorist organisation. Not the British Army, or atleast nothing that is legally binding.

-Activities of the Glenanne Gang


Activity of a Loyalist Paramilitary group, and as such it was prescribed as a terrorist organisation. Not the British Army, or atleast nothing that is legally binding.
-Infiltration by Loyalist paramilitaries

Not sanctioned by British Government.

etc etc etc...
All valid points, but not exactly enough to say that the British Army is a terrorist organisation. I agree that things of dubious legality happened, but that what happen in Guerilla warfare and war in general. Laws get bent and/or broken. But where possible, prosecution followed.


You seem to ignore the loyalist idiots, who I hold in the same disregard as PIRA.

PIRA, nore the loyalists were investigating and charging their own people for breaking the law. Although they would execute their own people if they believed they were grasses.
0
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 6 years ago
#33
(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
What a ridiculous assertion to make about bloody Sunday! A 14 year long, £200 million pound inquiry cannot be cast into doubt because your biased mate says otherwise! How dare you imply that 17 year old innocent victims are considered to be suspiciously of "fighting age", and that this somehow compromises their judicially upheld innocence. Furthermore, most of the victims were shot in the back. Your comments are disgusting.
And if the inquiry had completely exonerated the Army, you would have called it a whitewash and a cover up. Fair's fair.
0
CelticSymphony67
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 6 years ago
#34
(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
The British army has never seen a single prosecution for;

-Bloody Sunday
-Operation Motorman
-Loyalist collusion
-Miami show band massacre
-Ballymurphy massacre
-Murder of Pat Finucane
-Activities of the Glenanne Gang
-Infiltration by Loyalist paramilitaries

etc etc etc...
Exactly. I will never condone the PIRA, they did some awful things, but the way some people paint the British Army as being wonderful, is basically quite sickening. The British Army has a very bloodstained and not particularly proud past. Any idea when we will see the scum responsible for Bloody Sunday in court? Charged with murder?
0
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#35
(Original post by marcusfox)
Martin McGuinness.
Yes, the commander of the IRA in the area who had a sub-machine gun that came out in 1919, I think that justifies what I was getting at.
1
Picaa
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#36
Report 6 years ago
#36
It's obvious: when you're against an insurgent group they are terrorists and when you are in favour you would call them freedom fighters. However there is no basis of support in the UK mainland for the IRA. In the 70s and 80s they didn't give a flying toss about the lives of innocent bystanders. It was just like Muslim terrorism. To this day dustbins and postboxes are prohibited in certain areas of London because the provos used to use them to plant bombs targeting civilians and property. The British Army mostly is a nuisance to other people, not the people who have to live in the UK. So sure, it's a case of double standards but I don't think it gives anyone any moral quandaries. The IRA never gave a crap about innocent victims.
1
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report 6 years ago
#37
(Original post by bestofyou)
Yes, the commander of the IRA in the area who had a sub-machine gun that came out in 1919, I think that justifies what I was getting at.
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.
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 6 years ago
#38
(Original post by bestofyou)
First of all I do not condone terrorism nor do I have particularly strong feelings of dislike towards Britain or the military. I happen to believe I am of a new generation who can think for myself and won't have my opinion plagued by the infectious sectarianism that is rife in this part of Ireland.

However, looking at some stats I stumbled across today, I had to ask why the IRA are called terrorists but not the British army.

Terrorism - 'The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'

In NI between 1969-1998 the British army (UDR included) killed 151 civilians, that is higher than the combined number of republican and loyalist paramilitaries who died at the hands of the army.

So why do the evade the terrorist brush? People will say things like 'because the army didn't plant bombs in town centres'. However this isn't about, who is worse than who. No one will get anywhere if we want to provide each other with examples of one side doing something worse than the other. We have a special place for people who passionately engage in that kind of nonsense and it is called Stormont.

I am not asking why the IRA are called terrorists. I am asking why the British army are not.

Surely killing 151 civilians would be seen as violence and intimidation? Personally, looking at the stats, they seem no better than the IRA. What is the justification for allowing the army, or at the very least the UDR (with their 3:1 civilian:republican kill ratio) to escape the term terrorist?
Firstly I'll say that assuming the British army is a terrorist organisation and doing so based on a statistic of deaths over a 29 year period is itself pretty thin. And when you compare that in the same sentence (as you did) with the IRA, well actually the IRA killed an awful lot of people as well.

The British army doesn't indiscriminately set off bombs that are specifically intended to kill and main women and children and to scare the local population. The IRA did.

The British army generally sought and seeks to defuse situations whether it's terrorist situations or otherwise not to cause them and certainly not to cause them if it means a great disruption and possible loss of life. The IRA has done, on many occasions.

Generally speaking the definition of terrorism which you posted does not apply to the British army or any of the British forces. It isn't their core values or aim. It was and probably still is with the IRA and it's key supporters that still are around. The definition you supplied does not really apply to the British army.

The British army didn't kidnap, torture, and execute members or suspected members of the IRA (on a general basis.) It certainly didn't drill into people's kneecaps with black and decker drills or shoot bullets into their kneecaps as was standard practice for the IRA. The IRA however...did.

I could go on.
Basically the terrorist definition doesn't fit the description of what the British army does now and it doesn't really fit what they did 40 years ago.

And let me ask you this, would a terrorist organisation have a strict limitation in their movements? Have you ever heard of the infamous "yellow card" that all British soldiers were issues in NI? It had strict guidelines on what they could and couldn't do, legally. There were a great deal other legalities as well. Somehow I don't think a terrorist organisation would abide by such things.

You say:

Surely killing 151 civilians would be seen as violence and intimidation?
And to that I would say no. Why? Because those incidents were probably 151 individual incidents each one with different circumstances. However what you're doing is lumping them all together and somehow trying to use it to paint the British army as something it frankly is not.

Personally, looking at the stats, they seem no better than the IRA.
You're dead wrong.
4
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#39
Report 6 years ago
#39
(Original post by bestofyou)
Have you finished your degree MatureStudent? If so you should apply for a job in Stormont, you could make deputy first minister within a month and first minister after a year.

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

Well then I guess we should send the PSNI to Afghanistan and maybe the could win the war without killing a single person. After all if the army had to resort to murder to 'defend' themselves and the PSNI can do exactly the same thing without a single civilian death, I guess they must be invincible.

Let's rememeber they were welcomed by the Catholic community to begin with as the RUC at that point was just an extension of the UVF. Soldiers are trained to fight wars, not police actions. As such their training in the early days was for war fighting, not police action. Lessons were learnt and training was improved accordingly. Soldiers were put into a situation they were poorly trained and equipped for. The Army of the 70s was completely different to the latter days of Banner man.


Incorrect.

The full background as to who fired the first shot will never be known. What we do have is facts that unarmed civilians were killed. Civilians with white flags and hands in the air among them. There is simply no excuse for that, in any war.


As for the ridiculous 'fighting aged males' comment, I suppose the 37yr old Peggy Deery was an active and 'on duty' member of the IRA on the day was she? Is that why they shot her? All the victims had been running away, most shot in the back. A number of those dead were engaged in the rioting more than likely. 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'm certainly aware that PIRA snipers used to take great pleasure in shooting at soldiers, RUC....and even PSNI now from behind crowds. And shooting somebody in the back isn't an indication of innocence or guilt. If somebody is withdrawing to another firing position, they're still a legal target as they pose a direct threat to life. (EDIT Providing they were a legitimate traget as per rules of engagemnt to begin with.)


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.'



You seem to forget that I'm not defending the Para's in bloody Sunday. I'm fully aware that their are two sides to each story and especially with something as emotive as Northern Ireland they're very entrenched. The truth is somewhere in the Middle. As in most armed conflicts, it's always the civilians in the cross fire that become casualties. Some people try to avoid that, some try to create it.

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?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 6 years ago
#40
(Original post by Silver060)
The hatred for the british army from the nationalists is more to do with the oppression that catholics of that era had to deal with and the 'brits' were just an easy target since they had the unfortunate job of trying to police the country.
Yet initially welcomed at the start by the Catholic community who they were sent in to defend. However through a process of numerous actions, that weren't planned out that way, the troubles were created.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (105)
60.34%
No (69)
39.66%

Watched Threads

View All