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

Watch
This discussion is closed.
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#81
Report 6 years ago
#81
ever heard of collatoral damage? If your terrorist buddies didnt always use human shields there wouldnt have been so many.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#82
Report 6 years ago
#82
(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.
Hold on - who are the Black and Tans again?
0
Cannotbelieveit
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#83
Report 6 years ago
#83
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Hold on - who are the Black and Tans again?
Temporary policemen, not soldiers.
0
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#84
(Original post by marcusfox)
The Bogside is a hotbed of Republicanism and it is inconceivable that there wouldn't be IRA members there or involved in the protest.

You seem pretty confident that the NICRA would not have let members of the IRA near the protest, which has no value whatsoever as that is just supposition based on your own personal view.

It seems strange to me that you think that the NICRA would be so concerned with or even able to keep IRA members away from the protest when one of those who was shot had nail bombs on his person. What happened there - slipped through did he?

That man, while not a member of the IRA was a member of the PIRA's youth wing, the Fianna. So immediately it becomes a semantic argument, if you are arguing that those who were shot were not in the IRA.
Wasn't aware that a possession of a nail bomb was granted membership into the IRA. Regardless, the nail bomb in the pockets is another controversial part of that day just like who shot first. His pockets were searched by civilians to try identify him, nothing was said to have been found, same goes for the army's medical officer who found nothing. Also, Fianna was not the IRAs youth wing.

NICRA was a peaceful protest organisation, of course they wanted to keep the IRA out of the picture.

good bye
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#85
Report 6 years ago
#85
(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.
It was more that they didn't remedy the situation at all, had they stood up to the Unionists in the first place and put more pressure on them to treat the people better in the first place then alot of it would have been avoided.
0
HPAG
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#86
Report 6 years ago
#86
(Original post by bestofyou)
You only need to know the history to understand why there is no Scottish version of the IRA.



This is Umkhonto we Sizwe, co-founded by Mandela. It was the armed wing of the ANC.
Spoiler:
Show


and here are the Black Panthers
Spoiler:
Show





Yeah, peaceful protest worked just great in the across Arab world in 2011 didn't it?
Lets get this out of the way then. You do support terrorism by the IRA even though you started by saying "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." So that line was all nonsense ?

You will have to admit the Black Panthers cannot be given credit for what the blacks have achieved in the US. How much of what what happened in South Africa was because of the armed struggle or because of the international anti apartheid moves of isolating South Africa is worth considering. Anyways all that is irrelevant as I am not even saying that an armed terrorist type struggle cannot succeed. I am saying a peaceful one can and is not only the preferred option it is as far as I am concerned the only option.
0
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#87
(Original post by cl_steele)
ever heard of collatoral damage? If your terrorist buddies didnt always use human shields there wouldnt have been so many.
I guess there was an IRA gunman standing behind Emma Groves? If you don't know who she is, I suggest you watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4qVlQn7iFA

skip to 15:30 until 19:something

I have heard of collateral, I also know, unlike you who clearly buys into the 'our boys' way of thinking, that the army isn't full of heros and brave young men who are defending our right to breathe.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#88
Report 6 years ago
#88
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
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:



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.



You're dead wrong.
That's right, they never tortured anyone at all, not like say, innocent civilians on day 1 of internment? You remember? When you were locked up for no reason, then tortured?
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#89
Report 6 years ago
#89
(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Temporary policemen, not soldiers.
Soldiers, where the recruitment was specifically looking for soldiers.
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#90
Report 6 years ago
#90
(Original post by bestofyou)
Wasn't aware that a possession of a nail bomb was granted membership into the IRA. Regardless, the nail bomb in the pockets is another controversial part of that day just like who shot first. His pockets were searched by civilians to try identify him, nothing was said to have been found, same goes for the army's medical officer who found nothing. Also, Fianna was not the IRAs youth wing.

NICRA was a peaceful protest organisation, of course they wanted to keep the IRA out of the picture.

good bye
Oh, so it''s 'good bye' now?

Your whole argument depends on the fact that none of those present were in the IRA because you say that the NICRA would have kept them away.

However I have shown that at least one member of the IRA's youth wing was present and even shot dead - the question of whether or not he had nailbombs is irrelevant to his membership of Fianna Eireann, which is not in dispute, and what is also not in dispute is that Fianna Eireann is the youth wing of the IRA. It's a proscibed organisation, just as the IRA is.

So for your argument to hold water, NICRA would have had to have been capable of preventing that man from being anywhere near the protest. Since he was shot there, that cannot be the case.

Members of Fianna Eireann are pretty much the same as members of the IRA in all but name and age. So to argue that there is any meaningful difference, is a purely semantic argument.
0
Cannotbelieveit
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#91
Report 6 years ago
#91
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Soldiers, where the recruitment was specifically looking for soldiers.
Still doesn't make the British Army a terrorist organisation.
0
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#92
Report 6 years ago
#92
(Original post by bestofyou)
I guess there was an IRA gunman standing behind Emma Groves? If you don't know who she is, I suggest you watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4qVlQn7iFA

skip to 15:30 until 19:something

I have heard of collateral, I also know, unlike you who clearly buys into the 'our boys' way of thinking, that the army isn't full of heros and brave young men who are defending our right to breathe.
To be quite honest i dont care who she is or what happened to her and im not going to watch your poxy video.
evidently you havent, it was a war genius... civillians die end of, the fact our army shot them maybe regretablebut it is of no consequence to me or err 'my boys'? They were fighting against the epitomy of filth who bombedplenty of innocent civillians and slaughtered them in cold blood... if anything they should have napalmed every town where these 'freedom fighting cowards' may have been.
1
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#93
(Original post by marcusfox)
Oh, so it''s 'good bye' now?

Your whole argument depends on the fact that none of those present were in the IRA because you say that the NICRA would have kept them away.

However I have shown that at least one member of the IRA's youth wing was present and even shot dead - the question of whether or not he had nailbombs is irrelevant to his membership of Fianna Eireann, which is not in dispute, and what is also not in dispute is that Fianna Eireann is the youth wing of the IRA, just as the IRA is.

So for your argument to hold water, NICRA would have had to have been capable of preventing that man from being anywhere near the protest. Since he was shot there, that cannot be the case.

Members of Fianna Eireann are pretty much the same as members of the IRA in all but name and age. So to argue that there is any meaningful difference, is a purely semantic argument.
Stop trying to sugar coat it, he wasn't a man for a start, he was a 17yr old boy shot dead by the British army. He was a member of a republican youth movement as many people back then were and many are today. While there is dispute over the nail bombs what isn't in dispute is that they were in his pocket and concealed, the army couldn't have seen anything but shot the teen dead anyway.

You seem to think that Fianna membership automatically leads to terrorist activities. Republican isn't another word for violent or extreme nationalist. Mnay members of Fianna Eireann did not partake in violence of any kind, membership did not mean a single thing. Fianna Eireann still exists today but is called Orga Shinn Fien. Why not do some ****ing research Marcus and stop pestering me.
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#94
Report 6 years ago
#94
(Original post by bestofyou)
Stop trying to sugar coat it, he wasn't a man for a start, he was a 17yr old boy shot dead by the British army. He was a member of a republican youth movement as many people back then were and many are today. While there is dispute over the nail bombs what isn't in dispute is that they were in his pocket and concealed, the army couldn't have seen anything but shot the teen dead anyway.

You seem to think that Fianna membership automatically leads to terrorist activities. Republican isn't another word for violent or extreme nationalist. Mnay members of Fianna Eireann did not partake in violence of any kind, membership did not mean a single thing. Fianna Eireann still exists today but is called Orga Shinn Fien. Why not do some ****ing research Marcus and stop pestering me.
If you don't want people to debate a topic with you (pestering, really?), then stop creating controversial threads.

Like I already said, he wasn't shot because he was throwing nailbombs, I said he happened to have them on him when he was shot. I'm not trying to justify his shooting in any way. I'm just saying that he was there and that he was in what is considered the youth wing of the IRA.

Regarding Fianna Eireann - https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...anisations.pdf

So what if an organisation exists today that is called Ogra Sinn Fein that has nothing to do with terrorism? It doesn't detract in the slightest from the terrorist activities carried out by people affiliated to them (or founded by the old members of previously disbanded organisations) in times past.

Sinn Fein exists today also. In times past it was the political wing of the IRA. The fact that Sinn Fein is not a terrorist organisation does not mean that members Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams had nothing to do with terrorism.

Do you not think that all the other politicians aren't fully aware of the type of people that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are and the actions they were involved in? I'm sure that is at the forefront of the minds of other politicians when they have to deal with these people.

But also at the forefront of their minds is that everyone has to come to terms with that because that is the price we are paying for peace, and it is a price that is worth paying because peace is so much better than the alternative.
0
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#95
Report 6 years ago
#95
In short, because it would fundamentally question the nature of the state, which statists will never do. The very nature of the state is that it has the monopoly on legitimate violence, whereas terrorism, while it lacks a universal definition, is almost always assumed to be illegitmate violence.

I've noticed quite a few posters claim that the British Army wasn't terrorist because it was accountable to a democratically elected government. What's ironic is that the term 'terrorism' comes from the Terror in the French Revolution, a policy introduced by a government that was at the time probably the most democratically elected in the world (it was the first government in history to be elected by universal male suffrage). Also, were all the armies before the advent of democracy therefore terrorists?

The Republic of Ireland Army was accountable to a democratically elected government too, but if it had come in and occupied Northern Ireland I doubt people here would be saying the same thing as they are now about the British.
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 6 years ago
#96
(Original post by That Bearded Man)
That's right, they never tortured anyone at all, not like say, innocent civilians on day 1 of internment? You remember? When you were locked up for no reason, then tortured?
I did say "On a general basis" meaning it wasn't SOP's nor was it generally acceptable or general practice for them to do so. The same cannot be said for the IRA who made it their SOP.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 6 years ago
#97
(Original post by Picaa)
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.
No, the vast majority of decent people would do nothing of the sort. I could theoretically support the aims of a terrorist group. I suppose insofar as they seek to keep Northern Ireland in the UK, I support the aims of Loyalist paramilitaries. But I would never, ever endorse violent acts by such groups to further these aims. That is terrorism, regardless of whether the cause is a good one, and it simply isn't on.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 6 years ago
#98
The British Army, as part of the legitimate forces of a state, has the right to use force to uphold the law. Terrorist organisations do not.

The British Army does not permit the conduct extra-judicial punishment or targeting of civilians. It can only intentionally kill people in Britain in self-defence or to defend others. Terrorist organisations do not uphold these standards.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#99
Report 6 years ago
#99
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I did say "On a general basis" meaning it wasn't SOP's nor was it generally acceptable or general practice for them to do so. The same cannot be said for the IRA who made it their SOP.
Well, no action was taken to prevent it, so either it was absolutely condoned or those in charge washed their hands of it and left someone under them in control of it. In which case it was still unacceptable. And define general practice, I strongly suspect many more were tortured than simply the occasional, as I say it included civilians.

Of course the IRA kneecapped them, cruel and effective.

Not just directed at you but another question should be raised, just exactly how did the British Army quell loyalist violence? The UVF? Support their gunrunning of course.

How many loyalists were interned?
0
CelticSymphony67
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#100
Report 6 years ago
#100
(Original post by L i b)
The British Army, as part of the legitimate forces of a state, has the right to use force to uphold the law. Terrorist organisations do not.

The British Army does not permit the conduct extra-judicial punishment or targeting of civilians. It can only intentionally kill people in Britain in self-defence or to defend others. Terrorist organisations do not uphold these standards.
Bloody Sunday??
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

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (276)
15.52%
Uncertainty around my education (278)
15.64%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (177)
9.96%
Isolating with family (126)
7.09%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (79)
4.44%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (149)
8.38%
Loneliness (175)
9.84%
Financial worries (72)
4.05%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (162)
9.11%
Exposure to negative news/social media (126)
7.09%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (158)
8.89%

Watched Threads

View All