The IRA And The SAS

[crusader]

I missed all the action!!
No point now, he's not going to show his face around here in a hurry -
what a tw@t!

[Jason The Argonaut]

I have seemed to miss all the fun two.

Just like that condor bloke he did not stay around and fight his corner to well did he just like Mav.

[The JaCkAl]

Quite fun to read though....I read the whole thread, which is unusual for me. He just needed a kick in the nuts, and a good hard punch in the nose. Enough to sort any man out.

[= Jay =]

1.) Do you think that an IRA sniper shooting a British soldier is murder?

- if yes, then do you consider a soldier shooting an IRA player murder? If you don't then you are a hypocrite.

2.) Do you think that an IRA bomb blowing up a British convoy is a terrorist act?

- if yes, do you think that the RAF dropping a bomb on a civilian target in Iraq is a terrorist act? If you don't then you are a hypocrite.

1. Yes It Murder, Due To The Fact, It Was Never a War, an the IRA are Not a Official Army.

2. Yes. Refer to Point 1

[Josh]

All right Lads, and Ladies we all (me included) know Mav is a bit of a prat. And you lot ave shown him off in magnificent style! I move to close the thread - remember be ferocious in battle and magnanimous in victory, glasses raised to all those who keep, and have kept Northern Ireland safe!

[Twenty One]

Josh,Great subject mate sorry it was taken over by a brain dead indivdual.We being serving and ex-service folk are the only ones who knew what went on and knew the politics of it all.

[FIRE]

1. Yes It Murder, Due To The Fact, It Was Never a War, an the IRA are Not a Official Army.

2. Yes. Refer to Point 1

Is this always true?

Were the French or Dutch resistance who shoot German soldiers murders?
Were the PKK murders because they fighted against Iraq?

[Budgie]

It all comes down to the old adage of 'One Man's Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter'

Quote:

1. Yes It Murder, Due To The Fact, It Was Never a War, an the IRA are Not a Official Army.

2. Yes. Refer to Point 1


Is this always true?

Were the French or Dutch resistance who shoot German soldiers murders?
Were the PKK murders because they fighted against Iraq?

My personal opinion (and that is all it is) is that there is a profound difference between the IRA and The Resistance of WW2. The Resistance were fighting against a foreign invader who took their countries by conquest after defeating the national army in the field. If the Germans had invaded England then I am sure there would have been a resistance movement in this country. By the same point there is resistance at the moment in Iraq which is to be expected.

The Army presence in NI was increased in 1969 as an Internal Security measure. All 3 arms were present in NI for many years prior to the start of the 'troubles'. They were present because NI, like Scotland and Wales as well as England is/was part of the United Kingdom and as such have/had Army, Navy and RAF bases located there.

The IRA activity in NI has never been legitimate warfare due to troops being on home soil. If the players have crossed the border from the republic to commit murder or plant a bomb etc then it is an act of aggression by a civilian from a foreign country.....Not an act of war.

As for acts of terror performed by the British army, well if West Belfast, Divis and the Markets etc had been given the same treatment as Oradur-sur-Glane or Lidice then he might have a point but otherwise I feel that Maverick is just another provo ranting away. As in most arguments when the British are accused of terror bombing of German cities like Dresden and Essen , the German Treatment of Coventry, London and Liverpool etc is conveniently forgotten.

And as for hitting civilian targets I am afraid that like blue on blue, these incidents are unfortunate but they do happen but I would not say deliberately.

Well that's my twopennorth for what it's worth

[harry hackedoff]

Maverick has been removed.
Aye,

[Budgie]

Well, He can't say he wasn't warned

[Tom Dickson]

Why Was Maverick removed, what had he done wrong except express an opinion, if you remove all the people who you dont agree with then you may as well close the site down .

[Frank S.]

I think some people need to start thinking for themselves and stop believing every piece of UK propoganda that they read in the papers.

Its only been the brave actions of the IRA that have brought about change in NI. The people who call them scum aren't fit to lace the boots of people like Bobby Sands or Michael Collins.

Some fools believe that only a soveriegn army is a legitimate one! What load of crap! Its only the so called 'terrorist' armies that have any legitimacy.

I for one salute the 'ra!

Tiocfaidh Ar La!

Had some of his statements such as those quoted above been put differently, perhaps in the form of questions, I don't think Maverick would have gotten the responses he did. It would also have been helpful to know more about what in his background qualified him to claim what he did.

To make posts as he did in a forum frequented by people who not only were deployed to NI but lost friends there was just purposefully inflamatory. Bear in mind this is just my opinion. If someone claimed Corsican separatists as freedom fighters, I'd get a hell of a lot more riled up.

And another two pennies, some people read books and articles which slant happens to seduce them to the point they accept it as gospel. I say gospel because of the preaching they fall into: going back to my first point, he did not appear to come seeking to give or receive information from those who could provide it first hand. He instead wanted to state his views about the 'legitimacy of killing', and in doing so showed that he did not understand the terms of this very question.

Personally I don't wish him ill, not at all. Hopefully over time, experience will nuance his views and ways to express them. For the time being it's simply a matter of irreconcilable differences, to the point that dialogue is not possible.

[Tom Dickson]

so What we are saying is the same as the dissisident IRA are saying at the moment is we dont like what Gerry Adams is saying at the moment so lets take him out. (not a bad thing 20 years ago) but to late now .

[joe]

so What we are saying is the same as the dissisident IRA are saying at the moment is we dont like what Gerry Adams is saying at the moment so lets take him out. (not a bad thing 20 years ago) but to late now .

Are you Maverick's dad or something? The guy was quite clearly here to wind people up, it's quite obvious from the tone and content of his posts. Like Frank just told you, a lot of what he was saying was inflamatory ... not to mention FACTUALLY inaccurate. I was intending to join in on this thread, but Mav told us that:

And there's no point replying. Your comments won't be read by me. I've had quite enough of this forum. You people lack the intellect to get into discussions with me.

[Sully]

Are you Maverick's dad or something?

That's constructive, what makes you think that? Or are you just jumping on a bandwagon and trying to be funny?

I agree with Tom, and I'm in no way related to Maverick or share the views expressed in his oft-quoted outburst. He didn't "take over" the subject, he started it. My view is that he ruffled a few feathers when he said that "it cuts both ways" (which is a valid view, especially in the light of the Stevens Report - and remember, valid doesn't mean right) which lead to him being referred to as just another dickhead student and a few other worldly souls following up on that line of dismissiveness/abuse. I think that's where his outburst came from.

For those who can't be arsed, in our 3 minute culture, to read Maverick's first post here it is......

Something that has always struck me about the IRA, from reading books or watching documentaries, is that they want to be treated with 'kid gloves'. They want to be able to do whatever they want, but want the protection of the law when things go pear shaped.

A good example of this was the attempted attack on a police station in NI where 8 IRA men were shot dead in an SAS ambush. For the life of me I can't understand how the IRA can come out and complain about this! They wanted to play with the big boys and they lost. Quite simply the SAS were too good for them.

Now, aside from the rights or wrongs of SAS tactics, the fact is the IRA don't take prisoners and they shoot unarmed people. Why then is it that in the 'war' that they were fighting they expected the other side to take prisoners and not to shoot if they were unarmed?

Is the same with the Gibralter shootings. The IRA were there to blow up a military target. They were ambushed and killed again by the SAS. The IRA were disgusted by the actions of the British Army yet felt there was nothing wrong with killing unarmed British soldiers.

What do you guys think?

Apart from Maverick's petulant outburst I largely enjoyed his previous posts (of which there were many and they were mostly well informed, thoughtful and thought provoking). I don't think he should have been removed. I think there's a fair few nobbers who contribute to the discussion but the moderators have been excellent - in this case I think they have made a serious mistake.

This probably won't make me popular but I've never said things to be popular. Diplomacy comes with age (apparently not with some of the contributors) but what I believe is what I believe and I'm not about to jump on bandwagons. At the moment I'm having serious doubts about whether to bother looking at the forum at all. If someone expresses a contrary view (which Maverick did, diplomatically at first) then they seem to get shouted down, their motives and pedigree for uttering such heresies are questioned.

I expressed a view a while back and it was suggested that maybe I would like to see British servicemen and women shot at in Iraq. I was a bit put out by this but gave a respectful reply and all was well in the end (until the next time, that is). This kind of persolanisation of a debate (which I find a bit juvenile) seems to be becoming the norm.