The IRA And The SAS

[Maverick]

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?

[lodgi]

Well I can see why they wouldn't expect the SAS to shoot them if they were unarmed. Not that I care about any of the IRA though, everyone thinks the otherside is the worst. They probably think it's well within their right to drag British soldiers through the streets behind cars. I can see where the IRA are coming from but I don't care, hope the SAS kill them all.

Keep St. George in my heart keep me English!
Keep St. George in my heart I pray!
Keep St. George in my heart keep me English!
Keep me English till my dying day!
No surrender,
No surrender,
No surrender to the IRA!
No surrender to the IRA scum!

[Maverick]

It goes both ways, though. British soldiers have never been murdered by the IRA. They have simply been killed in successful military operations. The British have always made out that some sort of attrocity has been committed when the IRA kill British soldiers. At the end of the day the soldiers joined up to serve in war zones and if they get shot then they are casualties of war.

If they are going to shoot unarmed IRA men then they can't cry murder when their armoured vehicle is blown off the road in a daring and successful republican operation.

[Andy O'Pray]

British soldiers have never been murdered by the IRA.

Maverick,

I would check the facts before you make statements like that.

Aye - Andy.

[Maverick]

Obviously there have been occasions where the integrity of the IRA can be called into question regarding the deaths of British soldiers, but the point I'm making is that the shooting of a soldier out on patrol or travelling between bases is not murder.

[barryc]

Maverick, As Andy says, check your facts, there have been numerous cases of British Soldiers murdered in cold blood by the IRA, chatted up by Irish girls whilst off duty in a pub and lifted outside the pub by the players, tortured and shot.


But as you say they only want to play big boys games their way.


Barry

[Andy O'Pray]

Maverick,

Go To www.palacebarracksmemorialgarden.org

Read carefully under what circumstances those people were killed, in many cases murdered. You will note the Royal Marines Bandsmen who were murdered along with many others, by the IRA.

Aye - Andy.

[Contractor]

Maverick,

If the British Forces had been allowed to wage a war against the IRA then the IRA would have ceased to exist almost immediately.

The 'players' were/are all known - a press blackout of 48 hours and no more IRA.

However, this would never have been politically or morally acceptable to the British people, or probably more importantly the world community as a whole. War and the campaign the IRA directed are two totally different animals.

[Archie]

Maverick,

I respectfully suggest that you heed the advice of others and consider the facts of your statement.

Many of us have lost friends and colleagues over the water, some of whom were indeed killed off duty in circumstances where they constiuted no threat to anyone, and were simply killed because of who they were.

I think you should review your post before the forum turns on you, this is a very sensitive area and one which should be handled with a great deal of thought.

[Maverick]

I'm not saying that the IRA were right to kill British soldiers. That is not the point I'm making.

The point I'm trying to make is that both sides of the conflict seem to think that there are different rules for each side.

The SAS feel that they are entitled to shoot unarmed men because they are members of the IRA. However, if the IRA shoot armed soldiers this is deemed to be murder.

I think that any armed conflict should be a last resort, and I don't believe that going around shooting people is the way to solve things. However, if a British soldier is on patrol in a warzone like South Armagh and is shot by a sniper it is not murder.

The IRA weren't just a bunch of drunks with guns. They were a professional military unit and the Special Branch etc acknowledge this. Sure, there were times when British soldiers were killed in cowardly ways, but the vast majority of British military casualties in NI were as a result of legitimate military action on behalf of the IRA.

The contradictions in wartime never fail to amaze me. The IRA planting a bomb to take out an army truck is murder, yet the RAF pilots who dropped bombs from thousands of feet in the air onto Iraqi conscripts are heros'.

[Maverick]

This is no disrespect to the brave soldiers who served in NI, or the pilots who flew in the Gulf.

However, every nation has its dark horses and Britain is no exception.

My view on NI is that the IRA were as legitimate an army as that of the UK. They were volunteers doing unpaid and dangerous work for a cause that they believed in. The British soldiers were volunteers there to serve the UK Government. No one wants to see young men killed but when you fight in a war you have to expect that you will be shot at - even if your not ready or on your lunch break.

I think its a sad day when anyone dies but war is war. The IRA committed some dispicable attrocities which cannot be condoned. However, I'm sure that there are many families in Iraq who could tell you a thing or two about bombs through roofs.

Thats not to say that the Gulf wars weren't necessary. It just shows that things happen in wars that are just as bad as anything that the IRA ever did.

[Archie]

The purpose of armed troops in situations like NI is to establish a safe environment for the people to live in. Once the situation is stable and the people are free from persecution the troops move out and the province is left to govern itself as it sees fit.

The problem is the factions don't want peace, the factions business is based on anarchy. A terrorist group is a business like any other, a protection racket if you like. If peace broke out where would all the money come from to feed and clothe them and their families. Next time you see a documentary on the subject, look at the cars they drive, the lifestyles they lead, it's all about money.

So there you are, I've said it, the king has got no clothes on. We all know it's true, you should learn it as well.

You portray these people as freedom fighters, they are not, they are no better than the gangland thugs found in any big city.

[Topper]

Surely a 'military action' can only be carried out by a sovereign army not by a bunch of muderous pimping, drug pushing, knee capping bastards?

[Maverick]

not by a bunch of muderous pimping, drug pushing, knee capping bastards?

hey, leave the paras out of this!

[Shoulderholster]

Another thread by another Dickhead student who seem to have F####D
up this once outstanding Forum.
Do some research Maverick and think about who your "talking" to before you come out with shite statments.
SH