TR is a rozzer...he's bound to have a strong opinion that most of you won't like. Mine comes from my military background so I have that bias.
Northern Ireland Thread
- Thread starter Gaz.
- Start date
Oh I see, well that's a different matter altogether. It wasn't a winnable war for your lot, you can never defeat a determined guerrilla force. Even one of your generals said so for feck sake.
Yes we have established any opinion different to an Irish one is wrong.
There is actualy a fair bit of truth to what Grinner says. At times on here it is as if no-one is allowed to discuss Anglo-Irish affairs unless you are infact Irish. You either get shouted down or belittled or told the matter is sensitive (yet theres a fecking thread about it on a public forum)
Well if you read back a few posts I argue why. Talking down the IRA as a cowardly amateur force is just naive no harm to you and it also just reiterates your narrow perspective. Remember one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
What is amusing is Ramshock has appeared and proved everything I said earlier to be true.
It was never a 'war' to the British and as such wasn't dealt with like one.
It was never a 'war' to the British and as such wasn't dealt with like one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm
Army paper says IRA not defeated
Army concedes for first time it did not win the battle against the IRA
An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.
The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 100 page document analyses in detail the army's role over 37 years.
It focuses on specific operations and gives an overview of its performance.
The six-month study, covering the period 1968-2005, was prepared under the direction of the then chief of general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.
The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.
It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".
In a statement, the Pat Finucane Centre - a human rights group - said the document "betrays a profoundly colonial mindset towards the conflict here and those involved in it".
"Loyalist violence and the links between loyalist paramilitaries and the state has been airbrushed out of this military history," it said.
In a statement issued on Friday, an Army spokesman said: "This publication considers the high level general issues that might be applicable to any future counter-terrorist campaign that the British Armed Forces might have to undertake.
"It is critically important to consider what was learned by those who served in Northern Ireland."
Army paper says IRA not defeated
Army concedes for first time it did not win the battle against the IRA
An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.
The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 100 page document analyses in detail the army's role over 37 years.
It focuses on specific operations and gives an overview of its performance.
The six-month study, covering the period 1968-2005, was prepared under the direction of the then chief of general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.
The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.
It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".
In a statement, the Pat Finucane Centre - a human rights group - said the document "betrays a profoundly colonial mindset towards the conflict here and those involved in it".
"Loyalist violence and the links between loyalist paramilitaries and the state has been airbrushed out of this military history," it said.
In a statement issued on Friday, an Army spokesman said: "This publication considers the high level general issues that might be applicable to any future counter-terrorist campaign that the British Armed Forces might have to undertake.
"It is critically important to consider what was learned by those who served in Northern Ireland."
Amateur compared to the SAS and British Army? Yes. Don't think that is much of an argument is it.
I do find guerilla tactics cowardly I must admit.
Well whatever floats your narrow boat mate, your Army brass has a different opinion.
Of course it failed to defeat the IRA. Why is there a big to do about that?
What they should line up in formation and go head to head with a vastly superior force?
fecking catch a grip of yourself, I suppose they should wear bright colours too because camouflage is unsporting. You are embarrassing yourself here in fairnessNo to do with you, this other lad here though doesn't grab the concept of defending your country or perceived cause with whatever means you have.
At no point in the article is the word 'war' used and at no point do any of the quotes back up the sensationalist headline.
The quoted sections actualy state the British Forces showed the IRA could not achieve it's goals by violence which in itself is a success.
This particular line of debate came about when TR insisted that the SAS would have defeated the IRA on their own. People are now disputing it. I personally don't think it matters anymore. All done and dusted and thanks be to god for that. It's about time people from the north realised that we are not wanted by anyone and should just concentrate on trying to live together as peacefully as possible.
What they should line up in formation and go head to head with a vastly superior force?
You have lost me here.
Do you want to disagree that the IRA are amateurs compared to the British Army and Special Forces? You took issue with my remark they are and I don't see what is controversial about it in fairness.
lol semantics are a wonderful thing when a person wants to win a debate or argument aren't they? The only difference between the conflict/war here and any other really long riot or battle that lasted 37 fecking years is the fact it was waged by a government/military on what was supposedly its own subjects. A government doesn't declare war on its own subjects does it?
No of course not, therefore as there was no declaration of war its not referred to as war but it wasn't a 37 year long barney, or rumble or punch up it was a fecking war which involved lots of deaths, lots of troops, lots of weapons and lots of toffs in brass hats drawing battle plans on blackboards.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and swims like a duck then its a duck mate end of. Your semantics don't wash with me.
It isn't looked upon as a war in Britain and never will be.
They did alright, a few hundred volunteers held off the 5th or 6th best military power in the world. Navy Seals is where its at though, they piss all over the SAS imo.
Now I know you're talking nonsense
Besides, everyone knows the SBS pip the SAS to worlds most elite fighting force.
Now I know you're talking nonsense
Besides, everyone knows the SBS pip the SAS to worlds most elite fighting force.
Funny story, my uncle was in the SBS whilst he was running guns for the IRA.
I heard the IRA trained the SBS?
Tbf, he said the SBS training was the most grusome thing he'd ever went through. He said it was way the other side of humane. He did say though that he knew lads in the Ra who could shoot better.
See at least you can have a smile TDon!
Fair play.
Ach aye, I don't see why serious debate can't be tempered with a bit of banter, to break it up a bit.
You know nothing. I always heard that the yanks at LRRPS school got binned almost instantly because they couldn't hack it.
Stick to something you actually know.
The SBS lads are pussies, none of them have ever trained for junior b championship in GAA.
Ramshock is a bitter Irishman, he is just taking digs.
Which is probably why they were never able to defeat the IRA.
Some of this has turned into an embarrassing 'my da's tougher than your da' argument. There was wrong on both sides in the North, who was better trained doesn't come into it, grow up.
You seem intent on scoring points TR. Of course the IRA were cowardly, just as the soliders on Bloody Sunday didn't shower themselves in heroic glory.
What's next then the 'we killed less innocent civilians than your lot' moral cup.
Pathetic stuff.
Pathetic stuff.
For either the IRA or the British Army to try claim moral victory, but be abhorrent.
The British Army lost the moral high ground when they invaded Ireland. The I.R.A lost the moral high ground when they started murdering innocent people.
The British Army lost the moral high ground when they invaded Ireland. The I.R.A lost the moral high ground when they started murdering innocent people.
In any similar situation this happens. It’s not right but it is inevitable.
Nelson Mandela's ANC were responsible for the death of many innocents as well and engaged in guerrilla warfare, which of course TR describes as "cowardly". But when backs are against the wall sometimes there is no choice.
TR also describes hunger strikers as cowards too. A very peaceful but brave protest. Bobby Sands sacrificed himself and managed to get Ireland a lot of World wide support in the meantime.
What way should they have gone about it? I am open to suggestions.
Of course both sides think they're justified and a debate to be had as to whether killing is ever acceptable but that's not what happening here.
Parts of this thread stink of crowing about who was better at killing people.
Well thats what he wrote in successive posts. Just asking.
Nice spot is what I meant.
I think he's a little confused, or trolling, can't work out which.
I think he's a little confused, or trolling, can't work out which.
The guy doesnt know his arse from his elbow.
There's a difference between collateral damage, and blowing buses, streets, and shops up.
Would have been a nice spot if you guys had actually bothered to read what was written instead of highlighting and quoting what suited to try and contradict me.
Nice try mind.
I seem intent on point scoring? Oh dear, either you haven't read this all particularly well or you have neglected to read what a large number of Irish posters have written, alot of which epitomises point scoring from the first page of the thread.
Then again, this thread wouldn't be this thread if someone who wasn't Irish wasn't being slated for daring to have an opinion different to the masses.
Exactly Jake. A massive difference. This point seems lost on a few people though.
No I didn't, I just stated to me it is not a hugely courageous act.
And there is always a choice. Don't talk nonsense.