DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**PaulRyansew** · 03-01-2011, 04:36 AM

Al-Qaeda targets civilians and so the answer is no. It's part of their game plan.

So have the IRA on occasion

The IRA and the Loyalists rarley fought each other. The IRA didn't want people to perceive the conflict as a secretarian war, which is how the media made it out to be, rather than a war against occupiers and so they only went after higher up Loyalists if there was an issue with them. Despite Euro's claim, it was understood among the IRA hierarcy that dead civilians is bad publicity and so they tried to minimize civilian casualities. How did they try to do this? They would call the authorities and tell them there would be a bombing.

Not always, my dad was in a pub a few hours before they blew it up- a fair few people died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings

The Loyalist paramilitary groups would go after easy targets by killing civilians rather than fight the the IRA.

Quite true, and it wasn't right when they did it.

I'm not trying to defend any group here. I'm simply pointing out the facts. No one involved in the conflict from the bottom up is a choir boy. Violent organizations draw people with a violent personalities but just as some people are worse than others, some groups are worse than others. The IRA, and its splinter groups, has British policies in the late 60s and the government's disinterest in keeping blowhards like Pasley in check. The situation could have been dealt with mostly peacefully if a leash was kept tight.

Paisley seems like he was a shit stirrer, but so is/was Gerry Adams

M15, by the way, seems to do more harm than good.

Who knows, I certainly am not privy to their workings and I doubt anyone on here is. They could be foiling stuff all of the time. Doubt it though, their salaries don't attract the brightest people in the world.

03-01-2011, 04:36 AM	#33
PaulRyansew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 408 Senior Member	Al-Qaeda targets civilians and so the answer is no. It's part of their game plan. So have the IRA on occasion The IRA and the Loyalists rarley fought each other. The IRA didn't want people to perceive the conflict as a secretarian war, which is how the media made it out to be, rather than a war against occupiers and so they only went after higher up Loyalists if there was an issue with them. Despite Euro's claim, it was understood among the IRA hierarcy that dead civilians is bad publicity and so they tried to minimize civilian casualities. How did they try to do this? They would call the authorities and tell them there would be a bombing. Not always, my dad was in a pub a few hours before they blew it up- a fair few people died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings The Loyalist paramilitary groups would go after easy targets by killing civilians rather than fight the the IRA. Quite true, and it wasn't right when they did it. I'm not trying to defend any group here. I'm simply pointing out the facts. No one involved in the conflict from the bottom up is a choir boy. Violent organizations draw people with a violent personalities but just as some people are worse than others, some groups are worse than others. The IRA, and its splinter groups, has British policies in the late 60s and the government's disinterest in keeping blowhards like Pasley in check. The situation could have been dealt with mostly peacefully if a leash was kept tight. Paisley seems like he was a shit stirrer, but so is/was Gerry Adams M15, by the way, seems to do more harm than good. Who knows, I certainly am not privy to their workings and I doubt anyone on here is. They could be foiling stuff all of the time. Doubt it though, their salaries don't attract the brightest people in the world.
	Quote