IRA are not al-Qaeda says Blair

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by TangoZeroAlpha, Jul 26, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:



    "I don't think the IRA would ever have set about trying to kill 3,000 people," he said.

    Well Mr Blair... They came really close to it but why don't you do the sums... 8m people in New York, 3000 died in 9/11 = 0.0375%...


    In NI there are 1.6m people and 3000 dead in the troubles = 0.2% (Note: I have not just used the IRA acredited deaths but taken all deaths)

    A big difference Mr Blair in percentage terms but then again we are used to your double standards.
  2. So they only used a firecracker in Manchester and Baltic Exchange then?

    And the fizzler in Birmingham with 500lbs of explosive on board would have killed and injured 100's of kids on a Friday night if it had gone off.

    No we must get it right , we must be as terrified as possible of the new threat, because the IRA were only some good old fellahs , and not really a problem. Oh and because we must show solidarity with America, What they define as terrorists, are what we define as terrorists. NORAID still trading?

    Hang on, has he just said the IRA were not extremists motivated by religion and identity?

    I need to step outside and scream.
  3. Terrorism is malevolent politics, whatever the cause. And thats the rub. The IRA (however misguided) did have a pretty clearly defined cause and a hierarchical command structure, which could be negotiated with and could, to some extent, be pacified by concessions. Only the naive would swollow the mantra of successive governments: "We never negotiate with terrorists".

    Al Qaeda is nothing more than a loose conglomeration of backward religious fanatics, which patently does not have a cause (unless wreaking havok, misery and destrunction can, of itself, be classed as a cause). Who knows, one day, someone of sufficient influence might emerge from the AQ 'organisation', who can be negotiated with. But, for now, that seems an unlikely prospect.

    Whatever the relative demerits of the two organisations, the IRA are certainly not in the same league as Al Qaeda.
  4. Surely the IRA could never be in the same catergory as Al Qaeda could it?

    This would surely put America in an awkward position as the majority of funding for the IRA came (and still does) from the misguided population believing in old paddy the freedom fighter, fighting British rule, tyranny and oppression.
  5. Terrorists are terrorists full stop. They are all scum, and should be exterminated from the very moment they commit their first acts of terrorism or any activity running up to such an act.

    The IRA are the same breed as Al Quaida.
  6. If you listen to context of those remarks they are not as bad as they might seem at first. He makes long efforts to state that IRA terrorism was never justified. When asked what is the difference between AQ and the IRA he points out that the difference is that the IRA did not aim to kill as many people as posisble. They made mistakes and occasionally targeted civilians. AQ, on the other hand, merely aim to kill as many civilians as possible.

    I'm no fan of the IRA but there is nothing wrong with what Blair has said....

  7. I can see how, easy to mistake Arndale for a Barracks, Baltic Exchange bears an uncanny resemblance to an RAF station , Bishopsgate in the right light could be mistaken for Aldershot.

    Balls. I see those other alleged murderers have 'resigned' today. Surely a co-incidence.
  8. Tricam wrote:

    You are a fcuking muppet with no clue, really you do not have a clue. So why don't you fcuk off coming on this site talking total bollacks about a subject you clearly do know nothing about.

    The list could go on

    Just click on the link below and find out how many people were killed Mil and Civ and then tell me they did not kill civilians.

    Not alot of civilians were killed, just a few, oh really, this dispells your theory as well.

    They are and always will be terrorists just like AQ, with no differences, they kill for political gain.

    Just to show I am not basied, I put the so called loyalist scum in the same bracket.
  9. I'm not familar with those exact bombings mentioned by PTP. But my point is that they would usually give coded warnings so that the area could be evacuated.

    The IRA aim on UK mainland was usually to cause economic destruction and get away with it, killing as few civilains as possible as that was bad for PR.

    AQ aim to kill as many civilians as possible and don't care about their own life.

    Again I am no fan of the IRA. On the Tricam Index of Terrorism (T.I.T.) the IRA score an 8.4 but AQ get the full 10, that's all....

  10. They were economic targets rather than military targets.

    The IRA did kill civillians and many of them because it suited their cause.
  11. Anymore.

    From the PM's perspective, the big difference between the two sets of terrorists is that Al Queda can't be negotiated with/appeased.

    No wonder he's gutted.
  12. Word's Fail me.

    I cannot believe he just said such utter cr*p.

    Up until now I didn't like many of TB's policies or the spin used in presentining them but I could at least see where he was coming from and why he might believe such a course would be the best, but this is outrageous.

    He should resign immediatly. All newspapers and politiocians of every party should be out for his blood after this whopping fau-paux.

    I suspect, however that I shall wait in vain.
  13. Chemistry is not my strongpoint but, least we forget, Markets PIRA tried to blow up the Ormeau Rd gasworks in 1978. But for an unfotunate ND on their part they could have taken hundereds with them.

    Bloody friday in 21 July 1972, 22 bombs, 9 killed 130 injured
    La Mon resturaunt Feb 78: 12 burned to death and scores burned by blast incendiaries.

    Omagh 29 killed..hundereds of injuries.......

    ..........occasionally targeted civilians.....????

    of those 40 casualties, in 3 attacks, only two were soldiers, the rest civilians
  14. Er how about the La Mon firebomb where the charred corpses of the innocent civilian casualties where shown to the public:

    and here if you want to see what they did to their victims

    So feck off you cnut
  15. The only reason the IRA never killed 3000 civilans in one go, is because no site in the UK offers 3000 targets at once with a limited amount of explosive at your disposal.

    But they sure as damn tried to kill as many as they could with what they had. Or is packing explosive with coach bolts, nails and glass, simply to stop it crumbling?