Massive bomb in NI

[Jon_in_london]

Massive bomb has been found in NI

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2992984.stm

I guess now would be the time to send in the tanks, bulldozers and helicopter gunships! Oh no wait, thats only in Isreal............

[Skeptic]

I guess now would be the time to send in the tanks, bulldozers and helicopter gunships!

Damn right.

Of course, maybe you believe that the IRA, a terrorist organization whose goal is to butcher those who disagree with them, is going to actually keep a "peace agreement" with people it despises and wishes dead for one second longer that it thinks it needs.

And, if you believe that, you'll surely also believe that they might use the cover of "peace" to do something else except for rearm for a renewed attack later--as this story proves they are doing. After all, there are SO MANY peaceful venues for ex-IRA members can use their bomb-making and sniper talents in. Open a pub, maybe?

Good luck. You'll need it.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Massive bomb has been found in NI

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2992984.stm

I guess now would be the time to send in the tanks, bulldozers and helicopter gunships! Oh no wait, thats only in Isreal............

We did that. Worked quite well. We probably wouldn't have a ceasefire (poor as it is) if not for the soldiers who went there.

Not this time, though... the bomb didn't go off, after all. And it's a one-off. If they keep trying, who knows?

[Mike B.]

How much of the IRA coming to the peace table is due to the fact that they were losing?

I mean the Army was slowly grinding them down...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


We did that. Worked quite well.

Who did what?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Who did what?

We the British sent the army to Northern Ireland. Helicopters, armoured cars, all that stuff.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


We the British sent the army to Northern Ireland. Helicopters, armoured cars, all that stuff.

Bulldozed catholic areas? fired missles into streets in catholic area? Destroyed the homes of every family of every IRA memeber? Restricted movements of catholics so as to create ghettos?

What do you mean sent in the army? Its part of the UK, if 2 RGJ get sent to salisbury plain, does that mean the army has been sent into wiltshire?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Bulldozed catholic areas?


Yes, actually.


fired missles into streets in catholic area?


No, the British army prefers to do most of its killing up close and personal. Much less likely to make the news that way.


Destroyed the homes of every family of every IRA memeber?


Nope.


Restricted movements of catholics


Partially. We had checkpoints all over the place, manned by soldiers with rifles.


so as to create ghettos?

What do you mean sent in the army? Its part of the UK, if 2 RGJ get sent to salisbury plain, does that mean the army has been sent into wiltshire?

No, conducting a training exercise is not "sending in". But there's a small difference between training on a field somewhere and deploying troops on the streets to confront an actual enemy, with live ammo and ROEs that let them use it if necessary.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that it was wrong to send the army into NI - quite the opposite, they and the security services did a fantastic job in bringing the IRA down.

Nor do I think that the Israli army is in the wrong. A little heavy-handed perhaps, but it's a different situation and the army in question has different capabilities. It would be unrealistic to expect them to use the same tactics that we did.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


Yes, actually.
[/B]

Really? Id like some more info please. Ta.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seismosaurus
[/B]

No, the British army prefers to do most of its killing up close and personal. Much less likely to make the news that way.

[/B]

Much less likely to cause 'collateral damage' also- being the major point.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seismosaurus



Yes, actually.


[/B]

No, the British army prefers to do most of its killing up close and personal. Much less likely to make the news that way.

[quote]
Partially. We had checkpoints all over the place, manned by soldiers with rifles.


Absolutely no comparison- check points to prevent movement of munitions are not the same as a de facto policy of restricting the movement of an entire population apartheid stylie.


But lets cut out the semantic swordplay and get to the point. There simply isnt any comparison between the way the British have handled NI and the way Isreal has handled the OT. Saying that the Isreali tactics are slightly more heavy handed is like saying a nuclear strike is slightly more heavy handed than a stongly worded diplomatic protest.

Which approach do you think has shown the most success?

[Shane Costello]

The only reason the British Army had to take control in NI in 1969 was because of decades of British acquiesance (including bleeding heart heroes like Attlee and Wilson) in a sectarian statelet. The Irish government and authorities had been successfull in eliminating (more or less) the IRA, what with a civil war and internment and execution without trial. Had the British enforced equal rights in Northern Ireland from the start, the past thirty years would have been much happier.

[eli54]

See, now that's why I switched from Republican to Libertarian!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
The only reason the British Army had to take control in NI in 1969 was because of decades of British acquiesance (including bleeding heart heroes like Attlee and Wilson) in a sectarian statelet. The Irish government and authorities had been successfull in eliminating (more or less) the IRA, what with a civil war and internment and execution without trial. Had the British enforced equal rights in Northern Ireland from the start, the past thirty years would have been much happier.

My knowledge of that period of Irish/British history is sketchy. Id like to read up on it.
Shane- do you have any good links?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by eli54
See, now that's why I switched from Republican to Libertarian!

:confused:

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Absolutely no comparison- check points to prevent movement of munitions are not the same as a de facto policy of restricting the movement of an entire population apartheid stylie.

Of course it is. Is it lower on the scale? Quite definitely. But it is still part of the same scale.

Put it this way - if Bush ordered the US army to do that on the streets of America, what would people say? Do you really think they wouldn't call it a restriction just because the soldiers let you go on after they've checked you out?


But lets cut out the semantic swordplay and get to the point. There simply isnt any comparison between the way the British have handled NI and the way Isreal has handled the OT. Saying that the Isreali tactics are slightly more heavy handed is like saying a nuclear strike is slightly more heavy handed than a stongly worded diplomatic protest.

More semantics. Both have/had armed forces on the streets, engaging in combat. The difference is in tactics and weaponry used, degree and frequency.

Which approach do you think has shown the most success?

Oh, certainly the British approach. But the Israli army is not the British army, nor does it face the same situation.

To expect the Isralis to do what we did just because it worked in Northern Ireland assumes that they are capable of doing what we did, and that the same tactics would work in a different situation. Neither one is necessarily the case.