Why do people think the IRA targeted civilians?

2016-07-21 8:15 pm
They had policies which were clear to never target civilians the usual argument people make to say that they did target civilians are things like oh well look at bloody Friday, adequate warnings were given but the "security forces" were unable to cope and couldn't evacuate areas in time. The IRA set off a massive truck bomb in Manchester which could have killed hundreds of civilians but they gave a warning so nobody was killed.

I could make the same argument to say the American army targeted civilians if someone said to me the American army don't target civilians I could just say then why did they blow up a hospital in Afghanistan a few months ago? If someone said to me the British army didn't target civilians I could name things like Bloody Sunday, Springhill massacre, Ballymurphy massacre etc.

Terrorism is just a word used to describe something British people don't like, the American war of independence, the irish war of independence pretty much any country that ever fought against British rule were called terrorists.

If you want to disagree with me please check back on the comments of your answer I will quickly debunk your answer. The absolute cheek of the British labelling the IRA terrorists and murderers when 13 years prior they had held tens of thousands of innocent people in Kenya and tortured, mutilated and killed tens of thousands of them all to counter a group with 100 members who tried to gain independence.

回答 (5)

2016-07-21 8:17 pm
✔ 最佳答案
Because they did.

Or do you think a retired royal is somehow a legitimate target
Or the volunteer Horse Guards, who were fortunately saved because the IRA set up the claymores AFTER having drunk their body weight in Guinness, apparently, so they only set the innocent horses to the glue and dog food factory.

And I'm half Irish on both sides of my family
2016-07-22 1:48 am
I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who believes the British regarded the American colonists as "terrorists", which would've been a little difficult considering the etymology of terrorism and terrorist arises from the French Revolution and the period of "la Terreur" under Robespierre, nearly 15 years AFTER the end of the American War of Independence. Even then it was referencing a legitimate system of government that used terror to assert itself over all of it's citizenry.

Nor, during the Easter Uprising and later Irish War of Independence, would "terrorist" be used. Those involved were referred to as either "Feinians" or "militant Republicans" - even when the IRA actively targeted, tortured, murdered or simply "disappeared" civilians whom they believed in their minds had given information to the British. It was subsequently revealed by RIC records that the Protestants the IRA had killed had been very tight-lipped or had never been interviewed by a constable at all.

In all honesty, I can't really take seriously someone who is an apologist for murderers. But since you're about 15 and have reached that age where you desperately want to belong, feel like part of something and appear "revolutionary", I guess you can be forgiven. You'll grow out of it.
2016-07-21 8:44 pm
Because they planted bombs in public places. Next.
2016-07-21 8:25 pm
Joe Apeloko being blown to pieces by the Britts in Kenya or Joe Nguyen being blown to bits in Vietnam does not justify the murder of Joe Lynskey in County Meath. I don't care if you call the IRA terrorists or brothers in arms, they murdered civilians. Terrorism is a criminal act that is committed to influence an audience beyond its immediate victims. The IRA are called terrorists because they committed such acts.
2016-07-21 8:18 pm
Um, maybe it was all the pub bombings.

收錄日期: 2021-04-21 19:21:17
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160721121518AA46qEJ

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份