Islamist threaten anyone attending Sochi Winter Olympics

[Jason Bourne 11]

I have never said anything of the sort, care to provide any proof?

 

Feel free to check your previous posts when we've discussed this exact issue. You've never once condemned the IRA as terrorists; instead you excuse and defend their acts under the label of nationalism.

 

There was no false warning as there was a bomb outside boots. The 2nd was 100 yards away, well within the distance that would normally have been evacuated. Could it be mistakes were made by the police at the time?

 

The IRA statement was as follows:

 

Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings

 

 

A later statement from the IRA also said:

 

"two precise warnings" had been given "in adequate time", one to the Samaritans and one to Merseyside Police. "You don't provide warnings if it is your intention to kill".

 

That's not a statement of an organisation that targeted civilians.

 

Thank you for re-printing a non-apology from the IRA that, like many of your posts, is worded to resolve them from blame entirely and shift the responsibility for the civilians deaths on the Police instead.

 

It's a fascinating insight into your mind.

 

Anyway, let's examine the facts of the case, rather than what amounts to an apology note from the IRA, shall we?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks#Second_attack

 

Shortly before midday on 20 March 1993, The Samaritans in Liverpool received a bomb warning by telephone.

According to police, the caller said only that a bomb had been planted outside a Boots shop.

Merseyside Police sent officers to branches of Boots in Liverpool and warned the Cheshire Constabulary, who patrolled nearby Warrington.

About 30 minutes later, at about 12:25, two bombs exploded on Bridge Street in Warrington, about 100 yards (91 m) apart.

The blasts happened within a minute of each other.

One exploded outside Boots and McDonald's, and one outside the Argos catalogue store.

The area was crowded with shoppers.

Witnesses said that "the first explosion drove panicking shoppers into the path of the next blast just seconds later".

It was later found that the bombs had been placed inside cast-iron litter bins, causing large amounts of shrapnel.

 

Now I may be of limited intelligence, but that is an act of terrorism, pure and simple.

 

The 'warning' given by those honourable and brave freedom-fighters at the IRA was next to useless, given than Warrington and Liverpool are 20 miles apart.

 

And the bombs were placed inside cast-iron bins to maximise civilian damage.

 

Wex, please, just leave it there.

 

You're beginning to sound like a terrorist apologist.

[WeX 10]

Feel free to check your previous posts when we've discussed this exact issue. You've never once condemned the IRA as terrorists; instead you excuse and defend their acts under the label of nationalism.

 

No, you made the accusation, back it up with facts or retract it.

 

I'm not a terrorist apologist, you are the one trying to downplay Islamic terror attacks.

Edited January 28, 2014 by WeX

[ivanava 10]

Irrelevant.

 

Blowing up civilians is WRONG.

 

Even I know that much.

 

It doesn't matter who did it, whether it was Abdullah the Muslim, Patrick the Irishman, or Dave the Englishman.

 

Why do you refuse to see this???

 

That's not always the case.

 

An army can't fight a war without the support of civilians, civilians produce the weapons and ammunition that armies use, they grow the food that armies need, without the support of civilians an army couldn't function, so at times of war cutting that supply line to the armies makes perfect sense.

[WeX 10]

Sorry Wex but you're on a hiding to nothing here. No-one with a brain can deny that the IRA were terrorists, and they got increasing desperate and killed a lot of innocent people and gave misleading 'warnings' which resulted in carnage. The Government stood firm against them and the only relenting has come through talks, not violence.

 

However I still think there is no comparison it was all political and nothing to do with religion. If they achieved a united Ireland that would have been job done and the end of the IRA. No more kneecappings, religious bias or anything else. Business as before, except the bit at the top would be part of Ireland and not the UK.

 

The Islamics thing is totally different, they say they only want the West out of their lands, but it's more than that, they actually want a worldwide Islam along with sharia law and all that entails. So if they ever got their way the violence would only increase, with stonings, beheadings, hangings, amputations, forced marriages, state sanctioned paedophilia and homophobia and the rest. You only have to look at the countries they run to see how it would work out. Nightmare scenario.

 

We have to make sure our governments stand firm against them as well, like they did against the IRA terror campaign. Because we sure as hell don't want that way of life imposed on us.

 

natjack, you have probably put it more eloquently than I there and I completely agree with what you say. I have never denied the IRA were terrorists. What I do disagree with is stupid comments by people like Jason who make flippant comparisons without any understanding of the facts.

 

The IRA's approach was totally different to that of Islamic terrorists and anyone who tries to play down Islamic attacks by saying the IRA were the same are plain wrong. The two are not comparable.

 

It was the death of innocent people at the hands of the IRA that resulted in their eventual abandonment of violence primarily as a result of the public backlash to their actions. When the IRA killed innocent people, their own supporters turned against them.

 

When Islamic terrorists kill innocent civilians, their support grows.

[Mecky 10]

natjack, you have probably put it more eloquently than I there and I completely agree with what you say. I have never denied the IRA were terrorists. What I do disagree with is stupid comments by people like Jason who make flippant comparisons without any understanding of the facts.

 

The IRA's approach was totally different to that of Islamic terrorists and anyone who tries to play down Islamic attacks by saying the IRA were the same are plain wrong. The two are not comparable.

 

It was the death of innocent people at the hands of the IRA that resulted in their eventual abandonment of violence primarily as a result of the public backlash to their actions. When the IRA killed innocent people, their own supporters turned against them.

 

When Islamic terrorists kill innocent civilians, their support grows.

 

Not to mention the IRA was soley against the UK although they did attack british interests on foreign soil. Nobody can say the same of islamic terrorists who are having a crack at everyone, even themselves in some respects

[WeX 10]

Not to mention the IRA was soley against the UK although they did attack british interests on foreign soil. Nobody can say the same of islamic terrorists who are having a crack at everyone, even themselves in some respects

 

Very true, they seem to have a view that if you don't agree with me 100%, you're a target.

[natjack 10]

That's three of us in agreement then. Now we just have to get everyone else onside.