IRA vs Taliban

Surely this is a ludicrous proposal at the very base line. Both organisations for the majority adopt guerrila warfare tactics and so I say, who would win? Nobody, although plenty of innocent people would die in the process. Ridiculous, utterly pathetic excuse for entertainment.
 
cyborg said:
Protection, what the hell are you talking about?

Anyways i'd say the taliban, as in my opinion they are crazy. They'd throw their lives down for whatever they 'believe'. Not easy to win against an enemy who has no regard for their own life.
Click to expand...

Protected from the UVF, 3rd force, UDA/UFF. The army also provided a pressure valve in the form of the UDR for the Uninionist majority and there was also the RUC. When the UFF tryed to kill Gerry Adams the security forces had tampered with their ammo which stopped them from killing him. It was also the army (UDR) that stopped them finishing him of.

In a housing estate in Derry the IRA would not have the Army or RUC protection from mister taliban setting up shop on ever street of the estate and killing anyone who didn't play ball. ;)
 
it sort of depends on the situation doesnt it ?

the IRA's not about to go off oversees and start fighting on four fronts and win are they ?

however if the the taliban wanted to come over and and take control of northern ireland, then surely you have to fancy the IRA ?

However if the taliban were in control of NI, would the IRA have already lost ?
 
Orcish-Horde said:
Protected from the UVF, 3rd force, UDA/UFF. The army also provided a pressure valve in the form of the UDR for the Uninionist majority and there was also the RUC. When the UFF tryed to kill Gerry Adams the security forces had tampered with their ammo which stopped them from killing him. It was also the army (UDR) that stopped them finishing him of.

In a housing estate in Derry the IRA would not have the Army or RUC protection from mister taliban setting up shop on ever street of the estate and killing anyone who didn't play ball. ;)
Click to expand...

Well in the same way the army protected the UVF and loyalists in general. They were inbetween everyone.
 
dirtydog said:
Other than Bloody Sunday, what 'many atrocities' are you referring to? Even Bloody Sunday is nothing compared to what Israel does regularly but nobody, eg. in the US bats an eyelid although many Yanks are happy to support and bankroll the IRA. As it sounds like you do.
Click to expand...

You have to go back further than Bloody Sunday if you want to see English atrocities against the Irish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans is one off the top of my head.

The Black and Tans were not subject to strict discipline in their early months in Ireland and as a result, the deaths of Black and Tans at the hands of the IRA in 1920 were often repaid with arbitrary reprisals against the civilian population. In the summer of 1920, the Black and Tans burned and sacked many small towns and villages in Ireland, beginning with Tuam in County Galway in July 1920 and also including Trim, Balbriggan, Thurles and Templemore amongst many others. In November 1920, the Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town and let no food in for a week. In addition they shot dead three local people. On 14 November, the Tans abducted and murdered a Roman Catholic priest, Fr Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later. Finally, the Black and Tans sacked Cork city, on the night of 11 December 1920, the centre of which was burned out.
Click to expand...

The English have been brutal towards the Irish all throughout history, the Black and Tans were just one part of it. The troubles started a long long time ago, going back to when Cromwell was around (and before it, I think). It was far worse then, with cruelty and atrocities rarely being documented.

I'm not a supporter of the IRA, nor their methods, especially when it results in innocent casualties. But their 'cause' is one I can understand.
 
Last edited:
spirity said:
I'm not a supporter of the IRA, nor their methods, especially when it results in innocent casualties. But their 'cause' is one I can understand.
Click to expand...

What cause? from the 1970's they never ever protrayed any cause, their only cause was to issue martial to drug dealers that dont work for them, whilst selling drugs to make cash.
The ira from the 1970's onwards became a drug dealing group the exact same and the bloods gang in la yet we dont see people saying we respect their cause.
If they wanted to have a cause, they can use political means to promote it like every other sane person, we didnt see joanna lumley blowing up hospitals or remberance parades to get the right to stay for the gurkha's?
And i think you've missed the uprising and butchering of the lords and their families that triggered the black and tan's.
Also stop making out that irish are innocent and the nasty british invaded with out reason.
The irish invaded scotland first, and were such poor skilled fighters the rag tag clans defeated them, and counter invaded. So the whole trouble's arouse from irish aggrestion.
Also they cause of kicking all none catholics out of the country is impossible as some prot. families have been living in northern irealand for close to 600 years, which from a eu legal stand point gives them right to call the land home. Also if they were successfull in that politcal goal the yanks would have to all pack up and leave america.
All the ira were after 1970 was a bunch of thug's, the real 1930s ira would be ashamed of them.
 
Last edited:
chumpit said:
Also stop making out that irish are innocent and the nasty british invaded with out reason.
The irish invaded scotland first, and were such poor skilled fighters the rag tag clans defeated them, and counter invaded. So the whole trouble's arouse from irish aggrestion.
Click to expand...

That actually got me thinking, so I decided to do a little reseach, because I genuinely want to know 'who started it'. And what I found doesn't match up with your version of events at all.

Diarmaid Mac Murchadha (later known as Diarmaid na nGall or "Dermot of the Foreigners"), anglicized as Dermot MacMurrough (1110 - 1 May 1171) was a King of Leinster in Ireland. Ousted as King of Leinster in 1166, he sought military assistance from King Henry II of England to retake his kingdom. In return, MacMurrough pledged an Oath of Allegiance to Henry, who sent troops in support. As a further thanks for his reinstatement, MacMurrough's daughter Aoife was married to Richard de Clare, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke and a Cambro-Norman lord, known as "Strongbow". Henry II then mounted a larger second invasion in 1171 to ensure his control over Strongbow, and since then parts of, or all of, Ireland has been ruled or reigned over by the monarchs of England.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with that, can you give me a link or something to look at?

I have to reiterate something here. I'm not taking sides, I'm only interested in the truth of what really happened. I think you're letting your emotions get the better of you.

Also, I really don't think you should be making out that the Scottish were a bunch of amateurs. Yes, they were a "rag tag bunch of clans". But that's not to say they weren't an extremely formidable enemy. I'm pretty sure they repelled English invasions?
 
chumpit said:
The irish invaded scotland first, and were such poor skilled fighters the rag tag clans defeated them, and counter invaded. So the whole trouble's arouse from irish aggrestion..
Click to expand...

Link? (Please ensure it includes dates)
 
Last edited:
bibalasvegas said:
Taliban have actually managed to control areas of pakistan and afghanistan. When was the last time the ira ruled parts of ireland?
Click to expand...

*biggest face palm ever*

don't contribute to the threat anymore ;)

They unoffically controlled terrority. "West Belfast" springs to mind. The IRA would come out at 9 at night in thier gear and fire thier ak's into the air and record it on video. They could do what they wanted. They were a bunch of ****ers though.

I reckon, if it was equal numbered battle, the Taliban would win. I think the Taliban would be better trained, and fearless (to an extent).
 
A lot of those will be for Individual Retirement Accounts though - I don't believe the Taliban have had a financial product named in their honour - no fair! ;)
 
petemyster said:
*biggest face palm ever*

don't contribute to the threat anymore ;)

They unoffically controlled terrority. "West Belfast" springs to mind. The IRA would come out at 9 at night in thier gear and fire thier ak's into the air and record it on video. They could do what they wanted. They were a bunch of ****ers though.
Click to expand...

They could do what they wanted but would scurry into the shadows like cockroaches if the army turned up eh? ;)
 
dirtydog said:
A lot of those will be for Individual Retirement Accounts though - I don't believe the Taliban have had a financial product named in their honour - no fair! ;)
Click to expand...

Not yet but it won't be long, halal bank accounts today, Taliban ISA'a and hedge funds tomorrow:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom