Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Rick Ross 187** · 12-15-2009, 09:17 PM

Old BBC documentary on the INLA and IRSP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdIP4xwyJ...re=related

**El Mono** · 12-15-2009, 10:41 PM

Thanks boss

**Boboulas** · 12-16-2009, 12:07 AM

Both sides are guilty of terrorism, 1 side more than the other.

And i certainly hope they dont use kalashnikovs anymore, why do militants insist on using the AK-47? Its such a terrible gun i dont know where to start.

Now if these lads were to run into a public place armed with SIG-552's and FAMAS's i may shit myself on the spot.

**Rick Ross 187** · 12-16-2009, 09:21 PM

(12-16-2009 12:07 AM)Boboulas Wrote: Both sides are guilty of terrorism, 1 side more than the other.

What you mean by both sides, the dispute between the IRA and INLA or between the INLA in its fight against British Imperialism?

(12-16-2009 12:07 AM)Boboulas Wrote: And i certainly hope they dont use kalashnikovs anymore, why do militants insist on using the AK-47? Its such a terrible gun i dont know where to start.

Now if these lads were to run into a public place armed with SIG-552's and FAMAS's i may shit myself on the spot.

I would imagine it is because the AK47 is cheap and more common to come across.
As far as i know, the USSR did not fund or sell weapons to the INLA, but they did to other groups. And weapons get around. Whereas the French did not sell many FAMAS's to the National Liberation movements.

**Boboulas** · 12-16-2009, 10:52 PM

The 2nd one.

And if people are srious about fighting the powers that be you need to be as well equiped as them. Revoultion isnt pipe bombs and AK's, its C4 and G36's.

And it can only be down to carelessness that they let their bombs kill thier own people.

**Fuzzly Bear** · 12-18-2009, 05:28 AM

Can the British really have been said to have carried out terrorist attacks against the IRA in the usual sense of the term?

I guess a lot of people are serious about fighting the powers that be, but I would suggest that not many of them are people with a lot of money.

It could also be out of choice. If the population are with them. Or if it's a worthy price for their goal.

**Boboulas** · 12-18-2009, 04:03 PM

Terrorism is the use or threat of violence to atain political, religous or ideological goals.

Thats what both the IRA and britian did.

P.S Thats the AMERICAN term by the way.

**Fuzzly Bear** · 12-18-2009, 07:14 PM

Well 'terrorism' is a pretty convoluted and difficult term.

What terrorist acts have Britain carried out over the last few decades against the population?

**Rick Ross 187** · 12-19-2009, 02:08 AM

The British assasinated many Irish Republicans.

The British should not be there. The INLA, IRA etc were attempting to liberate Ireland from British Imperialism.

**Fuzzly Bear** · 12-19-2009, 03:26 AM

The British assassination of Irish Republicans isn't as much terrorism though is it?

The British shouldn't be there, that is true.

**Boboulas** · 12-19-2009, 03:30 AM

But terrorism none the less?

**Fuzzly Bear** · 12-19-2009, 08:27 AM

Not in the same sense.