Massacre at La Mon — 30 years on

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

why not just delete the off topic posts instead of deleting all the posts inculding the ones critical of the PIRA's motives in planting the bomb at Le Mons?

[Bilk]

Thank you setanta, like I said I had very close family friends who died at LA Mon.

[Wasp]

This was just one of many sectarian outrages which was designed and planned to kill as many people as possible. Perhaps those who ordered it, planned it and executed it etc could inform us all as to why they done it and who exactly was all involved in this outrage, all in the name of transparency and all that.

[Wasp]

Setanta I think those who want heads to roll and go on about transparency should set an example if that is how they want things.

[Wasp]

Don't you think with the Bloody Sunday enquiry etc, sinn fein calls for devoling of policing powers etc that sf should come clean about the army council especially if any sf members are/were members of the army council?

Anyway I am off topic so perhaps a new thread is needed on this.

Exactly why did the ira attack La Mon?

[Wasp]

Setanta you are joking about la mon aren't you???

[Bilk]

setanta said:

The British Government have obstructed the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and with-held information.
I don't know what the call for the devolvment of justice powers, that was agreed at St Andrews, has to do with this.

Why did the IRA attack the Le Mon Resturant? A badly chosen economic target that , because of insuifficent warning, resulted in innocent loss of life.

To be fair setanta, I think your answer to this is a little churlish. "A baddly planned economic target"? Can you name me an "economic target" that the provos hit that didn't cause the loss of innocent lives. A seiries of bombs going off in the center of Belfast in the middle of the day on bloddy friday, was that a baddly planned economic target? There were few if any bombs detonated by the provos that did not result in the loss of innocent lives. So don't try to convince this sceptic that that was not their intention, I don't for one minute believe it.

[Jim]

bilk said:

setanta said:

The British Government have obstructed the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and with-held information.
I don't know what the call for the devolvment of justice powers, that was agreed at St Andrews, has to do with this.

Why did the IRA attack the Le Mon Resturant? A badly chosen economic target that , because of insuifficent warning, resulted in innocent loss of life.

To be fair setanta, I think your answer to this is a little churlish. "A baddly planned economic target"? Can you name me an "economic target" that the provos hit that didn't cause the loss of innocent lives. A seiries of bombs going off in the center of Belfast in the middle of the day on bloddy friday, was that a baddly planned economic target? There were few if any bombs detonated by the provos that did not result in the loss of innocent lives. So don't try to convince this sceptic that that was not their intention, I don't for one minute believe it.

Manchester

Was the best thing to ever happen to the City.

[Bilk]

setanta said:

bilk I could name several dozen of them. Big ones like Manchester etc or the dozens carried out by the "Balcombe Street" ASU alone,
But would you see this thrend or the IRA any differently if I did?

I was referring to those in Northern Ireland setanta, and I repeat there were few if any that did not cause the loss of innocent lives. Then again maybe they just hated the Irish Brits more than the English Brits. Their socalled planners, with a little forethought, if they were looking for economic targets, could eaasily have planned for them to detonate at 3am on any morning. But the vast majority were detonated during the day or early evening. It doesn't take a genious to work out the best time to explode a bomb with the least loss of life.

[Bilk]

P.S Weren't there deaths in Manchester???

[Wasp]

Many of the ira bomb attacks were planted and planned in such a way that maximum damage and loss of life and injury to people were caused as possible. Why plant one bomb so that when people run from it they run straight into the path of another.

There were bombs where the intention may have been only to cause widespread disruption, but the majority were to cause death and injury.

BTW setanta why do you think the ira never really bombed Nationalist towns and areas? Don't give me the same rubbish answer you gave before because that only proved your knowledge of ira attacks in N.I to be zilch.

[Jim]

bilk said:

setanta said:

bilk I could name several dozen of them. Big ones like Manchester etc or the dozens carried out by the "Balcombe Street" ASU alone,
But would you see this thrend or the IRA any differently if I did?

I was referring to those in Northern Ireland setanta, and I repeat there were few if any that did not cause the loss of innocent lives. Then again maybe they just hated the Irish Brits more than the English Brits. Their socalled planners, with a little forethought, if they were looking for economic targets, could eaasily have planned for them to detonate at 3am on any morning. But the vast majority were detonated during the day or early evening. It doesn't take a genious to work out the best time to explode a bomb with the least loss of life.

I agree with that to a certain extent, economic targets should have been done, if they were to be done, at a time when no one was around and I've never ever agreed with no warning bombs.

And no, there was no deaths from the bomb in Manchester in 1996, the street was destroyed and the British government was forced into not stalling the redevelopment of Manchester which had been going on for years. Its actually a joke in the place that the bomb was the best thing to ever happen to it, very few Mancs who talk about it to me seem to give a shite that it actually happened, no one died.

I think its stupid to talk about bombs and their intent. Bombs do not discriminate, they will kill anyone close to it no matter who it is and they will destroy anything nearby. The intention to bomb is to cause economic damage on massive proportions, in England at least that was the case. One bomb in London done more damage in terms of money than all the bombs in NI put toghether, apparently. So the intent was clear for English bombs.

[Wasp]

Yes Jim the intent was clear to do with English bombs although it cannot be denied that this was always the case, take warrington for example.

So this proves the sectarian nature of the ira by their use of bombs, England was mainly economic, Ireland was mainly the people in Unionist areas.

[Jim]

Bombs in NI had a different intent, obviously, because there were very little economic targets. I don't think the Europa would be able to take another hit

I was never in the IRA Wasp and neither were you, we don't know what the bombers where thinking to themselves when planting a bomb or trying to park a truck without being noticed. Secterian conflict made up the entire troubles and to just label the IRA secterian without looking at the situation is morally and politically wrong. None of us are right in the head, so what is considered secterian by you or me might be considered a legitimate target by others for different reasons than what we think, but we won't know what those reasons are without talking to an actual IRA bomber or UDA hit man.

[Wasp]

Bombs in NI had a different intent, obviously, because there were very little economic targets. I don't think the Europa would be able to take another hit

Again you are backing my point on the iras sectarian nature.

I was never in the IRA Wasp and neither were you, we don't know what the bombers where thinking to themselves when planting a bomb or trying to park a truck without being noticed. Secterian conflict made up the entire troubles and to just label the IRA secterian without looking at the situation is morally and politically wrong.

we didn't need to be in the ira, there targets are all the proof we need. In the sameway we don't need to be in the lvf as their targets are all the proof we need. How can it be morally and politically wrong to label the ira as sectarian when you yourself see the difference in their bombing campaigns and also the fact we have decades of proof. BTW I never ever said 'just' the ira were sectarian.

None of us are right in the head, so what is considered secterian by you or me might be considered a legitimate target by others for different reasons than what we think, but we won't know what those reasons are without talking to an actual IRA bomber or UDA hit man.

So if someone walkied into a bookmakers in a nationalist area and opening fire we would have to ask them was their intent sectarian. When the ira bombed Unionist areas or walked in and opened fire on Protestants we would have to ask was their intent sectarian or something different. When these attacks were repeated and repeated and where those carrying out/planning the attacks knew exactly what the results would be then it can be called nothing other than sectarian. Although your observation on the difference in ira bombs in EAngland compared to N.I shows different, I can't understand why republcians try and excuse/defend or avoid facing the fact that the ira was in itself sectarian. We have all the proof, infact too much proof to prove that if anyone tries to say different they are only a fool. Same goes for loyalist attacks.