Loughgall, 30th Anniversary Discussion.

diy01

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
3,017
The IRA men were simply outclassed and outgunned at Loughgall. Republicans say the Troubles was a war -- except when they are the ones getting killed. Slowest learners in Ireland, Provo republicans...
 


McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,394
Twitter
No
In this case it was the inside info that did the most damage.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
7,695
The IRA men were simply outclassed and outgunned at Loughgall. Republicans say the Troubles was a war -- except when they are the ones getting killed. Slowest learners in Ireland, Provo republicans...
Thats not my recollection of the Provo narrative at the time. They knew the risks. It was the British denial it was a war while fighting a dirty one irked well beyond the Republican community
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
Thats not my recollection of the Provo narrative at the time. They knew the risks. It was the British denial it was a war while fighting a dirty one irked well beyond the Republican community
Give over. It wasn't a war. You don't fight a war through the Criminal Justice system, in war you don't have the Police arrest your enemy, gather evidence and seek to prosecute him for his actions, you certainly wouldn't want him walking free when he's found not guilty. Most importantly of all, you don't fight a war using the doctrine of "Mimimum Force", quite the opposite in fact, around 180 terrorists killed in 35 years as opposed to about ten thousand prosecuted and jailed is the proof of that.
I know a war when I see one, and that wasn't a war.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,922
Give over. It wasn't a war. You don't fight a war through the Criminal Justice system, in war you don't have the Police arrest your enemy, gather evidence and seek to prosecute him for his actions, you certainly wouldn't want him walking free when he's found not guilty. Most importantly of all, you don't fight a war using the doctrine of "Mimimum Force", quite the opposite in fact, around 180 terrorists killed in 35 years as opposed to about ten thousand prosecuted and jailed is the proof of that.
I know a war when I see one, and that wasn't a war.
Maximum force was used at Loughgall.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
18,770

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
Maximum force was used at Loughgall.
Not at all , it was actually the Minimum Force necessary at the time and for the situation, given all of the factors involved. At any rate, you can't draw a conclusion on 35 years of operations on the basis of one single incident.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,922
Not at all , it was actually the Minimum Force necessary at the time and for the situation, given all of the factors involved. At any rate, you can't draw a conclusion on 35 years of operations on the basis of one single incident.
There was a whole succession of SAS operations at that time where maximum force was used.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,394
Twitter
No
We can conclude now that:

1. The police believed their informer, indicating that he had been a reliable informer to them before

2. The informer said how many would take part in the attack, and its nature

3. Had the attack been called off by the IRA, there's a chance those unlucky "civilians" would have lived a bit longer

Is it worth a 30th anniversary for such a cluster-fnck??
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
There was a whole succession of SAS operations at that time where maximum force was used.
No. Once again the force used was the minimum necessary given the situation, you appear to think that employing minimum force meant that the Security Forces should have confronted armed terrorists intent on murder and destruction, while equipped only with pepper-spray and batons, or that they should put their own lives at risk to an unacceptable degree to preserve the lives of terrorists, both are wrong.
Minimum force is dependant on the situation and must be proportionate to the threat. In a real war situation, an operation similar to Loughgall would probably have involved an ambush being initiated by Claymore mines or similar, with 40mm HE rounds from Grenade launchers and then mortar fire on the position to cover the withdrawal, because in a real war you employ maximum force and extreme violence at every opportunity.

As the man said "Moderation in war is an absurdity".
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,922
British journalist Mark Urban wrote a book about the SAS in NI some years ago. He observed that there was a period in the late 70s early 80s when the SAS used to take prisoners in preference to killing people. But after late 1984 the policy changed and the SAS nearly always took no prisoners. Urban did not specify why that happened. But we can speculate why.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,922
No. Once again the force used was the minimum necessary given the situation, you appear to think that employing minimum force meant that the Security Forces should have confronted armed terrorists intent on murder and destruction, while equipped only with pepper-spray and batons, or that they should put their own lives at risk to an unacceptable degree to preserve the lives of terrorists, both are wrong.
Minimum force is dependant on the situation and must be proportionate to the threat. In a real war situation, an operation similar to Loughgall would probably have involved an ambush being initiated by Claymore mines or similar, with 40mm HE rounds from Grenade launchers and then mortar fire on the position to cover the withdrawal, because in a real war you employ maximum force and extreme violence at every opportunity.

As the man said "Moderation in war is an absurdity".
Come on, Sarge. At Loghgall they saturated the place with gunfire.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
Come on, Sarge. At Loghgall they saturated the place with gunfire.
Which was the minimum force required in that situation, what would you have had them do, have a constable try to issue a summons?
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,528
The benefit of Loughgall was the paranoia that set in afterwards between the families over which one Touted out the operation.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
2,458
Give over. It wasn't a war. You don't fight a war through the Criminal Justice system, in war you don't have the Police arrest your enemy, gather evidence and seek to prosecute him for his actions, you certainly wouldn't want him walking free when he's found not guilty. Most importantly of all, you don't fight a war using the doctrine of "Mimimum Force", quite the opposite in fact, around 180 terrorists killed in 35 years as opposed to about ten thousand prosecuted and jailed is the proof of that.
I know a war when I see one, and that wasn't a war.
Come off it. If the Provos were just criminals, then it would be a very weak govt that agreed to cease fires with them and allowed them into a political process.

Burns your bum, but that is what happened. :)
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,528
Come off it. If the Provos were just criminals, then it would be a very weak govt that agreed to cease fires with them and allowed them into a political process.

Burns your bum, but that is what happened. :)
The were the "one for me, one for Ireland" RA
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
Come off it. If the Provos were just criminals, then it would be a very weak govt that agreed to cease fires with them and allowed them into a political process.

Burns your bum, but that is what happened. :)
Their actions were criminal, terrorism is criminal, murder is criminal and the people responsible were criminals.
On the other hand the desire for Irish unification is a perfectly respectable one, the plan was always to separate the two, and that is what happened.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top