Military History (218)
howlingwolf: [quote=sharmini
The aul lad said that the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist was whether you were fighting alongside em or against em
Yes indeed. When I use the word terrorist I am referring to the tactics and actions, not the political and emotional meaning often heaped on the word. The rights and wrongs of terrorism are certainly subjective. One interesting thing I have noticed is that the Founding Fathers in the United States who were reagarded as saintly until recently are now being painted in the negative terrorist light by Washington who sees their resistance to tyranny as a bad influence. That says more about the sort of government in the US than it does about terrorism or the Founding Fathers. Am I going off topic? Well seven pages it's about time someone hijacked this thread and crashed it into a building. Ha ha
The aul lad said that the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist was whether you were fighting alongside em or against em
Yes indeed. When I use the word terrorist I am referring to the tactics and actions, not the political and emotional meaning often heaped on the word. The rights and wrongs of terrorism are certainly subjective. One interesting thing I have noticed is that the Founding Fathers in the United States who were reagarded as saintly until recently are now being painted in the negative terrorist light by Washington who sees their resistance to tyranny as a bad influence. That says more about the sort of government in the US than it does about terrorism or the Founding Fathers. Am I going off topic? Well seven pages it's about time someone hijacked this thread and crashed it into a building. Ha ha
AH lads dont hijack the thread its been a good topic so far if you want start your plotical thread work away but please dont hyjack mine.
good night gents good topic hope do it again and thanks enjoyed it
ShiningKnight64: Just started one on Napoleon and his campaigns. Always liked to read articles on him but this is the first time to go from start to finish.
i just read a fictional book about waterloo,excellent it was ,my brain is fuzzy as its early and ive read plenty of roman era fiction too ,i just cant remmber any names ,one was a bout the invasion of britain
sharmini: ah memories! Hannibal n his elephants!
long time shar
pink elephants indeed
blipper2000: i just read a fictional book about waterloo,excellent it was ,my brain is fuzzy as its early and ive read plenty of roman era fiction too ,i just cant remmber any names ,one was a bout the invasion of britain
Waterloo they say was one of the bloodiest battles ever or so they reckon.
biggles90000: Mine is Alexander The Great.
I have read the Valerio Massimo Manfredi novels on Alexander among other works ,His story is very interesting and I am not trying to take away anything from his deserved title of greatness. Alexanders father King Philip of Macedonia had more or less conquered and united the cities of Greece under his rule and it was Philips Army which Alexander inherited upon his fathers assasination.
With his fathers army he conquered the world so although Alexander was a great leader Philip has to get some of the credit.
stanley8m: I have read the Valerio Massimo Manfredi novels on Alexander among other works ,His story is very interesting and I am not trying to take away anything from his deserved title of greatness. Alexanders father King Philip of Macedonia had more or less conquered and united the cities of Greece under his rule and it was Philips Army which Alexander inherited upon his fathers assasination.
With his fathers army he conquered the world so although Alexander was a great leader Philip has to get some of the credit.
With his fathers army he conquered the world so although Alexander was a great leader Philip has to get some of the credit.
Yea i think he got hes name because he empire stretched from Macedonia to India he acheived all this by the time he was 32.I think that is some Achievement.
howlingwolf: If we're talking about military leaders then Collins is definitely in the 'Terrorist Class'. He led a guerrilla war not a conventional one. Put him in with Garabaldi, Mao, Tito, Orde Wingate, Paddy Blair Mayne and of course, bin Laden.
Sorry Howlingwolf, but i have to disagree with you on that one. Collins was not a terrorist, he was a rebel. There's a whole world of a difference. Terrorists use any and all types of tactics and war-mongering moves that they can think of purely because they want to scare and dominate their targets. Michael Collins was rebelling against the British Rule that had been imposed upon Ireland for centuries He was fighting against those who had subjugated and annihilated the Irish people and our way of life for hundreds or years.
Yes he used the ultimate weapon he had at his disposal, which as i believe Green_Sleeves mentioned earlier, fear. He was only giving as good as he got, and turning the brits own tactics against them. They had the superior fire power, the superior resources and a fair bit of contempt for those they thought themselves to be above (the irish)...
He done what he had to do at the end of the day.
Green_Sleeves: Excellent, thanks Shar! Cant say I recall that clip Biggs, I've seen a few of the old Pathe reels, probably have seen it. Wouldnt mind a poke around a Whippet, they have ARR2 the 'Slieve na mBan' up in the Curragh, the one that was with Collins when he was killed!
Please tell me you've actually been up and seen them when they have the military open days (for lack of a better word) every summer?
They totally rock!!!!
Thumblina: Please tell me you've actually been up and seen them when they have the military open days (for lack of a better word) every summer?
They totally rock!!!!
They totally rock!!!!
No, I'm ashamed to admit I've never been to the shows
I must try get to one, I'd love to have a look at that car after reading/hearing so much about it.Green_Sleeves: No, I'm ashamed to admit I've never been to the shows I must try get to one, I'd love to have a look at that car after reading/hearing so much about it.
Ah jaysus dude you're a disgrace, my youngest lad goes every year with my dad, same i used to. I grew up climbing all over the damn things, (i'm a military brat just in case ya havent managed to figure that bit out lol).
Dad was based in the Curragh, we didn't live on camp but i spent alot of my childhood wandering around the base
Thumblina: Sorry Howlingwolf, but i have to disagree with you on that one. Collins was not a terrorist, he was a rebel. There's a whole world of a difference. Terrorists use any and all types of tactics and war-mongering moves that they can think of purely because they want to scare and dominate their targets. Michael Collins was rebelling against the British Rule that had been imposed upon Ireland for centuries He was fighting against those who had subjugated and annihilated the Irish people and our way of life for hundreds or years.
Yes he used the ultimate weapon he had at his disposal, which as i believe Green_Sleeves mentioned earlier, fear. He was only giving as good as he got, and turning the brits own tactics against them. They had the superior fire power, the superior resources and a fair bit of contempt for those they thought themselves to be above (the irish)...
He done what he had to do at the end of the day.
Yes he used the ultimate weapon he had at his disposal, which as i believe Green_Sleeves mentioned earlier, fear. He was only giving as good as he got, and turning the brits own tactics against them. They had the superior fire power, the superior resources and a fair bit of contempt for those they thought themselves to be above (the irish)...
He done what he had to do at the end of the day.
He was a rebel like General Robert E Lee commander of the confederate forces during the american civil war.is rebel fighting wrong though cause if it works then go with it the german tried the same tactics from poland to france and worked but when on england and russia failed totaly
Cla35: is rebel fighting wrong though cause if it works then go with it the german tried the same tactics from poland to france and worked but when on england and russia failed totaly
Rebel fighting is purely and simply a reason behind the tactics and type of warfare employed in the rebellion against those who were underming the way of life of irish citizens. It is not the method or particular war craft that is applied to a military campaign...It wasn't' the germans that were rebel fighting, it was the resistance movements that fought against the dominance and attemped (and sometimes successful) take overs by the germans (eg. france and italy)
biggles90000: Just wondering as anyone have an interest in Military History reading i find it a very interesting subject love reading about the ancient Roman and Greek armies.just tought i post it up something diffrent to chat about maybe.
I have an interest in the Provisional IRA's campaign in South Armagh through the 70's, 80's and 90's, some of the things they pulled off were ingenius
Thumblina: Sorry Howlingwolf, but i have to disagree with you on that one. Collins was not a terrorist, he was a rebel. There's a whole world of a difference. Terrorists use any and all types of tactics and war-mongering moves that they can think of purely because they want to scare and dominate their targets. Michael Collins was rebelling against the British Rule that had been imposed upon Ireland for centuries He was fighting against those who had subjugated and annihilated the Irish people and our way of life for hundreds or years.
Yes he used the ultimate weapon he had at his disposal, which as i believe Green_Sleeves mentioned earlier, fear. He was only giving as good as he got, and turning the brits own tactics against them. They had the superior fire power, the superior resources and a fair bit of contempt for those they thought themselves to be above (the irish)...
He done what he had to do at the end of the day.
Yes he used the ultimate weapon he had at his disposal, which as i believe Green_Sleeves mentioned earlier, fear. He was only giving as good as he got, and turning the brits own tactics against them. They had the superior fire power, the superior resources and a fair bit of contempt for those they thought themselves to be above (the irish)...
He done what he had to do at the end of the day.
Not so, he used terror tactics to get what he wanted, murdering (Irish) men in their beds. He wasn't 'giving as good as he got' as the British state didn't do that to the Irish people (or when they did - in the form of the Black and Tans - it was only in response to IRA atrocities in the first place).
You say Ireland was subjugated, maybe, but it was also part of the British state with full representation at Westminister and Home Rule was already on the statute books.
snowlynx: Ingenious but possible only because the Brits were too soft on them. They should have wiped them out.
It's not that the Brits were too soft on them, they repeatedly made the mistake of underestimating them...
snowlynx: Ingenious but possible only because the Brits were too soft on them. They should have wiped them out.
They were masters of guerilla warfare, you can only kill something if you catch it and they nearly always got away, These were ordinary men mostly farmers and yet they were able to outwit the best trained army in the world, They were imaginative and innovative, capable of anything with limited means, real life MacGyvers if you ask me
snowlynx: Not so, he used terror tactics to get what he wanted, murdering (Irish) men in their beds. He wasn't 'giving as good as he got' as the British state didn't do that to the Irish people (or when they did - in the form of the Black and Tans - it was only in response to IRA atrocities in the first place).
You say Ireland was subjugated, maybe, but it was also part of the British state with full representation at Westminister and Home Rule was already on the statute books.
You say Ireland was subjugated, maybe, but it was also part of the British state with full representation at Westminister and Home Rule was already on the statute books.
Yes we were but our Representative in Westminister were Brits/Protestants for the most part,very few were worried about the irish born citizens and how Home Rule applied or affected them. It just gave more power/land/control etc. to individual British Landlords/Landowners at the time.
Maybe his methods were extreme and sometimes over the top (and please note i am in no way condoning all of his actions) but i do however believe he was right in reasons for wanting to abolish Home Rule and English Reign over Ireland.
More Threads
Icebergs Still Around
Heavy Bass In The PM
Nature
What I Lack In Vocabulary
What's going on
everything is changing
The world is as you see
How far is too far?
Reality Check
Wondering
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
The aul lad said that the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist was whether you were fighting alongside em or against em
Yes indeed. When I use the word terrorist I am referring to the tactics and actions, not the political and emotional meaning often heaped on the word. The rights and wrongs of terrorism are certainly subjective. One interesting thing I have noticed is that the Founding Fathers in the United States who were reagarded as saintly until recently are now being painted in the negative terrorist light by Washington who sees their resistance to tyranny as a bad influence. That says more about the sort of government in the US than it does about terrorism or the Founding Fathers. Am I going off topic? Well seven pages it's about time someone hijacked this thread and crashed it into a building. Ha ha
Ouch, you've just been holding back and waiting to say that havent you!