On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:02:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
d wrote this:-

If they had been suicide bombers they would be acting alone to
maximise damge. Neither would they draw attention to themselves by
dressing in such an obvious manner. Perhaps moving to the other end of
the carriage placed people next to the real bomber who was standing
there incognito.

Indeed, a variant on the IRA tactics (particularly in their latter
years).

Since when did the IRA use suicide bombers?

I never claimed that they did. However, particularly in their later
years, they had a habit of sometimes placing a bomb where people
might congregate after moving away from a "bomb". Whether this first
"bomb" was real or not was somewhat immaterial, it was the second
one which was intended to kill and injure the most people.

It was sometimes claimed that this was to do with some fault, by the
person who got the warning and passed it on, or by the police, but
there are only so many times it can be used before that excuse is
untennable.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:02:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
d wrote this:-

If they had been suicide bombers they would be acting alone to
maximise damge. Neither would they draw attention to themselves by
dressing in such an obvious manner. Perhaps moving to the other
end of the carriage placed people next to the real bomber who was
standing there incognito.

Indeed, a variant on the IRA tactics (particularly in their latter
years).

Since when did the IRA use suicide bombers?

I never claimed that they did. However, particularly in their later
years, they had a habit of sometimes placing a bomb where people
might congregate after moving away from a "bomb". Whether this first
"bomb" was real or not was somewhat immaterial, it was the second
one which was intended to kill and injure the most people.

It was sometimes claimed that this was to do with some fault, by the
person who got the warning and passed it on, or by the police, but
there are only so many times it can be used before that excuse is
untennable.

Of course, this is another big difference between aQ and the IRA -- the
former are proud to kill innocent bystanders (who are most often
Moslems), the latter claimed to have no desire so to do.

Of course, this is another big difference between aQ and the IRA -- the
former are proud to kill innocent bystanders (who are most often
Moslems), the latter claimed to have no desire so to do

What they claim and the truth are not necessarily the same. On
reflection it was, or is, hardly ever the same

On 26/01/2010 16:52, Recliner wrote:
"David wrote in message

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:02:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
d wrote this:-

If they had been suicide bombers they would be acting alone to
maximise damge. Neither would they draw attention to themselves by
dressing in such an obvious manner. Perhaps moving to the other
end of the carriage placed people next to the real bomber who was
standing there incognito.

Indeed, a variant on the IRA tactics (particularly in their latter
years).

Since when did the IRA use suicide bombers?

I never claimed that they did. However, particularly in their later
years, they had a habit of sometimes placing a bomb where people
might congregate after moving away from a "bomb". Whether this first
"bomb" was real or not was somewhat immaterial, it was the second
one which was intended to kill and injure the most people.

It was sometimes claimed that this was to do with some fault, by the
person who got the warning and passed it on, or by the police, but
there are only so many times it can be used before that excuse is
untennable.

Of course, this is another big difference between aQ and the IRA -- the
former are proud to kill innocent bystanders (who are most often
Moslems), the latter claimed to have no desire so to do.

Planting bombs is a pretty crap way of avoiding killing people. Of
course you can argue about "innocent" - which side was your great^x
grandmother on in 1169?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK