Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

Oggy Doggy

Mad Cyril wrote:

You are misrepresenting his logic. He denies the right of the Northern state to exist, which automatically assumes it does not have the democratic right to remove itself from its national territory regardless of whether the democratic majority within wishes to do so or not.

Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought FTA69 was saying that because GB carved out a chunk of Ireland, deliberately engineered the borders to create a unionist majority, against the wishes of the entire Irish nation (in 1916). Then GB has no legitimate claim to the North.

From that understanding I would have said that it would be a similar circumstance to the Chinese part of Belfast seceding from GB and deciding, using their majority vote, to be part of China.

Have I got it right FTA69?

Mad Cyril

Oggy Doggy wrote:

Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought FTA69 was saying that because GB carved out a chunk of Ireland, deliberately engineered the borders to create a unionist majority, against the wishes of the entire Irish nation (in 1916). Then GB has no legitimate claim to the North.

From that understanding I would have said that it would be a similar circumstance to the Chinese part of Belfast seceding from GB and deciding, using their majority vote, to be part of China.

Have I got it right FTA69?

Yes that seems to be a correct interpretation of his opinion. However I fail to see how your analogy is accurate:

Of course, one might by your logic argue that we should abandon any powers of veto we have in the EU as it would be unfair influence over the direction of the European nation.

There is no Sovereign European nation therefore your analogy is ridiculous

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Regarding the subject of guerrillas, so I assume you also agree that the British Army is not an "armed force" owing to the fact the SAS sat in plain clothes and riddled unarmed people with automatic weapons without warning?

Actually seeing as they bore those automatic weapons openly ( this is the minimum as the GC recognises uniforms are not always possible but are very much preferable - and regardless the SAS do have a uniform and deployed in West Britain wearing it as well ), were an organised armed unit that the British Government ( a Party to the conflict) took responsibility for, and enforced compliance with the Geneva Convention, they’re in the clear according to the Geneva Convention.

Guerrilla is simply a word used to denote hit and run warfare tactics, it doesn't necessarily have political connotations.

Debatable, but it does have legal connotations as defined under the Geneva Conventions. The IRA, and indeed the other terrorist groups in Western Britain, does not meet the requirements to be considered a legitimate military force. They don’t have a uniform, don’t bear weapons openly, and most importantly don’t enforce adherence to the Geneva Conventions in their operations. They therefore don’t have the rights or legitimacy of prisoners of war – which is why Thatcher will always be a hero for her stance against the hunger strikers.

Now Ill allow, for the sake of calling the IRA war criminals that perhaps, for some ****ed up reason, the IRA actually can be seen as Guerillas.

Murder of Jean McConville, and other mothers: I’m going to use Jean as one example here. I could use others, but lets stay with this. The IRA here broke so many Geneva Conventions its difficult to know where to start. Firstly you can’t sentence a mother of young children to death, regardless of her activities – war crime. Extra judicial killing? – war crime. Denying her the right to a fair trial? – war crime. Torture of the mother of 10? – yes you guessed it, war crime. Denying her family the right to know her fate and bury her properly? – War crime. Not honouring and maintaining the place where she was buried or keeping a record? – War crime.

Did you know that an attack on a cultural object or monument, where there is no military value to the monument or indeed there are no nearby military targets that could have been the intended target of an accidental hit is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention? Yeah – so that means blowing up Nelsons Pillar back in the 60s? You got it, very serious war crime.

So it’s your choice – terrorists or war criminals? I don’t mind which, Id prefer terrorists because it’s most accurate.

I didnt bother citing the links because I know you wont bother reading them or accepting them. Google is your friend, if by some miracle Im wrong about your concern for the Conventions.

Not really in my opinion, war is a dirty thing in the first place and no amount of rules or laws can change that. In fact war by its nature is lawlessness.

Balls to be honest – there are laws of warfare. There are no rules to terrorism, practically by definition. Just be clear what your advocating.

in future keep your comments for topics you actually have the slightest clue about.

Well if your knowledge of the IRA is as prolific as your knowledge of the Geneva Conventions – or even Google – then please do educate me on the heroes of Enniskillen and Warrington or true Irish patriots like Dessie O Hare who shot up baby cots with automatic weapons for Ireland, while us lazy Free Staters down south were wasting time trying to lead peaceful, productive and successful lives.

Oh and your incessant use of the word Free State instead of Irish Republic gives me great hope for the future of the peace negotiations in West Britain. Think of all you hardline Republicans and hardline Loyalists will have in common when you both refer to the Irish Republic as the Free State and only grudgingly accept its existence?

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

this is also from the BBC-"Later it handed over a small amount of weapons to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning."

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In January 2000 the tensions between the LVF and the UVF led to a bloody feud when the UVF leader Richard Jameson was shot dead in Portadown. The UVF blamed the LVF for his death. The following month the LVF blamed the UVF for the brutal stabbing of two teenagers in Tandragee, Co Armagh. The LVF were also said to be involved in the feud on the Shankill between the UVF and the UDA later in the year. The conflict between the UVF and the LVF in the Portadown area is still unresolved.
Despite its "ceasefire" the LVF continued its sectarian murder campaign under the guise of the Red Hand Defenders, a badge of convenience used also by the UDA. When the LVF was linked to the murder of journalist Martin O' Hagan at the end of September 2001, the Secretary of State was moved to declare on 12th October that the government no longer recognised their ceasefire"


that is all we were pointing out the LVF did not decommision because they supported the peace prcess they did it to get their prisioners released
they called for a no vote on the GFA
they murdered a journalist who was highlighting their drug pushing and criminality after they decommisioned a small ammount of weapons

[/font]

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

zepp wrote:

there are more prods up north then catholics so that makes the IRA the foriegn force as there are more people there that want to be britsh there then irish. .

this is the worst pile of ****e i have seen in a long time

neither unionists or nationalists can be foreign in their own country
it is the british army that is foreign this is Ireland

zepp wrote:

Also fighting the repressive power ie shooting at SAS men is one thing. but how is bombing a load of civialians with absoulutly no power fighting a power.

what like bombing dresden or hiroshima that type of thing

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

from the bbc-"The LVF, which has been involved in a string of sectarian murders, gave up nine weapons, together with 350 rounds of ammunition, two pipe bombs, six detonators and some shotgun cartridges, to the headquarters of the decommissioning body"

oddly you did not quote that bit from the bbc on your previous thread
nobody denied the lvf had scrapped some weapons
what they called into question was their motive for doing this as they went on to breach their ceasefire and murder more people
and the fact that it was not significant decommisioning
which it wasn't

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

anybody from Ireland who serves in the british army is fighting for a foreign power
wether they are from the north or the south

but it is the army that that is the foreign power not the unionist people

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Did you know that an attack on a cultural object or monument, where there is no military value to the monument or indeed there are no nearby military targets that could have been the intended target of an accidental hit is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention? Yeah – so that means blowing up Nelsons Pillar back in the 60s? You got it, very serious war crime.

?

would the destruction of statues of Saddam Hussein by the Americans would also be a war crime

The Corinthian

Mad Cyril wrote:

There is no Sovereign European nation therefore your analogy is ridiculous

But neither does a sovereign 32-county Ireland exist. Of course there may be an aspiration for a sovereign 32-county Ireland, but then again you’ll find that a similar aspiration for a sovereign European nation exists too.

cdebru wrote:

neither unionists or nationalists can be foreign in their own country
it is the british army that is foreign this is Ireland

Which country is that though? A significant, indeed a majority, in the North think their country is Britain and that the Republic of Ireland is a foreign state.

Sand

would the destruction of statues of Saddam Hussein by the Americans would also be a war crime

Conceivably - the cult of personality that Saddam like all dictators built could be seen as having cultural weight, though certainly not on the scale of Nelsons Pillar which had stood since the early 19th century as far as I remember. The pillar stood long after Nelsons death though which would imply it was more to do with the culture of the country than the vanity of the man himself.

I think if you can argue that the statues and images of Saddam Hussein were on a cultural level with Assyrian artwork, cuniform tablets, medeival Islamic mosques and so on and so forth, then yes his statue should have been protected by the G.C until an Iraqi government decided what to do with them. If Bertie Ahern erects a monument of himself on O Connell Street does that have the same cultural weight as the statue of Molly Malone?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Actually seeing as they bore those automatic weapons openly ( this is the minimum as the GC recognises uniforms are not always possible but are very much preferable - and regardless the SAS do have a uniform and deployed in West Britain wearing it as well ), were an organised armed unit that the British Government ( a Party to the conflict) took responsibility for, and enforced compliance with the Geneva Convention, they’re in the clear according to the Geneva Convention.



Debatable, but it does have legal connotations as defined under the Geneva Conventions. The IRA, and indeed the other terrorist groups in Western Britain, does not meet the requirements to be considered a legitimate military force. They don’t have a uniform, don’t bear weapons openly, and most importantly don’t enforce adherence to the Geneva Conventions in their operations. They therefore don’t have the rights or legitimacy of prisoners of war – which is why Thatcher will always be a hero for her stance against the hunger strikers.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.


the GC recognizes that combatants cannot always openly bear arms or wear a uniform
the IRA do have a uniform we have all seen it at funerals
they also have a clear command structure
so the IRA qualify if they show their arms during an attack

If failure to observe the GC denies you the protection of same then the British army were in breach of the GC when they tortured prisioners
or attacked the civilian population in Derry


also where is this place west britain you keep going on about
is it wales

cdebru

The Corinthian wrote:

Which country is that though? A significant, indeed a majority, in the North think their country is Britain and that the Republic of Ireland is a foreign state.

they live in Ireland therefore they can not be considered foreign in Ireland

Sand

the IRA do have a uniform we have all seen it at funerals

Are funerals military operations now?

so the IRA qualify if they show their arms during an attack

No, because they dont ( smuggling bombs and arms through checkpoints in civillian vehicles for example - and I recall at least one occassion where they kidnapped a mans family to force him to drive a bomb through a checkpoint which breaks another half dozen conventions but whose counting at this stage? ) and even if they did bear them openly they still dont enforce adherence to the Geneva Convention in their operations.

If failure to observe the GC denies you the protection of same then the British army were in breach of the GC when they tortured prisioners

Actually its more legalese to it than that. Adherence to the GC and the other above requirements means you must be recognised a military force, and thus you must have POW status extended to you. Breaches of the GC by a military force do not invalidate the right of members of that military force to receive treatment as POWs.

Now before you get all excited the above only applies to breaches of the GC by military forces - which the IRA dont meet to begin with. As an example of the enforcement of the GC by a military force, Clegg was tried and the Paras at Bloody sunday are the subject of an Inquiry. You mightnt agree with the outcomes but they are investigated as being breaches of the British Armys expected standards. The abduction, torture and murder of Jean Mcconville on the other hand breached none of the IRAs standards, because they dont have any - as such it wasnt an extraordinary day in the life for the IRA, worthy of review or investigation.

But then SF/IRA have always been good at calling for investigation of others wrongdoing, whilst justifying their own.

So even if the British tortured IRA prisoners they werent breaching the GC as it applies to POWs. They would certainly have been breaching crinimal law, or maybe the GC as it applies to civillians. Mind you seeing as the IRA could arguably have been engaged in espionage they were lucky they werent simply shot upon capture.

also where is this place west britain you keep going on about

Last I heard it was north of the Irish Free State.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Conceivably - the cult of personality that Saddam like all dictators built could be seen as having cultural weight, though certainly not on the scale of Nelsons Pillar which had stood since the early 19th century as far as I remember. The pillar stood long after Nelsons death though which would imply it was more to do with the culture of the country than the vanity of the man himself.

so would the destruction of lenin and stalin statues be a breach of the GC
or was that just an oppressed people just removing a symbol of the regime that oppressed them

I think you are stretching credibility to suggest the removal
of a statue to a foreign military leader is a breach of the GC

by the way the IRA did not blow up nelsons pillar(it was done by some republicans off thier own bat to celebrate 50 years since 1916 and because they were sick of the sight of the ****er)
and it happened in 1966
the provisional movement had not been set up
and the current troubles in tthe six counties had not started

FTA69

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Loyalists are not one cohesive group who come under one command Dave, they are a collection of miscreants incomparible to armed Republicanism as there is one supremely dominant group, the IRA. My point is relevant to the decommisioning issue as while a tuny splinter group the LVF, has decommisioned some useless weapons, it means nothing as they are not engaged in a political process as opposed to the IRA. Also the main Loyalist groups such as the UDA and the UVF have not even contemplated such an intiative in the name of peace or progress so your comparisons are completely flawed.

Regards holiday homes, I wasn't talking about Sinn Féin members, I said IRA Volunteers.

Regards 20% minorities, as you well know I was reffering to the fact that Unionists for such a minority in Ireland and as such are not entitled to cecede from the country and set up a partitionist state.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Last I heard it was north of the Irish Free State.

That is not Britain, that is the United Kingdom. The UK was a United Kingdom of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland which was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the 'Kingdom' of Ireland was partitioned. Britain consists of the England, Scotland & Wales.

FTA69

Sand wrote:

Actually seeing as they bore those automatic weapons openly ( this is the minimum as the GC recognises uniforms are not always possible but are very much preferable - and regardless the SAS do have a uniform and deployed in West Britain wearing it as well ), were an organised armed unit that the British Government ( a Party to the conflict) took responsibility for, and enforced compliance with the Geneva Convention, they’re in the clear according to the Geneva Convention.


Debatable, but it does have legal connotations as defined under the Geneva Conventions. The IRA, and indeed the other terrorist groups in Western Britain, does not meet the requirements to be considered a legitimate military force. They don’t have a uniform, don’t bear weapons openly, and most importantly don’t enforce adherence to the Geneva Conventions in their operations. They therefore don’t have the rights or legitimacy of prisoners of war – which is why Thatcher will always be a hero for her stance against the hunger strikers.

Now Ill allow, for the sake of calling the IRA war criminals that perhaps, for some ****ed up reason, the IRA actually can be seen as Guerillas.

Murder of Jean McConville, and other mothers: I’m going to use Jean as one example here. I could use others, but lets stay with this. The IRA here broke so many Geneva Conventions its difficult to know where to start. Firstly you can’t sentence a mother of young children to death, regardless of her activities – war crime. Extra judicial killing? – war crime. Denying her the right to a fair trial? – war crime. Torture of the mother of 10? – yes you guessed it, war crime. Denying her family the right to know her fate and bury her properly? – War crime. Not honouring and maintaining the place where she was buried or keeping a record? – War crime.

So it’s your choice – terrorists or war criminals? I don’t mind which, Id prefer terrorists because it’s most accurate.

West Britain? Are the Free Wales Army up to their old tricks again? Even by your own definitions on the legitimacy of the 6 County state that term is completely false owing to the fact that the brits refer to their fiefdom as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The SAS did not "bear arms openly", they often sat in cars with secreted Mac 11 machine pistols and issued no warning or indication of this before riddling people on a passing motorbikes, neither did they follow any GC procedures by ambushing Volunteer John Francis Green in Monaghan, they breached a clear directive then by fighting outside the warzone. So which is it then Sand? Did the brits breach criminal law or wartime law?

Regards Jean McConville, doesn't that convention also state that those found engaging in espionage are eligible to be shot without trial?

Aside from all this, the term "terrorism" is simply a misnomer as the dictionary defines a terrorist as "one who engages in violence for a political purpose", that would mean that every participant in nearly all the wars ever fought is a "terrorist". The dictionary also defines a guerilla as "a member of a small independently acting group taking part in irregular fighting", a definition the IRA fits into perfectly.

Talk of war crimes and breaches of the GC are simply pie-in-the-sky when reffering to the Irish conflict as all sides breached it in one way or another. That does not contravene the validity of the IRA's struggle in any way considering their adversaries breached all forms of law just as often.

Johnny_the_fox

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I have to disagree that McGuinness and anyone in SF etc made money from the IRA via "bank robbies etc"..

Any money SF makes is put back into SF. From I believe (and gather), alot of money comes from the US. Hence the big moves for peace after September 11th. US inventors would have pull out all investments in SF - if SF had not pushed for Peace.

Money makes the world go around...and all that.

Sand

so would the destruction of lenin and stalin statues be a breach of the GC

I dont know - what war broke out in Warsaw Pact and former USSR? The Geneva Convention only applies to military forces as already discussed - not to mobs or protestors.

I think you are stretching credibility to suggest the removal of a statue to a foreign military leader is a breach of the GC

But he wasnt a foreign military leader - he was a British leader when we were part of the United Kingdom and thus were British ourselves. I know the 'ra history of ireland likes to skip over about 800 years of Irish history dwelling only on the parts good for propaganda but it cant be ignored that Nelsons Pillar was as much part of Irelands culture as Newgrange.

Im suddenly reminded of the Taliban blowing up that amazing gigantic anceint statue in Afghanistan because it was pre-Islamic and thus pagan. Didnt fit with their views of what Afghan culture should be. Mind you the Taliban and the IRA are similar in many ways so can we be surprised?

by the way the IRA did not blow up nelsons pillar(it was done by some republicans off thier own bat to celebrate 50 years since 1916 and because they were sick of the sight of the ****er)

So then if its done of the own bat, by a local unit, its not an IRA action? Would you then agree the murder of McCabe was a simple bank robbery rather than an IRA action carried out by a local unit on their own iniative? Ill concede the point that the IRA didnt blow up Nelsons Pillar if you concede the Adare crowd were murdering bank robbers who dont qualify under the GFA?

and the current troubles in tthe six counties had not started

So the IRAs border campaign in the late 50s didnt happen?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Are funerals military operations now?.

yes a military funeral would be

Sand wrote:

No, because they dont ( smuggling bombs and arms through checkpoints in civillian vehicles for example - and I recall at least one occassion where they kidnapped a mans family to force him to drive a bomb through a checkpoint which breaks another half dozen conventions but whose counting at this stage? ) and even if they did bear them openly they still dont enforce adherence to the Geneva Convention in their operations..

any fair reading of it does convey pow status to IRA personnel

Sand wrote:

Actually its more legalese to it than that. Adherence to the GC and the other above requirements means you must be recognised a military force, and thus you must have POW status extended to you. Breaches of the GC by a military force do not invalidate the right of members of that military force to receive treatment as POWs..

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention




the IRA were a military force just because you dont like them does not invalidate that
their command structures were recognised in prison for example
you are arguing against yourself saying breaches dont invalidate the rights to the protection of the GC
it is undeniable that the IRA breached the GC just as it is undeniable that the British army breached the GC

Sand wrote:

Now before you get all excited the above only applies to breaches of the GC by military forces - which the IRA dont meet to begin with. As an example of the enforcement of the GC by a military force, Clegg was tried and the Paras at Bloody sunday are the subject of an Inquiry. You mightnt agree with the outcomes but they are investigated as being breaches of the British Armys expected standards. The abduction, torture and murder of Jean Mcconville on the other hand breached none of the IRAs standards, because they dont have any - as such it wasnt an extraordinary day in the life for the IRA, worthy of review or investigation..

how do you know no disciplinary actions were taken against the volunteers who committed this act
you dont

see above just because you decide not to class them as a military force does not mean they are not

Sand wrote:

But then SF/IRA have always been good at calling for investigation of others wrongdoing, whilst justifying their own.

So even if the British tortured IRA prisoners they werent breaching the GC as it applies to POWs. They would certainly have been breaching crinimal law, or maybe the GC as it applies to civillians. Mind you seeing as the IRA could arguably have been engaged in espionage they were lucky they werent simply shot upon capture..

your wrong because in 1972 the british did recognise IRA prisioners as pows and gave them special status
later it did not suit them politically to do so and they tried to remove it leading to the hunger strikes



Last I heard it was north of the Irish Free State.[/QUOTE]
I see is it some childish game because republicans refer to the 26 counties as the free state
i tought it might be were all the west brits lived

Sand

West Britain?

Free State?

The SAS did not "bear arms openly", they often sat in cars with secreted Mac 11 machine pistols

Hidden under false panels in the boot of the car? Attached to the underside of the car? Would have made it pretty hard to riddle people without warning given theyd have to get them out from there pretty fast. Or did they just carry them whilst sitting in a car?

they breached a clear directive then by fighting outside the warzone.

Oh so now you recognise the existence of the border? Convenient that

I dont think Green would have any complaints - he was murdering people to do away with partition and his killers (a mixture of a renegade UDR and British Intelligence agents/Loyalists rather than British Army) obliged his beliefs.

So which is it then Sand? Did the brits breach criminal law or wartime law?

Crinimal Id reckon, It depends on whether you class a renegade UDR man and two loyalists who worked for British Intelligence as being on a misson for corrupt elements of the British intelligence services or the British Army.

Regards Jean McConville, doesn't that convention also state that those found engaging in espionage are eligible to be shot without trial?

Also states that mothers of young children cant be sentenced to death, regardless of their activities against a military force, even if you allow that the IRA granted her a fair trial which they didnt. Pregnant women are also covered.

Now I imagine if McConville had been out there with an Ak-47 shooting up IRA men, there wouldnt be an issue with shooting back. But that wasnt the case.

Aside from all this, the term "terrorism" is simply a misnomer as the dictionary defines a terrorist as "one who engages in violence for a political purpose", that would mean that every participant in nearly all the wars ever fought is a "terrorist".The dictionary also defines a guerilla as "a member of a small independently acting group taking part in irregular fighting", a definition the IRA fits into perfectly.

Yep - thats why its a ****e definition and I dont consider it accurate. A dictionary gives a rough understanding of what a word means, but it is not a legal document spelling out the terms that a recognised armed force must adhere to.

Geneva Convention trumps Oxford Collins every day of the week and twice on Sunday when it comes to defining appropriate military conduct. No wonder you prefer the dictionary to the more demanding Geneva Convention. Hell, by dictionary standards Bertie Ahern probably is a socialist.

Talk of war crimes and breaches of the GC are simply pie-in-the-sky when reffering to the Irish conflict as all sides breached it in one way or another. That does not contravene the validity of the IRA's struggle in any way considering their adversaries breached all forms of law just as often.

Convenient bollocks to be honest. Just because all sides committed wrong acts does not absolve the participants of responsibility for their own actions. The IRA murdered those people at the Enniskillen commemoration. That was wrong. Does that mean it wasnt wrong for the British Intelligence service to arrange for a loyalist squad to kill your buddy Green, rather than having him picked up by the cops?

Thats the sickness within the Republican mindset. Were told to move on when we mention IRA atrocities, but then were told we have to investigate in exhausting detail any and every British/Loyalist crime real or imagined.

Too right British wrong doing should be investigated - but we shouldnt forget the crimes of the IRA and allow them to be swept under the rug.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

I dont know - what war broke out in Warsaw Pact and former USSR? The Geneva Convention only applies to military forces as already discussed - not to mobs or protestors.?

what war was going on in dublin in 1966 that the removal of nelson would breach the GC

Sand wrote:

But he wasnt a foreign military leader - he was a British leader when we were part of the United Kingdom and thus were British ourselves. I know the 'ra history of ireland likes to skip over about 800 years of Irish history dwelling only on the parts good for propaganda but it cant be ignored that Nelsons Pillar was as much part of Irelands culture as Newgrange.

Im suddenly reminded of the Taliban blowing up that amazing gigantic anceint statue in Afghanistan because it was pre-Islamic and thus pagan. Didnt fit with their views of what Afghan culture should be. Mind you the Taliban and the IRA are similar in many ways so can we be surprised??

he was a foreign leader we were never british
the act of union refered to the union of great britain and Ireland

so because we were invaded and occupied we became british so are Iraqis american now
were the vietnamese american
were indians british
I didn't think republicans liked to skip over those 800 years at all i tought they liked to remind us of them every chance they got
so what are the good points of the british occupation that they skipped over
the destruction of our language
the murder of thousands upon thousands of people
the lack of religous freedom
the famine
emigration

Sand wrote:

So then if its done of the own bat, by a local unit, its not an IRA action? Would you then agree the murder of McCabe was a simple bank robbery rather than an IRA action carried out by a local unit on their own iniative? Ill concede the point that the IRA didnt blow up Nelsons Pillar if you concede the Adare crowd were murdering bank robbers who dont qualify under the GFA? ?

no the people who blew up nelsons pillar were not members of the IRA at the time

the high court has conceded that these men qualify under the GFA
their actions were not sactioned by the army council but they had the authority to carry out fundraising missions on behalf of the IRA

Sand wrote:

So the IRAs border campaign in the late 50s didnt happen?

yes it did and ended in 1962 4 years before nelson lost his head

Sand

any fair reading of it does convey pow status to IRA personnel

you are arguing against yourself saying breaches dont invalidate the rights to the protection of the GC

No uniform, dont carry arms openly, dont enforce adherence to GC. Hence not a military force hence they dont have any POW status that cant be invalidated by breaches of the GC. And remember breaches arent the same as ignoring the GC.

how do you know no disciplinary actions were taken against the volunteers who committed this act

I think I speak for Irish1 when I say its up to you to prove that the IRA did enforce adherence with the GC and that the killers of McConville were investigated and punished - several clear and undeniable breaches took place in her case.

your wrong because in 1972 the british did recognise IRA prisioners as pows and gave them special status

They may have *granted* POW status but it wasnt a right of the IRA men, only a privledge a British Government saw fit to grant, and then to remove, probably when it became clearer as the conflict went on that the IRA didnt meet the requirements of a military force.

i tought it might be were all the west brits lived

Isnt it though? Last I heard it was part of the UK. Oh I know republicans are extremely well versed on the exact title of the United Kingdom, but not so much on the title of the Irish Republic. Childish, wasnt that what you said?

no the people who blew up nelsons pillar were not members of the IRA at the time

At the time? Who did they catch for it?

so because we were invaded and occupied we became british so are Iraqis american now
were the vietnamese american
were indians british

Well I guess when the Iraqis pass an Act of Union with the US and send elected representitives to the American Congress, yeah they could pass for American.

But that hasnt happened, but it did in the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Just to cut off your rant before it heads into Life of Brian territory. What did the Romans ever do for us?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Well I guess when the Iraqis pass an Act of Union with the US and send elected representitives to the American Congress, yeah they could pass for American.

But that hasnt happened, but it did in the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Just to cut off your rant before it heads into Life of Brian territory. What did the Romans ever do for us?

so your basis is a parliament that was unrepresentative of the vast majority of Irish people
passed an act under dubious circumstances and therefore everyone here became british
so from 1801 we were british like it or not
this is amazing logic

it also ignores the fact that it was called the united kingdom of great britain and ireland

so clearly we were not british even under that as it was a union of two kingdoms into one kingdom
great britain being the british part
ireland being the irish part
a united kingdom not a british kingdom




I see you could not answer the rant
with what did they do for us

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

yeah daveirl you recapped but left out the fact that I highlighted exactly what the lvf had decommisioned which you had neglected to do
it was an small ammount of material
what is in dispute is the motive for the LVF decommisioning since they promptly continued killing


martin mcguinness is a self confessed former IRA volunteer


as for minorities the vast majority of Irish people vote for political parties whose stated aim is a united Ireland

that is basically every party in leinster house
plus the sdlp
so how are sinn fein voters trying to force it on people when it is a stated aim of most parties on the Island