IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

Wheely

Sand wrote:

Wars are fought by organisations/armies that adhere to the GC in the planning and execution of their operations. SFIRA never adhered to the GC. They never fought a war. They were simply criminals and terrorists who deliberately murdered people for their own ends. Thats all.



So youre over Bloody Sunday then? Sure whose to say if it was right or wrong, these things happen...:rolleyes:

Your arguments about why SF/IRA are simply criminals and terrorists ie lack of adherence to GC, never fought a "war" as you put it, their deliberate murder of people for their own ends could just as easily be applied to Michael Collins and indeed any of the 1916 fighters or anyone who fought in the War of Indepndence. Do you agree?

Wheely

Rock Climber wrote:

We can tell you what the law of the land is.
As for justifying what the IRA did, you havent a leg to stand on there unless you can show me ,the mandate from the living people of Ireland for their 30 years of murder and mahem.
While I'm on the subject of the law of the land,I'll remind you of the law of the politics forum,go read up on it and dont be attacking posters rather attack their post.

Same point really- the law of the land in 1919 was that were a British colony under the rule of the British Empire. The 1916 rebels certainly had no mandate, indeed they were spat on by the citizens of Dublin as they left the GPO. I can tell you what the law of the land was in Germany in the 1930's, they were called Nuremberg laws.........just illustrating that pointing something out as the law of the land does not automaticcally affirm its virtue, morality nor its infallibility

LordSutch

Maybe she did help a dying soldier? & maybe she did inform on the IRAs next atrocity? which means (if she did) that she was a decent, good law abiding citizen doing her duty.

God rest her soul I say, and God help her family in these tough times in which the IRA deny doing anything wrong at all.................

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

Same point really- the law of the land in 1919 was that were a British colony under the rule of the British Empire. The 1916 rebels certainly had no mandate, indeed they were spat on by the citizens of Dublin as they left the GPO. I can tell you what the law of the land was in Germany in the 1930's, they were called Nuremberg laws.........just illustrating that pointing something out as the law of the land does not automaticcally affirm its virtue, morality nor its infallibility

Thats all fine and dandy except this is 2006,Omagh and Warrington were in the 90's.
Nobody bar a few fanaticists are going to accept you raking up what happened a 100 years ago and saying it was ok then so its ok now.
In the 1980's and 90's we had a fully functioning modern democracy in this country.

Everytime I see people harping back a 100 years to justify what happened in the 80's and 90's I always ask what else from that era would they like to harp back to?

Under the thumb of the church..anyone? anyone ? No divorce,condoms anyone? any one?
There was even a nice little rule whereby you could not drink in a pub in the same parish you live in anyone?anyone?

Basically going back to a different era to justify what is wrong today doesnt wash.

As for the 1916 rebels,they did what they did.
However...
PIRA did what they did but PIRA continued on doing what they did with the vast majority of the country against them and that is a fact like it or lump it,hardly garnering the tiniest fraction of support of their fellow Irish people that the 1916 rebels did,yet still eh,they knew best...carry on the mayhem.

Going on your logic we should of course be tollerant of all the IRA splinter groups aswell because you know maybe,maybe,the Irish people might see the error of their ways eventually and conclude that the Omagh bombing was a great thing and there should be plenty more of it.

Patent nonsense.

Jackie laughlin

The term "War" was and is used by SF/IRA in order to try to gain some respectability for their actions.

The reason why we must return to these issues is that the IRA still exists. Their political wing enjoys the support of 10% of the people. They have TDs (one of whom is a convicted gun runner) in our Dail. The media allow them to pretend that they are just another party.

We shouldn't be fooled by the presentation of an out-dated form of socialism. They say the opposite in the US and would embrace Zen if it might deliver a bit of support somewhere. These are fascists who literally rule swathes of working class estates north and south.

There is a political entity called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is now - after all their killings - recognised by SF/IRA. Northern Ireland is also a part of Ireland.

Wheely

Earthman wrote:

Thats all fine and dandy except this is 2006,Omagh and Warrington were in the 90's.
Nobody bar a few fanaticists are going to accept you raking up what happened a 100 years ago and saying it was ok then so its ok now.
In the 1980's and 90's we had a fully functioning modern democracy in this country.

And Guantanamo Bay is still open today, 2006 and i think we can all admit there'e a fully functioning "modern democracy" in the United States, its certainly the law of the land, it doesnt make it just or infallible...that was the only point i was trying to make. Before you jump the gun Im not suggesting that and armed militia group are the right way to deal with that problem nor am I suggesting that the blowing up of civilians or the killing of anyone infromantsa or otherwise is a suitable course of action. And i nevver said it was ok then so its ok now.

Earthman wrote:

Everytime I see people harping back a 100 years to justify what happened in the 80's and 90's I always ask what else from that era would they like to harp back to?Basically going back to a different era to justify what is wrong today doesnt wash.

I am not an apologist for the IRA, and certainly not a SF voter, but i didnt feel the need to make that clear since i was merely pointing out flaws in anothers argument NOT justifying rhe IRAs actions. Point out to me one place where it could even be construed that I was jsutifying anything, or where i even made any reference to Jean Mconville, the only refernce i made to SF/IRA was in relation to Sands ARGUMENTS.

Earthman wrote:

Going on your logic we should of course be tollerant of all the IRA splinter groups aswell because you know maybe,maybe,the Irish people might see the error of their ways eventually and conclude that the Omagh bombing was a great thing and there should be plenty more of it.

Patent nonsense.

Thats nothing other than a "patent" misinterpretation of what I said....if thats honestly what you took from my post, your being misled by something...but you definitely didnt read it objectively

Earthman wrote:

As for the 1916 rebels,they did what they did.

Arguments like this are never ok....they're not arguments, merely because i point out their weakness does not mean that i disagree with the actions of the 1916 rebels no more than it means i support them. It just means i dont like weak or simplistic arguments. Incidently would my "patented nonsense" have been treated with less hostility had you not assumed i was a Celtic supporting, Wolfe Tones fan?

Wheely

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a political entity called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is now - after all their killings - recognised by SF/IRA. Northern Ireland is also a part of Ireland.

Im sorry but....what does this mean exactly???

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

And Guantanamo Bay is still open today, 2006 and i think we can all admit there'e a fully functioning "modern democracy" in the United States, its certainly the law of the land, it doesnt make it just or infallible...that was the only point i was trying to make. Before you jump the gun Im not suggesting that and armed militia group are the right way to deal with that problem nor am I suggesting that the blowing up of civilians or the killing of anyone infromantsa or otherwise is a suitable course of action. And i nevver said it was ok then so its ok now.

Good and there was a sort of Guantanamo in NI called internment as you know,but it didnt last very long thankfully.

I am not an apologist for the IRA, and certainly not a SF voter, but i didnt feel the need to make that clear since i was merely pointing out flaws in anothers argument NOT justifying rhe IRAs actions. Point out to me one place where it could even be construed that I was jsutifying anything, or where i even made any reference to Jean Mconville, the only refernce i made to SF/IRA was in relation to Sands ARGUMENTS.

And I merely pointed out the flaw in yours.

Thats nothing other than a "patent" misinterpretation of what I said....if thats honestly what you took from my post, your being misled by something...but you definitely didnt read it objectively

Thank you for the clarification of your thoughts.
Point stands though regarding the harping back to what was ok in 1916 must be ok now.

Arguments like this are never ok....they're not arguments, merely because i point out their weakness does not mean that i disagree with the actions of the 1916 rebels no more than it means i support them. It just means i dont like weak or simplistic arguments. Incidently would my "patented nonsense" have been treated with less hostility had you not assumed i was a Celtic supporting, Wolfe Tones fan?

I havent assumed anything about you.I merely did what you did and pointed out the flaw in the logic.
You pointed out that the 1916 rebels had no mandate ergo if we are to take that as a statement meaning "dont criticise the current IRA on the basis that they are breaking the law" which is the only way it could be read to be honest...then its only fair of me to point out the patent nonsense of the logic...ie that it implies that we should wait a while and the completely unsupported Omagh bombing could be supported by the masses today with plea's of more of this please.

Do you see that flaw?

Basically what I am saying to you is that, a statement of "oh it was ok then" or "their ancestors did it too" completely flies in the face of the precedent of people moving on and deciding what is a better society (minus the violence) today.
It ignores the evolution of a modern peacefull society and the very different concept of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

RedPlanet

ScottishDanny wrote:

..examples of attacking the poster rather than the post. Rockclimber are you going to ban yourself?

You will doubtless notice that the posters that get banned on this board are the ones sounding "Republican". Around here Republican=bad and you can't mention 1916.

But back on topic.
Jean McConville would make a fairly decent informer really.
Once the barricades go up and the BA are kept out, information gleaned from behind the barricades would be invalueable, so a radio would be ideal.
For one, who would suspect a mother of ten?
Two: if Jean McConville gets outed she's a deniable asset (who in their right mind would think the BA would stoop so low as to recruit and endanger a mother of ten?)
Three: if she gets outed what would the IRA do? Afterall, she's a mother of ten.
If they kill her, the republicans suffer a propaganda blow.
If they don't, the BA have exposed some weakness.

Wheely

Earthman wrote:

And I merely pointed out the flaw in yours..

I didnt make an argument, I made 2 statements of fact,1. lack fo adherence to the GC has dual applicability, to the IRA and to Michael Colins, also to the British and American army at times. 2.the 1916 rebels had no mandate and were in breach of the "law of the land".

Earthman wrote:

Point stands though regarding the harping back to what was ok in 1916 must be ok now..

Never did this. I made a statement, you gauged my opinion accirding to it. That was your deduction.

Earthman wrote:

You pointed out that the 1916 rebels had no mandate ergo if we are to take that as a statement meaning "dont criticise the current IRA on the basis that they are breaking the law" which is the only way it could be read to be honest...then its only fair of me to point out the patent nonsense of the logic...ie that it implies that we should wait a while and the completely unsupported Omagh bombing could be supported by the masses today with plea's of more of this please.

Do you see that flaw?.

I certainly made the underlined statement in an effort to show Sand the dual applicability of his reasoning on why the IRA were criminals and terrorists and to show rockclimber that simply stating something as the law of the land doesnt make it right. Lots of lands have bad laws! The bold illustrates YOUR deductions and what YOU saw as implied from my statement. To answer your question, do I see that flaw in the logic. Yes, I do. But its your logic....

Earthman wrote:

Basically what I am saying to you is that, a statement of "oh it was ok then" or "their ancestors did it too" completely flies in the face of the precedent of people moving on and deciding what is a better society (minus the violence) today.
It ignores the evolution of a modern peacefull society and the very different concept of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

This I agree with...;)

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

2.the 1916 rebels had no mandate and were in breach of the "law of the land".

You made that statement in retort to the statement that PIRA were in breach of the law of the land.

Why did you say that other than to say it was ok then so its ok now ?

I certainly made the underlined statement in an effort to show Sand the dual applicability of his reasoning on why the IRA were criminals and terrorists and to show rockclimber that simply stating something as the law of the land doesnt make it right.

Thats moot, if you agree with what Rock climber and Sand were clearly talking about-the laws against murder and mahem.

ScottishDanny

ScottishDanny wrote:

Sand

RockClimber

Earthman

Hi, seems to me that these are examples of attacking the poster rather than the post. Rockclimber are you going to ban yourself? Am I banned now? :rolleyes:

Nope but you will be if you dont stick to discussing politics rather than that shoite.

If people are going to use the politics forum surely they should expect to read alternative opinions - thats part of the fun!

Funnily enough the only people here on this thread unwilling to discuss things are those who have a one track mind with regard to how rightfull the PIRA's activities were.

To say that the 'conflict' is just a crime spree is to cheapen the loss of 3,500 lives IMO.

Thats rich.Were the people of Ireland ever asked permission for the carry on of the likes of the IRA,UDA,UVF or any of them?
Answer no.
Why?
Because permission would have been denied.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

You will doubtless notice that the posters that get banned on this board are the ones sounding "Republican". Around here Republican=bad and you can't mention 1916.

Factually wrong...
But then that doesnt surprise me, as saying untruths so as to enhance beliefs that something is true is a common propaganda tactic.
FYI (1) there are some long threads here on 1916 and (2)Sand was banned recently here for 3 weeks iirc, as were many regardless of their persuasions.

But back on topic.

Yes please,because the next person to discuss modding on this thread Will get a 1 month ban.

Jean McConville would make a fairly decent informer really.
Once the barricades go up and the BA are kept out, information gleaned from behind the barricades would be invalueable, so a radio would be ideal.
For one, who would suspect a mother of ten?

I know I've suspected Mary McAleese of being involved in British espionage for ages-she has a perfect cover :rolleyes:

Wheely

Earthman,
We seem to be going around in circles here. Its not moot, of course I agree with Sand and Rockclimber, and yourself on the IRA's criminality in general, Iwas attacking the form of their argument not its thrust. Sinn Fein and the IRA are easy targets, thats why on all these threads the Republicans always come off worse...they're wrong. That's no excuse for those opposing them, Sand, Rockclimber, you and indeed me to get lazy. Statements like "as for the 1916 rebels, they did what they did" or "we can tell you the law of the land" are too easily refuted not to be criticised; i can agree with what your saying and criticise how you say it- the first part of that sentence diesn't make the second part "moot" as you put it. Admit, you thought I was another uneducated, angry, bitter Rebuplican unconcerned with criminality, and certainly unconcerned with the 30 year old death of Jean McConville, and thats why you so readily disregarded what I had to say as "patented nonsense". Its ok to admit this, Its a mistake Iv also made on occasion. But they're not all stupid....

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

Earthman,
i can agree with what your saying and criticise how you say it-

Ok lets start here.I'm actually doing that now with regard to what you said.
See,I can see no other reason for pointing out that the old IRA broke the law in 1916 other than it equates to the same thing PIRA did in the modern era.

Admit, you thought I was another uneducated, angry, bitter Rebuplican unconcerned with criminality, and certainly unconcerned with the 30 year old death of Jean McConville, and thats why you so readily disregarded what I had to say as "patented nonsense".

Well you've certainly clarified your position.As for the patent nonsense, thats a valid view point to hold on the continuation of the logic regarding they did it in 1916 so they can do it today scenario.

Its ok to admit this, Its a mistake Iv also made on occasion. But they're not all stupid....

Language is awkward isnt it? You probably posted up what you did perfectly happy in the knowledge that you made the point that you wanted to make.
The only point I could see in your reference to the law breakers of 1916 was the comparison.


*mod edit*

Thread tidied somewhat,with completely off topic posts removed to the recycle bin.

1 poster banned for a month as per the warning above.
Further posts like that one will get the same ban.

Thread re opened

RedPlanet

Is there any point digging up these old murders like Jean McConville, or Bloody Sunday?
Does it serve any useful purpose today?
We all know that it will come to naught.
Bar the propaganda exercise i mean.

I suppose that's the whole point of it really, to damn SF.
One has to wonder is the effort actually worth the results.

Wheely

Earthman,
Glad to have made you think, make no mistake though, as regards issues like these we are most definitely on the same side of the political fence;)

RedPlanet
I would 've thought that the point of history is that we learn from our mistakes...Im sure the point of history is not just to damn SF, because whether you like it or not, the murder of Jean McConville, Bloody Sunday are significant historical events, so are you suggesting that we immediately forget/cover-up/disregard everything that has gone before as we stumble blindly into the future re-making all the same mistakes time and time again for ever and ever, or just the nasty stuff, the bad stuff, just bury that so that all our memories are happy.....it reminds me of a line from Orwells 1984

"People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word." Is this how we should treat people like Jean McConville? Is this the the world in which you want to live??

RedPlanet

Wheely wrote:

I would 've thought that the point of history is that we learn from our mistakes...Im sure the point of history is not just to damn SF, because whether you like it or not, the murder of Jean McConville, Bloody Sunday are significant historical events, so are you suggesting that we immediately forget/cover-up/disregard everything that has gone before as we stumble blindly into the future re-making all the same mistakes time and time again for ever and ever, or just the nasty stuff, the bad stuff, just bury that so that all our memories are happy.....it reminds me of a line from Orwells 1984

"People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word." Is this how we should treat people like Jean McConville? Is this the the world in which you want to live??

Yes, although less dramtic.
When the GFA was signed i thought we were drawing a line between the present and the past. That we were starting at year zero.
That things gone on in the past stay in the past.
That prisoners would be released.
That "on-the-runs" would be in the clear.
I was weary that others would haul their baggage into mix.
That some folks who believe they hold a monoply on suffering would drag us down.

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Is there any point digging up these old murders like Jean McConville, or Bloody Sunday?
Does it serve any useful purpose today?
We all know that it will come to naught.
Bar the propaganda exercise i mean.

I suppose that's the whole point of it really, to damn SF.
One has to wonder is the effort actually worth the results.

Hmmm it matters to me because;

My elected representive, my MEP, will not call her murder a crime, which is something I consider appalling. But it is a clear demostration that the veil between SF and IRA is quite thin in reality

It matters a great deal to the families of those murdered in both Blood Sunday and the family of Jean Mc Conville. Neither of whom, despite all this airy talk of peace and reconcilation haven't recieved an apology. And in the case of the Mc Conville's don't know where their mother was murdered or how, or even where she is buried. Which is just an awful thing for a family to endure, simply because the IRA won't tell them, or offer proof to support their claim that she was a "tout".

Finally it matters because twenty years later the IRA cannot come forward and say "we made a mistake" or "this was wrong", never mind offer evidence to support their claim, it was wrong to murder her, whether she was a "tout" or not. It shows the IRA haven't really let go and beggars the question, what else have they not let go off?

my_house

Rock Climber wrote:

You have asked in response to Sand for posters here to get off their high horses.Thats not dealing with the post it's dealing with the poster.Read the charter and familiarise yourself with it because as per the charter I'm not allowing a discussion on modding here.
Outlining the law of the land and letting you know that the IRA had beggar all support in Ireland isnt being on a high horse either,it's stating fact.
It was textbook terrorism I've no problem living with your delusional post,but I'll let the law deal with extremely unpopular criminality ,murder and mayhem(which is what 30 years of IRA activity amounted to) should it ever happen again

so I cant put forward an argument that in looking back over irish history and deciding what is right and wrong isnt taking the moral high road (read high horse) yet you can call me delusional??

You were attacking the post there were you? so was the post delusional or indeed, where you attacking the poster, ie me?

Dont delete this post like others have been, lets get this onesidedness cleared up once and for all.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

You will doubtless notice that the posters that get banned on this board are the ones sounding "Republican". Around here Republican=bad and you can't mention 1916.

The posters that get banned around here are the ones that break the rules. One of those rules is that you don't discuss moderation of this forum on this forum. You've been warned.

Just so there's no confusion: that was me as moderator. This is me as a poster:

RedPlanet wrote:

Jean McConville would make a fairly decent informer really.
Once the barricades go up and the BA are kept out, information gleaned from behind the barricades would be invalueable, so a radio would be ideal.
For one, who would suspect a mother of ten?

Gerry Adams would make a fairly decent informer really. Naturally, he'd need a radio, so therefore he must have had one. And who would suspect such a committed Republican?

Oh look, I just carried out a thorough internal inquiry which proved that Gerry was, indeed, a "tout".

Wheely

RedPlanet wrote:

Yes, although less dramtic.
When the GFA was signed i thought we were drawing a line between the present and the past. That we were starting at year zero.
That things gone on in the past stay in the past.
That prisoners would be released.
That "on-the-runs" would be in the clear.
I was weary that others would haul their baggage into mix.
That some folks who believe they hold a monoply on suffering would drag us down.

Well, that you'd like to live in the world described by Orwell in 1984, even if it was less dramatic really leaves me with little else to say. I dont think there's any point discussing anything with someone who would make a staement to that effect. You also seriously misunderstood the nature of the GFA if u thought it was to symbolise a "Year Zero"...nice use of Khmer Rouge rhetoric there though...year zero didnt work out to well for them in Cambodia. And as for those folks who think they have a monopoly on suffering, I assume your reffering to the families, the children of Jean McConville and those who died on Bloody Sunday.......bunch of whinging crybabys I suppose....

And your living on what planet exactly???

RedPlanet

Diogenes wrote:

My elected representive, my MEP, will not call her murder a crime, which is something I consider appalling. But it is a clear demostration that the veil between SF and IRA is quite thin in reality

That sounds like the propanda angle then.
Jean McConville represents a way to bash SF.

Diogenes wrote:

It matters a great deal to the families of those murdered in both Blood Sunday and the family of Jean Mc Conville. Neither of whom, despite all this airy talk of peace and reconcilation haven't recieved an apology. And in the case of the Mc Conville's don't know where their mother was murdered or how, or even where she is buried. Which is just an awful thing for a family to endure, simply because the IRA won't tell them, or offer proof to support their claim that she was a "tout".

Yeah but there are loads and loads of those victims, and they come from all sides. I'm sure the family of Rosemary Nelson or Pat Finucane would agree however apparently they are not deserving of the quite the same media glory.

Diogenes wrote:

Finally it matters because twenty years later the IRA cannot come forward and say "we made a mistake" or "this was wrong", never mind offer evidence to support their claim, it was wrong to murder her, whether she was a "tout" or not. It shows the IRA haven't really let go and beggars the question, what else have they not let go off?

The IRA are no more, the less we hear about them the better.
I wouldn't be waiting for them to do anything, in fact, that would be a sort of irony.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

The posters that get banned around here are the ones that break the rules. One of those rules is that you don't discuss moderation of this forum on this forum. You've been warned.

Just so there's no confusion: that was me as moderator. This is me as a poster: Gerry Adams would make a fairly decent informer really. Naturally, he'd need a radio, so therefore he must have had one. And who would suspect such a committed Republican?

Oh look, I just carried out a thorough internal inquiry which proved that Gerry was, indeed, a "tout".

If she were a tout, working for the BA. Would you think any less of them to recruit a mother of ten?

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Yes, although less dramtic.
When the GFA was signed i thought we were drawing a line between the present and the past. That we were starting at year zero.
That things gone on in the past stay in the past.
That prisoners would be released.
That "on-the-runs" would be in the clear.
I was weary that others would haul their baggage into mix.
That some folks who believe they hold a monoply on suffering would drag us down.

No one believes that "they hold a monoply", and that kind of sweeping statement in an attempt to dismiss this is a callous gesture in an attempt to stifle discussion and exploration of the issues.

Should the family of Pat Finucane, give up as well? Should you tell the families searching for justice after Omagh that their pain is in the past?

Awful terrible things happened during the troubles, and awful terrible things happened after the good friday agreement happened, the guns have not been silent, and the troubles still echo loud in parts of northern ireland.

More often than not it was the ordinary decent people who wanted nothing more than peace and quiet who were in the forefront, and you think we should just let the men who commited such violence walk away, without a semblance of justice for the victims?

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

If she were a tout, working for the BA. Would you think any less of them to recruit a mother of ten?

I wouldn't be too impressed, but then if she were an informer, she would be carrying out her civic duty, presumably voluntarily.

That said, I don't believe for a second that she was an informer. There has been no evidence put forward beyond rumour and innuendo.

sceptre

Wheely wrote:

I didnt make an argument, I made 2 statements of fact,1. lack fo adherence to the GC has dual applicability, to the IRA and to Michael Colins, also to the British and American army at times

The 4th Geneva Convention (the one dealing with protection of civilians) was signed in 1949. Michael Collins was shot in 1922 so it might be a little unfair to say that he should have been bound by it. Ditto the British army during the same period.

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

That sounds like the propanda angle then.
Jean McConville represents a way to bash SF.

:rolleyes:

You might see it that way. You might see it that way, if you weren't appalled by your MEP's failure to recognise a murder as a murder.

Yeah but there are loads and loads of those victims, and they come from all sides. I'm sure the family of Rosemary Nelson or Pat Finucane would agree however apparently they are not deserving of the quite the same media glory.

Excuse me? Both the families of Finucane and Nelson play a far more prominent role in the media and general life. One needs only look to the Pat Finucane center in Northern Ireland, or the documentaries made about the murders.

I'm not saying that murders and Finucane and Nelson don't deserve to be highlighted, I'm just saying that for you to suggest that Jean Mc Conville is put on a pedalist while these two murders are ignored is utterly absurd.

The IRA are no more, the less we hear about them the better.

Really then who released the statement condemning the PSNI ombudsman's findings?

I wouldn't be waiting for them to do anything, in fact, that would be a sort of irony.

Wouldn't it though.....:rolleyes:

If she were a tout, working for the BA. Would you think any less of them to recruit a mother of ten?

And again that has never been proven, the radio was never produced, the claim was never verified. The onus is one someone who makes a claim to support the claim, suggesting that IRA slander should be taken as cannon isn't right.

Rock Climber

my_house wrote:

so I cant put forward an argument that in looking back over irish history and deciding what is right and wrong isnt taking the moral high road (read high horse) yet you can call me delusional??

I'd proudly call anything proclaiming that PIRA activities were right as delusional and be happy to be on that moral ground like most Irish people.

You were attacking the post there were you? so was the post delusional or indeed, where you attacking the poster, ie me?

Yes the post was delusionary.

Dont delete this post like others have been, lets get this onesidedness cleared up once and for all.

From what I can see no post here has been deleted.
Off topic rants were moved to the recyle bin forum here

Regarding onesidedness, theres two sides in this discussion that I can see-one that thinks the PIRA (and presumably the rest of the terrorists) were great,good on yez boys,murder all ye like, and the rest of us who recognise it for the abhorance that it was.

RedPlanet wrote:

The IRA are no more, the less we hear about them the better.
I wouldn't be waiting for them to do anything, in fact, that would be a sort of irony.

If they are no more what are they doing justifying what they did and justifying the murder of Jean McConville and the hiding of her body like it was some stray dog..

Wheely

sceptre wrote:

The 4th Geneva Convention (the one dealing with protection of civilians) was signed in 1949. Michael Collins was shot in 1922 so it might be a little unfair to say that he should have been bound by it. Ditto the British army during the same period.

Conceded on Micheal Collins. I wasn't specifically referring to the British armies activities pre-1949 so I still think the dual applicability of the statement is valid.