IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

dam099

joebhoy1916 wrote:

The following is the text of a statement issued by Oglaigh na hÉireann on Saturday, 8 July.

Funny I thought the IRA issued that statement and not the Irish Army.

Jackie laughlin

You know, if it did not involve such high stakes in death and mutilation the SF/IRA fantasy that they are an army, a police force, a civil service would be comedy.

the_syco

As you may know The

NI Police, or as we all now it as, the RUC, different name, same people, like calling the IRA the "peacefull peace organisation, with same people

Ombudsman has been conducting an investigation into claims the late McConville was an imformant for the British Army prior to her abduction and murder in 1972, the conclusion was that she was'nt.

I edited the post, as I believe neither the 'RA, nor the RUC (or whatever they call themselves these days), as they are both as twisted as the other.

Oh, and when was the last time that the British said that someone was a tout, alive or dead, before the tout owned up to being a tout? Honest question: I'm sure someone here will be able to give me an answer.

Jackie laughlin

No one is under any illusions about corruption in the RUC, collusion with low life and infiltration by low life but they never sank to the depths of IRA depravity. The IRA has its ethnic cleansing equivalents on the unionist side. The thing about IRA killing is the stupidity and/or blood lust: they killed more Catholics than any other organisation!

The PNSI is a different organisation. The Garda could usefully use them as a model for reform.

Mighty_Mouse

No one is under any illusions about corruption in the RUC, collusion with low life and infiltration by low life

You distinguish the RUC from the low-life in both instances?

but they never sank to the depths of IRA depravity.

It warms the heart to think that the police force of ALL citizens in the north never bombed catholics?

Are we now judging the actions of the RUC in comparison with the actions of terrorists?
Does anyone else see a problem with this?

The IRA has its ethnic cleansing................

Never ever heard that term used in relation to the north by any person from any side.

ps.
In comparison the say the Shankill Butchers?

redspider

I havent read the whole of this thread, but this is what I know about the Jean McConville situation. No, I dont have a link to a document or proof. This is 'word on the street' stuff, so who knows if it is 100% accurate.

My understanding is that there was an incident where she helped a shot British Army soldier. I cant remember for certain if he died. Many in the locality castigated her for this action and many watched her like a hawk just because of that act of compassion.

My understanding is that there was contact between the British Army and Jean, either because of that act, or because they may have seen a 'window of opportunity' to make her a potential infiltrator.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she was a tout, but there is suspiscion at least that she may have met a 'British' agent. This agent may have been a member of SF/IRA, ie: a tout! Its clear that something was found at her home, and also, that for whatever reason, she was seen as being friendly with the British. This 'device' may have been planted, or may have been something that she didnt know what it was. There is no evidence that she used it.

Her level of friendliness was even extended to her supposedly having a romantic relationship with a British 'contact'. She didnt have a relaionship with a 'Nationalist', and that was viewed with suspicsion.

Note that nothing was ever suspected of her having any links with Loyalists, or with the RUC! It was always with the British, agents or army.

Most of the suspicions are just that, suspicions, and to date there has been no hard evidence revealed one way or the other.

What is clear is that a unit in the IRA, a local commander, whether sanctioned or not by central council, whether all or in part, decided to take her out. This was not for 'military' puposes, but was for showing of strength in the community, policing its own people, and to stamp out any potential touts that may be lured by cash in hard times.

Her death was completely unwarranted, and this was more or less recognised in the inner circles of the IRA and Sinn Fein, as they allowed her body to be found many years later once the peace process started.

It was a torrid chapter in the North's troubles, something that shouldnt have happened. It is not justified, but at the time, many in her area thought that "she had what was coming to her". No doubt, many if not all regreted that stance at some point since in their lives.

The Jean McConville case is an example of how barbaric people can be.


By the way, in terms of the poster who mentioned that the IRA/SF thing is not a war, lets not forget history.

The Irish state (in its current 26-county form) came about as a result of the War of Independence and the 'result' of the Civil War, of which the IRA took part in it. The Provisional IRA organisation is an off-shoot of that old IRA. Lets also remember that the old IRA wanted a 32-county state before the start of the 'mayhem' of the War of Independence.

The situation in the North is better today, it is not a 'war like' situation. But there are still problems, and divisions in society, culturally and politically which will take many generations to unwind.

Redspider

Jackie laughlin

MightyMouse,
I most certainly do distinguish between between the IRA and other terrorists and the RUC. I've no doubt that members of the RUC were involved in terrorism but there is no moral equivalence with the IRA.

The IRA are far and away the league leaders in the murder of Catholics.

At the height of their mayhem, whenever I was in NI and faced a roadblock, I was always mightily relieved to find it was the RUC/army and not the "patriots". (Yes, they did try to mount roadblocks and always informed the media. It was part of their fantasy that they were a legitimate army/police force.)

Mixed housing estates were purged of either Catholic or Protestant residents. As usual middle class areas were largely left alone. In border areas the IRA tried to eradicate protestant farmers. You don't like the term "ethnic cleansing"? Would "religious cleansing" be more accurate?

This was largely achieved south of the border in the early years of independence.

I'm off on holidays! Bye!

Lemming

redspider wrote:

My understanding is that there was an incident where she helped a shot British Army soldier. I cant remember for certain if he died. Many in the locality castigated her for this action and many watched her like a hawk just because of that act of compassion.

She comforted a young dying British soldier on her property. I can only guess that being a mother of ten, her maternal instincts saw something in the, I'll hazard a wild guess at being, terrified face of a boy who knew he was probably going to die and comforted him.

For that she was murdered.

My understanding is that there was contact between the British Army and Jean, either because of that act, or because they may have seen a 'window of opportunity' to make her a potential infiltrator.

Ah, so there's an understanding that there's a "contact" between any Nationalist who ever utters a syllabal to a British soldier on the street. Don't mistake an act of kindness with empathic support for a cause. The two are not mutually inclusive of each other, and on par with saying to someone "prove to me you're not a spy". It's absurd.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she was a tout, but there is suspiscion at least that she may have met a 'British' agent. This agent may have been a member of SF/IRA, ie: a tout! Its clear that something was found at her home, and also, that for whatever reason, she was seen as being friendly with the British. This 'device' may have been planted, or may have been something that she didnt know what it was. There is no evidence that she used it.

So if a device was found ... where are the pictures? Where is the proof. The IRA would have heralded it for the world to see if it existed. They are not stupid as an organisation and are very adept at propoganda. You are going to suggest that she concealed a device - bearing in mind the technology of the era, such a device would not have been miniature - in a small council house shared with ten other people? I. Think. Not.

Once again this whole meeting with a possible "agent" smacks of the "prove to me you're not a spy" routine. Nothing more than self-serving horsesh*t.

Her level of friendliness was even extended to her supposedly having a romantic relationship with a British 'contact'. She didnt have a relaionship with a 'Nationalist', and that was viewed with suspicsion.

That particular "rumour" was used by the chuckies after her disappearance, claiming that she had run off to the UK with a member of the British army and abandoned her family like a harlot, etc, etc.

It was subsequently debunked as complete b*llocks and that's when they trotted out the "tout" excuse. So they lied once, then lied again. Hmmmm .. let me think about this for a while eh? .... :rolleyes:

You want us to accept the words of facless liars who have already been caught out lying about the subject matter in question. And continue to still lie to this day with phrases such as "thorough investigation".

Most of the suspicions are just that, suspicions, and to date there has been no hard evidence revealed one way or the other.

Heh ... redspider, I want you to prove to me that you're not a British spy.

*cough*

No evidence. Ever consider why that might be? Or perhaps reconsidered the source of the accusations since said "accusers" were already caught out lying about what happened her?

The Jean McConville case is an example of how barbaric people can be.

It's a living example of how barbaric and gullible people can be to this day.

By the way, in terms of the poster who mentioned that the IRA/SF thing is not a war, lets not forget history.

It's not a war. You are deluding yourself if you think it was ever a "war" except in the minds of those who carried out acts of obscene butchery. SF/IRA are not a recognised "army", so how they can declare "war" is a weeeee bit beyond credibility. But since it was apparently a war, you wont mind if they present themselves before the hague for warcrimes investigations now will you?

The Irish state (in its current 26-county form) came about as a result of the War of Independence and the 'result' of the Civil War, of which the IRA took part in it. The Provisional IRA organisation is an off-shoot of that old IRA. Lets also remember that the old IRA wanted a 32-county state before the start of the 'mayhem' of the War of Independence.

Lets also remember that the "old" IRA and the Provisional movement are not the one and same.

Jackie laughlin

I came back for a late look at the debate.

Of course the "old" IRA and the present IRA are not the same or an unbroken continuity but they constitute an undemocratic, catholic, violent, fascist tradition.

Look at today's papers. The British want to involve IRA convicts in the admin of justice and constitutional nationalists in the SDLP oppose this. The SDLP have been badly damaged by the British and Irish governments who are prepared to risk Irish democracy in return for SF/IRA acceptance of partition.

redspider

The Jean McConville case is a sad one. The general thrust of my post was to highlight the thinking behind why people killed her. I am not saying that it was right and I dont condone it at all, so dont 'shoot the messenger' in this case.

Lemming wrote:

She comforted a young dying British soldier on her property. For that she was murdered.

Yes, possbly for that she was.

Lemming wrote:

Ah, so there's an understanding that there's a "contact" between any Nationalist who ever utters a syllabal to a British soldier on the street. Don't mistake an act of kindness with empathic support for a cause. The two are not mutually inclusive of each other.

The 'contact' according to the 'word on the street' was afterwards. As I said, there is no 'proof' so this could have been concocted to 'blackmark' Jean McConville. However, many 1000's of people in her local community believed it (and still do) which is an important factor in the understandug of why she was murdered.

Lemming wrote:

So if a device was found ... where are the pictures? Where is the proof. The IRA would have heralded it for the world to see if it existed. They are not stupid as an organisation and are very adept at propoganda. You are going to suggest that she concealed a device - bearing in mind the technology of the era, such a device would not have been miniature - in a small council house shared with ten other people? I. Think. Not.

There is no proof. And why would the IRA get pictures of it and parade them to the media. This was back in the 70's when secrecy was key. There was no onus on them or nothing to be gained to display. Their only worry was to be seen to be in control of 'their community' and to make sure that everyone knew that the British Army were off-limits. By the way, people have concealed guns, weapons and even bodies without other occupants of a house knowing, especially kids.

Lemming wrote:

That particular "rumour" was used by the chuckies after her disappearance, claiming that she had run off to the UK with a member of the British army and abandoned her family like a harlot, etc, etc. It was subsequently debunked as complete b*llocks and that's when they trotted out the "tout" excuse. So they lied once, then lied again. Hmmmm.

You want us to accept the words of facless liars who have already been caught out lying about the subject matter in question. And continue to still lie to this day with phrases such as "thorough investigation".

No, I dont want you to accept 'their reasoning' or explanations. All I'm doing is passing on what I have heard has been said. As you point out, much of it was concocted. One fact of the matter that was not concocted was that Jean McConville was murdered. But you and all of us have to understand, it was not a random murder. It was done for a reason. The reason or reasons are pathetic of course, but were important to those people that carried them out. I'm just relaying what were supposedly given as reasons/excuses.

Lemming wrote:

Heh ... redspider, I want you to prove to me that you're not a British spy. *cough*

I cant, nor can I prove that I was never a member of the Para's the IRA, or PIRA or whatever, but that doesnt mean that I was ever a member of any of them, and the same goes for you too and each and everyone of us.

Lemming wrote:

It's not a war. You are deluding yourself if you think it was ever a "war" except in the minds of those who carried out acts of obscene butchery. SF/IRA are not a recognised "army", so how they can declare "war" is a weeeee bit beyond credibility.

According to generally accepted International Laws, no freedom fighting group has any authority to start or carry out an official war, as they are not from a recognised country, soverign state, etc. So in that regard you are syntactically correct.

However, here in Ireland we all call it the War of Independence. In fact, nearly all countries that have come about as a result of freedom fighting (some call that terrorism) and fighting for their independence have called it a war. None of those wars were official Wars and none of them were carried out by recognised armies. Yet, they happened and will be written down in history as wars.

Ireland (the 26 counties) came about as a result of freedom-fighting, terrorism, etc. Many countries did, in fact the global history and current demarcations are based on that wars. None of them official wars by current definitions. But the international and legal definition of War should not be a barrier to the labelling of fighting, killing and maiming, all of which are clearly acts of warring. I, and most people of the world it seems, call it a war.

Of course, in the troubles of the 1970's, 80's and 90's, SF and the IRA did want to label the 'mayhem', as Michael Collins put it, as a war. Clearly, the British nor Northern Ireland authorities didnt see it that way and called it 'The Troubles'. Whether its a war or troubles, the effect is the same. Killing, death, etc.

Also, we had a Civil war. By legalese definition, this was not a war. Maybe you have a term for it then??

C'est ne pas un pipe .......

Redspider

Lemming

redspider wrote:

The Jean McConville case is a sad one. The general thrust of my post was to highlight the thinking behind why people killed her. I am not saying that it was right and I dont condone it at all, so dont 'shoot the messenger' in this case.

Yes, possbly for that she was.

Indeed we'll really know, however it's looking increasingly likely to be the case with recent media articles by unnamed IRA sources suggesting that they got "the wrong woman". Assuming of course that there ever was a "right" woman and this wasn't all to do with controlling your community, which you touch on below, where' I'll comment more.

There is no proof. And why would the IRA get pictures of it and parade them to the media. This was back in the 70's when secrecy was key. There was no onus on them or nothing to be gained to display. Their only worry was to be seen to be in control of 'their community' and to make sure that everyone knew that the British Army were off-limits. By the way, people have concealed guns, weapons and even bodies without other occupants of a house knowing, especially kids.

Ok, three things to note here.

1. Discovery of such a device in any era would be a major propoganda victory. It has nothing to do with secrecy. Secrecy only applies when your agent is alive. Not the other guy's. The IRA would have shown that device to the world, as they did do in later years with the discover of British army listening devices in the 1980s on the border (and indeed across the border with the Republic in some instances).

2. You've mentioned what I consider to be the crux of the matter regarding the McConville murder redspider. Control of the community. They simply used a scape-goat. They conjured up a rumour to blackmark McConville, then carted her off and made lies about her fate. It could just as easily have been her neighbour Mr.Joe.Bloggs, father of 27 and local postman. They didn't care whom, they wanted someone. Anyone, to make an example of.

3. Stop equating today's concealed and miniaturised weapons and technology with technology from 30+ years ago. B-u-l-k-y. Not miniature or concealable.

No, I dont want you to accept 'their reasoning' or explanations. All I'm doing is passing on what I have heard has been said.

And by proxy pass it off as some sort of proof. Since you know it's higly incredible, why not dissect it instead and then put YOUR views forward, not supposedly what you've heard.

As you point out, much of it was concocted. One fact of the matter that was not concocted was that Jean McConville was murdered.

I suspect that that's about the only fact that wasn't concocted.

But you and all of us have to understand, it was not a random murder. It was done for a reason. The reason or reasons are pathetic of course, but were important to those people that carried them out. I'm just relaying what were supposedly given as reasons/excuses.

It's very warped logic redspider. The local football results might be important to you but I couldn't care less. Some people are prepared to cause extreme injury to someone over those footie results, possibly even death if even unplanned. Same logic applies to the people who carried out this particular obscenity.

I cant, nor can I prove that I was never a member of the Para's the IRA, or PIRA or whatever, but that doesnt mean that I was ever a member of any of them, and the same goes for you too and each and everyone of us.

That's kind of my point redspider. Thanks for making it for me.

According to generally accepted International Laws, no freedom fighting group has any authority to start or carry out an official war, as they are not from a recognised country, soverign state, etc. So in that regard you are syntactically correct.

However, here in Ireland we all call it the War of Independence

Ehhhh ... come again? What war of Independence? I'm Irish, I live in Ireland, was born in Ireland, and I have to point out that we had that war decades ago verging closer to a century in the past.

What's going on up the north is noooooothing to do with "independence" except in name only. These people claim to represent me. They don't. They claim to represent Ireland. They don't. They hate the south, they don't recognise the government of the south. However, when it suits their means they will engage with the government of the "Free State". Rank hypocracy. They're full of sh*t.

. In fact, nearly all countries that have come about as a result of freedom fighting (some call that terrorism) and fighting for their independence have called it a war. None of those wars were official Wars and none of them were carried out by recognised armies. Yet, they happened and will be written down in history as wars.

ANd what's going on up the north, funnily enough hasn't been writtin down as a war but protracted terrorism on both sides of the divide. WHy do you think it's known collectively as "THe Troubles". It'll never be called a "War" except by f*ckwits in balaclavas and the idiots who support them with romantic visions of galant freedom fighters.

Also, we had a Civil war. By legalese definition, this was not a war. Maybe you have a term for it then??

I think you'll find that civil war is civil war by any twist of logic. Open and shut case thereof.

Diogenes

redspider wrote:

The Jean McConville case is a sad one. The general thrust of my post was to highlight the thinking behind why people killed her. I am not saying that it was right and I dont condone it at all, so dont 'shoot the messenger' in this case.



The 'contact' according to the 'word on the street' was afterwards. As I said, there is no 'proof' so this could have been concocted to 'blackmark' Jean McConville. However, many 1000's of people in her local community believed it (and still do) which is an important factor in the understandug of why she was murdered.

These two paragraphs are just a contradiction, hand wringing condemnation for her death and how you are personally appalled etc etc etc etc. Which is then followed on by "reporting" inneudo and speculation as "common knowledge". It's apologism for the IRA of the most rank order, say what you like about joebhoy1916 at least he has the common decency to stand up and say what he believes happened. You've not got the decency to admit you think this is what happened, instead you wring your hands and spout the party line as "word on the street". It's dispicable.

There is no proof. And why would the IRA get pictures of it and parade them to the media. This was back in the 70's when secrecy was key. There was no onus on them or nothing to be gained to display. Their only worry was to be seen to be in control of 'their community' and to make sure that everyone knew that the British Army were off-limits.

Again more apologises? Why would they get pictures? A massive PR coup? Showing how the british army where infilrating their community? Not to mention a massive counter intelligence coup, a chance to listen in on the British intelligence.

Again this is more hypothetical "ah sure why would they do that" The burden of proof is with the IRA. At first they claimed she'd run off with a soldier.

Why did they lie? If your claim; "their only worry was to seen to be in control" then they would have come forward from the get go and said "She was a tout and so we killed her, and let that be lesson to the rest of you"

You could drive a Sarason through the holes in the IRA story that you are perpetuating.

By the way, people have concealed guns, weapons and even bodies without other occupants of a house knowing, especially kids.

And that concealment generaly is done with help of others from outside the house, building concealed walls etc.....

How exactly is a single mother with ten children in her house and no outside support going to hid a Circa 1970's radio transmittor and antena in a house? :rolleyes:

No, I dont want you to accept 'their reasoning' or explanations. All I'm doing is passing on what I have heard has been said.

"Now I'm not defending the IRA, but I heard that......" Look if you think she was a tout and the IRA shot her, say it, please stop trying to pretend to play devils adovcate.

As you point out, much of it was concocted. One fact of the matter that was not concocted was that Jean McConville was murdered. But you and all of us have to understand, it was not a random murder. It was done for a reason. The reason or reasons are pathetic of course, but were important to those people that carried them out. I'm just relaying what were supposedly given as reasons/excuses.

Again, frankly, I'd have to use unparlimentary language to describe the above. Your "I'm not defending the IRA" (when you clearly are) argument, displays......look I've no time for joebhoy1916 or his ilk, but at least he's honest. You're not even willing to admit you're an apologist for thugs.

In my opinion it was a random murder, picking on someone who's just a bystander who acts on the most base and human emotions, empathy for a dying boy. Just to show the locals what happens if you even try and "collaborate"

I cant, nor can I prove that I was never a member of the Para's the IRA, or PIRA or whatever, but that doesnt mean that I was ever a member of any of them, and the same goes for you too and each and everyone of us.

Thats completely ignoring the argument. The onus is on someone making a claim to support the claim. The burden of proof is on the accuser. People like you who are "passing on the word of the street" even though you've not a shred of evidence to support your claim are just distributing IRA propaganda aganist a dead woman.

According to generally accepted International Laws, no freedom fighting group has any authority to start or carry out an official war, as they are not from a recognised country, soverign state, etc. So in that regard you are syntactically correct.

Which laws are these now?

snip

torturous IRA logic

Redspider

Do the IRA represent the vast majority of the population south and north of the border? Have they recieved any sort of mandate? No. Fighting a war for our "freedoms" and our "nation" without checking to see what the people living there want.

You can try and twist this any way you want, they were violent thugs, and never fought a war for Ireland.

LeinsterPar

Lemming wrote:

These people claim to represent me. They don't. They claim to represent Ireland. They don't.

i think thats a bit of a misconception in the South. The provos really aligned themselves to their nationalist supports in the north, as in the people who protected and hid them - they never claimed to be fighting for anyone else.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

You can try and twist this any way you want, they were violent thugs, and never fought a war for Ireland.

It's fine and dandy to look back and say such things, but during the height of the troubles throughout the 70s and 80s, there were many people who were happy that the IRA were fighting for them. Again though, these were people based in the north who had to endure things that southerners didnt, so its like the old 'unless you walk in a mans shoes ...' adage

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

It's fine and dandy to look back and say such things, but during the height of the troubles throughout the 70s and 80s, there were many people who were happy that the IRA were fighting for them. Again though, these were people based in the north who had to endure things that southerners didnt, so its like the old 'unless you walk in a mans shoes ...' adage

Nice and all as that it is, while the IRA were fighting loyalists and B specials commiting pograms aganist catholic communties. It's just that pretty much stopped early in the troubles. I'm a little unclear how enniskillen, warringpoint and birmingham helped communities that were under siege and wanted the IRA.

Just because a bunch of people in pubs in Londonderry and Boston wanted the IRA and a united Ireland doesn't justify a 30 reign of terror

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

Nice and all as that it is, while the IRA were fighting loyalists and B specials commiting pograms aganist catholic communties. It's just that pretty much stopped early in the troubles. I'm a little unclear how enniskillen, warringpoint and birmingham helped communities that were under siege and wanted the IRA.

Just because a bunch of people in pubs in Londonderry and Boston wanted the IRA and a united Ireland doesn't justify a 30 reign of terror

warrington happened towards the end of the 'troubles' as they say - enniskillen happen in the mid 80s when there was a lot of **** going on in nationalist communities with loyalists and the RUC. think brian neilson etc etc, so things had not "pretty much stopped early in the troubles." PLus, as a nationalist growing up in the north at that time I met no-one in the republican movement who were happy about what happened in
enniskillen. Support was not refined to people in pubs in Derry and Boston - far from it.

Also think back to the black marches that were going on in the mid 80s, with the loyalist/RUC roadblocks and the assorted violence and assults that went with those. It wasn't a pretty time in the history of the six counties.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

warrington happened towards the end of the 'troubles' as they say - enniskillen happen in the mid 80s when there was a lot of **** going on in nationalist communities with loyalists and the RUC. think brian neilson etc etc, so things had not "pretty much stopped early in the troubles." PLus, as a nationalist growing up in the north at that time I met no-one in the republican movement who were happy about what happened in
enniskillen. Support was not refined to people in pubs in Derry and Boston - far from it.

Also think back to the black marches that were going on in the mid 80s, with the loyalist/RUC roadblocks and the assorted violence and assults that went with those. It wasn't a pretty time in the history of the six counties.

:rolleyes:

Look you may try and distinguish the good IRA stuff from the bad IRA stuff. There's two irrefutable facts

1) The IRA campaign's stated goal was a united Ireland. They engaged in a thirty year terrorist campaign in the hope of achieving this goal. They did this is the name of all Irish people, without ever once seeing if there was popular national support for this campaign. You cannot use the fact that the IRA are some support in certain areas as justification for this campaign. It would affect the entire population and they never once consulted the entire population.

2) The IRA killed more catholics than any other side in the conflict. To suggest the IRA campaign was therefore about protecting catholics and republicans, simply doesnt add up.

LeinsterPar

the point i wish to make is that it is wrong to state that the IRA represented no-one. They did represent asection of normal, common everyday people in the north.

The IRA didnt do anything for all the people of Ireland - they fought for those who were suffering under the hands of sectarian loyalists and security forces in the North.

I doubt the IRA killed more catholics now to be honest. For the past 15 years the loyalists have had the highest murder rate, mostly catholics. stats on that wont be easy to find, considering how many catholics have been killed by loyalist/RUC squads and then blamed on republicans. I will though see what info I can find.

LeinsterPar

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Catholics killed by republicans: 408
Catholics killed by loyalists: 584
Catholics killed by BA: 258

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

the point i wish to make is that it is wrong to state that the IRA represented no-one. They did represent asection of normal, common everyday people in the north.

Whats their name The Irish Republican Army? Not the Derry republican army, or west belfast. Saying they had a modicum of support in certain areas does not justify a terror campaign across several countries, to achieve an aim that no one asked them to.

The IRA didnt do anything for all the people of Ireland - they fought for those who were suffering under the hands of sectarian loyalists and security forces in the North.

Thats wrong, pure and simple the stated aim of the IRA was to achieve a united ireland. I'm also a little unclear how you fight for those suffering under the hands of sectarian loyalists by

Bombing Harods
Bombing Pubs in Birmingham
Bombing War Memorials
Killing factory workers.

I doubt the IRA killed more catholics now to be honest. For the past 15 years the loyalists have had the highest murder rate, mostly catholics.

Thats wrong for a start.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html
Republican Paramilitaries killed twice as many as unionists

stats on that wont be easy to find, considering how many catholics have been killed by loyalist/RUC squads and then blamed on republicans.

Would you care to start by giving some examples of people killed by loyalists and the RUC and blamed on republicans?

I will though see what info I can find.

cain is a good place to start

LeinsterPar

im sorry but that page you linked to proves nothing. Its a list. My link also have a list, but its even got graphs. It disagrees with your page. where does that leave us? Research a bit of history and one may find that republicans eased off on killing in the late 80s. Loyalists still havent, right up ultil today. How about that kid from ballymena? Beat to death by loyalist louts.

Point 1 - misses my point completely. Maybe that was intentional, I dont know. The IRA fought for those it fought for, first and foremost. A united ireland is a republican aim, but it isnt the main reasoin the IRA existed. they existed to protect people who had no-one else to turn to. If you dont understand this, then Im sorry, I cant help you. That also ties in with point 2
Point three is answered by my previous post, pity you didnt see it first.

Point 4 is obviously impossible to do - though you arent telling me that there wasnt a dirty tricks campaign surely? like, that isnt news to you at all is it? Maybe I'll make a web page saying so and link to it ....

Point 5 - again, its a pity you didnt read the thread fully first ....

I think this is sidelining this thread btw. Its a fact that the IRA 'happened' for a reason and that reason stayed there right up until they disbanded. In fact, as this year has actually saw more loyalist anti catholic violence than last year (a 30% increase in fact, according to TodayFm yesterday) is possible to say that the nationalist community in fact still need the IRA as no-one seems to be either reporting the violence or doing anything about it.

on the other hand, Hain has reported the IRA has stopped everything ... I noticed that hasnt been widely reported nor have mainly people bothered replying to the thread about it on the politics forum.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

im sorry but that page you linked to proves nothing. Its a list. My link also have a list, but its even got graphs. It disagrees with your page. where does that leave us?

The cain institute is a highly respected organisation, dedicated to research into the violence in the north. The website you referenced is some blokes homepage.

Research a bit of history and one may find that republicans eased off on killing in the late 80s. Loyalists still havent, right up ultil today. How about that kid from ballymena? Beat to death by loyalist louts.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in latter news loyalist violence was more commonplace while the IRA was on ceasefire, doesn't excuse or take away from the thousands killed by the IRA.

Point 1 - misses my point completely. Maybe that was intentional, I dont know. The IRA fought for those it fought for, first and foremost.

And for the ones they claimed to fight for but didn't represent?

A united ireland is a republican aim, but it isnt the main reasoin the IRA existed.

You can keep saying that over and over again and it isn't going to make it any truer.

they existed to protect people who had no-one else to turn to.

And those defenseless who they killed and maimed? The Jean McConvilles, The Robert McCartney's the crippled children kneecapped by IRA justice, and those just killed out of sectarian hate? How were they protected by the RA?

Point 4 is obviously impossible to do - though you arent telling me that there wasnt a dirty tricks campaign surely? like, that isnt news to you at all is it? Maybe I'll make a web page saying so and link to it ....

Oh Please tone down the patronising tone. If you make a claim the onus is on you to support a claim, don't claim there are hundreds killed by loyalists and the RUC and blamed on the IRA, and then start muttering about a dirty tricks campaign when asked to prove it.

I think this is sidelining this thread btw. Its a fact that the IRA 'happened' for a reason and that reason stayed there right up until they disbanded. In fact, as this year has actually saw more loyalist anti catholic violence than last year (a 30% increase in fact, according to TodayFm yesterday) is possible to say that the nationalist community in fact still need the IRA as no-one seems to be either reporting the violence or doing anything about it.

It is sidelining the thread with your ambigious claims about IRA support and bizarre statments about their aims.

on the other hand, Hain has reported the IRA has stopped everything ... I noticed that hasnt been widely reported nor have mainly people bothered replying to the thread about it on the politics forum.

Hain reported that provo criminality hadn't ceased just reduced to level that can safetly be ignored, everyone just wants the north to get on with it.

LeinsterPar

ive no intention in being pulled into a slagging match here. the facts are facts no matter and they speak for themselves. If you dont wish to bother understanding them then thats fine. I dont wish to bother wasting any more time in debating this as your arguments are verging on the insulting.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

Hain reported that provo criminality hadn't ceased just reduced to level that can safetly be ignored, everyone just wants the north to get on with it.

I suggest you go back and read what he said. He outlined that the IRA as an organisation had infact ceased everything.

Sand

ive no intention in being pulled into a slagging match here. the facts are facts no matter and they speak for themselves. If you dont wish to bother understanding them then thats fine. I dont wish to bother wasting any more time in debating this as your arguments are verging on the insulting.

Ah, textbook Provo denial of reality that threatens ingrained theology.

LeinsterPar

are you telling me Im a provo then? what i said ther, dear sands, is that Im not going to get wound up by inane discussions on the web. give me some real debate and maybe I'll bother - this is just a matter of me posting something and someone else replying that what i said isnt true. thats not debate.

then you pop up and tell me that what I said is a classical provo reply (whatever that is). You may explain that one to me as I read that as attacking the poster and not the post.

I fear I may not be the one with an 'ingrained theology' that starts to crumble once the IRA disband.

I disagree

In relation to IRAs beginning from post somewhere above……….

The IRA came into existence as a result of the pogroms which occurred in nationalist areas. If the PIRA came into existence purely to unify the island then why did they meet and work along side the British Army in 1969/70? How come the first British soldier didn’t die until 1971?
The aim of the provies was to defend nationalist areas from the unionist thugs backed up by heavily armed B specials who raided, burned and murdered their way through nationalist areas. After that aim was achieved (to an extent) they went on the offensive like every other IRA that has existed. To suggest anything else is a false account of the situation. Reasons for doing it range from republican tradition to not wanting to remain as second class citizens in a foreign ‘state’. By the way, I believe it to have been the wrong strategy since the British may have been the biggest problem; the unionists were also a serious concern and cannot simply be forced into a United a free Ireland without consent from a reasonable number of those unionists.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

ive no intention in being pulled into a slagging match here. the facts are facts no matter and they speak for themselves. If you dont wish to bother understanding them then thats fine. I dont wish to bother wasting any more time in debating this as your arguments are verging on the insulting.

Hmmmm looking back over what I wrote I don't think anything could be percieved as a insult or "slag". Suggesting that I'm planning on dragging this into a slagging match is actually quiet rude. Coming onto a thread disputing a credible source of information on the victims of violence in the north Then while making claims that hundreds of people where killed by loyalists and the RUC, and when asked to support such a claim, you essentially pick up your toys and walk away is, well....lets not descend into that slagging match you're so eager to avoid.

To tie this back to the thread your behaviour, repeating what "the dogs on the street know" without a shred of evidence is just disseminating RA propaganda, similiar to what redspider is doing with Jean McConville

LeinsterPar

a lot of post 173 i find insulting. 'patronising'? 'you keep saying that over and over'(eh?)

I posted credible evidence to show that the republican movement HAS NOT killed the most catholics, which is also backed in various publications of the problems in the north, which you have shrugged aside as it doesnt tally with your beliefs. as I said, leave me out of this as its not really a discussion.

Jean McConville died, which wasnt right, but the IRA are now gone. Lets get over that and try and get some peace happening. I have a feeling though that there are many in this country who wouldnt want that. when push comes to shove, we're seeing those who dont want to lose being able to give out about the IRA.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

Then while making claims that hundreds of people where killed by loyalists and the RUC, and when asked to support such a claim, you essentially pick up your toys and walk away is, well....lets not descend into that slagging match you're so eager to avoid.

Didn't you look at the link I posted then?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/...les_stats.html Please try and read my posts before making eronious comments please.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

Didn't you look at the link I posted then?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/...les_stats.html Please try and read my posts before making eronious comments please.

You mean that link? The one that is broken?

Or this link?
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

For starts as I pointed out thats a personal homepage, not as credible a source as cain. A site you said you disagree with, without explaining why, it's an institution dedicated to research and examination of the deaths causes by the conflict.

Even if I take your site at its word

A) The IRA killed more than any other side in this conflict

the IRA killed more catholics over the course of the troubles than either the UVF or British army. In fact the IRA killed more catholics than any other single group.

Now seeing as you claim the IRA were there to protect catholic communities, they did a fairly sh*tty job if they ended up killing more catholics than those they were defending the communties from :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

LeinsterPar wrote:

a lot of post 173 i find insulting.

If you have a problem with a post, report it and let the moderators decide how best to deal with it.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

You mean that link? The one that is broken?

Or this link?
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

For starts as I pointed out thats a personal homepage, not as credible a source as cain. A site you said you disagree with, without explaining why, it's an institution dedicated to research and examination of the deaths causes by the conflict.

Even if I take your site at its word

A) The IRA killed more than any other side in this conflict

the IRA killed more catholics over the course of the troubles than either the UVF or British army. In fact the IRA killed more catholics than any other single group.

Now seeing as you claim the IRA were there to protect catholic communities, they did a fairly sh*tty job if they ended up killing more catholics than those they were defending the communties from :rolleyes:

Oscarbravo - in future I will do so.

Diogenes - i really am missing your argument here. Maybe they did do a ****ty job, but all considered what would you expect? It doesnt get away from the fact that they existed as a from of protection for people who had no-one else to turn to. thats not an excuse, its not a typical provo reply etc etc etc .. its the plain and simple truth.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

For starts as I pointed out thats a personal homepage, not as credible a source as cain. A site you said you disagree with, without explaining why, it's an institution dedicated to research and examination of the deaths causes by the conflict.

UI dont know who malcolm sutton is or how he is reputable? plus there is no breakdown between republican killings and the PIRA on that site so I cant see how you have come to your conclusion that the PIRA has killed more catholics than anyone else?

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

UI dont know who malcolm sutton is or how he is reputable?

Yes yes I do. However that isn't Malcolm Sutton's website, I've no way of checking whether those statistics have been altered by the person who runs the personal site you've taken them from. Well I do I suppose, I could actually go to Malcolm Sutton's website. cain.ulst.ac.uk
The website I posted in the first place, the website that you disagreed with

plus there is no breakdown between republican killings and the PIRA on that site so I cant see how you have come to your conclusion that the PIRA has killed more catholics than anyone else?

This is actually getting incredibly wearying.

Bottom of the page you posted

number of catholics killed by the IRA 338. The statistics are listed by group, IRA, INLA, Real IRA etc......

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

Diogenes - i really am missing your argument here. Maybe they did do a ****ty job, but all considered what would you expect?

Because it fundamentally shreds your argument that the IRA were there for the main reason to protect catholic communties. They weren't, their fundamental reason for existance was to force a united ireland through forceful means.

It doesnt get away from the fact that they existed as a from of protection for people who had no-one else to turn to. thats not an excuse, its not a typical provo reply etc etc etc .. its the plain and simple truth.

I'm sorry you can keep claiming that they were a form of protection, but the bauled honest truth laid bare by the deaths is that they weren't

LeinsterPar

im afraid youve lost me again. I went to 'Malcolm Sutton's website. cain.ulst.ac.uk', and I cant see how he is reputable. who is he? why is he 'reputable' more than anyone else.

This is actually getting incredibly wearying. Bottom of the page ....

again ive lost you. I know the breakdown on the site link I listed but I wasnt referring to that, I was refering to the link you posted - the cain one - which only mentioned republican killings (like thats the ira, RIRA, INLA and various others). You have claimed the PIRA have killed more than anyone, yet your link does not say that. On what info have you made your decision? Please really, try and read my posts as you seem to have mixed up what I was saying there. The link I posted splits up the groups and shows the PIRA (referred to as the IRA) had NOT killed more than the loyalists, the link you posted does not make any distinction between the different republican groupings.

Diogenes wrote:

Yes yes I do. However that isn't Malcolm Sutton's website, I've no way of checking whether those statistics have been altered by the person who runs the personal site you've taken them from. Well I do I suppose, I could actually go to Malcolm Sutton's website. cain.ulst.ac.uk
The website I posted in the first place, the website that you disagreed with



This is actually getting incredibly wearying.

Bottom of the page you posted

number of catholics killed by the IRA 338. The statistics are listed by group, IRA, INLA, Real IRA etc......

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

Because it fundamentally shreds your argument that the IRA were there for the main reason to protect catholic communties. They weren't, their fundamental reason for existance was to force a united ireland through forceful means.



I'm sorry you can keep claiming that they were a form of protection, but the bauled honest truth laid bare by the deaths is that they weren't

Im sorry but I cant agree with you. The IRAs first and foremost objective was to protect its people, supporters and followers, of which there were many in the north. I dont see how anything mentioned "fundamentally shreds your argument that the IRA were there for the main reason to protect catholic communties." - maybe you could make that more clearer for me, keeping in mind you havent actually proved the PIRA killed more than anyone else and refuse to accept the link I posted which says they didnt?

Again i state that this is off topic to this thread so once more I ask to get back to the OP.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

im afriad youve lost me again. I wsent to 'Malcolm Sutton's website. cain.ulst.ac.uk', and I cant see how he is reputable. who is he? why is he 'reputable' more than anyone else.

For starts the statistics on the site you posted are in fact lifted from Malcolm Suttons website. I assumed you were being retorical when You said

LeinsterPar wrote:

UI dont know who malcolm sutton is or how he is reputable?

Combined with your typo. So keep in mind the statistics from this weslseyjohnson.com are taken from cain.ulst.ac.uk

As to Malcolm Sutton's reputability.

From his book

Bear in mind these dead ... An Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland 1969-1993
For almost twenty years Malcolm Sutton has been recording the details of every death arising from the present conflict in Ireland. He has collected newspaper cuttings, observed funerals, checked coroners' court records, visited cemetries and studied books and pamphlets. He has painstakingly verified the personal details of victims, the organisations responsible for the killings and the circumstances in which the deaths occurred.

Malcolm Sutton has compiled this index as a memorial for the dead and as a tribute to the families and friends of the 3,523 people killed between July 1969 and 31 December 2001.

again ive lost you. I know[]/b] the breakdown on the site link I listed but I wasnt referring to that, I was reffering to the link you posted

Again I'm sorry I assumed you actually read the link you posted. The bit where it clearly says it takes it's statistics from Malcolm Sutton?

- the cain one - which only mentioned republican killings (like thats the ira, RIRA, INLA and various others. You have claimed the PIRA have killed more than anyone, yet your link does not say that. On what info have you made your decision? Please really, try and read my posts as you seem to have mixed up what I was saying there.

:rolleyes:

My source for the PIRA killings is Malcolm Sutton the exact same resource you use on the website you posted. If you look at the cain.ulst.ac.uk you will find that there is a similiar breakdown to the one you posted on your link welseyjohnson.com

So What are you are arguing now

A) That the IRA didn't kill more catholics than any other side in the conflict?

Or that such deaths are necessary, but regretable, byproduct of the IRAs 30year campaign to protect catholics

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

Im sorry but I cant agree with you. The IRAs first and foremost objective was to protect its people, supporters and followers, of which there were many in the north.

How does a bombing campaign in mainland england which the IRA quickly adopted protect communties in Nth Ireland? Or to bring it back on topic how did the murder of Jean Mc Conville protect Catholic communities?

You can ignore a thirty year agressive campaign of terror, but can you explain to me how you protect a community by blowing parts of it up with pipe bombs.

I dont see how anything mentioned "fundamentally shreds your argument that the IRA were there for the main reason to protect catholic communties." - maybe you could make that more clearer for me, keeping in mind you havent actually proved the PIRA killed more than anyone else and refuse to accept the link I posted which says they didnt?

:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

"Back on topic." I like the sound of that. I'd appreciate if we could confine further discussion on this thread to the subject matter, please.

LeinsterPar

agreed Oscarbravo.

this mini debate is futile and doesnt get away from the fact the PIRA was not formed to make a united ireland or does it prove that they killed more catholics than anyone else, which is what the 'mini-debate revolves around. In fact as Diogenes stats the statistics I quoted come from the same site he is talking baout, then those stats prove that the IRA killed less catholics than the loyalists, so really, theres no firther argument there as far as I can see.

im leaving it at that. Diogenes can PM me if he wishes to debate it further.

Diogenes

lenisterPar wrote:

im leaving it at that.

Had to get the last word in......:rolleyes:

I noticed you avoided how it ties into the thread how were the IRA protecting communties by murdering members of this community, people like McConville

LeinsterPar

I noticed you avoided how it ties into the thread how were the IRA protecting communties by murdering members of this community, people like McConville

thats a many thistled thorn but the IRA claim she was an informer. I have no idea if she was or not and cant prove anything either way but that is the claim that is made. Informers generally are told to stop informing and if they dont stop then they get murdered. informants like brian nelson caused many innocents to be killed so if mrs mcconville was an informer then it would have been assumed the information passed on to the security forces would have been passed onto the UVF who basically went about killing catholics on hearsay.

Thats probably how the IRA saw they were protecting the community. As I said I cant prove either way (as none of us can) if she was an informer or not.

Rock Climber

LeinsterPar wrote:

Thats probably how the IRA saw they were protecting the community. As I said I cant prove either way (as none of us can) if she was an informer or not.

Well at least you described it for what it was - murder.

LeinsterPar

all taking of human life is murder. all soldiers murder. everyone who kills in anger murders no matter if they choose random civillians or kill what they see as their enemy.

now please explain exactly what you were trying to say there as I take it that you were trying to cast a bad reflection on my person, ie you were trying to attack the poster, not the post.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

thats a many thistled thorn but the IRA claim she was an informer. I have no idea if she was

But then you go ahead and present a lurid tale comparing her to Nelson

or not and cant prove anything either way but that is the claim that is made. Informers generally are told to stop informing and if they dont stop then they get murdered. informants like brian nelson caused many innocents to be killed so if mrs mcconville was an informer then it would have been assumed the information passed on to the security forces would have been passed onto the UVF who basically went about killing catholics on hearsay.

Rampant wild speculation. The IRA are accused of murdering an innocent woman, a woman who when first "disappeared" they created a lie that she'd ran off with a solider, then she was a tout with a radio. They offer not a shred of evidence and can barely remember where they dumped the body? Why would she continue spying when as you say "She was told to stop"? She knew what would happen to "touts"?

The IRA's story is full of holes contradictions implausibilities and lies.

Thats probably how the IRA saw they were protecting the community. As I said I cant prove either way (as none of us can) if she was an informer or not.

You seem pretty convinced she was.

This goes to the heart of the IRA myth, that they were protecting communties. They weren't they were killing members of the community who acted of line.

LeinsterPar

Diogenes wrote:

But then you go ahead and present a lurid tale comparing her to Nelson

compared her to nelson? what? Nelson is an example of how informers get innocent people killed. misread that all you want.

Rampant wild speculation. The IRA are accused of murdering an innocent woman, a woman who when first "disappeared" they created a lie that she'd ran off with a solider, then she was a tout with a radio. They offer not a shred of evidence and can barely remember where they dumped the body? Why would she continue spying when as you say "She was told to stop"? She knew what would happen to "touts"?

oh right, I dont know if she was an informer and you tell me thats "Rampant wild speculation". explain thast please.

The IRA's story is full of holes contradictions implausibilities and lies.

Do you know the whole story? care to share it cus I dont.

You seem pretty convinced she was.

I do? how do you work that out? Is this more attacking the poster? seriously, explain yourself to me as I dont appreciate what you insinuate. Otherwise please refrain from such accusations or indeed go get some proper information to back up whatever it is you seem to be saying as you arent giving me any information here, just (badly) trying to debunk what Ive said. Same old same old really.

This goes to the heart of the IRA myth, that they were protecting communties. They weren't they were killing members of the community who acted of line.

myth? you lived in the north how long? you personally met and discussed these things with how many local people from these areas? how can you call a fact a myth? where is your proof that its a myth because to many livining in the north having no police force and being abused by loyalists and security forces alike certainly wasnt a myth. how dare you.

Diogenes

LeinsterPar wrote:

compared her to nelson? what? Nelson is an example of how informers get innocent people killed. misread that all you want.

Mentioning the two in the same breaht is comparing.

oh right, I dont know if she was an informer and you tell me thats "Rampant wild speculation". explain thast please.

You don't know if she was an informer but you list of the reasons why if she was, she had to die.

Do you know the whole story? care to share it cus I dont.

The story as I understand is this. Jean Mc Conville definitly comforted a dying soldier. She later disappeared, for a number of years the IRA spread the story that she had run off with a soldier, before changing it to she was an informer, the IRA told her to stop, she refused they came to her house, found a radio and then after a "military" trial was "executed". Various versions of this have been mentioned before on this thread.

I do? how do you work that out? Is this more attacking the poster? seriously, explain yourself to me as I dont appreciate what you insinuate.

You've fantastically thin skin.

You come onto a thread, posted a response that includes the lines

"Informers generally are told to stop informing and if they dont stop then they get murdered. informants like brian nelson caused many innocents to be killed so if mrs mcconville was an informer then it would have been assumed the information passed on to the security forces would have been passed onto the UVF who basically went about killing catholics on hearsay."

It seems to me, that from your tone and position the possibility of the IRA murdering someone in their own community, for the non informer reason, seems completely alien to you.

Out curiousity what is your feeling on whether she was or not?

myth? you lived in the north how long? you personally met and discussed these things with how many local people from these areas? how can you call a fact a myth? where is your proof that its a myth because to many livining in the north having no police force and being abused by loyalists and security forces alike certainly wasnt a myth. how dare you.

How dare I?

How dare I?

How dare I what? Slander the reptuation of a bunch of murdering, bank robbing, kneecapping, cripple makers, widow makers and child murderers?

Because thats all they were.

PS if you can show me how enniskillen or warrington or the birmingham bombs protected catholic communities I'd love to hear it, also don't play the walk a mile in my shoes, you don't know me, who I am or where I am from so again don't cast aspirations that I don't know what I'm talking about.

LeinsterPar

1) no , mentioning two people in one paragraph isnt comparing. thats laughable to say otherwise

2) nope. where did i list reasons why mrs mcconville had to die? Im going by the current statement of facts that the IRA claim she was an infomrer. as I have said, I have no idea if she was or not.

3) thats the story then? theres probably more to it that that I would assume.

4) Oh right - you can tell from my 'tone' eh? jebus, this amazes me. you tell me not to assume things about you but you can 'tell' by my 'tone'. what bull. As I have stated, I have nio idea if she was an informer or not .. i dont have the full information and I dont assume, as some do, that by knowing a few bits and bobs of the story that I can actually tell if she was or not.

5) yes, how dare you tell people in the north that they IRA didnt have their support when you know (or should know) for a fact that a large percentage of nationalists, especially in rural areas, did indeed give the IRA support, thats historical fact so it doesnt matter how much whinging goes on otherwise - it is the facts.

6) I cast no aspirations (does that even make sense?). you are blind to the obvious support the IRA had. If you dont understand that then I cant do anything about it, but if you did know and talk to these people in the north you wouldnt be pretending the IRA had no support. In simp0le terms, if they didnt have support they could not have existed as the IRA needed the local support network to hide them, the arms dumps, be warned of security forces in the area etc etc. this is all primary school basics and shouldnt really be news to anyone.