Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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 peopleAs you may know The
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
You distinguish the RUC from the low-life in both instances?No one is under any illusions about corruption in the RUC, collusion with low life and infiltration by low life
It warms the heart to think that the police force of ALL citizens in the north never bombed catholics?but they never sank to the depths of IRA depravity.
Are we now judging the actions of the RUC in comparison with the actions of terrorists?
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Never ever heard that term used in relation to the north by any person from any side.The IRA has its ethnic cleansing................
ps.
In comparison the say the Shankill Butchers?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Redspider0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 .......
Redspider0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 ...' adage0 -
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 terror0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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: 2580 -
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 unionistsstats 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?
cain is a good place to startI will though see what info I can find.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 McConville0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement