IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

Diogenes · 27-07-2006 10:08am

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 · 27-07-2006 10:57am

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 · 27-07-2006 11:42am

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 · 27-07-2006 11:45am

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 · 27-07-2006 12:04pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:10pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:18pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:21pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:33pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:37pm

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 · 27-07-2006 12:47pm

"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 · 27-07-2006 1:01pm

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 · 27-07-2006 1:08pm

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 · 27-07-2006 1:46pm

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 · 27-07-2006 3:03pm

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 · 27-07-2006 3:23pm

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 · 27-07-2006 3:29pm

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 · 27-07-2006 3:37pm

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 · 27-07-2006 3:54pm

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 · 27-07-2006 4:21pm

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.

oscarBravo · 27-07-2006 5:41pm

LeinsterPar wrote:

... you were trying to attack the poster, not the post.

LeinsterPar, if you have a problem with a post, report it. As it is, you're bickering about your perception of another user's intentions, which isn't allowed.

For the record, the post in question didn't strike me as a personal attack.

Sand · 27-07-2006 7:26pm

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.

This is what I love about Provo "reasoning". Its the sort of stuff that sounds best when impaired by a lot of alcohol and hard drugs, and yet Provos *seem* to believe it whilst sober. It must be party time 24/7 in Provo land.

Lets examine what you stated.

You dont know if Jean McConville was an informer.

You cant prove Jean McConville was an informer.

If Jean McConville was an informer, then she was collaborating with the UVF to murder innocent Catholics, on hearsay (no, no, wait for it....).

You think probably the IRA thought she was an informer.

Now - heres the leap. You happily stand behind SFIRA murder of an innocent mother of ten children on the basis of hearsay, because *if* she was an informer she was causing the murders of innocents on the basis of hearsay.....

SFIRA killing locals on hearsay to stop the UVF killing locals on hearsay.

Shure you wouldnt want the UVF to get the credit for it would ya?

There needs to be exceptions in the rule of "attack the post, not the poster" for the sort of complete **** you posted there tbh. Youd happily stand behind the murder of your own mother if SFIRA said she was an informer or a drug dealer, because "shure, who can prove she wasnt afterall?!?!? Eh?!?"

Diogenes · 27-07-2006 7:35pm

LeinsterPar wrote:

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

Yeah mentioning Jean Mc Conville and then citing an informant who led to the death of several catholics, I cannot imagine what you were trying to do there :rolleyes:

2) nope. where did i list reasons why mrs mcconville had to die?

You stated that informers were offered a chance to stop. You then mentioned that dangers that informants were to the community. QED.

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.

Then you think it's acceptable for the IRA to murder informants? I'm just wondering what you are doing on this thread then.

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

Not according to the Provos, she was a tout, she had a radio, they offered he clemancy she refused she had to die. End of discussion.

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.

Yet you know the IRA only protected communities and only fought to defend them? :rolleyes:

5) yes, how dare you tell people in the north that they IRA didnt have their support when you know (or should know)

Okay stop. Where exactly did I say that? I called the IRA a bunch of murdering, bank robbing, kneecapping, cripple makers, widow makers and child murderers. Did I say anywhere that these thugs didn't do this without the support of a section of the community?

You've some imaginary version of what it was like in these communities, that there was no intimidation of any who dared object to the Provos or didn't toe the party line, or has the name Bernie McPhelimy escaped you?

for a fact that a large percentage of nationalists, especially in rural areas,

I'm sorry these are the rural areas that need the IRA (who's sole purpose was to protect catholic communities) How can a gureilla army defend remote 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.

Its lovely getting you to talk down to me. But I never said that the IRA didn't have support. Never. So stow the patronising tone. The IRA did have the support of the community and those they didn't have the support of they scared silent. Any dissent was not tolerated, and thats why Jean Mc Conville died.

Protectors of the community. Pfft.........

perfidiousmonk · 27-07-2006 7:49pm

Jean McConville was an unfortunate woman, who was killed for an act of kindness.
Her actions in aiding a dying british soldier, began a chain of suspicion that led to her death.
in the North of that time, when the battle lines were severely drawn, any act of decency towards 'the enemy' would have been seen in a bad light.
It is because of this she was killed. She showed herself not to be bound by the rules of war that kept the peoples of the North in divided sectarian camps, and this created enough suspicion, coupled with the ira's position at the time of being riddled with informers, to condemn her of being a tout, regardless of whether she was, or whether a young mother could even have known anything of value.
She was killed, as so many unfortunates are now being killed in the streets of Baghdad, unnecessarily, and because she would serve as an example to anyone else who might be thinking of fraternising with 'the other side'.
Whether or not she was an informant was completely irrelevant, the suspicion and need for an example to be made were reasons enough to kill a scapegoat, who unfortunately was her.
But, while this is undeniable, neither is it realistic to expect the ira to admit to such a thing as killing an innocent.
Their whole credibility comes from their image as defenders of the under-dogs, and as righteous warriors against the anglo oppressors, to admit that they made a mistake would be to undermine their credibility, which is severely strained lately. given the apparent move of some elements into criminality, and the thuggish behaviour of some members.

LeinsterPar · 27-07-2006 8:19pm

ah come on. this is getting even sillier. Im not being patrionising and wasnt it said that the IRA claimed they were acting on behalf of the Irish people but the irish people didnt want them?

anyway, Ive said that the killing of mrs mcconville wasnt right and now youve agreed the IRA did in fact have support so i rest my case

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah mentioning Jean Mc Conville and then citing an informant who led to the death of several catholics, I cannot imagine what you were trying to do there :rolleyes:

You stated that informers were offered a chance to stop. You then mentioned that dangers that informants were to the community. QED.

Then you think it's acceptable for the IRA to murder informants? I'm just wondering what you are doing on this thread then.

Not according to the Provos, she was a tout, she had a radio, they offered he clemancy she refused she had to die. End of discussion.

Yet you know the IRA only protected communities and only fought to defend them? :rolleyes:

Okay stop. Where exactly did I say that? I called the IRA a bunch of murdering, bank robbing, kneecapping, cripple makers, widow makers and child murderers. Did I say anywhere that these thugs didn't do this without the support of a section of the community?

You've some imaginary version of what it was like in these communities, that there was no intimidation of any who dared object to the Provos or didn't toe the party line, or has the name Bernie McPhelimy escaped you?

I'm sorry these are the rural areas that need the IRA (who's sole purpose was to protect catholic communities) How can a gureilla army defend remote rural areas?

Its lovely getting you to talk down to me. But I never said that the IRA didn't have support. Never. So stow the patronising tone. The IRA did have the support of the community and those they didn't have the support of they scared silent. Any dissent was not tolerated, and thats why Jean Mc Conville died.

Protectors of the community. Pfft.........

Diogenes · 27-07-2006 8:27pm

LeinsterPar wrote:

ah come on. this is getting even sillier. Im not being patrionising and wasnt it said that the IRA claimed they were acting on behalf of the Irish people but the irish people didnt want them?

Acting to unite an Ireland without checking with the population of ireland?

anyway, Ive said that the killing of mrs mcconville wasnt right and now youve agreed the IRA did in fact have support so i rest my case

WHAT CASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rolleyes:

LeinsterPar · 28-07-2006 10:10am

the one you just lost my friend.

LeinsterPar · 28-07-2006 10:22am

my boy sands, sometimes I wonder. Are you STILL telling me Im a provo? Same old tired statements, time after time.

If you had bothered to read, you'd see I stated that Ive no idea if jean mcconville was an informer or not.

So Lets examine what you stated.

You dont know if Jean McConville was an informer.

exactly

You cant prove Jean McConville was an informer.

correct .. good to see you were paying attention up to this stage

If Jean McConville was an informer, then she was collaborating with the UVF to murder innocent Catholics, on hearsay (no, no, wait for it....).

You think probably the IRA thought she was an informer.

here you are losing it a bit. I only said that going by what has been said, the IRA thought she was an informer.

Now - heres the leap. You happily stand behind SFIRA murder of an innocent mother of ten children on the basis of hearsay, because *if* she was an informer she was causing the murders of innocents on the basis of hearsay.....

Who? SFIRA ? who are they .. links please. Also, I stated I have no idea of what happened so I cant say, so where are you getting your "You happily stand behind SFIRA murder " from? Is that an attempt to twist the discussion? putting words into my mouth sands? cant stick to the discussion as it is in that you need to make up new bits? tut tut .. shame on you.

There needs to be exceptions in the rule of "attack the post, not the poster" for the sort of complete **** you posted there tbh. Youd happily stand behind the murder of your own mother if SFIRA said she was an informer or a drug dealer, because "shure, who can prove she wasnt afterall?!?!? Eh?!?"

oh of course - there has to be one rule for anti republicans and a different one for republicans of course. Others can spout all they want with their half baked ideas of what has happened in the north, but the minute anyone asks serious questions or disputes the status quo then you have to get the rules changed to shut them up. very democratic of you Sands. You obviously ignored anything I have said about how wrong her killing was.

also please stop calling me a provo or else i WILL make a complaint.

LeinsterPar · 28-07-2006 10:27am

oh, and dont you dare suggest I would stand behind the murder of anyone, especially my mother. Again, keep the personal insults out Sands or I will make a complaint.

If you cant be bother putting together a coherent argument without making stupid statements like "Youd happily stand behind the murder of your own mother ", then dont argue.

Diogenes · 28-07-2006 10:41am

LeinsterPar wrote:

the one you just lost my friend.

If you can explain to me how the IRA were "protecting" their communities by bombing innocents and murdering you'll have won.

If you can prove to me that the IRA campaign wasn't about forcing the reunification of Ireland you'll have won.

You can claim you've won, and I've lost but seeing as your argument it's made up of two points that you've not even produced a shred of evidence to support your case, the only argument you're winning is with your reflection.

BTW You do have a psychological complusion to get the last word in don't you?

IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

Comments