Fury at tribute plan for IRA girl Farrell

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jesus, here we go again.

Churchill was PM when Dresen was bombed, that makes bombing of innocent people by the Irish accpetable then. The Birmingham pub bombings are all the fault of Oliver Cromwell I suppose, or maybe we should blame the Irish confederates, if they had kept out of the English Civl war then Cromwell would never have come here in the first place.

no, the ira were generally murdering **** but they were our murdering ****. Cromwell, churchill etc are your murdering ****. We don't like yours, you tend not to like ours. some people on both sides aren't overly fond of either, although nationalistist sentiments cloud opinions on all sides.

tit for tat arguements are pointless, the IRA considered themselves to be in a war, which was their justification for killing innocent people. three IRA operatives went to Gib to kill people, got caught and were shot. How does this make them respectable people?

it doesn't, don't think I suggested it did. But how can any military consider itself respectable in that case. They tend to be at war, and it's pretty impossible not to kill civilians.. or at least it seems to be. Is it the uniform that gives them their aura of awesomeness?

Stormont should be holding memorials for the innocent people who were murdered, the people of Omagh, the two boys in Warrington, the people who died in Le Mon, people murdered in a bookies. Not glorifying the people who carried out these attrocities.

shouldn't be holding memorials at all imo, might make them feel all warm and fuzzy but it just stirs up all this **** time after time.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Guys some of you have mentioned Nelson Mandela and some have compared him to Miread Farrell.

Here's another comparision...

When Miread Farrell was murdered by the SAS Nelson Mandela was still locked up and a convicted terrorist. Today he's a free man (although his Church St. victims are still very much dead) and celebrated here in Ireland.

Miread Farrell is a dead terrorist/freedom fighter (take your pick).

The world have moved on lads, move with it.

IRLConor

Clammy Todgers wrote: »

no, the ira were generally murdering **** but they were our murdering ****. Cromwell, churchill etc are your murdering ****. We don't like yours, you tend not to like ours. some people on both sides aren't overly fond of either, although nationalistist sentiments cloud opinions on all sides.

The IRA, Cromwell and Churchill are all someone else's murdering ****. I don't particularly like any of them. Who are my murdering ****? Oh, wait...

Clammy Todgers wrote: »

it doesn't, don't think I suggested it did. But how can any military consider itself respectable in that case. They tend to be at war, and it's pretty impossible not to kill civilians.. or at least it seems to be. Is it the uniform that gives them their aura of awesomeness?

No, it's their mandate from the nation they fight for that gives them their aura of awesomeness. That and the fact that most respectable armies don't deliberately target civilians. Oh, and they don't usually complain that it's unfair when someone who they're waging a war against shoots at them.

Pen1987

Mairt wrote: »

Guys some of you have mentioned Nelson Mandela and some have compared him to Miread Farrell.

Here's another comparision...

When Miread Farrell was murdered by the SAS Nelson Mandela was still locked up and a convicted terrorist. Today he's a free man (although his Church St. victims are still very much dead) and celebrated here in Ireland.

Miread Farrell is a dead terrorist/freedom fighter (take your pick).

The world have moved on lads, move with it.

Mandela pursued a campaign of non-violent resistance for over 20 years before his organisation decided to pursue a guerilla campaign. Mandela didnt even support that campaign fully. To call Mandela a "convicted terrorist" is the same as calling Aung San Suu Kyi a convicted terrorist, its stupid. The regime in charge at the time was inhumane and undemocratic, just like in Burma today.

Your point about the world "moving on", thats exactly why there is "fury" over this ceromony in Stormont, SF attempting to do this is stopping people "moving on" from the times of SAS and IRA killings, its dragging it all up again.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Pen1987 wrote: »

Mandela pursued a campaign of non-violent resistance for over 20 years before his organisation decided to pursue a guerilla campaign. Mandela didnt even support that campaign fully. To call Mandela a "convicted terrorist" is the same as calling Aung San Suu Kyi a convicted terrorist, its stupid. The regime in charge at the time was inhumane and undemocratic, just like in Burma today.

moving on" from the times of SAS and IRA killings, its dragging it all up again.

I take it your either very young or have a short memory.

oscarBravo

Mairt wrote: »

I take it your either very young or have a short memory.

Contribute something useful or don't bother. This type of ad hominem sniping won't be tolerated.

Zombrex

Clammy Todgers wrote: »

it doesn't, don't think I suggested it did. But how can any military consider itself respectable in that case. They tend to be at war, and it's pretty impossible not to kill civilians.. or at least it seems to be. Is it the uniform that gives them their aura of awesomeness?

It is possible to not kill civilians. It is also possible to try and not kill civilians. The IRA did neither. They didn't even try to not kill civilians. They either didn't care if they killed civilians, or actively targeted civilians.

What makes it even worse is the utter unimportance of the military targets they choose. They don't even have the argument that while regrettable the death of civilians we necessary because it was important to strike at their targets, even if it meant civilians deaths. Their targets, at least in England and Europe, where utterly unimportant to the British maintaining a presence in N.I. The Gibraltar marching band is not in any way important to the British presence in N.I. Neither is Argos. It is harder to think of a better definition for the phrase "waste of life"

The argument that IRA are just like every other army and therefore should get the same respect as every other army is equally ridiculous. For a start not every army is equal, nor is every member of every army equal. An army does not gain respect simply for being an army. An army gains respect for how it acts, and no two armies act in the same way.

Saying that you respect one army because of how they handled themselves does not in any way mean you must therefore respect every army or group claiming to be an army.

Riddle101

What the hell were Shin Fein thinking even making a statement like that infron of Unionist of all people. None the less it would be pretty stupid for them to hold a memorial for her as she is not significant and it only give the Unionists more of an excuse to point fingers at Sinn Fein and say if you want to do this government thing with our cooperation then you best can the IRA bulls**t.

Mr.Micro

The back room Sinn Fein boys clearly have too much say in the the Elected Sinn Fein assembly members mantra. Where is the wisdom, as posters have pointed out in deliberately setting out to aggravate the other members of the NI assembly and possibly fracture the delicate working harmony that has been in place for some time? How does Sinn Fein ever think it is going to appeal to the mainstream when it constantly lives in the past? It should get real and represent the normal decent women and men of NI and not laud a would be failed bomber. This 2008.

purple'n'gold

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The back room Sinn Fein boys clearly have too much say in the the Elected Sinn Fein assembly members mantra. Where is the wisdom, as posters have pointed out in deliberately setting out to aggravate the other members of the NI assembly and possibly fracture the delicate working harmony that has been in place for some time? How does Sinn Fein ever think it is going to appeal to the mainstream when it constantly lives in the past? It should get real and represent the normal decent women and men of NI and not laud a would be failed bomber. This 2008.

As I and other posters have pointed out, Sinn Fein think these things out carefully. There is another agenda lurking somewhere.

Rossibaby

Pen1987 wrote: »

Rossibaby... did you misquote? Were you meaning to quote my message in sarcastic way? eh... Mandela was no angel, but he is multiple times the person Mairead Farrell was...

yeah i misquoted...i would not compare mandela to mairead farrell,i would compare her to one of the members of Umkhonto we Sizwe.

it's not fair to compare a leader to a foot soldier so i would compare mandela to an irish leader of the past such as james connolly or padraig pearse...funny how you seem to respect mandela when during his armed wings actions you would have labelled him a terrorist like all the est....but now people think he's amazing ye do to..what a shock

Dinter

Mairead Farrell and her cronies were on Gibralter actively seeking an opportunity to attack an army band. The bandsmen may have been unarmed at the time but they were still military personnal.

Instead, although unarmed at the time, the would be bombers were killed by the SAS in an unlawful killing. Whilst not as spectacular, in the dreadful sense of the word, their murder was just as illegal as what they had planned to do.

Government must not and indeed should not implement a shoot to kill policy as it as immoral and deeply wrong to subvert the rule of law. Instead of destroying an ASU they have created martyrs when they would have been better off creating convicts.

There is no brushing over that fact or justifying it.

However personally I think the irony is delicious.

murphaph

Rossibaby wrote: »

yeah i misquoted...i would not compare mandela to mairead farrell,i would compare her to one of the members of Umkhonto we Sizwe.

it's not fair to compare a leader to a foot soldier so i would compare mandela to an irish leader of the past such as james connolly or padraig pearse...funny how you seem to respect mandela when during his armed wings actions you would have labelled him a terrorist like all the est....but now people think he's amazing ye do to..what a shock

Actually I'd compare Farrell to Pearse. Both had bloodlust.

murphaph

Dinter wrote: »

the would be bombers were killed by the SAS in an unlawful killing

Wrong.

An inquest was held in Gibraltar. An Irish radio expert disputed whether a remote controlled explosive device was technically feasible, casting doubt on the justification given[6] (this was further disputed at the European Court of Human Rights[7] - see below).

Captain Edwards, a member of the Royal Corps of Signals with experience in VHF/HF radio in combat net radio spectrum carried out tests which showed it was possible to receive both voice communication and a single audio tone at the site of the shootings from the assembly area.[8]

The car bomb found in Marbella was a conventional timer controlled device. An article after the inquest in the magazine Wireless World proved mathematically that it was theoretically possible for it to be radio controlled.

The jury at the inquest returned a verdict of lawful killing by a 9-2 majority.

In 1995, the European Court of Human Rights ruled by a majority verdict 10 votes to nine that the killing of the three did not constitute a use of force which was "absolutely necessary" as prescribed by Article 2-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1]

It also ruled that the three had been engaged in an act of terrorism, and consequently dismissed unanimously the applicants’ claims for damages, for costs and expenses incurred in the Gibraltar Inquest and the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

No court judged the killings unlawful.

Rossibaby

Wicknight wrote: »

The MK (military wing of the ANC) were a terrorist organisation and at times a pretty nasty one at that (similar to the IRA). They executed members of the government and planted bombs in public places in effort to kill military and government members (and ended up killing civilians as well).

As for Mandela I'm not sure about his involvement in these. When he formed the MK they were involved in sabotage rather than terrorism. The heavy campaigns began in the 70s when Mandela was in jail. He did say later on that the ANC and MK had violated human rights in their campaigns, though I don't know did he take personal responsibility for that.

come on mate that won't fly,,,we all know what involvement and influence mandela had at that time and this was his group.thats like saying seamus costello may have had nothing to do with the inla's feud with the stickies.what i'm getting at is,mandela is called a hero now although he did and was involved in what you would call terrorist activities in the past..because the media paint him as a hero now,people believe it....however if these things were going on in south africa today,people here would no doubt be labelling him blood thristy scum...i feel this is true

Dinter

murphaph wrote: »

Wrong.

No court judged the killings unlawful.

Sorry, sorry, typed that while cooking dinner. Didn't proof. I meant unnecessary. The whole shoot to kill and all that.

LordSutch

Very smart how some Pro-Farrell posters have deliberately brought Nelson Mandella into this Thread in order to give some kind of air of respectability to their defence of Miread Farrell (the IRA Bomber).

This thread is about plans by Sinn Fein to 'Celibreate' the life of a dead Terrorist called 'Miread farrell' and no amount of references to Mandella or Che Guevara will detract from the fact that the SAS despatched Farrell & her co-horts before they had time to plant their Bomb.

A Dub in Glasgo

Summary execution then?

Dinter

ArthurF wrote: »

Very smart how some Pro-Farrell posters have deliberately brought Nelson Mandella into this Thread in order to give some kind of air of respectability to their defence of Miread Farrell (the IRA Bomber).

This thread is about pland by mambers of Sinn Fein to 'Celibreate' the life of a dead Terrorist called 'Miread farrell' and no amount of rfereences to Mandella or Che Guevara will detract from the fact that the SAS despatched Farrell & her co-horts before they had time to plant their Bomb.

In all fairness Arthur, comparing Mairead Farrell to another convicted terrorist is not really the best way to defend either. They're just horses of different colours.

Dinter

ArthurF wrote: »

no amount of references to Mandella or Che Guevara will detract from the fact that the SAS despatched Farrell & her co-horts before they had time to plant their Bomb.

You have just very neatly summed up the issue there.

LordSutch

The issue being that Farrell had 'History' and a prison record as long as your arm ~ and I'am not talking petty theft either. Check out previous post if you want to know what lit her fuse (excuse the pun).

IRLConor

To all those complaining that the SAS shot Farrell do you:

1. Believe that the IRA are an army
   
   In this case, what are you moaning about? Soldiers from army A shot soldiers from army B. What's so wrong about that? Open warfare between armies typically includes them shooting at each other!
   
   OR
   
   
   
2. Believe that the IRA are not an army
   
   Fair enough, the SAS shouldn't have been used. If the IRA aren't an army then they're simply a criminal, terrorist organisation and should be dealt with by the police. Are you willing to concede that the IRA were simply common criminals?

You can't have your cake ("the IRA are a legitimate army") and eat it too ("those filthy underhanded Brits are using their army on the IRA!").


Whatever your views are, commemorating her life at Stormont is at best insensitive and at worst deliberately insulting.

Dinter

IRLConor wrote: »

To all those complaining that the SAS shot Farrell do you:

1. Believe that the IRA are an army
   
   In this case, what are you moaning about? Soldiers from army A shot soldiers from army B. What's so wrong about that? Open warfare between armies typically includes them shooting at each other!
   
   OR
2. Believe that the IRA are not an army
   
   Fair enough, the SAS shouldn't have been used. If the IRA aren't an army then they're simply a criminal, terrorist organisation and should be dealt with by the police. Are you willing to concede that the IRA were simply common criminals?

You can't have your cake ("the IRA are a legitimate army") and eat it too ("those filthy underhanded Brits are using their army on the IRA!").


Whatever your views are, commemorating her life at Stormont is at best insensitive and at worst deliberately insulting.

State sanctioned execution without due process should never occur.

Armies tend not to kill each other when they are unarmed.

Also re Arthur and the prison record, that's why people go to prison. To serve their time, be reformed and become productive members of society. Whatever your thoughts on that, and I find it antiquated myself, that is the way it works. You cannot use someones record against them to influence a decision at trial. Although obviously the point doesn't occur when there is no trial. . .

El Stuntman

excellent post Conor

IRLConor

Dinter wrote: »

State sanctioned execution without due process should never occur.

I agree, if we're talking about civil/police/criminal cases. In fact I'd go one further and say that state sanctioned executions should never occur regardless of whether or not there's due process.

In the case of war between two armies it's not state sanctioned execution, it's simply warfare.

Dinter wrote: »

Armies tend not to kill each other when they are unarmed.

The evidence used in the ECHR case says that the soldiers believed the IRA members to be armed.

LordSutch

Dinter wrote: »

State sanctioned execution without due process should never occur. Armies tend not to kill each other when they are unarmed.

Also re Arthur and the prison record, that's why people go to prison. To serve their time, be reformed and become productive members of society. Whatever your thoughts on that, and I find it antiquated myself, that is the way it works. You cannot use someones record against them to influence a decision at trial. Although obviously the point doesn't occur when there is no trial. . .

Thats all very well and laudable Dinter but ...........

Had the SAS not acted on that particular occasion I honestly believe that 'Gibraltar' would have gone down in the annals of history along with Omagh, Enniskillen, Hyde Park, etc, etc, & not just because "I believe" but because Miread Farell had a history, she was in the IRA, she was on a mission, & I dont honestly believe that hand cuffs & a stern warning + six months inside would have lessened her blood lust.

I dont condone what the SAS did, but I am am glad that they stopped the Bomb being planted. (even if three terrorists were killed in the process).

guinnessdrinker

Maybe the SAS did think she was armed and decided to shoot first ask questions later.

However, once they hit her with one or two bullets, surely by then she should have been deemed incapacitated to fight back, so I wonder why did they need to put six more bullets into her body?

Incidently didn't a garda cause a bit of contraversy in Dundalk by saluting the coffins when they were being driven back to Belfast from Dublin?

IRLConor

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Maybe the SAS did think she was armed and decided to shoot first ask questions later.

The ECHR court case has the details of what they said they did and the rules of engagement they were operating under.

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

However, once they hit her with one or two bullets, surely by then she should have been deemed incapacitated to fight back, so I wonder why did they need to put six more bullets into her body?

From what little I know about such operations (I'm not military or police) the standard practice in such situations is to continue shooting until your target is definitely dead. Shooting to incapacitate is, from what I know, a Hollywood invention.

In the Farrell case, the SAS had been told that the bomb was going to be radio detonated. Hence even a severely wounded person could still be considered a threat if they were able to push a button.

A Dub in Glasgo

IRLConor wrote: »

To all those complaining that the SAS shot Farrell do you:

1. Believe that the IRA are an army
   
   In this case, what are you moaning about? Soldiers from army A shot soldiers from army B. What's so wrong about that? Open warfare between armies typically includes them shooting at each other!
   
   OR
   
   
   
2. Believe that the IRA are not an army
   
   Fair enough, the SAS shouldn't have been used. If the IRA aren't an army then they're simply a criminal, terrorist organisation and should be dealt with by the police. Are you willing to concede that the IRA were simply common criminals?

You can't have your cake ("the IRA are a legitimate army") and eat it too ("those filthy underhanded Brits are using their army on the IRA!").

I think you will find that is normally the people who celebrate IRA members getting killed are the ones condemning the IRA as terrorists for killing soldiers.

What's that about the cake?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

don't they condemn them as terrorists for killing civilians?

pretty sure it's killing civilians.