Would you like to see a united Ireland?

Mayo Exile

A very good post Sand, one of the best I’ve read in a long time, but unfortunately it’s still not what I’m looking for.

Originally posted by Sand: Most western armies adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and usually expand upon them with rules of engagement and other regulations on their troops. They investigate and punish breaches of the above regulations and conventions by their troops.

State armies gain the support and respect of their citizens due to those soldiers taking risks and making sacrifices to defend the interests of the state as determined by the elected representitives of those same citizens. Part of that support is dependant on those regulations being upheld. Any soldier who breaches the standards the state expects of its troops forfeits the support of those citizens.

All very nice in theory, but it goes out the window when the life and death struggle that is war begins. Nazi Germany v. the USSR in WWII is an example. The USSR was an ally of USA, Britain and France etc. in the struggle against the Nazis, who deserved to be defeated. Since the USSR (a totalitarian regime too, but who suffered the majority of casualties in the fight against Hitler) was on the side that defeated them, I will unequivocally support them, no matter what they might have done in that conflict. As an example, there was little or no taking of prisoners etc. by both sides on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945.

I simply don’t believe there are any rules in war when it comes to the crunch. The American Confederate Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest said: “War means fighting and fighting means killing”. Robert E. Lee also said “it is a good thing war is so terrible or we would grow too fond of it”.

The Provos, and other terrorist groups, deliberately target civillians and completely breach the Geneva conventions.

No, no, no. As I’ve said above, all this idealism (there’s nothing wrong with it, you say it with the best of intentions) disappears when the sh#t hits the fan. You can’t make such a general assumption. It’s too easy a statement to make. You must examine the actions of each group and then make up your own mind about them. As a rule, did the SAS take PIRA men prisoners? The PIRA didn’t take many prisoners either of course. I’ll defend the PIRA if you want me to. You can defend any army/armed group YOU want to. Others that support other groups can come on here and defend them too.

What about the Irgun? Deir Yassin? Remember the Irgun ended up on the winning side and one of it's leaders/senior commanders eventually became the Prime Minister of Israel. Supporters of the State of Israel must acknowledge this incident occurred. That said, Israel was fighting for its very life and was victorious. I wouldn’t consider myself a supporter of Israel, but I acknowledge that they had the right to defend themselves. And yes, the Arab Legion wiped out the kibbutz at Kfar Etzion in revenge, so supporters of the Arab (Palestinian?) cause must acknowledge this too.

Regulations on their membership simply extend to the typical code of organised crime - dont co-operate with the police and dont steal from the organisation. That’s probably the only two things you could do to get in trouble in the Provos.

So? The PIRA saw the RUC as the enemy so they were hardly going to “co-operate” with them, were they? ANY army/armed group will deal with stealers (looters?) among it’s ranks won’t they? Who wouldn’t?

Christ, I even remember reading that the Provos intimidated a teenage girl who was raped by her uncle [ a Provo ] from going to the police, to protect their man.

It’s wrong. But unfortunately not unique. Name me an army/armed group that doesn’t attract loo-laas, nutballs, psychos etc. into it’s ranks. How many thousands of German women were raped by the army of the USSR as it moved into Eastern Germany in the last months of the war in 1945? How many of these were tried for these actions?

As such, a supporter of Provo terrorism must support attacks on civillians.

Don’t understand how you move on to make this statement.

Thats what the Provos do.

No, don’t agree.

They sometimes launch the odd attack on a policeman or a soldiers,

I believe you are wrong here. Here’s a link to the breakdown of deaths that occurred in the North. Take a look. Its from the Cain Web Site (Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland (1968 to the present)).

Link: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html

but their stock in trade is bombing shops, pubs and high streets

Economic targets. If the UK exchequer was going to give large (up to 100%?) grants to repair them, it encouraged the PIRA to blow them up again. It was part of the policy of “normalisation”. Nice shiny new buildings etc. “There’s no conflict here is there if you can’t see any damage?” Looks good on the news.

trying to kill civilians.

No, disagree again.

Provos who murder civillians are not investigated or punished,

So what? It’s not unique. I could mention the Irgun here again.

by the Provos as they approve and encourage such attacks.

No. Disagree yet again.

A supporter of military action doesnt support attacks on civillians, as practically by definition militaries are bound by the GC and rules of engagement.

Once again all lovely on paper. What about Arthur “Bomber” Harris’ area bombing strategy on German cities in WWII? I believe it went from “we can’t bomb German factories on the Ruhr became they are private property” to, “feck the military targets in the city, and lets flatten the whole city instead and break the morale of the German people” did it not? Code for deliberately targeting civilians as actual policy? Yes?

Its understood that should a soldier in that military attack civillians in breach of those rules, he will be investigated and punished as appropriate.

Ok. If you believe this, who do you prosecute from the above example if you think Harris sent his Lancaster bombers after German civilians? Harris or his pilots? The pilots might say to you: “I was only obeying orders you know”.

No, far from Ghandi. Have and will support use of military force where I think its appropriate. However the important phrase there is military force.

Fair enough. You say you aren’t a Gandhi (I've said this already too). But I will never agree that there’s a distinction between the use of “military” force and “terrorist” force. Force IS force no matter who wields it in defense of their beliefs/opinions etc. Using force leads to killing eventually. Once one is dead that’s it. You can’t bring them back. You can go on about the differences between states using it and groups using it, it’s all the same to me.

If you are going to support the use of force that’s the issue you must face. As I’ve said before, bullets, bombs (whether it’s a load of fertiliser mixed on the floor of a rusty barn somewhere in South Armagh, or a missile assembled in a shiny factory in America or Russia etc.) do the exact same things to the people they target.

I have not and will not support terrorism.

Ok. It’s your viewpoint.

Whilst some civillian casualties are practically inevitable in war due to lots of firepower in urban areas,

Fine so. But you must accept ALL the consequences of this. Even “some” civilians are somebody’s father, brother, mother, child, sister etc. The grief of their relatives left behind will be as intense. Doesn’t matter if its 1, 10, 10,000 etc. Don’t forget as well about all the soldiers you send into battle that could or will be killed. They will leave families behind too.

I will not support the deliberate attempt to target and murder civillians.

Ok. Once again your viewpoint. You believe the PIRA did this, I do not.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

All very nice in theory, but it goes out the window when the life and death struggle that is war begins.

That's convenient. All you have to do is define your particular campaign of terrorism as a "war" and suddenly you get to compare your atrocities to those committed in other wars. Doesn't make you any better, but at least you get to say "but what about...?"

As a rule, did the SAS take PIRA men prisoners?

The SAS don't take prisoners. Those are their rules of engagement. They are part of the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation, mandated by the democratically elected government of the people of that nation to do what is necessary to defend them. The people suffer the SAS to exist as - in a sense - a necessary evil to defend them from attackers who are equally unscrupulous.

The PIRA do not have, nor have they ever had, such a mandate. There is no parity between the organisations. Comparisons are only drawn by those who seek to excuse the violent excesses of the PIRA through the tired old exercise of "whataboutery".

It’s wrong. But unfortunately not unique. Name me an army/armed group that doesn’t attract loo-laas, nutballs, psychos etc. into it’s ranks.

Name me an army that closes ranks and threatens to murder a civilian who would press charges against one of its members.

What about Arthur “Bomber” Harris’ area bombing strategy on German cities in WWII? I believe it went from “we can’t bomb German factories on the Ruhr became they are private property” to, “feck the military targets in the city, and lets flatten the whole city instead and break the morale of the German people” did it not? Code for deliberately targeting civilians as actual policy? Yes?

I've described that bombing campaign as an inexcusable act of mass murder. Like I said, equal opportunity.

... I will never agree that there’s a distinction between the use of “military” force and “terrorist” force.

Or criminal force? or psychopath force? Are the actions of the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh justified, simply because they believed in the validity of their actions? What about a common rapist or murderer?

Force IS force no matter who wields it in defense of their beliefs/opinions etc. Using force leads to killing eventually. Once one is dead that’s it. You can’t bring them back. You can go on about the differences between states using it and groups using it, it’s all the same to me.

If you are going to support the use of force that’s the issue you must face. As I’ve said before, bullets, bombs (whether it’s a load of fertiliser mixed on the floor of a rusty barn somewhere in South Armagh, or a missile assembled in a shiny factory in America or Russia etc.) do the exact same things to the people they target.

Nice try with the reductionist argument: "if you're opposed to terrorists murdering innocent civilians, then you have to be opposed to a sovereign army defending its territory from invaders, because either way someone ends up dead." That's no different from me accusing you of supporting a common mugger who stabs people for the contents of their wallets, because their victims end up just as dead as the victims of the PIRA whom you support.

Mayo Exile

With respect oscarBravo, I must reject this entire response. Why do you keeping dancing around my central premise about "force is force" etc. Pontificating about "rules of engagement" etc. simply won't wash with me. It's another euphemism for killing people.

You can't selectively condemn Bomber Harris and his methods. Do YOU believe Nazi Germany should have been defeated? If you do, you MUST accept all the actions (deliberate or mistakes) that occurred to defeat them. If you don't, you frankly lack credibility in my opinion.

Therefore I also completely reject this piece posted by you earlier:

but realise this: your support of murderers earns you my scorn,

It's not credible either in light of your responses.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

With respect oscarBravo, I must reject this entire response. Why do you keeping dancing around my central premise about "force is force" etc. Pontificating about "rules of engagement" etc. simply won't wash with me. It's another euphemism for killing people.

OK: then, by that logic, you wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with me going around to your house and killing your whole family, right? After all, it's just the use of force - which is exactly the same thing as the IRA blowing up children, which is exactly the same thing as a soldier in a trench shooting another soldier in another trench who is shooting at him, which is exactly the same thing as flying a plane full of innocent passengers into a skyscraper full of innocent civilians, which is exactly the same thing as dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

By your logic, anyone who isn't a dedicated Jain - sweeping the path in front of him in case he accidentally kills an insect - is hypocritical in condemning the killing, under any circumstances ever, of anyone ever.

As a convenient argument to escape the uncomfortable fact of excusing terrorism, I can see how it might have its attractions, but it doesn't wash with me.

You can't selectively condemn Bomber Harris and his methods. Do YOU believe Nazi Germany should have been defeated? If you do, you MUST accept all the actions (deliberate or mistakes) that occurred to defeat them. If you don't, you frankly lack credibility in my opinion.

Sorry, but as someone who supports the cold-blooded murder of Det Gda Gerry McCabe, I don't much give a damn for your opinion of me.

As for your argument: it's predicated on the assumption that every single thing that was done during the course of the war was necessary; that if any single act - no matter how atrocious - had been left out, the war would have been lost.

The logical consequence of your moral reductionism is that any action is excusable - no matter how morally repellent - as long is it is seen to achieve its ends, and no matter whether there was any possibility of achieving them through less violent or morally repugnant ways.

I reject that premise utterly.

Mayo Exile

Sorry, but as someone who supports the cold-blooded murder of Det Gda Gerry McCabe

Read post #249, paragraph 2 again.

I don't much give a damn for your opinion of me.

Only challenging your opinion. (not you).

getz

i do not believe many people in the irish republic and northern ireland will ever be able to give a balanced view ,and bringing ireland into one as long both sides continue to teach hate in the schools-before my republican friends say we dont --just read the republics national anthem----quote sons of the gael-men of the pale-the long watched day is breaking-the serried ranks of inisfail-shal set the tyrant quaking-our camp fires now are burning low- see in the east a sil/ry glow--OUT YONDER WAITS THE SAXON FOE_SO CHANT A SOLDIERS SONG --as a saxon i can only shake my head in despair yep this year is still 1923

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Read post #249, paragraph 2 again.

Just did. It seems to say that no matter what they do, they will enjoy your support. There is no bridge too far, no act too heinous, no atrocity too disgusting to make you falter in your support for them.

And that is where we will permanently differ. There is no end - none - that can justify the means they have employed. Until Sinn Féin and their supporters realise this, they will forever remain a fringe political party in this state.

Mayo Exile

And that is where we will permanently differ.

I have no problem here. And to repeat again, I wasn't going after you, only your opinion.

pablomakaveli

getz wrote: »

i do not believe many people in the irish republic and northern ireland will ever be able to give a balanced view ,and bringing ireland into one as long both sides continue to teach hate in the schools-before my republican friends say we dont --just read the republics national anthem----quote sons of the gael-men of the pale-the long watched day is breaking-the serried ranks of inisfail-shal set the tyrant quaking-our camp fires now are burning low- see in the east a sil/ry glow--OUT YONDER WAITS THE SAXON FOE_SO CHANT A SOLDIERS SONG --as a saxon i can only shake my head in despair yep this year is still 1923

Actually i don't think thats a fair criticism. i did history for my leaving cert in school and we studied the history of both the nationalist AND unionists in northern ireland. (well for the 19th and 20th centuries anyway as these are the peiods covered by the course)

secondly most national anthems have refrences to war in them. many people might be offended by "god save the queen" or "la marseillese" for example.

getz

pablomakaveli--i understand what you are saying but.god save the queen .insults no race or culture i know people -like national front -and racest parties in the north try to hijack it to cause mischief--by the way i am only commenting from a [dublin ] irish web site that says it needs to be looked at for the good of unity

TOMASJ

The SAS don't take prisoners. Those are their rules of engagement. They are part of the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation, mandated by the democratically elected government of the people of that nation to do what is necessary to defend them. The people suffer the SAS to exist as - in a sense - a necessary evil to defend them from attackers who are equally unscrupulous

As I was saying in an eariler post, In the view of a few of our contributors
There are good murderers and bad murderers, here we have a posting for the good murderers, As you can see the expression, terrorists, common mugger, psychopath, cold-blooded murder, scum bag, are never used in the description of the SAS, who I can only describe as bandits with a licence.
this same legitimate force were responsible for deeds, that were far worse than anything the IRA were ever involved in.

pablomakaveli

getz wrote: »

pablomakaveli--i understand what you are saying but.god save the queen .insults no race or culture i know people -like national front -and racest parties in the north try to hijack it to cause mischief--by the way i am only commenting from a [dublin ] irish web site that says it needs to be looked at for the good of unity

i don't really have anything against god save the queen.it doesnt really bother me when i hear it.

im against a united ireland so i don't see the need to change our anthem.
i do understand that ur saying that it could be offensive to english people but iv never heard many english people complaining about it before.
i support our anthem because its our traditional anthem and i wouldnt like to see it changed to some awful anthem like "irelands call".

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The cabinet always nips out to Birmingham for a swift pint on a Thursday night i suppose?

The two bombs in Warrington were planted at either end of the high street because? who the **** were they after, did they think the Warrington high street is the home of the SAS.:rolleyes:

get real, you sound like you have brainwashed.

And I suppose the IRA's cabinet had nipped out to do a bit of shopping on Parnell Street, Talbot Street, and South Leinster Street in Dublin on May 17, 1974* ??

Since the british govt. seen fit to award one of those invovled in planning and providing the explosives etc in the bombing, Capt Robert Nairac, the George Cross, I wonder if the Irish govt were to award those respondcible for the Birmingham bombings with an honour from the state - what screams of moral indignation would we hear from britain then ??

So folks now you have it ,the Provos bombing of Birmingham was terrorism, the uvf/brits bombing of Dublin was 'peacekeeping'.

*http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/

McArmalite

Sand wrote: »

MAYO EXILE


The two are pretty much inseperable, though Erin might protest. However, Erin supports the IRA as well. So yeah, pretty much inseperable.



Between "freedom fighters" and scumbag terrorists? Okay, the first is the subjective few of scumbag terrorist fanboys. And the second is the objective view of everyone else.



Of course I expect reactions. But I honestly dont keep a file "How Mayo Exile rates my posting". Maybe if you actually made points rather than complain about how mean I am to you...



Respects earned, and I havent made a single attack on you. Just on your posted views [ I know for some they have can real difficulties seperating their ego and their views, but really attacking your posts isnt actually an attack on you...]



So what youre saying is, Gerry Adams is as innocent of murder as Lenny Murphy? I cant argue with that.

TOMAS J



Mayo Exile made a similar complaint. So again in the interest of objectivism and non partisan views, are you willing to agree with me that the Provos are as much scum as the loyalists, such as the Shankill Butchers? That Adams and his ilk, like Lenny Murphy were and are a plague on the lives of all the innocent people they murdered and maimed?

But you see, you wont. Like Mayo Exile, you complain that criticism of the Provos is selective, but when invited to agree with a broad condemnation of all Provo and loyalists youll go "Oh no, you see the Loyalists are scum, but our brave boys in the Provos - theyre simply misunderstood heros..."

" That Adams and his ilk..... were and are a plague......blah, blah, blah " Well with all these melodramatic denounciations coming from you Sand, I think many will definetly be going to vote for Gerry and Sinn Fein in the next election

BTW I see you claim to live in Kildare. Are you from there orginally or did you move down frm Larne or Portadown or somewhere like that ?? It's just I wouldn't think your views on Ireland and partition etc would be not very common or appreciated in Kildare or anywhere this side of the border, but would be very typical of the views expressed by many of the citizens of good 'loyal' places like Ballymena, the Shankill Road etc ??

Fratton Fred

I am quite happy to condemn the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, they are no less a crime than warrington or brum.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am quite happy to condemn the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, they are no less a crime than warrington or brum.

As you quite happy to condemn the british army (who were responsible for those bombs) as murders and terrorist

Fratton Fred

You have proof?

TOMASJ

[quote=Fratton Fred;57472081

]You have proof

The same brit Hero Capt Robert Nairac, ( a british sas murderer) was involved in the Miami showband murders,
When with the UDR (a british army murder unit based in the north of Ireland ) stopped this ( innocent group of musicants) from the republic of Ireland ,
and and planted a bomb on there van,( there plan was to make it look as the innocent group of guys were IRA supporters and were moving the bomb for the IRA )
As you will know the bomb exploded, and some of the UDR brit SAS members were killed, ,
the remaining members then tried to murder the other innocent members of the Miami band, but could not archive this,
There was know way that the brits could cover this one up,
F.F If you need any more proof of brit MURDERS of IRISH people respond.

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

As you can see the expression, terrorists, common mugger, psychopath, cold-blooded murder, scum bag, are never used in the description of the SAS, who I can only describe as bandits with a licence.

The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending.

McArmalite

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending.

And since when did the people of Ireland, ( or India, Cyprus etc) ever give them a mandate to be in any part of Ireland or have the country partitioned. Instead we got the offer of take it or "terrible and immediate war *". Surely yet another fine example of british terrorism at work. The british do not occupy the north east of Ireland because they have a legitimate mandate, they occupy it through sheer terrorism and threats of more of it.


* ( A bit off topic, but I once heard that since the treaty was enforced on Ireland by violence and threat, like a man been forced to sign an incriminating document by the police beating and threating him, the 1922 treaty could be ruled as invalid under International law ?? )

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending

And if these SAS Bandits, go to your home and murder you wife and children, does the fact that they have a mandate from a sovereign government, mean that they can not be termed as, terrorists, common mugger, psychopath, cold-blooded murders, scum bags,

McArmalite

TOMASJ wrote: »

And if these Bandits, go to your home and murder you wife and children, does the fact that they have a mandate from a sovereign government, mean that they can not be termed as, terrorists, common mugger, psychopath, cold-blooded murders, scum bags,

I'm in general agreement with your postings Tomas but " they have a mandate from a sovereign government ". They have a mandate by virtue of creating the secterian gerrymander called Northern Ireland by the use of terrorism and threats of more of it. The fact that it may exist as an entity like say, the countries under Soviet domination during communism, doesn't make it a morally legitmate one.

McArmalite

TOMASJ wrote: »

The same brit Hero Capt Robert Nairac, ( a british sas murderer) was involved in the Miami showband murders,
When with the UDR (a british army murder unit based in the north of Ireland ) stopped this ( innocent group of musicants) from the republic of Ireland ,
and and planted a bomb on there van,( there plan was to make it look as the innocent group of guys were IRA supporters and were moving the bomb for the IRA )
As you will know the bomb exploded, and some of the UDR brit SAS members were killed, ,
the remaining members then tried to murder the other innocent members of the Miami band, but could not archive this,
There was know way that the brits could cover this one up,
F.F If you need any more proof of brit MURDERS of IRISH people respond.

No Tomas, he's more than well aware of the Dublin and Miami murders and Nairac's links. He's been told several times of the findings of the Barron report, the Hidden Hand documentary etc from other discussions. Very well aware he is of it. Even the http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/ I posted a few threads back, has been posted in responce to his threads several times.

But it's just the typical reaction the british have to the deaths of Irish people, north or south, Protestant or Catholic. Because in their mindset, their all just " Paddy's ".

I remember reading a letter regarding the Birmingham pub bombings. The writer stated how the Paddy joke had been resurrected with the troubles and jokes were been constantly told on TV and radio about sort of " These 2 Paddys were at a pub/bus stop/shop/whatever with a bomb or machine gun etc, etc "

Naturally british soldiers were never part of the joke, with the butt of the joke and victims of the explosion or whatever been " Paddy's " ofcourse.

However then one night two pubs went off in Birmingham in 1974 killing 21 people. Not surprisingly, people been killed by " Paddys " was no longer a laughing matter. Says a lot about the morality and attitude of the british public.

Can you just imagine though, if the following morning someone appeared on Irish radio or TV cracking jokes about " This fella left a bomb in a pub in Birmingham...... " the screams of horror and indigantion of the people of the 'mainland' ??

Lockstep

I'd be in favor of a united Ireland, should the majority of the Six Counties population desire it.

Bog Butter

I would love to see a united Ireland. The G.F.A does provide for this if the majority of the 6 counties are in favour. However I believe that it would take a lot to convincing. There has been a strong growth of the Catholic middle classes who see themselfs as Norhern Irish as apposed to Irish.

Erin Go Brath

oscarBravo wrote: »

The SAS don't take prisoners. Those are their rules of engagement. They are part of the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation, mandated by the democratically elected government of the people of that nation to do what is necessary to defend them. The people suffer the SAS to exist as - in a sense - a necessary evil to defend them from attackers who are equally unscrupulous. The PIRA do not have, nor have they ever had, such a mandate.

The Provisional IRA were necessary to protect the Nationalist community in the north. The sectarian statelet didn’t afford this community (who were under threat from rampaging loyalist paramilitaries) the protection that a state should provide for its citizens. The RUC were a corrupt and biased force who in many cases colluded with loyalist paramilitaries against Nationalists.
The large vote that SF gets in the north shows that these people support and trust the PIRA as an important and indeed necessary part of the community, and surely constitutes a mandate.

Liam Byrne

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

....and surely constitutes a mandate.

Quick Question - did that so-called "mandate" include an OK to rob our money from banks and post offices and terrorise people in this country ?

Y'see - if you PROPOSE to people what you're GOING to do FIRST, and HOW you're going to do it, and then people agree, THEN it's a mandate.

I can't honestly see a lot of decent people in the north saying "OK, go ahead" to most of the tactics used by the terrorists.....I mean, these are the minority who supposedly want to join this country as borne out by the result of the democratic vote - The North can join the Republic when a majority agree, ergo there isn't a majority at the moment who want to.

So they're hardly going to piss off their potential new fellow citizens by giving a bunch of thugs the OK to run around it with guns and break all our laws and kill Gardai, are they ?

So there was no "mandate".

citizen zero

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending.

So the SAS can murder at will just because they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You don't like what they do but seem to accept it. I'm at a loss to see the difference.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

No Tomas, he's more than well aware of the Dublin and Miami murders and Nairac's links. He's been told several times of the findings of the Barron report, the Hidden Hand documentary etc from other discussions. Very well aware he is of it. Even the http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/ I posted a few threads back, has been posted in responce to his threads several times.

But it's just the typical reaction the british have to the deaths of Irish people, north or south, Protestant or Catholic. Because in their mindset, their all just " Paddy's ".

I remember reading a letter regarding the Birmingham pub bombings. The writer stated how the Paddy joke had been resurrected with the troubles and jokes were been constantly told on TV and radio about sort of " These 2 Paddys were at a pub/bus stop/shop/whatever with a bomb or machine gun etc, etc "

Naturally british soldiers were never part of the joke, with the butt of the joke and victims of the explosion or whatever been " Paddy's " ofcourse.

However then one night two pubs went off in Birmingham in 1974 killing 21 people. Not surprisingly, people been killed by " Paddys " was no longer a laughing matter. Says a lot about the morality and attitude of the british public.

Can you just imagine though, if the following morning someone appeared on Irish radio or TV cracking jokes about " This fella left a bomb in a pub in Birmingham...... " the screams of horror and indigantion of the people of the 'mainland' ??

Playing the race card Mac? I thought you hated it when people do that?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by oscarBravo: The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending.

Unbelievable bulls%@te. So it STILL seems that the ownership of the bullet is MORE important to you than what it will do to a person. If you keep coming out with this type of shallow sounding tripe, well...................