Question for Republicans (of the Irish variety)

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes it any more morally right to kill a random soldier in retribution for Bloody Sunday, than for the British Army to kill a random Republican in retribution for that killing?

Exactly. I know if we all followed the retribution logic then we'd all be dead eventually, and it eventually escalates into a depressingly consistant tit for tat scenario.

But as far as I can see a lot of people do agree with the retribution concept, especially seems as "The Brits invaded us first". However, many of these are still turned off by the fact that this retribution game plan cost so many innocent lives. I think that is why most people dont like the IRA, instead of being opposed to the military campaign for unification in principal they just dont like the way it was carried out.

At the end of the day the fighting achieved little or nothing, accept crippling the lives of those in the North. And I dont think that can be dismissed.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Sand: Its their bull**** I dislike.

I think some other posters are disliking your selective condemnation. Couldn't you put in a teensy-weensy line somewhere that others in the conflict committed "mistakes" (atrocities?) too? Your credibility factor would rise as a result.

Also returning to this statement by you in post #63:

They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it.

You back it up with this in post #81 by saying:

Im just being honest, sticking to the facts.

Once again returning to your post #86 in the "Israeli nuclear weapons" thread, you challenged posters that they couldn't come up with evidence that Israel had nukes even though you didn't deny that they might have them. I admit it's a clever argument to win a debate, regardless of whether its true or not.

So similarly with the above statement can you back up your "fact" with evidence that it was IRA policy, that they deliberately set out to murder kids etc.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes it any more morally right to kill a random soldier in retribution for Bloody Sunday, than for the British Army to kill a random Republican in retribution for that killing?

When you join that military instititution, then you are subscribing to their acts of aggression. When that military institution uses it's position in power to attack the community physically, then they are members of war. And when they signed up for the army, they took it at face value the dangers that were involved.

There is all too many written pages of history where they abused their position in power and attacked the community, mentally and physically - in which case, often resulting in civilian death. It was "war". In war, members of the military die. That's the grim reality of it.

I tell you something - If the British army came down to you tomorrow, starting beating up members of your community and then shot a member of your family as he/she ran for their life - you wouldn't be so judgmental. It's all to easy to criticise a situation when you have never been a part of it. You dare not attempt to look into the circumstances involved.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

When you join that military instititution, then you are subscribing to their acts of aggression. When that military institution uses it's position in power to attack the community physically, then they are members of war. And when they signed up for the army, they took it at face value the dangers that were involved.

So the SF/PIRA supporters can stop bleating about the killings in Gibralter then, they were fair game as far you're concerned.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the SF/PIRA supporters can stop bleating about the killings in Gibralter then, they were fair game as far you're concerned.

The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I tell you something - If the British army came down to you tomorrow, starting beating up members of your community and then shot a member of your family as he/she ran for their life - you wouldn't be so judgmental. It's all to easy to criticise a situation when you have never been a part of it. You dare not attempt to look into the circumstances involved.

You presume too much about me. If your assertion held true, then everyone - everyone - in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland would have taken up arms.

Some of us believe that responding to violence with violence can only ever lead to greater problems, and the history of Northern Ireland bears that out in horrible, bloody detail.

If someone comes to my house and hurts a member of my family, he's in the wrong. If I go to his house and hurt a member of his family, we're just as bad as each other, and the situation is almost certainly going to spiral out of control.

dlofnep wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.

But do you agree? That's by far the more pertinent question.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

You presume too much about me. If your assertion held true, then everyone - everyone - in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland would have taken up arms.

I don't presume anything, nor did I suggest that everyone was to take up arms. I am asking you to attempt to put yourself in the shoes of such a person and then tell me that you would have as much reserve as you do now. The fact of the matter is the British forces were aggressive to the community and the community responded. It's very easy to be conservative when you are not involved in such a situation. It was a different scenario, a different upbringing, different social inequalities, different human rights.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Some of us believe that responding to violence with violence can only ever lead to greater problems, and the history of Northern Ireland bears that out in horrible, bloody detail.

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm giving you a glimpse of the reality of the situation, what transpired to cause the reactionary attacks on British forces.

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

The fact of the matter is the British forces were aggressive to the community and the community responded.

OscarBravo makes a good point. How do you define the community? Is it everyone in it? Because I am sure that a large amount of people didnt engage in tit for tat violence, instead going what is in my opinion the more honorable way of trying to force changes peacefully. Look at the SDLP.

If some one hits you its easy to just hit them back. It requires a bit more strength to resist and extract some sort of apology/repercusion.

Nalced_irl

whitey1 wrote: »

What precipitated Bin Ladins attacks of 9/11 was the presence of American forces on Saudi soil. When Iraq invaded Kuwait he offered his services to the Saudis to boot em out. They politely declined and invited in the Americans instead. (I guess they figured they were next on Sadamms list). He got pretty pi$$ed off about that.

Unfortunately as a Superpower you cant remain neutral in a lot of conflicts. You just dont have that luxury. Would I be correct in assuming that their siding with Israel coincided with Russias siding with the Palestinians. Obvious the powerful Jewish lobby stateside had something to do with it too.

Bottom line-Irish Americans gave a lot of support to the Republcan movement when their cause enjoyed little support outside their immediate community. People like Adams, who were fringe politicians at best (as opposed to world recognised peace makers) in their own country, were feted at the highest levels of Irish America.

I am not asking for Republicans to come out in favor of the Iraq war, I am just disappointed that they seem to be taking sides with our enemies. As the saying goes-"when the chips are down you find out who your friends are".

Im sure you have probably given up on this thread as its gone way off topic but anyway. I would never support another countrys actions simply because they did us good in the past if i think they are wrong. I support Palestine in their struggle (well, obvious from my sig i suppose!) but to say im supporting an enemy of the US is a bit much in fairness. An enemy of Israel? Certainly and i have no problems supporting their enemy as i dont have a very high opinion of them at all, but i wouldnt view them whatsoever as a direct enemy of the US. I dont agree with the invasion of Iraq. I think the war was started for completely the wrong reasons with little or no evidence. I do however feel that had it been done for the right reasons, to get Saddam out of power, and by the book i would support it alot more. To say we support your enemy suggests that we support Insurgence killing of Allied troops. I would love to see the troops withdrawn and returned home to their families where they should be and Iraq given back to the people, not killed fighting a war they shouldnt be in and may not even agree with themselves.

Original question anyway, I dont think you can make a decision as big as support in a war simply based on whether its a friend or foe involved. You have to go by your own beliefs.

Liam Byrne

I know that we're going off the original topic here, and it is regrettable, since the main thread is an interesting one - should the past good that America has done imply that we forgive them for any current atrocities that they are committing.

The short - and logical - answer to that seems to be "no".

On the stance re dlofnep's comments, I want to point out something; I didn't label all republicans as terrorists. What I did say was that while on the face of it, a lot of dlnofep's comments seem to indicate that he/she and I have a similar stance on the atrocities committed by the IRA, in particular when it comes to murdering civilians.......

....the difference that I took issue with is in the relatively subtle language used to describe the same things, and it is unfortunately the language of "normalisation" - where if something is said a particular way enough times that it becomes the "accepted" norm.

No-one who isn't some level (maybe a minor, passive level, but nonetheless some level) of apologist says "people who died"; anyone objective will identify the perpetrators and recognise that people weren't "killed" - SOMEONE killed them, and those who did are responsible. People weren't "in the wrong place" (being on a shopping street on a Saturday afternoon isn't the wrong place by any stretch of the imagination) and somehow die "as a result" - the bombs were placed there, and it's those who placed the bombs that were in the places that they shouldn't have been.

And we will ONLY have achieved progess when the language used to describe these atrocities is unambiguous and DOESN'T include what has - correctly - been described as "whataboutery".

1. Innocent people weren't in the "wrong place" - IRA people were
2. People didn't passively "die" - the IRA killed them
3. You can't bitch about what the British soldiers did and request that they be judged and condemned for that WHILE simultanously overlooking the above.

The point about British soldiers signing up for the army and the consequences is an uncomfortable one, but it is a factor, so there is a difference; like I said, if Bush ordered American troops to invade Ireland, then (while I would have no personal issue with the soldier, as it's the scum giving the orders that would be the real aggressor) I could see how he/she would be a "legitimate" target because they signed up to follow those orders without question.

But until the republican movement treats like with like, and either (a) calls for and supports justice for EVERYONE killed or (b) stops calling for justice because we'll never get it for EVERYONE who was affected, so EVERYONE has to accept that, then they can't be taken seriously.

Ideally, EVERYONE who stepped past the line would be taken to task for it; but we're regularly asked to consider "you weren't there, how would you react" for the IRA, but the republicans then won't admit that IF you accept that for THEM, you accept it for the British soldiers.

We (the public) had to accept the release of a lot of murderers, killers and scumbags, and for the greater good, we did.

It's time for republicans to move on and stick to one viewpoint or the other; not have one viewpoint for themselves and one for the Brits.

And stop using apologetic passive voice (again, unsurprisingly, ONLY for one side).

THEN people will start to accept that the mindset has improved.

sovtek

CSC wrote: »

Intreresting question and I think the previous poster has summed up what I was going to write.
One thing that needs clarification is, that if a party or person criticises the US government or the actions of their military in Iraq or Afghanastan that doesn't make them "Anti-American". Millions of American citizens took to the streets to protest at the invasion of Iraq, likewise that doesn't make them "Anti-American". That phrase is used by the American right to stifle any debate or criticism.

Yes that would make me a "self hating American".

Nalced_irl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know that we're going off the original topic here, and it is regrettable, since the main thread is an interesting one - should the past good that America has done imply that we forgive them for any current atrocities that they are committing.

The short - and logical - answer to that seems to be "no".

On the stance re dlofnep's comments, I want to point out something; I didn't label all republicans as terrorists. What I did say was that while on the face of it, a lot of dlnofep's comments seem to indicate that he/she and I have a similar stance on the atrocities committed by the IRA, in particular when it comes to murdering civilians.......

....the difference that I took issue with is in the relatively subtle language used to describe the same things, and it is unfortunately the language of "normalisation" - where if something is said a particular way enough times that it becomes the "accepted" norm.

No-one who isn't some level (maybe a minor, passive level, but nonetheless some level) of apologist says "people who died"; anyone objective will identify the perpetrators and recognise that people weren't "killed" - SOMEONE killed them, and those who did are responsible. People weren't "in the wrong place" (being on a shopping street on a Saturday afternoon isn't the wrong place by any stretch of the imagination) and somehow die "as a result" - the bombs were placed there, and it's those who placed the bombs that were in the places that they shouldn't have been.

And we will ONLY have achieved progess when the language used to describe these atrocities is unambiguous and DOESN'T include what has - correctly - been described as "whataboutery".

1. Innocent people weren't in the "wrong place" - IRA people were
2. People didn't passively "die" - the IRA killed them
3. You can't bitch about what the British soldiers did and request that they be judged and condemned for that WHILE simultanously overlooking the above.

The point about British soldiers signing up for the army and the consequences is an uncomfortable one, but it is a factor, so there is a difference; like I said, if Bush ordered American troops to invade Ireland, then (while I would have no personal issue with the soldier, as it's the scum giving the orders that would be the real aggressor) I could see how he/she would be a "legitimate" target because they signed up to follow those orders without question.

But until the republican movement treats like with like, and either (a) calls for and supports justice for EVERYONE killed or (b) stops calling for justice because we'll never get it for EVERYONE who was affected, so EVERYONE has to accept that, then they can't be taken seriously.

Ideally, EVERYONE who stepped past the line would be taken to task for it; but we're regularly asked to consider "you weren't there, how would you react" for the IRA, but the republicans then won't admit that IF you accept that for THEM, you accept it for the British soldiers.

We (the public) had to accept the release of a lot of murderers, killers and scumbags, and for the greater good, we did.

It's time for republicans to move on and stick to one viewpoint or the other; not have one viewpoint for themselves and one for the Brits.

And stop using apologetic passive voice (again, unsurprisingly, ONLY for one side).

THEN people will start to accept that the mindset has improved.

Liam, firstly, if Bush decided to invade Ireland, you would find alot of people leaving the army in protest, whereas people who signed up to join the British Army knew what was going on in Ireland and signed up for it. Its a big difference in my book. I dont in any way condone killing but force of arms has its place. I wouldnt have an Irish passport if it wasnt for force of arms in the early 1900s. Im glad it has now taken the political route and i honestly hope some day that unionists and republicans can live side by side in peace....in a united Ireland of course but i think alot of people forget what the republican militants have given us in the past. Targetting civillians is always bad naturally, anyone who thinks otherwise is sick but while there is Omagh which was horrible, there is also Stone throwing grenades at mourners at a funeral, the shooting of spectators at Croke Park, Bloody Sunday etc. It goes both ways. Until there is absolute peace i dont think you will see either side apologising.

Anyway, past good making us forgive current actions, i would say no. If wrong was done to America and their people needed to flea, we would i hope welcome as many as possible, but i dont think we can overlook what is going on in the middle east simply cos they helped us out before. We are obviously hugely grateful as a nation for it but i could never accept something i think is horribly wrong as a return favour for help in the past.

Liam Byrne

Some fair points, nalced. I'm dubious on the "what militants have given us in the past", since many people believe that we would have reached the current status long before now if things were approached differently.

That aside, however (because we'll never actually know) the main issues that are outstanding are related to the language of apologists and supporters.

You say that "until there is absolute peace [you] don't see either side apologising", but the fact is that the 3 points I made above are at the nub of the issue; many [not all - let's be fair - but many so-called "republicans" still use the language that I mentioned in the 3 points above, and that implies that they don't even acknowledge that they will need to apologise at some stage in the future.

As I said, when I hear those people use language properly and even lay blame where it's due - they don't even need to apologise, just admit the facts and stop fudging - then I'll believe that we have made ACTUAL progress.

guinnessdrinker

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said, when I hear those people use language properly and even lay blame where it's due - they don't even need to apologise, just admit the facts and stop fudging - then I'll believe that we have made ACTUAL progress.

It's probable that the IRA are as unlikely to do as you would like as the British are over their actions.

Liam Byrne

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

It's probable that the IRA are as unlikely to do as you would like as the British are over their actions.

Do you only cut your lawn when your neighbour does ?

Why does what the British do dictate everything the IRA do ?

We don't get accused of being somehow "anti-Irish" by asking similar questions of the British, so that's not really relevant in this thread.

And the British had nothing to do with lots of the atrocities that apologist supporters STILL haven't stopped trying to excuse / get us to overlook - e.g there were no reports of the British being in Adare the day Gerry McCabe was murdered.

guinnessdrinker

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you only cut your lawn when your neighbour does ?

Why does what the British do dictate everything the IRA do ?

We don't get accused of being somehow "anti-Irish" by asking similar questions of the British, so that's not really relevant in this thread.

And the British had nothing to do with lots of the atrocities that apologist supporters STILL haven't stopped trying to excuse / get us to overlook - e.g there were no reports of the British being in Adare the day Gerry McCabe was murdered.

But do you not think it would have been easier to ask all parties to "just admit the facts and stop fudging" than to just ask it of one side?

Liam Byrne

Possibly, but many republicans ask for support for their "cause", associating it with Ireland and Irish people. And normally republicans only bring it up when their actions are being scrutinised - as in "but look what the Brits did"; that's a tactic used by 5 year olds in the playground to deflect attention from whatever THEY did wrong.

If the British were to ask the IRA questions, then by all means that tactic is OK - don't show your hand to the opposition. But it's the PUBLIC who's asking questions now, and we don't have to settle for anything less than honesty and responsibility.

As a result, the IRA come under a closer spotlight in some regards, because people need to see if they're worth supporting and are compatible with people's own beliefs.

And they usually fall short because of the 3 things I outlined above.

Yes, Britain would fall short in many regards too - for example if Britain (or even relating back to the OP's original question, America) was asking for my support for something, I would say "but hang on - ye invaded Iraq based on lies, so no, you're not getting my support."

FF canvassers would get a grilling on all the stuff they've fudged over too, if that's any consolation.

If I don't believe/trust/respect someone or something, I don't support it. Simple as that.

And if you kill / murder innocent people, or fudge / excuse / deflect blame and responsibility, don't look for my, regardless of whether Hitler or Bush or Saddam or whoever killed more than you did.

guinnessdrinker

Liam, I agree with most of what you are saying. That is why I would like to see honest answers from every side involved, that includes republicans, loyalists and the British. It is easy for people opposed to republicans to only call on republicans for answers and clarification and vice versa but as everyone knows there is more than one side to everything.

Liam Byrne

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

It is easy for people opposed to republicans to only call on republicans for answers and clarification and vice versa but as everyone knows there is more than one side to everything.

That's the main point, though, guinnessdrinker.......we're not talking about people who are "opposed to republicans", we're talking normal people.

And what republicans don't seem to realise is that asking those questions doesn't imply that people are "opposed" to them.

It's a "chicken and egg" situation; the republican mindset makes them think "if you're asking questions, then you're against us", while the public's mindset is "if you answer us and show that you can take responsibility for your actions, then we'll take you seriously".

And given that the public haven't a past history of doing the wrong things and making excuses, it's the public that are in the right on this one.....

Diogenes

dlofnep wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.

I imagine the European Court of Human Rights would have interesting words to say about punishment beatings, and the victims of IRA courts.

See this is the problem with the IRA, republicans, and their apologists, they demand they are treated as a army waging a war, yet they expect far better treatment than the treat they dole out to their victims.

To the OP yes Sinn Fein's rabid anti Americanism is hypocritical. But without a double standards "the struggle" and those who fought it, wouldn't have any standards.

Nalced_irl

Diogenes wrote: »

See this is the problem with the IRA, republicans, and their apologists,

And this is the problem with this entire thread. Talk about massive generalisation!!

Diogenes

Nalced_irl wrote: »

And this is the problem with this entire thread. Talk about massive generalisation!!

I've read the thread it's pretty much "Now I'm not a defender of the IRA, but..." mantra coming from posters.

The quote I took was from a poster who (rightly) pointed out that the European Court of Human rights ruled their deaths as unlawful. However the IRA have happily murdered innocences and indeed these three people were on their way to murder perhaps dozens of people.

Could the victims of an IRA bomb take P O'Neil and his anonymous mates to the ECHR?

No.

Do they expect to be treated as an army? When they are imprisoned for their crimes do they expect special treatment?

Yes. And Yes.

Do they offer the families of their victims recourse and the ability to seek justice?

No. Hell they can't find some of the bodies of their victims.


In 1972 the British Army killed 19 civilians on the streets of Derry. It was an obscenity. Thee has been one whitewash inquiry, and another which is the longest and most expensive in British Legal history. In 1972 In Aldershot five women and an catholic army priest were killed in an IRA bomb, which was claimed as a reaction to Bloody Sunday. There's been no inquiry, just a single arrest, no attempt to to establish the chain of command for this bomb.

In short the IRA/SF expect that the british army/british government be held accountable for their crimes, while seek to avoid culpability for their own crimes, while at the same time expecting the kind of rights for their own murderers that ordinary criminals didn't receive, and at the same time demanding that their opposition in the British army face the full wraith of the law, a legal system that they were happy to subvert and ignore.

It's rank hypocrisy pure and simple.

Liam Byrne

Nalced_irl wrote: »

And this is the problem with this entire thread. Talk about massive generalisation!!

And talk about not only ignoring, but leaving out the rest of the sentence that you quoted, that referred to how we have to accept giving these "political" prisoners far better treatment than they doled out !!!!

:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Diogenes wrote: »

I've read the thread it's pretty much "Now I'm not a defender of the IRA, but..." mantra coming from posters.

The quote I took was from a poster who (rightly) pointed out that the European Court of Human rights ruled their deaths as unlawful. However the IRA have happily murdered innocences and indeed these three people were on their way to murder perhaps dozens of people.

Could the victims of an IRA bomb take P O'Neil and his anonymous mates to the ECHR?

No.

Do they expect to be treated as an army? When they are imprisoned for their crimes do they expect special treatment?

Yes. And Yes.

Do they offer the families of their victims recourse and the ability to seek justice?

No. Hell they can't find some of the bodies of their victims.


In 1972 the British Army killed 19 civilians on the streets of Derry. It was an obscenity. Thee has been one whitewash inquiry, and another which is the longest and most expensive in British Legal history. In 1972 In Aldershot five women and an catholic army priest were killed in an IRA bomb, which was claimed as a reaction to Bloody Sunday. There's been no inquiry, just a single arrest, no attempt to to establish the chain of command for this bomb.

In short the IRA/SF expect that the british army/british government be held accountable for their crimes, while seek to avoid culpability for their own crimes, while at the same time expecting the kind of rights for their own murderers that ordinary criminals didn't receive, while demanding that their opposition in the British army face the full wraith of the law, a legal system that they were happy to subvert and ignore.

It's rank hypocrisy pure and simple.

I think I am missing something here - maybe you can help me out

When an IRA man kills somebody, irrespective of who they kill, they are subject to the rule of law.

When a British Army man kills somebody, irrespective of who they kill, they are not subject to the rule of law.

It should one or the other for both sides - do you agree?

Diogenes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think I am missing something here - maybe you can help me out

When an IRA man kills somebody, irrespective of who they kill, they are subject to the rule of law.

Really are they? You mean to say that every IRA killer has been subjected to the rule of law.

How is the murder trial of the killers of Robert Mc Cartney working out?

When a British Army man kills somebody, irrespective of who they kill, they are not subject to the rule of law.

Yes they should, and often they are not it's not a perfect system. However there is accountability, to a unsatisfactory degree, I will admit, but a degree of accountability.

It should one or the other for both sides - do you agree?

If I understand you, we're both saying there should be a degree of accountability from both sides. Yes? Now the British Government have engaged in the single largest inquiry in the state's history, meanwhile Mary Lou McDonald refuses to define the murder of Jean McConville as a "crime".

Hence my contempt for the ideal that both sides are held to the same standards.

Nalced_irl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And talk about not only ignoring, but leaving out the rest of the sentence that you quoted, that referred to how we have to accept giving these "political" prisoners far better treatment than they doled out !!!!

:rolleyes:

The rest of the sentance has nothing to do with the point im making. People keep making comments along the lines of "all republicans think this" or "all republicans believe this". My point is not all republicans think, believe or have the same point of view.

Nalced_irl

Diogenes wrote: »

How is the murder trial of the killers of Robert Mc Cartney working out?

The difference being that if the brit police new who the killers were, they would be in jail. It wasnt exactly a secret who was involved in the murders on Bloody Sunday yet they walk the streets. Has anyone gone to jail for knowingly imprisoning innocent people for the Guilford bombings?


:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Nalced_irl wrote: »

The difference being that if the brit police new who the killers were, they would be in jail. It wasnt exactly a secret who was involved in the murders on Bloody Sunday yet they walk the streets. Has anyone gone to jail for knowingly imprisoning innocent people for the Guilford bombings?:rolleyes:

or knowingly allowing innocent people to go to prison for those murders.

Whilst the convictions were an insult to justice, the killers are still out there walking the streets free men. As are the killers who planted the Omagh bomb.

In fairness to the IRA, The IRA would only confirm that they were in Gibralter on active service. Unfortunately, the IRA army council that sent them to their deaths are not accountable to any, so their part in deaths will never be punished.

Nalced_irl

I tell ya what. Watch the film In The Name Of The Father and you will see why the guilford bombers were not convicted of that particular bombing. The reason is because the innocents were currently serving time for that same bombing. It would look quite odd had 2 different groups been prosecuted for the same thing. They are actually in jail anyway, or were at least. While films are not always factually correct, to the best of my knowledge this part is true. The brits basically decided that it would be "too embarrassing" to release the guilford 4 and admit they were falsely imprisoned and so left them there and left this particular bombing out of it when prosecuting the real bombers.

As for the Omagh bomb, this comes back to my point that if they were known to be guilty and proven so, they would be in jail. Doesnt take a genius to figure out who was behind the Guilford 4`s imprisonment or Bloody Sunday yet they were never prosecuted.

Liam Byrne

OK - so explain this one to me:

1. Known IRA members murder Det Gda Gerry McCabe
2. IRA say that it wasn't an "authorised operation", so it hasn't breached the ceasefire
3. As part of the GFA, IRA criminals are released
4. SF & IRA campaign for their release because - suddenly - it WAS part of an IRA operation and therefore they suddenly DID qualify

No retrospective sanctions apply despite the u-turn, and the IRA members still get the benefit of their "ceasefire", even though #4 implies that it WAS broken.

If that's not double-standards and bull****, then I don't know what is.