Colombia wants three republicans back in jail

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you serious?

Yes I am serious, the IRA was never involved in the sale or supply of drugs, if anything they were solidly (almost fanatically you could say) against drugs, especially the scourge of heroin. Out of a few thousand years in jail served by IRA members, none of them were ever for drugs offenses.

Terrorism is relative, eh?

I'm just pointing out that the state isn't always right and that revolutionary movements such as FARC aren't always wrong.

jhegarty

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you serious?

The IRA were never involved in drugs. In fact for years they beat the c**p out of any drug dealer they found...

Now cross border smuggling , bank robberies and the odd kidnapping was right up their street....


You may be thinking of the loyalists , drugs was very much on the menu there....

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you serious??

Yes he is. Like I said to the other dude, if you want to start a thread, fire away.

djpbarry wrote: »

Terrorism is relative, eh?

'Relative','Subjective', yes. The only way can avoid being accused of a double standard sooner or later (regardless of whether you approve of the RA or the US in Iraq, for instance) is to condemn all violence regardless of provocation or cause.

jhegarty

Nodin wrote: »

'Relative','Subjective', yes. The only way can avoid being accused of a double standard sooner or later (regardless of whether you approve of the RA or the US in Iraq, for instance) is to condemn all violence regardless of provocation or cause.

Exactly. If you want to have strict labels then the French resistance were terrorists. As were the Jews who manged to blow up one the ovens in Auschwitz.

FTA69

jhegarty wrote: »

Now cross border smuggling , bank robberies and the odd kidnapping was right up their street....

I'll concede that one!

Villain

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you serious?

I've avoided threads like this since Oscar was kind enough to allow me to post here again but I see years later people still post the same claims without anything to back them.

djpbarry I have to ask how much do you think you know about the IRA because if it's only a little then I think you should do a little research and if you think you know a lot and that you are correct in thinking the IRA were involved in drug dealing then I have to question what you are basing this belief on?

As jhegarty has stated the IRA were involved in many many grave actions but drug dealing was not one of them.

As for the thread title, I think most people (not all) who have studied the case against these men have seen that they weren't dealth with in a fair way, the justice system which they have been subjected to has many many flaws and while I have no doubt they were not sight seeing they should be entitled to a fair trial and without assuarances that would happen the Irish Government couldn't attempt to allow them to be extradited.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that the state isn't always right and that revolutionary movements such as FARC aren't always wrong.

When did I say the Colombian government was always right? Like I said already, the actions of the Colombian state does not excuse the actions of FARC.

Nodin wrote: »

The only way can avoid being accused of a double standard sooner or later (regardless of whether you approve of the RA or the US in Iraq, for instance) is to condemn all violence regardless of provocation or cause.

Horsebollocks. That argument has been tried by apologists before and it doesn't wash. Kidnapping people in an attempt to further a political cause is wrong, plain and simple. If it's not acceptable here, then why does it become acceptable elsewhere?

djpbarry

jhegarty wrote: »

The IRA were never involved in drugs. In fact for years they beat the c**p out of any drug dealer they found...

Hmm. Fair enough, we'll leave it at that.

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

Horsebollocks. That argument has been tried by apologists before and it doesn't wash. Kidnapping people in an attempt to further a political cause is wrong, plain and simple. If it's not acceptable here, then why does it become acceptable elsewhere?

Don't blame me. I'm just saying. Your kidnapping, somebody elses perfectly fair enough "extraordinary rendition".

A Dub in Glasgo

djpbarry wrote: »

Horsebollocks. That argument has been tried by apologists before and it doesn't wash. Kidnapping people in an attempt to further a political cause is wrong, plain and simple. If it's not acceptable here, then why does it become acceptable elsewhere?

Horsebollocks? For pointing out hypocrisy? or Horsebollocks that hypocrisy exists in most people?

LordSutch

"The Republican game is over" their spine is broken & the terror is over!

I suppose it doesnt really matter if the Three' are sent back to face Columbian Justice or not, they are a spent force anyway, & the whole Republican - IRA - Terrorism mindset seems to have changed from one of Planting Bombs, Traning other Terrorists, Selling drugs to further their aims, Extortion, Bank Robberies, & Cop killing, to one of getting middle aged & soft

Thank God.

Nodin

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Horsebollocks? For pointing out hypocrisy? or Horsebollocks that hypocrisy exists in most people?

Could be Shergar. Christ knows everything else has come up.

Camelot wrote: »

"The (.....)God.

Very constructive. Isn't there a bridge somewhere that needs your attention?

oscarBravo

...and, we're done.