Civilian targets

Fratton Fred

Irlbo wrote: »

You've got it in one my friend

What scares me, is that people actually do believe that

Armin_Tamzarian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are we also able to claim the Paras did not target innocent people, it was a few people acting outside the chain of command. That will then make bloody sunday ok and the current enquiry can be ended. Maybe we could claim the armoured car that entered croke park did not target civilians, it just opened fire and sadly some people were killed. How about the hiroshima bomb? Surely the yanks were only bombing a munitions factory and everyone else killed was "collateral damage". If you bomb public areas you are aiming to kill innocent people, the fact you try and make a phone call to a local newspaper may get you a few brownie points from your sympathisers, but at the end of the day, the intention is to kill people.

I don't know the facts but in situations similar to Bloody Sunday I wouldn't have a problemn accepting the thesis that the perpetrators operated outside the chain of command.
If this was the case it certainly wouldn't in OK.

Armin_Tamzarian

Camelot wrote: »

Well thats that then, the IRA did not go out to kill innocent civilians, and when they did it was either a mistake, or a botched operation that had not been authorised by the IRA chain of command :rolleyes:

Civilians murdered by the IRA were casualties of a War against the Police and the Army, the IRA fought a clean & calculated campaign against the Imperial oppressors of the catholic people of the Six County Statelet :cool:

The IRA's war was a legitimate War against the 'Evil British' with a few Civilian casualties, but at no time did the IRA ever consider even hurting a civilian

I'm highly impressed.
It's not often that a poster can open their eyes to the truth
and accept other people's views as being correct.
You should be commended, it's a pity there weren't more posters like you.
Fair play...

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What scares me, is that people actually do believe that

As opposed to Camelots version of history where the evil Irish woke up one morning and decided to start bombing and shooting those heroic policemen for no apparant reason?

LordSutch

Not the evil Irish, but the Evil IRA > who were a minority within a minority without a mandate for killing.

Bye.

OhNoYouDidn't

Camelot wrote: »

Not the evil Irish, but the Evil IRA > who were a minority within a minority without a mandate for killing.

Bye.

who rose up in arms out of boredom?

you are on the wrong side of history my friend.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are we also able to claim the Paras did not target innocent people, it was a few people acting outside the chain of command. That will then make bloody sunday ok and the current enquiry can be ended.

It was a bloodlust on the part of the soldiers involved, I doubt it was sanctioned from above by anyone but there is a big difference between rogue members of the IRA deciding to commit an atrocity off their own bat (e.g Kingsmills) and soldiers in a standing army opening fire on unarmed demonstraters in full view of their commanding officers.

Similarly one could also argue that the Brits were directly responsible for the deliberate killing of civilians through their use of Loyalist paramilitaries as proxies.

K-9

FTA69 wrote: »

It was a bloodlust on the part of the soldiers involved, I doubt it was sanctioned from above by anyone but there is a big difference between rogue members of the IRA deciding to commit an atrocity off their own bat (e.g Kingsmills) and soldiers in a standing army opening fire on unarmed demonstraters in full view of their commanding officers.

Similarly one could also argue that the Brits were directly responsible for the deliberate killing of civilians through their use of Loyalist paramilitaries as proxies.

Wait a sec, I thought it was a war. Mistakes happen in wars as we all know. You seem to be applying a lower standard to the IRA. If it was a genuine war the same standards would apply?

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a sec, I thought it was a war. Mistakes happen in wars as we all know. You seem to be applying a lower standard to the IRA. If it was a genuine war the same standards would apply?

My reading of that post was that in two of the worst atrocities of the troubles, if you accept that it was soldiers going off on one, one group deliberatly attempted to hide their involvement from their commanders and one did it in full view of theirs.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My reading of that post was that in two of the worst atrocities of the troubles, if you accept that it was soldiers going off on one, one group deliberatly attempted to hide their involvement from their commanders and one did it in full view of theirs.

Grand. Take the Lee Clegg case as a rough comparison, that would be similar to Kingsmills?

PS. Look like I'm doing what I said not to do.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

Grand. Take the Lee Clegg case as a rough comparison, that would be similar to Kingsmills?

I would think so. They both committed murder and attempted to hide the fact from their commanding officers.

Thankfully in the Clegg case the RUC men at the scene were having none of it.

K-9

Just trying to think of a comparison with the McCartney case.

I suppose a case where a whole unit covered up a murder and tried to clean up all the evidence.

FTA69

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a sec, I thought it was a war. Mistakes happen in wars as we all know. You seem to be applying a lower standard to the IRA. If it was a genuine war the same standards would apply?

How was I applying lower standards? ONYD is correct in his last post.

I understand fully it was a war, as did Republicans. The Brits are the only ones denying it was a war.

K-9

FTA69 wrote: »

How was I applying lower standards? ONYD is correct in his last post.

I understand fully it was a war, as did Republicans. The Brits are the only ones denying it was a war.

That's just propaganda. Happens in geurilla style warfare.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

Just trying to think of a comparison with the McCartney case.

I suppose a case where a whole unit covered up a murder and tried to clean up all the evidence.

thankfully I can't think of any other examples of that sort of thing.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

thankfully I can't think of any other examples of that sort of thing.

Shoot to kill was similar on an individual basis, though the cover up was more organised.

OhNoYouDidn't

K-9 wrote: »

Shoot to kill was similar on an individual basis, though the cover up was more organised.

Interesting. I think it was more doctoring evidence like putting guns in dead mens hands in the shoot to kill days than forensically cleaning fingerprints and destroying clothes of those involved at Magennises pub.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Interesting. I think it was more doctoring evidence like putting guns in dead mens hands in the shoot to kill days than forensically cleaning fingerprints and destroying clothes of those involved at Magennises pub.

Coroners reports too. Most didn't say people where shot at close range.

FTA69

Not to mention the case of Volunteers Peter Cleary and John Francis Green who were killed on the southern side of the border. In the case of Cleary he was dragged out of his bed by the SAS, taken across the border and shot in the head. Of course he was trying to "seize a weapon" from a soldier at the time, as you would do when you're surrounded in a field in nothing but your underpants. :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention the case of Volunteers Peter Cleary and John Francis Green who were killed on the southern side of the border. In the case of Cleary he was dragged out of his bed by the SAS, taken across the border and shot in the head. Of course he was trying to "seize a weapon" from a soldier at the time, as you would do when you're surrounded in a field in nothing but your underpants. :rolleyes:

Claimed they were drunk IIRC. Two hardned volunteers got mangled and happened to stagger across the border into the hands of a miracliously placed SAS unit in their underwear. :rolleyes:

FTA69

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Claimed they were drunk IIRC. Two hardned volunteers got mangled and happened to stagger across the border into the hands of a miracliously placed SAS unit in their underwear. :rolleyes:

Nah, the auld "we found him drunk wandering across the border" routine was done a few times, the people caught as a result of that usually ended up in the Kesh. I'm on about two different cases. Cleary was shot in a field adjacent to his home, and John Francis Green was killed in Monaghan in the kitchen of the safehouse he was staying in.

mountainyman

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Interesting. I think it was more doctoring evidence like putting guns in dead mens hands in the shoot to kill days than forensically cleaning fingerprints and destroying clothes of those involved at Magennises pub.

Shoot to kill was a joke. Part of the squalid conseensus of acceptable of violence. In exchange for the gloves on treatment by the RUC and SAS 90% of the time the IRA refused to impose on the English teh consequences of supporting evil.

At a minimum they should have bomed Eton.

Fratton Fred

If a british soldier is fair game in birmingham, then surely a volunteer is in monaghan, no?

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a british soldier is fair game in birmingham, then surely a volunteer is in monaghan, no?

Depends whether you considered it a war or a criminal conspiracy really.

OhNoYouDidn't

mountainyman wrote: »

Shoot to kill was a joke. Part of the squalid conseensus of acceptable of violence. In exchange for the gloves on treatment by the RUC and SAS 90% of the time the IRA refused to impose on the English teh consequences of supporting evil.

How can shoot to kill be 'kid gloves'?

mountainyman wrote: »

At a minimum they should have bomed Eton.

I don't think bombing a school was high on the list to be fair. That would have alienated even the staunchest Republican.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a british soldier is fair game in birmingham, then surely a volunteer is in monaghan, no?

Yep, no IRA Volunteer was under any illusions about what the Brits were prepared to do. It's the whole "there is no war in Northern Ireland" lark that galled Republicans.

Sand

Yep, no IRA Volunteer was under any illusions about what the Brits were prepared to do. It's the whole "there is no war in Northern Ireland" lark that galled Republicans.

There wasnt any war in Northern Ireland. There were armed, mafia groups launching brutal atrocities on civillians.

As for this thread, the defence of the Provo atrocities is laughable. From the people who claim to never have heard of a Provo atrocity to those who try to blame the British for actually carrying out the deed when confronted with an example.

Out of curiosity, what would a Provo not consider to be a viable military target? Because as this thread has gone on and on its getting to the point that if the Provos planted a bomb in a childrens playground, the Provos sympathisers on the thread would claim that A) the British army had walked through the playground once before so its a valid target, and the Brits actually triggered the bomb themselves so it wasnt the Provos fault anyway.

OhNoYouDidn't

Sand wrote: »

There wasnt any war in Northern Ireland. There were armed, mafia groups launching brutal atrocities on civillians. [/QUOTE

Surely their motivations were different to the Mafia?

Sand wrote: »

As for this thread, the defence of the Provo atrocities is laughable. From the people who claim to never have heard of a Provo atrocity to those who try to blame the British for actually carrying out the deed when confronted with an example.

I've looked through the thread again and I still cant find any defence of any atrocities. Condemnation all round, but debate over the motivation.

Are some posters simply arguing with what they assume people have said?

Sand wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would a Provo not consider to be a viable military target? Because as this thread has gone on and on its getting to the point that if the Provos planted a bomb in a childrens playground, the Provos sympathisers on the thread would claim that A) the British army had walked through the playground once before so its a valid target, and the Brits actually triggered the bomb themselves so it wasnt the Provos fault anyway.

Whatever about B which has been offered as an explaination for the premature detanation in Enniskillen by some, where are you getting A from? Not on this thread anyway.

Sand

Surely their motivations were different to the Mafia?

Nope - the Mafia is just more honest about it.

I've looked through the thread again and I still cant find any defence of any atrocities.

Really? Check back over the posts where Enniskillen was highlighted for TomasJs curious achievement of never having heard of a Provo atrocity. Apparently, that attack was fine because apparently a policeman was sometimes in and around Enniskillen town center.

Whatever about B which has been offered as an explaination for the premature detanation in Enniskillen by some, where are you getting A from? Not on this thread anyway.

See above.

Armin_Tamzarian

With respect to Bloody Sunday and Kingsmill.

I feel that higher command levels of the British Army can't be held to blame for Bloody Sunday, just as higher command levels of the PIRA can't be held responsible for Kinsmill.

However, having said that. in both cases, upper ecehelons must shoulder
some responsibility as they armed and trained those responsible and
the perpetrators were members of their respective organisations (most probably).

Ultimately the blood is on the hand of the individuals who disregarded their leaders and acted autonomously.