Civilian targets

OhNoYouDidn't

Sand wrote: »

Nope - the Mafia is just more honest about it.

About what?

Sand wrote: »

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.

TomasJ was cleary arguing the semantics about the word 'atrocity'.

There is a difference between attacking a target because of a UDR colour party at a Rememberence ceremony and as you so flippantly put it "because apparently a policeman was sometimes in and around Enniskillen town cente".

At least Camelot puts up a coherent argument.

Fratton Fred

Sorry, but arguing semantics over the term atrocity is pretty poor. It is either am atrocity or it isn't semantics doesn't come into it.

Sand

About what?

Well they werent murdering people for the rights of the oppressed - Stormont was abolished by the 70s and the worst of its excesses reversed.

They werent murdering people for a 32 county united Ireland - unless by 32 county united Ireland they meant state jobs and a pension from the Queen.

A lot of Provos [ and indeed their cousins in Loyalist terrorist organisations] did very well out of the troubles however - the power of life and death over their neighbours, fear, criminal gains, holiday homes in Donegal, trips to Chequers and very little to fear from the authorities due to political pressure.

OhNoYouDidn't

Sand wrote: »

Well they werent murdering people for the rights of the oppressed - Stormont was abolished by the 70s and the worst of its excesses reversed.

And this happened how?

Sand wrote: »

They werent murdering people for a 32 county united Ireland - unless by 32 county united Ireland they meant state jobs and a pension from the Queen.

Couldn't agree more when it comes to Provisional Sinn Fein. I appreciate when you enter mainstream politics things change, but they are a bit too 'perks and mercs' for me.

Sand wrote: »

A lot of Provos [ and indeed their cousins in Loyalist terrorist organisations] did very well out of the troubles however - the power of life and death over their neighbours, fear, criminal gains, holiday homes in Donegal, trips to Chequers and very little to fear from the authorities due to political pressure.

The material and (for want of a better word) kudos gains are all post cease fire though - weakens your Mafia analagy to be fair. However bad you may think the Provo hardmen ran their areas, they havn't a patch on how society in Sicily is crushed by the parasitic cosa nostra.

TOMASJ

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.

Sand I think you need to read again what I said (below) The tread is about whether or not the IRA deliberately killed civilians, you seem to be missing that point, in your assertions that I think it was fine because a policeman sometimes walked around Enniskillen, and I never heard of the bombing,
please stop distorting what I said.

Yes Camelot that was a tragic day,and eight civilians were killed but the target on that day was members of the RUC who usually stood beside that wall the bomb was planted behind,
It was said at the time by republican sources that a british army electronic device was responsably for detonating that bomb, it was of a type the british army used to explode IRA bombs previousally killing IRA members in the process of moving and planting bombs.

TOMASJ

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.

The closest I can think of in comparison to the McCartney case, Is one which is ongoing at the moment
the Robert Hamill inquiry he was from Portadown, an was beaten to death in full view of the RUC by Loyalists in Portadown town centre, these Loyalist were helped and advised by members of the RUC as to how to cover their tracks, and the disposal of clothing that may have been used in evidence in a future court case.

yomchi

Couldn't agree more when it comes to Provisional Sinn Fein. I appreciate when you enter mainstream politics things change, but they are a bit too 'perks and mercs' for me.

Care to identify which SF person drives a merc? Adams drives a 1997 Volvo, McGuinness a Mondeo as does Pat Doherty. Where did you see the merc.
I'd also like to know what perks you're refering to?

A lot of Provos [ and indeed their cousins in Loyalist terrorist organisations] did very well out of the troubles however - the power of life and death over their neighbours, fear, criminal gains, holiday homes in Donegal, trips to Chequers and very little to fear from the authorities due to political pressure.

Thats an absolutely pathetic thing to say. Families and family members who felt the urge to volunteer for the IRA suffered a great deal, including internment, shoot to kill policies, criminalisation, collusion, and in many cases death. To say that anyone did well out of the troubles is pathetic, down right pathetic and again shows a huge lack of understanding on the subject.

Have you ever been to a predominantly Republican area in the North? I have, I have family there, I'm there regular, I'v been there when it was not nice to be there, I've seen what it's like and I see the respect the IRA has in these areas, by their OWN neighbours. Of course you'll get a bad apple in every tree, thats the nature of society, but blatant generalising as they way YOU have is hillarious, defies logic and again underlines the ignorance on the matter.

Irlbo

Jon wrote: »

Care to identify which SF person drives a merc? Adams drives a 1997 Volvo, McGuinness a Mondeo as does Pat Doherty. Where did you see the merc.
I'd also like to know what perks you're refering to?



Thats an absolutely pathetic thing to say. Families and family members who felt the urge to volunteer for the IRA suffered a great deal, including internment, shoot to kill policies, criminalisation, collusion, and in many cases death. To say that anyone did well out of the troubles is pathetic, down right pathetic and again shows a huge lack of understanding on the subject.

Have you ever been to a predominantly Republican area in the North? I have, I have family there, I'm there regular, I'v been there when it was not nice to be there, I've seen what it's like and I see the respect the IRA has in these areas, by their OWN neighbours. Of course you'll get a bad apple in every tree, thats the nature of society, but blatant generalising as they way YOU have is hillarious, defies logic and again underlines the ignorance on the matter.

Spot on in the above there,you've just brought to light an observation of the republican movement and its support,support for the republican movement always came from predominantly disadvantaged area's North and South,urban and rural working class area's,places were people could not afford or had any time to support republicanism,and in terms of the South had reason to,but these are places were republicanism is strong,and this is proven by election results,which always poll very strong for Sinn Fein,the reason for this support and why IRA volunteers mostly originate from working class areas is the work put into these areas by the republican movement,in terms of keeping the British army and RUC out and allowing the local population empower itself and police themselves,and chasing drug dealers out of communties which were being ravaged by heroin,so there is a mutual respect there between the two.....................................................................,Whenever I hear anyone critisise the republican movement,they are normally from a middle class comfortable background and the IRA,republicanism,armed struggle and its history,and the national question is as foreign to them as Iraq or Palastine,being brought up in a snug comfortable environment,to hear anything about guns or bombs and men in balaclavas,is very frightning to them so of course they are of an anti-republican mindset

FTA69

What I find gas is that Sand will tell you Sinn Féin and the IRA are the same thing with no distinction between the two. He'll then go on to tell you that the IRA were simply a mafia terrorising their communities for personal gain. Which leads one to ask, why then do the people of say, West Belfast, vote for Gerry Adams with an overwhelming majority if they are so oppressed by the provisional Republican movement?

Irlbo

FTA69 wrote: »

What I find gas is that Sand will tell you Sinn Féin and the IRA are the same thing with no distinction between the two. He'll then go on to tell you that the IRA were simply a mafia terrorising their communities for personal gain. Which leads one to ask, why then do the people of say, West Belfast, vote for Gerry Adams with an overwhelming majority if they are so oppressed by the provisional Republican movement?

Like I said above the naive ignorant middle class mindset,they know f*ck all about the North and have been brought up with the big bad IRA bogeyman image,he knows as much about Sinn Fien,the IRA and the communities they represent as my arse knows about snipe shooting!

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

Thats an absolutely pathetic thing to say. Families and family members who felt the urge to volunteer for the IRA suffered a great deal, including internment, shoot to kill policies, criminalisation, collusion, and in many cases death. To say that anyone did well out of the troubles is pathetic, down right pathetic and again shows a huge lack of understanding on the subject.

Fair point with the obvious exception of South Armagh.
The level of visbile wealth that alot of repubicans have there is vulgar.
I'm talking about wealth that's been accumulated mainly by diesel laundering / smuggling and other such activities.

I've always felt sorry for honest to goodness republicans from areas such as West Belfast who have practically nothing.
It's so unfair when you contrast them with the oil rich folks of South Armagh who these days, contribute very little to the republican movement in comparison to their Belfast cousins...

yomchi

Irlbo wrote: »

Like I said above the naive ignorant middle class mindset,they know f*ck all about the North and have been brought up with the big bad IRA bogeyman image,he knows as much about Sinn Fien,the IRA and the communities they represent as my arse knows about snipe shooting!

Yep, and to be fair, it 'seems' that mentality is to the fore in this thread. There are so many posters who pipe out opinion without any raw fact or basic understanding of the matter. It is, as you put it, the conditioning of their up bringing. Sad in a way to be shielded from reality.

yomchi

Fair point with the obvious exception of South Armagh.
The level of visbile wealth that alot of repubicans have there is vulgar.
I'm talking about wealth that's been accumulated mainly by diesel laundering / smuggling and other such activities.

I've always felt sorry for honest to goodness republicans from areas such as West Belfast who have practically nothing.
It's so unfair when you contrast them with the oil rich folks of South Armagh who these days, contribute very little to the republican movement in comparison to their Belfast cousins...

You know, thats a fair point. The law of the land however, has always been - once there's a border, there'll be smuggling. And in fairness, the only one getting ripped off is the tax man, while ordinary folk get good old cheap diesel - win/win!

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

You know, thats a fair point. The law of the land however, has always been - once there's a border, there'll be smuggling. And in fairness, the only one getting ripped off is the tax man, while ordinary folk get good old cheap diesel - win/win!

Well I wouldn't like to comment on the quality of that particular diesel.
As for the ordinary folk well they'll be paying the same price,
unfortunately they'll most likely be getting dodgy diesel without even knowing it.
To be fair if you want cheap diesel you can just go and legally buy
red from a garage. It's using in a car is the illegal part.

My main problem with this is people who claim to be republians putting their own interests first.

Traditionally in South Armagh smuggling / diesel laundering, etc was used as a major source of finance for the PIRA.
As time passed it seems that the line between 'fund raising' and profiteering got more and more blurred until we have the present day situation where it's pretty much plain old crime with people just earning for themselves.

Contrast this with say Dublin where traditionally the PIRA engaged in armed robberies to raise funds for the activities that were going on in the North.
Now consider how well it would have went down if these people decided to start keeping a quarter, a half or whatever amount of the proceeds of theses robberies, exactly.

A case in point would be the members of the Dublin Brigade of the PIRA who were summoned to South Armagh and issued with a punishment shooting for creaming off money from PIRA activies for themselves.
Sort of ironic and contradictory that some of those dishing out the punishment were probably loaded from smuggling, etc.

Sorry, this has gone pretty far off topic.

OhNoYouDidn't

Jon wrote: »

Care to identify which SF person drives a merc? Adams drives a 1997 Volvo, McGuinness a Mondeo as does Pat Doherty. Where did you see the merc.
I'd also like to know what perks you're refering to?

Apologies, I didn't see this to reply earlier.

I am probably about 10 years out of date here, but I was told in no uncertain terms by a few West Belfast mates that they felt that the salaries, cars and 'status' of the at the time new MLA's in SF had gone to heads. I believe SF later capped the % of the salary they could take home.

Percs and Mercs is a figure of speech, hence the commas. Not literally mercs. Well, not untill FF need them to make up numbers.... :pac:

K-9

Jon wrote: »

And in fairness, the only one getting ripped off is the tax man,

LOL, from supporters of parties who advocate raising taxes, I love the irony and double standards. Not that far off FF really.

yomchi

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Apologies, I didn't see this to reply earlier.

I am probably about 10 years out of date here, but I was told in no uncertain terms by a few West Belfast mates that they felt that the salaries, cars and 'status' of the at the time new MLA's in SF had gone to heads. I believe SF later capped the % of the salary they could take home.

Percs and Mercs is a figure of speech, hence the commas. Not literally mercs. Well, not untill FF need them to make up numbers.... :pac:

Well just to be certain on this, SF MLA's and TD's and anyone who is paid doing a public reps job take home ONLY the average industrial wage. The rest of that is put into the party to fight campaigns etc. So your West Belfast mates are wrong. In factin West and North Belfast where Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly were elected, they still live in their family homes in council areas. Just because one day a man wears a anorak to work, doesn't mean the next day when he wears a shirt or tie, that his job is gone to his head.

yomchi

K-9 wrote: »

LOL, from supporters of parties who advocate raising taxes, I love the irony and double standards. Not that far off FF really.

yawn... as I said in the other thread you brought up this - go read a book on left wing fiscal policy.

Peace

Irlbo

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Well I wouldn't like to comment on the quality of that particular diesel.
As for the ordinary folk well they'll be paying the same price,
unfortunately they'll most likely be getting dodgy diesel without even knowing it.
To be fair if you want cheap diesel you can just go and legally buy
red from a garage. It's using in a car is the illegal part.

My main problem with this is people who claim to be republians putting their own interests first.

Traditionally in South Armagh smuggling / diesel laundering, etc was used as a major source of finance for the PIRA.
As time passed it seems that the line between 'fund raising' and profiteering got more and more blurred until we have the present day situation where it's pretty much plain old crime with people just earning for themselves.

Contrast this with say Dublin where traditionally the PIRA engaged in armed robberies to raise funds for the activities that were going on in the North.
Now consider how well it would have went down if these people decided to start keeping a quarter, a half or whatever amount of the proceeds of theses robberies, exactly.

A case in point would be the members of the Dublin Brigade of the PIRA who were summoned to South Armagh and issued with a punishment shooting for creaming off money from PIRA activies for themselves.
Sort of ironic and contradictory that some of those dishing out the punishment were probably loaded from smuggling, etc.

Sorry, this has gone pretty far off topic.

We are in agreement here

FTA69

Jon wrote: »

You know, thats a fair point. The law of the land however, has always been - once there's a border, there'll be smuggling. And in fairness, the only one getting ripped off is the tax man, while ordinary folk get good old cheap diesel - win/win!

It does raise worrying questions though, when senior members of the Provisional Republican Movement utilise their positions to amass millions for personal gain through crime (albeit not the worst crime in the world.)

yomchi

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Well I wouldn't like to comment on the quality of that particular diesel.
As for the ordinary folk well they'll be paying the same price,
unfortunately they'll most likely be getting dodgy diesel without even knowing it.
To be fair if you want cheap diesel you can just go and legally buy
red from a garage. It's using in a car is the illegal part.

My main problem with this is people who claim to be republians putting their own interests first.

Traditionally in South Armagh smuggling / diesel laundering, etc was used as a major source of finance for the PIRA.
As time passed it seems that the line between 'fund raising' and profiteering got more and more blurred until we have the present day situation where it's pretty much plain old crime with people just earning for themselves.

Contrast this with say Dublin where traditionally the PIRA engaged in armed robberies to raise funds for the activities that were going on in the North.
Now consider how well it would have went down if these people decided to start keeping a quarter, a half or whatever amount of the proceeds of theses robberies, exactly.

A case in point would be the members of the Dublin Brigade of the PIRA who were summoned to South Armagh and issued with a punishment shooting for creaming off money from PIRA activies for themselves.
Sort of ironic and contradictory that some of those dishing out the punishment were probably loaded from smuggling, etc.

Sorry, this has gone pretty far off topic.

I don't think smuggling is such a huge crime to be honest. The public and workers are not getting robbed.
I think that is the difference between DB members being punished for what can be termed as a real crime including the extortion of and threatening of workers, and someone who makes a few quid from avoiding paying duty tax on the border which goes into the Queens treasury.
Hey thats my opinion.

K-9

Jon wrote: »

I don't think smuggling is such a huge crime to be honest. The public and workers are not getting robbed.
I think that is the difference between DB members being punished for what can be termed as a real crime including the extortion of and threatening of workers, and someone who makes a few quid from avoiding paying duty tax on the border which goes into the Queens treasury.
Hey thats my opinion.

I'm sure Paul Quinn's family will understand.

Irlbo

FTA69 wrote: »

It does raise worrying questions though, when senior members of the Provisional Republican Movement utilise their positions to amass millions for personal gain through crime (albeit not the worst crime in the world.)

Personally I love smuggling,I think its a big fantastic f*ck you to the British and 26 county governments,who insist on maintaining particition,so I say use it to your advantage,the movement makes money,people get normally overly dear goods and services cheaper then usual,everybody wins,what I have a problem with,is certain people using it for personal gain,making an absolute killing and getting away with it becuase their 'veterans',the money should be pumped in its entirity to the movement

oscarBravo

Jon wrote: »

And in fairness, the only one getting ripped off is the tax man, while ordinary folk get good old cheap diesel - win/win!

Apart, of course, from the cost to the ordinary folk of their government having to clean up all the toxic sludge left behind from the laundering operation.

Irlbo wrote: »

Personally I love smuggling... [insert justification for criminal activity here]

Strange attitude. I wonder if I said "personally I love armed robbery" and accompanied it with a convoluted political philosophy to justify it, would it be accepted as blithely?

yomchi

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apart, of course, from the cost to the ordinary folk of their government having to clean up all the toxic sludge left behind from the laundering operation

Thats a valid point, and one I completely ignored. There is a huge problem with diesel washing and the highly toxic chemicals that are left behind.

In reality, you don't need a border to launder diesel all you need is a rural area. It can't really be defined as smuggling to avoid duty tax.

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

I don't think smuggling is such a huge crime to be honest. The public and workers are not getting robbed.
I think that is the difference between DB members being punished for what can be termed as a real crime including the extortion of and threatening of workers, and someone who makes a few quid from avoiding paying duty tax on the border which goes into the Queens treasury.
Hey thats my opinion.

I personally don't really have a problem with smuggling or diesel laundering myself.
There are negative consquences, obviously, but they pale in comparison to drug dealing, violent crime etc.

My issue is with people abusing their position, etc, to line their own pockets.

oscarBravo

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

I personally don't really have a problem with smuggling or diesel laundering myself.
There are negative consquences, obviously, but they pale in comparison to drug dealing, violent crime etc.

My issue is with people abusing their position, etc, to line their own pockets.

I remain bewildered. Criminal activity is OK, as long as it's used to further a political cause, but not if it's used to personally enrich individuals?

If you substitute "pickpocketing" for "smuggling" above, does your philosophy hold? What about insurance fraud?

Is it a philosophy that's acceptable only when applied to political movements you personally agree with? If someone else believes as passionately in Loyalism, are smuggling and diesel laundering perfectly acceptable practices for them to engage in, as long as they don't line their own pockets?

Armin_Tamzarian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I remain bewildered. Criminal activity is OK, as long as it's used to further a political cause, but not if it's used to personally enrich individuals?

That's an over-generalisation.
My comments about smuggling aside I was making a criticsm of people
who engage in 'fund raising activities' deciding to line their own pocets instead of the organisation they were originally suppose to be 'fund raising' for.
Also, I do find it alot more acceptable for people to engage in crime for the reasons of raising money as opposed to raising money for themselves.
That isn't to say I support the organisation that they are fund raising for.
It just makes the crime seem somewhat more honourable than if they were just lining their own problems.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you substitute "pickpocketing" for "smuggling" above, does your philosophy hold? What about insurance fraud?

Yes to insurance fraud and no to pickpocketing.
I'm not saying that any crime is completely acceptable.
However, IMO, crimes that aren't against individuals or where people as
individuals don't suffer directly as a result of that crime being committed are alot more acceptable to me that crimes against people.

I'm sure people can try making arguments about insurance premiums going up etc, but this is a whole world apart from having your person or your property violated by a criminal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it a philosophy that's acceptable only when applied to political movements you personally agree with? If someone else believes as passionately in Loyalism, are smuggling and diesel laundering perfectly acceptable practices for them to engage in, as long as they don't line their own pockets?

Again, I never stated I agreed with any political movement.
I don't have a problem with anyone laundering diesel, be they republican, loyalist or whatever.
As a crime it doesn't make it better or worse who profits from it.
The previous point being made was a criticism of republicans abusing their position.

Regarding other crimes such as drug dealing, extortion, armed robbery.
I don't agree with under any circumstance.

oscarBravo

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

That's an over-generalisation.
My comments about smuggling aside I was making a criticsm of people
who engage in 'fund raising activities' deciding to line their own pocets instead of the organisation they were originally suppose to be 'fund raising' for.

If someone who is supposed to be fundraising for homeless orphans lines their own pocket, they're scum. If someone is "fundraising" for a terrorist organisation, they're scum anyway.

Also, I do find it alot more acceptable for people to engage in crime for the reasons of raising money as opposed to raising money for themselves.
That isn't to say I support the organisation that they are fund raising for.
It just makes the crime seem somewhat more honourable than if they were just lining their own problems.

Ah, the ordinary decent terrorist. It doesn't matter that the laundered diesel pays for the gun used to murder a Guard; as long as nobody gets a flat-screen TV out of it, it's all good.

Yes to insurance fraud and no to pickpocketing.
I'm not saying that any crime is completely acceptable.
However, IMO, crimes that aren't against individuals or where people as
individuals don't suffer directly as a result of that crime being committed are alot more acceptable to me that crimes against people.

I'm sure people can try making arguments about insurance premiums going up etc, but this is a whole world apart from having your person or your property violated by a criminal.

Not really, no. Insurance fraud isn't a victimless crime. Stealing a small amount from millions of people is as wrong as stealing a large amount from one person. It's stealing. It's wrong.

I don't have a problem with anyone laundering diesel, be they republican, loyalist or whatever.

If my van gets knackered by me unwittingly buying laundered diesel (and it can happen), I have a problem with it.

You really have bought into the myth of the victimless crime, haven't you?

Armin_Tamzarian

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone who is supposed to be fundraising for homeless orphans lines their own pocket, they're scum. If someone is "fundraising" for a terrorist organisation, they're scum anyway. Ah, the ordinary decent terrorist. It doesn't matter that the laundered diesel pays for the gun used to murder a Guard; as long as nobody gets a flat-screen TV out of it, it's all good.

The cause which the person is fundraising for may well make them, 'scum' as you put it.
That's not the point I'm making.
I'm making a criticism of the fact that someone lines their own pockets and abuses their position.
The morals of the cause they are fundraising is a seperate issue and one that there's not much point discussing.
People will just have their own views on what's an admirable cause and what is not.

Also the argument about the proceeds of crime being used to pay for gun used to murder a Garda doesn't stand up.
I could operate a law abiding, tax paying business and use my profits to purchase a gun to murder someone with, I'm sure it happens in a round about way.

Just because someone may use the proceeds of a certain activity for evil purposes doesn't mean that that activity then should become and evil activity.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really, no. Insurance fraud isn't a victimless crime. Stealing a small amount from millions of people is as wrong as stealing a large amount from one person. It's stealing. It's wrong. If my van gets knackered by me unwittingly buying laundered diesel (and it can happen), I have a problem with it.

I clearly stated in my post that I was aware that insurance fraud isn't a victimless crime just as I'm aware that pretty much every crime isn't victimless in some respects.
Saying that stealing a small amount from millions is as wrong as stealing a large amount from one person is a cliché and just isn't realistic.
Let's look a a hypothetical situation.
Some guy puts in a dodgy insurance claim and gets €40,000 from his insurers.
The knock on effect to the insurers customers of this one incindent of fraud will be negligible.
Now, lets say instead of doing his insurance scam this same guy steals €40,000 cash from some scared pensioner who had the money in their house in cash, as they didn't trust banks.
The pensioner is left peniless and scared to be alone in their own home for the rest of their days.
Can you really say that the insurance scam is just as bad a crime as this?
Both are crimes and both are wrong, however the degrees of wrongness vary greatly.

It's the same with what you say about dodgy diesel.
You may have to go and replace your van's fuel pump as a result of unwittingly buying the bad diesel but on a scale of victim's of crime you'd be somewhere very near the bottom.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You really have bought into the myth of the victimless crime, haven't you?

Hardly, I'm merely differentiating between differet crimes and the impact they have on people.
You'd be hard pushed to find someone that doesn't find some type of crime acceptable to them.
Be it, buying dodgy cigarettes, drink driving, tax evasion, speeding, etc.
The point is that some crimes are relatively victimless compared to others.