Civilian targets

Sand

And this happened how?

Legislation passed in Westminster mainly, in reaction to the highlighting of Stormonts complete inability to govern Northern Ireland and its heavy handed oppression of the Civil Rights movement which embarrassed and shamed the UK.

Terence O Neill obviously made some small early steps towards reversing the oppression, but that was too much for Stormont.

The Provos only increased oppression of Northern Catholics and nationalists - both in their own intimidation of their neighbours and in enouraging and creating a situation where the British army was deployed into the streets of Northern Ireland and Loyalist terrorist groups engaged in retaliatory attacks on Catholics to avenge Provo atrocities.

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.

Give them some credit - even if they are all "perks and mercs" its a whole evolutionary level above being scum who abduct the mother of 10 children, torture her, execute her and then dump her body in an unmarked grave so she cant be given a proper burial. And then to spread lies and innuendo about her to further wound her children.

Oh wait - its the same ****ers. Except you respected them more back in "the good old days".

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.

No, the material gains were pre ceasefire [ with the exception of some bank robberies I suppose...]. All that changed is that, like Slab Murphy they are immune to prosecution as part of the political deal so they can reveal the money and spend it now in the open. The "kudos" was again pre ceasefire. Provos are already complaining that kids in their neighbourhoods are no longer terrified of being abducted and beaten almost to death or being maimed for life. That must really wound their pride.

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,

And the answer is yes - the Provos deliberately killed civillians by planting that bomb in a civillian area and triggering it when it was packed with civillians.

And I know you never heard of Enniskillen - youre a nationalist so you never hear about the atrocities of your own side.

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.

People who felt the urge to volunteer to maim their neighbours and bomb shops and pubs for some stupid pointless bitterness didnt all get everything they deserved. Nope, definitly not all of them got what they deserved.

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.

Ah give it a rest. The mafia get similar respect from their neighbours. Because its a brave man indeed who disrespects them. Many of the Provos victims, especially in punishment beatings only made the mistake of not respecting them. The McCartneys were driven out of their home by these brave hearted patriots for daring to seek justice for their brother.

,the reason for this support and why IRA volunteers mostly originate from working class area

Pretty much the same reason why the mafia recruits its footsoldiers from poor and working class areas...

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

Ah I see - I am greatly mistaken to think kidnapping a mans family and forcing him to drive a bomb to a checkpoint as a suicide bomber is a disgusting and cowardly acts. Its actually a brave, patriotic act that should make me feel proud to be Irish.

The Provos are degenerate scum. Filth. The same sort of people that shoved Jews into gas chambers and gang raped Bosnian women in Yugoslavia. Committing any atrocity, all for the ****ing cause. And of course, people who disagree...they just wouldnt understand that it was all done for love of country. :rolleyes:

That you look up to them...well, thats a matter for you.

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?

When Sinn Fein doesnt greet IRA gangs like the Balcombe Street gang as heroes for mighty deeds like throwing nail bombs into London resteraunts, then I might differentiate between them. When the leadership of Sinn Fein arent IRA terrorists then I might differentiate between them. Until then, I leave the hair splitting to the Provos themselves who are on the one hand desperately proud of the PIRA, but on the other hand desperately ashamed of being identified as an actual supporter of the PIRA.

As for the Provo support in the areas they terrorise - well, again - it takes a very brave man to disrespect a Provo. Assuming he values his internal organs and limbs. And you have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome? A victims identification with his violent, aggressive master?

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

Provos have always put their own interests first. Certainly well before the interests of anyone else to stay alive, or hale and hearty.

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.

Honour among thieves?

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.)

Dont worry FTA, we already knew that you wouldnt consider anything Provos did to be all that bad really.

I don't think smuggling is such a huge crime to be honest.

Personally I love smuggling,I think its a big fantastic f*ck you to the British and 26 county governments,

Yup, sure arent they great patriots all the same. They cant do anything really bad - shure theyre patriots.

All you great Irish patriots really need to listen to yourselves. Youre laughable. Provos would complain about Fianna Fail corruption when they are the greatest criminal racket north or south of the border. I guess a little guy like me who pays his taxes to his government just isnt as patriotic as you guys who dont. I just wouldnt understand how patriotic it is to not pay taxes whilst complaining that the government isnt spending **** loads on socialist programmes.

You lot are a joke.

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?

Just make up some crap about the money being used for the good of Ireland and theyll cheer you on and support you. Easily duped.

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.

Would you have a problem with murder then?

Armin_Tamzarian

Sand wrote: »

Give them some credit - even if they are all "perks and mercs" its a whole evolutionary level above being scum who abduct the mother of 10 children, torture her, execute her and then dump her body in an unmarked grave so she cant be given a proper burial. And then to spread lies and innuendo about her to further wound her children.

See, this is the problem.
People try to debate something intelligently and this sort of nonsense gets thrown up as an excuse for a point of view.
Anybody can come along and make the tired old statement 'the IRA are scum', its' not exactly a well though out argument though is it.

Presumably you're referring to the case of Jean McConville.
Yes, she was abducted and killed by the IRA.
Obviously the fact that she was an informer was the motivation for the killing but lets face it, killing a mother and leaving a load of children orphans is never going to go down too good.
I however am not condoning what the IRA did.

You throw out an example like this with the implication that,
well, the IRA did this so they're evil scum, end of.
What then about the British Army and Bloody Sunday?
Should be by your logic also classify the British Army as evil scum?
The answer, no, of course not.
In any conflict, terrible things are going to be perpetrated by all sides involved.

Sand wrote: »

All that changed is that, like Slab Murphy they are immune to prosecution as part of the political deal so they can reveal the money and spend it now in the open.

'Slab' Murphy is an unfortunately poor example to use.
The man lives a relatively simple life and still lives in the farmhouse that he grew up in.
The money that is attributed to him is most likely the money
of the Republica movement and not his own personal fortune.
Also, he's hardly above the law.
If you watch the news you will have seen him in and out of court in the last couple of years.
I think that he's also facing tax evasion charges in the Special Criminal Court.

Sand wrote: »

Would you have a problem with murder then?

One could easily answer that question with 'yes all murder is terrible and the perpetrators are evil scum'.
However, it's alot more complicated than that.

There are so may different classes of murdered.
At the top, we have the worst kind, the ones who ethnic cleanse.
The ones who are guilty of genocide, such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Then we have the like of serial killers.
Killing indiscriminately and usually combining the sickest of sexual assaults with the murders.
The majority of these are insane though but this level of insanity is
so far gone it's beyond out comprehension.
Do we kill them, send them to prison for life or send them to hospital?

But what about the murderers that we empathise with.
The child who can't take the sexual abuse at the hands of a parent any longer and murders them.
Or the parent who mureders the one who killed their daughter but got off in court.

Finally we have the type of murderer you are referring to.
You call them 'Murdering IRA scum', however some would call them 'heroic freedom fighters', it's all about perspective.

Like it or not the troubles was a war situation.
At it's basic core the republican side was trying to regain the 6 counties
stolen by the British.
On the other side, unionists / loyalists wanted to remain part of the UK.

Now, you would have the IRA dismissed as murdering criminals who should have a place reserved for them in hell beside Hitler and Stalin.

However, cast your mind back to the old IRA, the ones that won the war of Independence against the British.
Regarded as many (dare I say a majority) in Ireland as heros.
There struggle is recorded as a right and gallant struggle.
But how much of a difference is there between the struggle then and the troubles in the North.
It's easy to look back at the war of independence with rose tinted spectacles but I can assure you that some of the IRAs actions were just as shocking as those of the PIRA.

Then move across the world to other uprisings and rebellione.
The American war of independence for example.

How much can you really differentiate between them all

Sand

See, this is the problem.
People try to debate something intelligently and this sort of nonsense gets thrown up as an excuse for a point of view.
Anybody can come along and make the tired old statement 'the IRA are scum', its' not exactly a well though out argument though is it.

It fits the frame of the debate - when Provos try to pretend that actually bombing pubs and resteraunts isnt all that bad, that abducting and murdering people isnt all that bad, that kidnapping families to force the father of children to act as suicide bombers isnt all that bad then the basic reality needs to be reinforced bluntly and as often is as required to sink in.

The Provos were and are scum. There no debate about that. Intelligent or otherwise.

If you watch the news you will have seen him in and out of court in the last couple of years.

But never in jail. Even you dont consider him innocent, but yet hes never convicted...must be great having criminals in government.

One could easily answer that question with 'yes all murder is terrible and the perpetrators are evil scum'.
However, it's alot more complicated than that.

Youre confusing murder with killing. Killing would be a more technical term. Murder implies criminality, illegality and an indefensible killing. I guess though if youre busily working to ensure that nothing is ever "wrong" and nothing is ever "right" then minor differences like that would be lost.

You call them 'Murdering IRA scum', however some would call them 'heroic freedom fighters', it's all about perspective.

So? Who cares? Im sure Loyalists had a different perspective of the Shankill Butchers as opposed their victims who were slaughtered. Everyone has a perspective. That doesnt imply theyre not wrong, morally bankrupt and devoid of any judgement or common sense.

Like it or not the troubles was a war situation.

No it wasnt.

The Provos did not fight a war. They did not fight as any sort of lawful military force. They did not hold to any rules of war. They deliberately targeted civillians. They executed their captives in cold blood. They engaged in widespread criminality and intimidation of anyone who opposed their criminality. They are just another mafia style organisation, no better than the Loyalists.

There struggle is recorded as a right and gallant struggle.

Mainly because they won and wrote the history books to suit their version of events and to cover up their atrocities and crimes. There are still those who passionately believe that a partioned Ireland that was basically a dominion could not have been achieved politically. Only through violence. Thats a matter of perspective. Its also wrong.

Armin_Tamzarian

Sand wrote: »

It fits the frame of the debate - when Provos try to pretend that actually bombing pubs and resteraunts isnt all that bad, that abducting and murdering people isnt all that bad, that kidnapping families to force the father of children to act as suicide bombers isnt all that bad then the basic reality needs to be reinforced bluntly and as often is as required to sink in.

The majority of the posters here, regardless of their personal opinions have exepressed disgust at certain acts perpetrated by repblicans,
including, Kingsmill and the use of Proxy bombs.

Sand wrote: »

The Provos were and are scum. There no debate about that. Intelligent or otherwise.

Well the fact that we're currently discussing this would suggest that
this statement is false.

Sand wrote: »

But never in jail. Even you dont consider him innocent, but yet hes never convicted...must be great having criminals in government.

I never expressed an opinion on whether he was guilty or innocent.
That's for the courts to decided.
I'm not sure about the relevance about your claim that there are criminals in government.

Sand wrote: »

Youre confusing murder with killing. Killing would be a more technical term. Murder implies criminality, illegality and an indefensible killing. I guess though if youre busily working to ensure that nothing is ever "wrong" and nothing is ever "right" then minor differences like that would be lost.

Murder is when a sane person, sufficiently old to be criminally responsible, unlawfully kills another person (who is born and alive), under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the victim dies within a year and a day after the same.

Sand wrote: »

So? Who cares? Im sure Loyalists had a different perspective of the Shankill Butchers as opposed their victims who were slaughtered. Everyone has a perspective. That doesnt imply theyre not wrong, morally bankrupt and devoid of any judgement or common sense.

The Shankill Butchers is a particularly bad exampe.
Only the most twisted human being out there could express support for such an act.
However, if Loyalists targetted and killed an active member of the IRA then I could completely understand this.
I would also deem such a killing to be very far removed from murdering an innocen civilian.
I may not support such an act or think it's right but I could understand the reason behind it, just as I can understand the reason behing certain IRA attacks.

Sand wrote: »

No it wasnt.
The Provos did not fight a war. They did not fight as any sort of lawful military force.

Most peoples engaged in an uprising, war of independence, etc aren't a 'lawful military force'.
As I pointed on previously with respect to the Irish war of Independence and the American war of Independence.

Sand wrote: »

There are still those who passionately believe that a partioned Ireland that was basically a dominion could not have been achieved politically. Only through violence. Thats a matter of perspective. Its also wrong.

Don't you think that all other options were exhausted before war was declared on the British.
What do you think Parnell and his like were trying to do for years?

Stones85

Jesus this thread has been beaten to death.
Why is everyone arguing and counter arguing over the same points over and over and over. The problem with british occupation of Ireland will always throw up the hardcore's who can't see reason, why engage them in discussion when it's obvious they are incapable of it? Largely due to the fact that they're ignorant as fck and because they grew up there/knew people there that they are are an authority on the subject. They don't read posts, they see Irish nationalism and go rabit at the mouth shouting "terrorists" "murderers" "scum" etc etc and never actually take in whats being said, totally reactionary as they have always been, they are Englands "pavlovs dogs" and they're so finely tuned in their condition that they will make themselves suffer and activaly allow themselves to be used by GB in order to stamp out Irish nationalism/republicanism not matter the personal cost.

Just mention Irish nationalism/republicanism and see the mouth drewl. The constantly harp on about republican apologists, omg, they way they go on you'd swear britains actiops inIreland and across the globe was saintly, never mind the SS RUC, the mUrDeRers, the list is endless, get over it, you are on the WRONG side of history

Just to clarify, I think that certain Provisional actions were horrifying in the extreme, but imo they never had any sort of campagn againts the civilian population, true they may have targeted those who they rightly or wrongly viewed as collaberating with the enemy. But no civilian campagn like the loyalist death squads, British military and itelligence organisations had running for 30 years.

Maybe it's all pot calling kettle black.

yomchi

Stones85 wrote: »

Jesus this thread has been beaten to death.
Why is everyone arguing and counter arguing over the same points over and over and over. The problem with british occupation of Ireland will always throw up the hardcore's who can't see reason, why engage them in discussion when it's obvious they are incapable of it? Largely due to the fact that they're ignorant as fck and because they grew up there/knew people there that they are are an authority on the subject. They don't read posts, they see Irish nationalism and go rabit at the mouth shouting "terrorists" "murderers" "scum" etc etc and never actually take in whats being said, totally reactionary as they have always been, they are Englands "pavlovs dogs" and they're so finely tuned in their condition that they will make themselves suffer and activaly allow themselves to be used by GB in order to stamp out Irish nationalism/republicanism not matter the personal cost.

Just mention Irish nationalism/republicanism and see the mouth drewl. The constantly harp on about republican apologists, omg, they way they go on you'd swear britains actiops inIreland and across the globe was saintly, never mind the SS RUC, the mUrDeRers, the list is endless, get over it, you are on the WRONG side of history

Just to clarify, I think that certain Provisional actions were horrifying in the extreme, but imo they never had any sort of campagn againts the civilian population, true they may have targeted those who they rightly or wrongly viewed as collaberating with the enemy. But no civilian campagn like the loyalist death squads, British military and itelligence organisations had running for 30 years.

Maybe it's all pot calling kettle black.

Pavlov's Dogs - what an excellent analogy!

Thats a good post there chara.
In 1970's the IRA issued statements to civilians living in areas that they were active in. The statement is still floating around somewhere. It said basically that if the British Army were present any where at any time, to make sure they got themselves into their houses our away from the street ASAP. This was due to a number of IRA operations that had to be cancelled due to civillian presence, on both sides of the divide.

During it's England Campaign, the IRA used coded warnings to tell the authoritues they were about to detonate a bomb. There was usually about 45 minutes to an hour given (depending) so the authority's could evacuate the area. Take Canary Wharf, if the IRA hadn't of given a warning there would have been thousands killed, maimed or otherwise. Unfortunately, two shop keepers were missed in the evacuation and were unfortunately killed as a result. This proved that the IRA strategy was aimed at the economy of Britain and not it's people.
The period of time where most civilians were killed duriing IRA operations, was during the early 1970's when the IRA's bomb making capabilites were crude to say the least. There were many many IRA operatives killed whilst working and transporting these devices, unfortunately they also took civilian life in the process.
No warning IED detonations were deplorable even if they were reactionary or a mistake.

"Sunday, 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured.

While it was not our intention to injure or kill non- combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions. It is, therefore, appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us. We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives. The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants. It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.

The process of conflict resolution requires the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others. On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt. The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland. We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents. This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others."

Armin_Tamzarian

Stones85 wrote: »

Jesus this thread has been beaten to death.
Why is everyone arguing and counter arguing over the same points over and over and over. The problem with british occupation of Ireland will always throw up the hardcore's who can't see reason, why engage them in discussion when it's obvious they are incapable of it? Largely due to the fact that they're ignorant as fck and because they grew up there/knew people there that they are are an authority on the subject. They don't read posts, they see Irish nationalism and go rabit at the mouth shouting "terrorists" "murderers" "scum" etc etc and never actually take in whats being said, totally reactionary as they have always been, they are Englands "pavlovs dogs" and they're so finely tuned in their condition that they will make themselves suffer and activaly allow themselves to be used by GB in order to stamp out Irish nationalism/republicanism not matter the personal cost.

Just mention Irish nationalism/republicanism and see the mouth drewl. The constantly harp on about republican apologists, omg, they way they go on you'd swear britains actiops inIreland and across the globe was saintly, never mind the SS RUC, the mUrDeRers, the list is endless, get over it, you are on the WRONG side of history

Just to clarify, I think that certain Provisional actions were horrifying in the extreme, but imo they never had any sort of campagn againts the civilian population, true they may have targeted those who they rightly or wrongly viewed as collaberating with the enemy. But no civilian campagn like the loyalist death squads, British military and itelligence organisations had running for 30 years.

Maybe it's all pot calling kettle black.

+1

Certain people would be alot better off if they put some effort into their posts rather than seeing the letters IRA and automatically going into a rant about how evil they were.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

+1

Certain people would be alot better off if they put some effort into their posts rather than seeing the letters IRA and automatically going into a rant about how evil they were.

I think some posters are like that, others like myself think the likes of the McCartney, McCabe etc. killers are just murderers, no excuses.

Armin_Tamzarian

K-9 wrote: »

I think some posters are like that, others like myself think the likes of the McCartney, McCabe etc. killers are just murderers, no excuses.

Your entitled to your opinion and it's one I'm sure is shared by countless others.

What now is your opinion to the IRA targetting civilians as asked in your original post?

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Your entitled to your opinion and it's one I'm sure is shared by countless others.

What now is your opinion to the IRA targetting civilians as asked in your original post?

As I said away back, Warrenpoint was a perfect example of a well planned guerrila attack.

IMO, Too many Gardai were murdered in robberies, kidnappings etc.

Also, Enniskillen, Warrington, Canary Wharf, Le Mon and Shankhill involved civilian targets. You can argue semantics all you like but the IRA knew there was a high risk of civilian deaths. It's like arguing Michael Stone was justified because IRA members were at the funerals.

Armin_Tamzarian

Your point is fair enough.
Narrow Water was the IRA's most well executed attack, with minimal risk to civilians.

I wouldn't include Canary Wharf in the same group as Enniskillen etc.
2 people died but they had been told to leave the area and risked their own lives by returning to remove takings from their till.

I'd also have to take slight issue with the Michael Stone comparison.
He wasn't aiming for anyone in particular.
He just wanted to kill.
IMO the deaths of civilians in attacks such as Warrington can largely be contributed to the IRA having an over cavaliar attitude to the lives of innocent people, I still don't think this puts them in the same league as that deranged psychopath.

Dessy O'Hare would probably be closer to being the republican sides equivalent to Michael Stone than anyone else I can think of.

yomchi

K-9 wrote: »

As I said away back, Warrenpoint was a perfect example of a well planned guerrila attack.

IMO, Too many Gardai were murdered in robberies, kidnappings etc.

Also, Enniskillen, Warrington, Canary Wharf, Le Mon and Shankhill involved civilian targets. You can argue semantics all you like but the IRA knew there was a high risk of civilian deaths. It's like arguing Michael Stone was justified because IRA members were at the funerals.

There were civilian casualities on both sides. You cannot criticise one half of the equation without keeping in mind the reason the IRA exists. The British government tried to fight the IRA on a number of levels, within it's dirty war of informers and collusion, ulsterisation and criminalisation - from these strategies more civilians were killed than there were from the bombings you mention. You cannot and should not concentrate on civilians killed from one side of a nasty war, especially when the kings of nasty war were involved and inherently responsible for it.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Your point is fair enough.
Narrow Water was the IRA's most well executed attack, with minimal risk to civilians.

I wouldn't include Canary Wharf in the same group as Enniskillen etc.
2 people died but they had been told to leave the area and risked their own lives by returning to remove takings from their till.

I'll give you that one.:cool:

Armin_Tamzarian wrote:

I'd also have to take slight issue with the Michael Stone comparison.
He wasn't aiming for anyone in particular.
He just wanted to kill.

Indeed, complete nutter, but when people make excuses like some on this thread for Enniskillen, people can make excuses for other atrocities. Some have said there should have been UDR/RUC closer to the bomb, some could say Stone was attacking IRA members and sympathisers. That's the problem with excuses and whataboutery.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote:

IMO the deaths of civilians in attacks such as Warrington can largely be contributed to the IRA having an over cavaliar attitude to the lives of innocent people, I still don't think this puts them in the same league as that deranged psychopath.

Or knowingly attacking Civilian targets. I think everybody can agree a shopping centre is not an economic target, it's a civilian target. On the psychopath, there is various levels! :cool:

K-9

Jon wrote: »

There were civilian casualities on both sides. You cannot criticise one half of the equation without keeping in mind the reason the IRA exists. The British government tried to fight the IRA on a number of levels, within it's dirty war of informers and collusion, ulsterisation and criminalisation - from these strategies more civilians were killed than there were from the bombings you mention. You cannot and should not concentrate on civilians killed from one side of a nasty war, especially when the kings of nasty war were involved and inherently responsible for it.

The thread is simply about the IRA. Whataboutery is an excuse. That's why I specifically mentioned in the OP Shoot to kill etc. etc. etc. and Loyalist atrocities which would be generally accepted.

PS. Bear in mind that it was often RUC/Army officers who whistleblowed on what happened. The RUC officers who talked to Stalker at great personal risk were the real heroes of the Troubles. There point was "we shouldn't be going down to the IRA's level". I've huge respect for them.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

The Provos only increased oppression of Northern Catholics and nationalists - both in their own intimidation of their neighbours and in enouraging and creating a situation where the British army was deployed into the streets of Northern Ireland and Loyalist terrorist groups engaged in retaliatory attacks on Catholics to avenge Provo atrocities.

They were primarily sent in to keep both sides apart - generally meaning keeping loyalist mobs out of isolated catholic areas. The first British soldier killed in the North was killed by a loyalist.

In addition, the Provisionals were only formed in December 1969, due to the reluctance of the Official IRA to take up arms in defence of the catholic population. The rioting that brought the British Army to be deployed was in August 1969. It would seem that your timeline is somewhat skewed.

yomchi

I think everybody can agree a shopping centre is not an economic target

Did you really type that? Seriously. A shopping centre in a massive British city...no of course it wasn't economic :rolleyes:

Republicans knew they fcuked up on that operation. It has been well documented. Even Colin Parry acknowledges that:

Gerry Adams was invited to speak at the Tim Parry/Jonathan Ball foundation night:

TEXT
Let me begin by thanking Colin and Wendy Parry, and the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace, and Clifford Chance, for the invitation to speak tonight.

14 years ago two IRA bombs exploded in Warrington. Johnathan was killed immediately and Tim died six days later. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace is an optimistic example of how people, who have been grievously hurt, are able to meet that challenge head on and to produce something good and constructive, and positive and compassionate, from it.

I therefore want to acknowledge Colin and Wendy Parry's personal journey and how they have created this positive space from the place of deep trauma and grief they personally experienced.

Irish republicans -- the IRA -- was responsible for what happened that day. It brought huge grief to these two families, as well as to others hurt in that incident. The IRA expressed its regret at what had happened. In 2002 it apologised to all those non combatants it had killed or injured and their families.

I have also expressed my personal and sincere regret, and apologised for the hurt inflicted by republicans. I do so again this evening. This is the right and proper thing to do

More from here - http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/21489

The thread is simply about the IRA. Whataboutery is an excuse

Narrow minded, uneducated post. It's shameful that you continue to ignore facts about lose of life on boths sides, and dismiss it as 'whataboutery' - shameful and distasteful and highlights your dismal agenda in starting this thread.
Unfortunate.

K-9

Jon wrote: »

Narrow minded, uneducated post. It's shameful that you continue to ignore facts about lose of life on boths sides, and dismiss it as 'whataboutery' - shameful and distasteful and highlights your dismal agenda in starting this thread.
Unfortunate.

I'm well educated on the Troubles. I think the problem is we are concentrating on specific atrocities and it doesn't suit your argument. An atrocity is an atrocity, whataboutery or not.

Many RUC officers whistleblowed, we owe them immense gratitude, including the IRA.

yomchi

K-9 wrote: »

I'm well educated on the Troubles. I think the problem is we are concentrating on specific atrocities and it doesn't suit your argument. An atrocity is an atrocity, whataboutery or not.

Many RUC officers whistleblowed, we owe them immense gratitude, including the IRA.

You don't seem to be.
You think the problem is? There is no doubt the problem is. It suits you to concentrate on specific atrocities - what kind of twisted logic is that?

My argument? I'm basing my opinion on fact, and in no post did I deny the killing of civilains was unfortunate - so you are not denting my 'argument' by saying that. You're basing your opinion on skewed information and personal choice. You are trying to imply the IRA intended on killing civilains. I have searched out actual statements where the IRA unequivically apologised for unintentional civilian casualties. This is not good enough for you however. Let's face it, if the IRA was intending on killing civilians there would be thousands more dead today than there are. Your argument is dead in the water, mistakes were made, but saying the IRA intended on killing civilians is an argument well and truly empty. Pointless in fact.

K-9

Jon wrote: »

You're basing your opinion on skewed information

You are quoting from Sinn Fein.

yomchi

K-9 wrote: »

You are quoting from Sinn Fein.

You've already won debater of the year award.

K-9

Jon wrote: »

You've already won debater of the year award.

You won muppet of the year!

Accusing people of using skewed information and then quoting SF is too hypocritical for me. For a debate you need equal ground rules.

yomchi

K-9 wrote: »

You won muppet of the year!

Accusing people of using skewed information and then quoting SF is too hypocritical for me. For a debate you need equal ground rules.

Intelligent.

nesf

Toys back in the prams please.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Toys back in the prams please.

Apologies. I've said my piece, the debate is going around in circles 16 pages later. Even debates have to end sometime.

Armin_Tamzarian

Nodin wrote: »

They were primarily sent in to keep both sides apart - generally meaning keeping loyalist mobs out of isolated catholic areas. The first British soldier killed in the North was killed by a loyalist.

In addition, the Provisionals were only formed in December 1969, due to the reluctance of the Official IRA to take up arms in defence of the catholic population. The rioting that brought the British Army to be deployed was in August 1969. It would seem that your timeline is somewhat skewed.

To add, the British Soldiers were originally welcomed by catholic communities in 1969, until they started joining in with rioting Loyalists.

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

Did you really type that? Seriously. A shopping centre in a massive British city...no of course it wasn't economic :rolleyes:

Was the bomb you're referring to not placed in a litter bin on a street?

Armin_Tamzarian

Jon wrote: »

Narrow minded, uneducated post. It's shameful that you continue to ignore facts about lose of life on boths sides, and dismiss it as 'whataboutery' - shameful and distasteful and highlights your dismal agenda in starting this thread.
Unfortunate.

To be fair, there's been far worse posters than K-9 in this thread.

K-9

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

To be fair, there's been far worse posters than K-9 in this thread.

Cheers. I think the confusion here is I don't fit either stereotype. I don't defend the IRA for the sake of it or attack them for the sake of it.

Nodin

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

To add, the British Soldiers were originally welcomed by catholic communities in 1969, until they started joining in with rioting Loyalists.

Well, it was more the fact they were under local control. They became just another uniformed enforcer of the status quo. Also, many of these people were veterans of other 'colonial' disputes and believed in the merits of being harsh on the 'natives'.

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

To be fair, there's been far worse posters than K-9 in this thread. .

Indeed, hes been fair and free of much of the usual froth, as far as I can see.

Armin_Tamzarian

Nodin wrote: »

Well, it was more the fact they were under local control.

True, I should have said that the soldiers sided with rather than joined in with Loyalist elements.
It's understandable really.
Especially with alot of Scottish soldiers who would have identified themselves alot more with the Protestand population than the Catholic.
After all, the Protestant population's roots are primarily in Scotland.