Compensation for victims of IRA voilence

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

But yet Captain Fred Holroyd, a british army captain stated that Nairac was involved. Not to mention that 3 members of the UDR were convicted for their part in the attack. No misinterpretation there. Nothing to do with "Republican cause".

You mean the man described in the Barron enquiry as a "Walter Mitty type"?

dlofnep wrote: »

Which Britain itself is itself responsible for.

no, the bombs, provided by Libya, were placed by members of the IRA, in areas where they were designed to kill civilians. Fair enough if they were used against military or political targets, but personally I don't call Argos a military target.

dlofnep wrote: »

I do. Who is the "you" you are referring to?

to whoever feels it is appropriate.

DoireNod

captainblack wrote: »

Involvement of individual policemen or soldiers in any particular incident or chain of incidents does not add up to UK state involvement. If a member of The Guarda colludes with a drugs gang in Dublin, it does not prove that The Irish state is colluding with drug gangs.

For the record, I don't see collusion as a dirty word. I would have no problem if the security forces and/or The UK state had played a role in The Dublin and Monaghan bombings. There was a war on at that time. However, I have yet to see evidence that The UVF was aided substantially in that particular operation. In fact, I would have thought The UVF would have been more than happy to off load the responsibility onto others, if it could have done - especially now.

As for collusion in general, I'd have liked to have seen far more of it during 'the troubles'. It would ultimately have ensured the saving of innocent lives. Remember, a dead IRA man would have meant a live prospective Protestant victim, and also a live prospective Catholic revenge victim.

Your post is madness.

Collusion is collusion. If an agent of the British government colludes with a terrorist group, surely, the British Government being involved with the terrorist group can be implicated in the same way as other governments are targeted for being involved with the IRA.

It also appears to heap sole blame for the Troubles on the IRA and no matter how much spin is put on it, it is not the case.

dlofnep

captainblack wrote: »

For the record, I don't see collusion as a dirty word. I would have no problem if the security forces and/or The UK state had played a role in The Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

Hi Futurehope.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You mean the man described in the Barron enquiry as a "Walter Mitty type"?

He was good enough for the British government to be a captain in the army, and good enough to be a member of the Mi6 - But once he says the word "Collusion" - he's not a Walter Mitty type, aye?

The same Baron report might I add, that states that members of security forces had made false statements about him to sully his name, and thus rendering his evidence as less genuine?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no, the bombs, provided by Libya, were placed by members of the IRA, in areas where they were designed to kill civilians. Fair enough if they were used against military or political targets, but personally I don't call Argos a military target.

You're missing the point. Britain is just as responsible for supplying weapons to other factions responsible for the deaths of civilians. Even more-so.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

to whoever feels it is appropriate.

How convenient.

Fratton Fred

DoireNod wrote: »

Your post is madness.

Collusion is collusion. If an agent of the British government colludes with a terrorist group, surely, the British Government being involved with the terrorist group can be implicated in the same way as other governments are targeted for being involved with the IRA.

It appears to heap sole blame for the Troubles on the IRA and no matter how much spin is put on it, it is not the case.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

Some collusion helped prevent murders by Loyalist groups, by running informers insode those organisations, some collusion was fairly simple and to extent, (I believe) understandable.

I have heard a tale of an IRA "Player" who was known to have killed a young soldier, being kidnapped, bound and gagged, Fenian written across his forehead and dumped outside a loyalist pub. Is that right? no of course not, is it understandable? If i was a sargeant in the british Army and someone killed an 18 year old in my care, I'd ****ing do it. It was a dirty war and both sides used dirty tactics.

I think where it starts to great very grey is aorund the UVF/UDR connection. The UDR was full of UVF members and was a soldier in the UDR helping members of the UVF collusion by the British Government? to me it smacks of a dirty regiment that should have been disbanded a long time ago and the proper soldiering left to more regular units. Should the MOD be held accountable? probably, yes, but as I said, it was a dirty war.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, but as I said, it was a dirty war.

Don't think I ever see you trying to justify the IRA's actions in that manner however in any of your past posts. Just an observation. Carry on.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

He was good enough for the British government to be a captain in the army, and good enough to be a member of the Mi6 - But once he says the word "Collusion" - he's not a Walter Mitty type, aye?

The same Baron report might I add, that states that members of security forces had made false statements about him to sully his name, and thus rendering his evidence as less genuine?

Good enough until they found someone better, captain Bob Nairac I believe.

In the Barron report they are very "Wary" of his testimony, although that may be because he does talk about a lot of meetings with the Bardai and the Irish army that the Irish government may not want to be made public knowledge.

dlofnep wrote: »

You're missing the point. Britain is just as responsible for supplying weapons to other factions responsible for the deaths of civilians. Even more-so.

we could spend all day discussing the morality of the arms industry. You can't blame someone for selling a car that is then used in a hit and run, but you can if you know full well that you are selling a car that will be used to intentionally run someone over.

dlofnep wrote: »

How convenient.

FWIW, it wasn't aimed at you, or DoireNod.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Don't think I ever see you trying to justify the IRA's actions in that manner however in any of your past posts. Just an observation. Carry on.

I don't think you will ever read a post from me where I have said that a military or political target was out of bounds (Feel free to go back and check). What i do consider to be out of bounds are pubs, shopping centres and railway stations.

warrior00

uprising wrote: »

Yes so you agree that all people who suffered from imported arms/munitions should be entitled to compensation from those who supplied the weapons used and those who used them.
I think "terrorists" should be categorized by the amount of innocent people killed by them, so some of the biggest terrorists regimes in the world would be governments, I categorize a terrorist as somebody who knowingly kills an innocent person for political or territorial advancement.
I categorize a person or group who defends their homeland, property, family and countrymen from armed occupation and slaughter as galant freedom fighters.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good enough until they found someone better, captain Bob Nairac I believe.

So you don't find it strange that's he's perfectly suitable for a role within the Mi6, but once it comes to giving evidence that may put the British state in a bad light, he's all of a sudden - a sketchy character? Have a little ponder about it for a minute, with all personal feelings aside and see if you can come to an honest conclusion.

There is an overwhelming catalog of evidence to show that collusion was a reality.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

we could spend all day discussing the morality of the arms industry. You can't blame someone for selling a car that is then used in a hit and run, but you can if you know full well that you are selling a car that will be used to intentionally run someone over.

You're really going to lose this debate if you want to continue it further. Although I'll be more than happy to correct you at every corner.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23702375-details/WORLD:+Britain+sold+arms+to+Sri+Lanka+while+civil+war+raged/article.do

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-britain-is-selling-weapons-to-the-most-unstable-places-on-earth-648992.html

Once again, have a read and a bit of a ponder. I think the honest conclusion you'll come to is that Britain is just as or even more guilty for providing arms to unsuitable recipients.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FWIW, it wasn't aimed at you, or DoireNod.

That's fine - I would never brush off the death of a civilian, Irish, British or anyone else for that matter. The IRA is responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians, and they will need to carry that burden. But at the same point - So is the British security forces, and loyalist terrorists.

Surely you agree that there is a level of hypocrisy from this whole thing.

A Dub in Glasgo

That much practiced trait but nobody ever wants to admit it is in evidence over this compo thing

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

So you don't find it strange that's he's perfectly suitable for a role within the Mi6, but once it comes to giving evidence that may put the British state in a bad light, he's all of a sudden - a sketchy character? Have a little ponder about it for a minute, with all personal feelings aside and see if you can come to an honest conclusion.

There is an overwhelming catalog of evidence to show that collusion was a reality.

I'm only going by what the Barron report said, it appears to be the gospel when it suits.

dlofnep wrote: »

You're really going to lose this debate if you want to continue it further. Although I'll be more than happy to correct you at every corner.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23702375-details/WORLD:+Britain+sold+arms+to+Sri+Lanka+while+civil+war+raged/article.do

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-britain-is-selling-weapons-to-the-most-unstable-places-on-earth-648992.html

Once again, have a read and a bit of a ponder. I think the honest conclusion you'll come to is that Britain is just as or even more guilty for providing arms to unsuitable recipients.

I'm no fan of the arms industry and there are a lot of governments on that list i would rather were not sold arms. Selling weapons to India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan is, i would suggest, a lot different to a government GIVING semtex to a terrorist organisation with the sole intention of using it to kill innocent people.

dlofnep wrote: »

That's fine - I would never brush off the death of a civilian, Irish, British or anyone else for that matter. The IRA is responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians, and they will need to carry that burden. But at the same point - So is the British security forces, and loyalist terrorists.

Surely you agree that there is a level of hypocrisy from this whole thing.

i don't disagree with you, but in this instance i believe the government are doing the right thing. Britain released the Lockerbie bomber, who was received in Libya to a hero's welcome, the British government should now be standing up for the rights of its own citizens. read Colin Parry's comments on the whole thing, it is not about money, it is about answering for a past wrong.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm only going by what the Barron report said, it appears to be the gospel when it suits.

I never said the Barron report was gospel - but there is an abundance of evidence to show that collusion was evident in the north. You seem to be looking for any reason to show otherwise. I'm not sure what the issue is with you accepting that collusion was present - there is no onus on you to protect the British Government. Your loyalties are peculiar, but to each their own.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm no fan of the arms industry and there are a lot of governments on that list i would rather were not sold arms. Selling weapons to India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan is, i would suggest, a lot different to a government GIVING semtex to a terrorist organisation with the sole intention of using it to kill innocent people.

You're spinning. The IRA's sole intention was not to kill innocent people. It was to defend and attack against the British armed forces. More innocent people, MUCH more innocent people died at the hands of those who used British weapons than did at the hands of the IRA. These are indisputable facts.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i don't disagree with you, but in this instance i believe the government are doing the right thing. Britain released the Lockerbie bomber, who was received in Libya to a hero's welcome, the British government should now be standing up for the rights of its own citizens.

Which brings me back to my point - should all the people who died at the hands of British forces and loyalist terrorists receive compensation too?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

read Colin Parry's comments on the whole thing, it is not about money, it is about answering for a past wrong.

I don't dispute that - But the British government have still not answered for their past. You still don't see the hypocrisy?

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm no fan of the arms industry and there are a lot of governments on that list i would rather were not sold arms. Selling weapons to India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan is, i would suggest, a lot different to a government GIVING semtex to a terrorist organisation with the sole intention of using it to kill innocent people.

A victim of the Shankill bomb disagrees with you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8241191.stm

A man who lost his wife in an IRA bomb attack in Belfast has said all states who supported acts of terror must be held to account for their actions.

Ciaranpm

I dont like agreeing with the libyans, bombs guns etc dont kill people, people kill people

some guy hit me with a merc will i look for compo of the germans i think not

Fratton Fred

Ciaranpm wrote: »

I dont like agreeing with the libyans, bombs guns etc dont kill people, people kill people

some guy hit me with a merc will i look for compo of the germans i think not

What if some guy wanted to run you over and someone bought a merc for him knowing he would use it to run you over? In fact, he went looking for that person with the sole intention of giving him the car to hit you with? Would you be pissed off then? Would your family be pissed off with him? What if it was your 4 year old son that was killed instead of you?

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

A victim of the Shankill bomb disagrees with you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8241191.stm

Sounds like he is agreeing tbh.

Kalashnikov_Kid

RedPlanet wrote: »

From RTE
Which imo, is a poor move. It means that victims of the troubles are not equal.
What about the victims of Loyalist violence as a result of British agent Brian Nelsen smuggling weapons from South Africa?

Was about to post the same.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is all part of a bigger picture, one where Libya gets closer to the international community and it started off with the relase of the Pan Am bomber. However, the Libyan government is responsible for the murder and maiming of innocent people in the UK, so there needs to be some sort of reconcilliation process in order for the government to talk to them. it is just another barrier to cross.

Read above. The apartheid government in South Africa is responsible in providing weapons for the UDA. Cant remember that ever becoming an issue when South Africa came out of economic and diplomatic isolation.

I therefore want the current South African government to pay compensation to all victims of UDA violence just to bring a bit of balance on things. Do you think that's feasable/reasonable?

Can of worms, double standards etc. etc.

Fratton Fred

So the victims of IRA bombs don't deserve compensation, is that right?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the victims of IRA bombs don't deserve compensation, is that right?

Sure they do - Do you believe that victims who died at the hands of loyalists and british security forces should be compensated too?

The issue at hand is the double-standards about who should receive compensation, or have you not been reading the last 4 pages?

Fratton Fred

Any innocent victims of loyalists should receive compensation. Any innocent victims of the British Army has received compensation and further more, there are plenty of pressure groups and enquiries already on the case. Who is fighting the case of the warrington bomb victims, or guildford?

A Dub in Glasgo

Actually I think Justice & Compo would a better thing for all

andyK11

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stil, I don't for one minute expect you to have any sympathy for innocent people killed as part of the glorious struggle, they were only Brits and probably deserved to die didn't they.

The British Security Services and Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for more civilian deaths during the Troubles.

OIRA civilian death toll was 621
BSS and LP civilian death toll was 1,175

So, if you look at the facts, it should be the British government paying the compensation.

captainblack

Fratton Fred said:

Some collusion helped prevent murders by Loyalist groups, by running informers insode those organisations, some collusion was fairly simple and to extent, (I believe) understandable.

That's not collusion. Collusion is where state forces and Loyalist volunteers acted in common purpose as strategy not expedience. Use of informers and their protection was not collusion. Collusion would be ware state forces assisted Loyalist units in carrying out operations with a view to helping Loyalists achieve their war aims. I doubt very much of this went on, or there'd have been a lot more active Republicans buried.

I think where it starts to great very grey is aorund the UVF/UDR connection. The UDR was full of UVF members and was a soldier in the UDR helping members of the UVF collusion by the British Government? to me it smacks of a dirty regiment that should have been disbanded a long time ago and the proper soldiering left to more regular units. Should the MOD be held accountable? probably, yes, but as I said, it was a dirty war.

I don't believe The UDR was full of UVF volunteers, though it had substantial joint membership with The UDA at one point. The UDA was a fully legal organisation. One of the reasons The UDR was set up was to 'soak up' Loyalists who otherwise might have joined paramilitary units.

If there were so many active Loyalists within The UDR then how do you account for the fact that out of 40 000 who went through it's ranks only 18 were convicted of murder? This at a time when the jails ware packed with Loyalists who had no UDR membership.

I'm sorry you see The UDR as a 'dirty regiment', but it's not a view shared by Her Majesty who awarded the entire unit The CGC. In fact over 900 awards were made to individual UDR men down the years.

You use the term 'proper soldiering' in a derogatory way. The UDR were 'proper' enough to take 258 deaths down the years and many more injuries (both mental and physical), more than any mainland regiment. I'd call that 'proper soldiering' with a vengeance. And unlike regular soldiers from the mainland, there was no rotation - UDR men had to go home at night (some of them to Nationalist areas) to wait the IRA calling to blow their brains out in front of their wife and kids.

The amazing thing is that The UDR didn't just gun down every Nationalist they came across.

Kalashnikov_Kid

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the victims of IRA bombs don't deserve compensation, is that right?

I dont think anyone here (myself included) is implying that.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Any innocent victims of loyalists should receive compensation. Any innocent victims of the British Army has received compensation and further more, there are plenty of pressure groups and enquiries already on the case. Who is fighting the case of the warrington bomb victims, or guildford?

Well lets wait until the neverending saga/farce that is the Saville enquiry is released later this year (here's hoping!) before we pass judgement on compensation or justice at the hands of the British Army, shall we? Yes, it has taken nearly 40 years for this process to come to a proper conclusion.

WRT Guildford, well I don't think Surrey police got off to a good start by falsely imprisoning and torturing innocent Irish expats into pleading guilty to falsified accounts and fabricated evidence. So they might have to start off at square one again with that.

I will reiterate that I am not against victims of IRA attacks seeking compensation. But if this extends to the Libyan government, well I hope that the British Government have done their sums so that they can cover what they may have to compensate for too.

LordSutch

dlofnep wrote: »

Sure they do - Do you believe that victims who died at the hands of loyalists and british security forces should be compensated too? The issue at hand is the double-standards about who should receive compensation, or have you not been reading the last 4 pages?

So by this I assume that you equate the forces of law & order with the actions of the Provisional IRA? which means that you are either elevating the IRA to the level of a 'justified combatant'? or you are dropping the security forces to the status of nothing more than scumbag Terrorists ............

Which is it?

P.S In most peoples minds Loyalist scumbags would be on the a par with Republican scumbags! (IRA/UVF/INLA/UFF) inc, with the security forces in the middle trying to keep the peace.

andyK11

@Camelot

"P.S In most peoples minds Loyalist scumbags would be on the a par with Republican scumbags! (IRA/UVF/INLA/UFF) inc, with the security forces in the middle trying to keep the peace."

Even the British army regard the IRA as a higher authority than these other paramilitary organisations.

'It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

So by this I assume that you equate the forces of law & order with the actions of the Provisional IRA?

I don't equate anything with anything.

The British military was responsible for the cold blooded killing of civilians in Ireland, and irregardless of whether they were the official security forces or not does not excuse them for their acts of terrorism towards the Irish community.

If the victims of the IRA receive compensation, then so should the victims of the British security forces - who not only took part in the killing of innocent civilians, but also colluded with loyalist terrorists.

Camelot wrote: »

or you are dropping the security forces to the status of nothing more than scumbag Terrorists ............

They were terrorist scumbags. Unless you have a more fitting description for a group that kills children, and controls a population through armed combat, whom also colludes with loyalist terrorists.

Camelot wrote: »

P.S In most peoples minds Loyalist scumbags would be on the a par with Republican scumbags! (IRA/UVF/INLA/UFF) inc, with the security forces in the middle trying to keep the peace.

Exactly how does killing children in cold blood, and colluding with loyalist terrorists, supplying them with weapons constitute as "keeping the peace"?

You come across as someone who is extremely uneducated about Britain's role in the troubles, with all due respect. If you believe that the British security forces were a noble and just force, without fault - then you are extremely misguided.

FlutterinBantam

Were Wes. and Harris part of a British conspiracy in the Miami massacre??

It's very easy to apportion blame on a state when terrorists disrupt the normal running of events.

I Dublin or Cork came under terrorist attack would we not expect the state to protect us?

Seems to be very biased opinions around here I regret to say.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Any innocent victims of the British Army has received compensation and further more,

No they haven't. The victims of Bloody Sunday were given as little as £250, and a grand total of £42,000 was given out. That's an insult to the family. But yet, 100's of millions was spent on inquiries into what we already know - British soldiers killed innocent people and got away with it, scot-free. It's not even the money that matters - it's the recognition for their wrong-doing, which they still fail to own up to.

Also, The victims of Ballymurphy never received a dime.

Any other lies you'd like to share with us?