Republican prisoners

PomBear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The effect of voting WAS the Provisional IRA's ceasefire; that's why most people voted the way that they did - to stop the crime, murders and violence.

Anything else is a political matter and should be dealt with as such; a return to violence is not acceptable, and the GFA cannot be used as an excuse.

Yes it can, the deal was made on the Sinn Féins terms, namely because the British forces could not beat the IRA and if you were treated like Catholics were in pre-GFA NI, then i doubt you could say you didn't consider joining the IRA

Liam Byrne

PomBear wrote: »

Yes it can, the deal was made on the Sinn Féins terms, namely because the British forces could not beat the IRA and if you were treated like Catholics were in pre-GFA NI, then i doubt you could say you didn't consider joining the IRA

A return to violence is not acceptable. There are no excuses for murdering innocent people.

There is no mandate for such action whatsoever.

PomBear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A return to violence is not acceptable. There are no excuses for murdering innocent people.

There is no mandate for such action whatsoever.

They believe that removal of British forces would be of the greater good when it comes to civilians keeping in mind 61% of the Britsh armys killings during the troubles were civilians while the IRAs was arounds 33-35%, not sure

Liam Byrne

PomBear wrote: »

They believe that removal of British forces would be of the greater good when it comes to civilians keeping in mind 61% of the Britsh armys killings during the troubles were civilians while the IRAs was arounds 33-35%, not sure

I don't know who "they" are, and personally, I don't care.

I mean, I presume they asked the permission of those that they murdered and their families if it was "the greater good" ? What gives "them" the right to make such a judgement on behalf of those that they murder - and, for that matter, the rest of the country who want nothing to do with violence and crime ?

And trotting out what other people did doesn't excuse it, either.

Just because some scumbag in town shoots someone over a drug-deal doesn't mean that I should do the same.

DoireNod

junder wrote: »

there is no foreign occupation were i live and last time i heard the RoI has not been invaded so again what war?

I take it you live in the island of Britain somewhere then?

PomBear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know who "they" are, and personally, I don't care.

I mean, I presume they asked the permission of those that they murdered and their families if it was "the greater good" ? What gives "them" the right to make such a judgement on behalf of those that they murder - and, for that matter, the rest of the country who want nothing to do with violence and crime ?

And trotting out what other people did doesn't excuse it, either.

Just because some scumbag in town shoots someone over a drug-deal doesn't mean that I should do the same.

Well if you've been to NI and been to the working class areas (i'm from the Falls in Belfast by the way), you'll see how these areas are rive with drugs and joyriders because of the PSNI's negligence. Many people have died from that. Ask John Brady's family what they think. Ask the families who lost kids to the RUC using plastic bullets on riot control. Ask the countless families who have been murdered needlessly because a London government wants to treat our fellow Irishmen and women as sub-human. Very little of this has changed. There are people out there who are sick of their communites being destroyed. Sick of being discriminated against. These people are criminals for taking a stand imo

anonymous_joe

DoireNod wrote: »

I take it you live in the island of Britain somewhere then?

Meh, if you're strictly accurate, there's not been occupation since the Act of Union.

Edit: And fairly obscure.

Liam Byrne

PomBear wrote: »

Well if you've been to NI and been to the working class areas (i'm from the Falls in Belfast by the way), you'll see how these areas are rive with drugs and joyriders because of the PSNI's negligence.

Of course! That's all discrimination! The fact that Dublin and parts of Limerick and Cork are the same couldn't possibly mean that it's just an overall problem, now could it ?

PomBear wrote: »

Many people have died from that. Ask John Brady's family what they think. Ask the families who lost kids to the RUC using plastic bullets on riot control. Ask the countless families who have been murdered needlessly because a London government wants to treat our fellow Irishmen and women as sub-human.

They're not the only ones, given the treatment of the citizens of Omagh and Gerry McCabe. :rolleyes:

PomBear wrote: »

These people are criminals for taking a stand imo

They are criminals for how they chose to take that stand. There is no excuse for murdering an innocent person.

You can't credibly whinge about people killing indiscrimately if you support people doing it.

PomBear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Of course! That's all discrimination! The fact that Dublin and parts of Limerick and Cork are the same couldn't possibly mean that it's just an overall problem, now could it ?




They're not the only ones, given the treatment of the citizens of Omagh and Gerry McCabe. :rolleyes:



They are criminals for how they chose to take that stand. There is no excuse for murdering an innocent person.

You can't credibly whinge about people killing indiscrimately if you support people doing it.

No, the problem in NI is due to the negligence and bigotry in the PSNI, ring them from a catholic working class area saying you've been robbed and see if they show up.

As i said earlier I don't support them and don't support how they react in those manners and never said the IRA were perfect but its easy to say I don't support because of this, that and the other but the fact is they were an army trying to remove a foreign force who carried out military operations which showed safety protocol when it came to civilians, not always, not mostly. The british forces never showed this.

If the IRA didn't stand up, I fear how NI catholics would be treated today. Considering bloody sunday and the hundreds of catholics already six feet under because of Britains crimes. The IRA acheived GFA.

Victor

PomBear wrote: »

The IRA acheived GFA.

The IRA achieved SFA in the period 1974-1994 other than to embitter both sides.

If both sides weren't so bitter, unionists would be more likely to deal on policing and parades.

PomBear

Victor wrote: »

The IRA achieved SFA in the period 1974-1994 other than to embitter both sides.

If both sides weren't so bitter, unionists would be more likely to deal on policing and parades.

Because they've done it so well so far, stupid post

DoireNod

Victor wrote: »

The IRA achieved SFA in the period 1974-1994 other than to embitter both sides.

If both sides weren't so bitter, unionists would be more likely to deal on policing and parades.

The IRA achieved nothing except to embitter both sides? Oh, excuse me, I forgot that both sides weren't bitter before the Troubles.

anonymous_joe

DoireNod wrote: »

The IRA achieved nothing except to embitter both sides? Oh, excuse me, I forgot that both sides weren't bitter before the Troubles.

True, but in all fairness now, the campaign of terrorism on both sides made things worse. And the IRA started that.

Fairly impossible debate though, there are so many factors that caused it all it's impossible and indeed pointless to attribute blame at this stage.

Victor

PomBear wrote: »

Because they've done it so well so far, stupid post

So, Martin Adams can shake hands with Peter Robinson and Ian Paisley. Nationalist ministers are in cabinet. English ministers no longer control the bulk of government activity in Northern Ireland. Surely that is a long way form the collapse of Sunningdale?

However, distrust remains on these two issues, largely because of the violence in the past and the echoes of it in the likes of the Masserene shootings.

The CIRA and RIRA are the reason that Irish ministers aren't exclusively ruling on Irish matters, albeit without unity. Hypocrites.

DoireNod wrote: »

The IRA achieved nothing except to embitter both sides? Oh, excuse me, I forgot that both sides weren't bitter before the Troubles.

Sure there was animosity, but not bitterness.

PomBear

anonymous_joe wrote: »

True, but in all fairness now, the campaign of terrorism on both sides made things worse. And the IRA started that.

Fairly impossible debate though, there are so many factors that caused it all it's impossible and indeed pointless to attribute blame at this stage.

Actually the UVF mudered an innocent Catholic barman in June 1966. The first time the IRA used arms was to protect short strand from 3,000 loyalists, some of them UVF with guns. This was in 1970.

PomBear

Victor wrote: »

So, Martin Adams can shake hands with Peter Robinson and Ian Paisley. Nationalist ministers are in cabinet. English ministers no longer control the bulk of government activity in Northern Ireland. Surely that is a long way form the collapse of Sunningdale?

However, distrust remains on these two issues, largely because of the violence in the past and the echoes of it in the likes of the Masserene shootings.

The CIRA and RIRA are the reason that Irish ministers aren't exclusively ruling on Irish matters, albeit without unity. Hypocrites.

Sure there was animosity, but not bitterness.

And justice and policing was good before Sinn Féin entering stormont, was it?

The remarks on Irish ministers and is stupid and dumbfounding

DoireNod

anonymous_joe wrote: »

True, but in all fairness now, the campaign of terrorism on both sides made things worse. And the IRA started that.

Which campaign of terrorism is this? When did the IRA start this campaign?

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Fairly impossible debate though, there are so many factors that caused it all it's impossible and indeed pointless to attribute blame at this stage.

I wouldn't dismiss history though. The whole problem stems deeper than the IRA and a lot of the problems in Ireland did, as history tells us, come from the bigotry of the likes of those in the Orange Order and other such characters. You know, the kind that thought the Penal Laws were a good idea.

anonymous_joe

PomBear wrote: »

Actually the UVF mudered an innocent Catholic barman in June 1966. The first time the IRA used arms was to protect short strand from 3,000 loyalists, some of them UVF with guns. This was in 1970.

Ach, look. In terms of who first started terrorist attacks, t'was the IRA. But it doesn't really matter that much. Because, at this stage, the point is about doing as much as possible to move on from the past.

DoireNod

Victor wrote: »

Sure there was animosity, but not bitterness.

I fail to see the difference really. The attitudes were in place long before the IRA.

PomBear

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ach, look. In terms of who first started terrorist attacks, t'was the IRA. But it doesn't really matter that much. Because, at this stage, the point is about doing as much as possible to move on from the past.

I'm just saying you said the IRA started it and I can name numerous events where the UVF and brit forces were active before the IRA took arms.
It doesn't matter now but it was a bad presumption on your part.

Victor

PomBear wrote: »

The remarks on Irish ministers and is stupid and dumbfounding

Instead of trading insults, could you actually refute the substance of the argument?

By the way, insults work best when grammatically correct.

PomBear

Victor wrote: »

Instead of trading insults, could you actually refute the substance of the argument?

By the way, insults work best when grammatically correct.

By the way, stupid opinions that no-one could possibly fathom to be true don't need refutation

nesf

PomBear wrote: »

By the way, stupid opinions that no-one could possibly fathom to be true don't need refutation

Have a week off for personal abuse. Calling an opinion stupid isn't any different to calling the user stupid.

junder

DoireNod wrote: »

I take it you live in the island of Britain somewhere then?

No i am a native born northern irelander, and live in northern ireland

Liam Byrne

PomBear wrote: »

.....but the fact is they were an army trying to remove a foreign force who carried out military operations which showed safety protocol when it came to civilians, not always, not mostly. The british forces never showed this.

They seemed more intent on removing individual civilians and buildings than going anywhere near what might be grudgingly considered a "legitimate target".

Look, the IRA claim to be acting for the people of Ireland. I didn't authorise them to make that claim, so they can damn well live with my objecting to all of their actions.

If they didn't claim to be acting on my behalf, I would still point out the wrongness, but I wouldn't be anywhere near as stand-offish.

But once they started to claim my support or doing something for Ireland, then of course I'm going to scrutinise their actions.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the second part, tbh.

military operations which showed safety protocol when it came to civilians, not always, not mostly

It's been pointed out a million times that either (a) this protocol was not implemented, (b) this protocol was in order to allow them to claim the Brits were at fault, or (c) they were hopelessly incompetent due to the amount of - ahem - "accidents" that involved murdering innocent people.

Every time there was a death, someone else was to blame; just don't blame the guy who actually built, transported, planted or primed the bomb. :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

junder wrote: »

there is no foreign occupation were i live and last time i heard the RoI has not been invaded so again what war?

There is no occupation in the territory comprising the RoI because of a war fought by a small group of paramilitaries; a war which the majority of Irish people voted to stop at the first opportunity.

The war of independance did not enjoy any greater degree of legitimacy or popular support that the troubles.

For approx 30 years a civil war was being fought in NI. Pretending this civil war was somehow not a war because of political / ideological beliefs and opinions you hold towards the people involved is a rather silly thing to do.

And the fact is, that up until the signing of the GFA (which can be seen as the formal end of this civil war) the RoI laid claim to all 32 counties - so legally there was an occupying force.

Victor

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The war of independance did not enjoy any greater degree of legitimacy or popular support that the troubles.

Oh really? There was 20,000 volunteers in West Cork alone in the War of Independence. I suspect thats a lot more popular than the IRA during the troubles.

In fact, I imagine the only paramilitary organisation during the troubles that had a similar level of support would have been the UDA (not the more focused UFF part).

FTA69

Twenty thousand Volunteers in West Cork? Are you for real?

Tom Barry's column usually consisted of less than a hundred. Within the Army nationally there was never anything close to twenty thousand men on active service, maybe about five thousand within the thirty-two counties, and that's being optimistic as half of them would have been useless.

I'd suggest reading "Guerilla Days in Ireland" by Tom Barry or "On Another Man's Wound" by Ernie O'Malley; and despite its fantasism "My Fight For Irish Freedom" gives a decent account of issues such as brigade organisation etc. Perhaps if you actually read something on the subject you wouldn't be pulling mad figures out of your arse.

"20,000 Volunteers in West Cork alone."

What a joke.

Exile 1798

Victor wrote: »

Oh really? There was 20,000 volunteers in West Cork alone in the War of Independence. I suspect thats a lot more popular than the IRA during the troubles.

In fact, I imagine the only paramilitary organisation during the troubles that had a similar level of support would have been the UDA (not the more focused UFF part).

Complete nonsense. There wasnt anywhere near 20 000 Volunteers in the whole country.

Victor

Are you saying the War of Independnce wasn't a popular cause?

FTA69 wrote: »

Within the Army nationally there was never anything close to twenty thousand men on active service

Stop moving the goal posts.

And remember that perhaps 250,000 men had military experience (albeit of trench warfare) in the era.