Still no answers for families of Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

Poccington

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Some people here 'seem' to know all that was behind these events.

Did they go to the authorities.?

Colin Wallace, John Weir and Captain Fred Holroyd all went to the authorities.

Are they good enough sources for you?

On the topic of collusion, to anyone that says it never took place all I'll say is... Brian Nelson, Robin Jackson and the many roadblocks that the three Stevens Inquiries faced.

FlutterinBantam

FTA69 wrote: »

Strawman.

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.


I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Poccington

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.


I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Oh right.

That's a bit like saying:

"Did you witness or know of any kind of ill treatment of prisoners taking place in Auschwitz?"

"No I didn't, I wasn't alive at the time."

"Well then it didn't happen, you're just waffling."

Or insert any other random incident where something was very wrong.

Seriously, if former members of 14 Int Coy, RUC Special Patrol Group, FRU and the bloody Stevens Inquiries all say that collusion took place, how does that equate to hearsay? What other evidence do you want?

A Dub in Glasgo

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.


I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

I raise the 'strawman' expression with 'clutching at straws' expression!

FlutterinBantam

You will really have to read my post again.

wolfpawnat

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Some people here 'seem' to know all that was behind these events.

Did they go to the authorities.?

The reason I know about these events is by reading published literature regarding said events, so I would assume the autorities would have some notion of what I have read (since part of one of the books has info on the bomb material compostion obtained from the autorities). The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings are one of the more written about atrocities. And my father comes from Monaghan so for me there is the extra interest.

Camelot wrote: »

Indeed, when you add the number of people killed in the three Dublin Bombings to the number of people killed in the Monaghan Bomb planted later that same day you get a total of 33 casualties, as opposed to the 29 people killed in the one bomb planted in Omagh!

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

Camelot wrote: »

My God this is a depressing thread . . .

Then I am confused to your reason for staying on!?! If you are not happy with the way this thread is going, then why not abandon it and save yourself the depression/annoyance?

Poccington

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.


I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You will really have to read my post again.

Ok, so I have read your post once again.

What I take from it is, that unless myself or anyone else posting on this thread regarding collusion between British security forces and Loyalists personally reported an incident to the authorities, everything else is just waffle.

Does the Stevens Inquiries fall under the "waffle" category? Does Brian Nelson's police statement fall under the "waffle" category? Does Colin Wallace and John Weir's personal experiences and admissions of collusion, fall under the "waffle" category?

lugha

baalthor wrote: »

You can argue that a state or an organisation carried out a particular act based on circumstantial evidence. For example, Al Queda were held responsible for September 11 long before anyone was charged in relation to the attacks.

To arrest and imprison an individual usually requires a trial and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, similarly accusing someone of a serious crime requires a high burden of proof.

Fair enough. If you were sitting on a jury and had the freedom of an individual in your hands, you should certainly be very demanding in terms of the quality of the evidence against them. But what I am talking about is inconsistencies in relation to how some assess the likely truth of something for their own information on the basis of incomplete or imperfect knowledge, a state of affairs that often pertains to the murky world of subversion and collusion.

The inconsistency comes from insisting that you do not accept as true, for your own information, that an individual is or was an IRA member, not that you would not convict them on the knowledge you have (which perhaps you properly shouldn’t) when you are fully convinced of the truth, again for your own information, that there was British collusion in the Dublin / Monaghan bombings when the evidence in both cases may be broadly similar, i.e. suspicious or maybe even strong, but not compelling.

moonpurple

wolpawnpat you are absolutely right to give your location as in a world of your own, this is very clear when you type above

"Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune"

NO....it was not misfortune: many shoppers were murdered in Omagh in THE WORST ATROCITY in Ireland since 1968 because people YOU (and some other clowns here) admire placed a car full of explosives on a busy street on a saturday summers afternoon,

FlutterinBantam

Well said, time someone said it as it was.

FTA69

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.


I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Balls. You're comparing documented and proven events like collusion to leprechauns, that is a strawman.

As has been alluded to already, various Loyalists and British military intelligence figures have stated that it took place. The case of Brian Nelson is well documented, a British agent who explicitly directed the targets the UDA and other Loyalists whom he supplied with intelligence he received from the Force Research Unit. Even John Stevens declared it was widespread and his inquiries were obstructed. (Perhaps that other fella on here will be declaring he secretly supports the Real IRA or some other bullsh*t).

The thing is though FB, and it's very transparent, is that you can't admit to yourself that "our boys" and the British government were up to their necks in the murder of civilians as well as arming and facilitating death squads. To do so would counteract your bogus opinion that the Brits here had some sort of moral highground, they don't; hence you bending over backwards to deny what's staring you in the face.

wolfpawnat

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) that everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

moonpurple wrote: »

wolpawnpat you are absolutely right to give your location as in a world of your own, this is very clear when you type above

"Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune"

NO....it was not misfortune: many shoppers were murdered in Omagh in THE WORST ATROCITY in Ireland since 1968 because people YOU (and some other clowns here) admire placed a car full of explosives on a busy street on a saturday summers afternoon,

I love your misquoting:rolleyes: I condemn all dissendent attacks on both sides of the divide, since your first post on this thread you have had the sole agenda of trying to make this about your view and your view only.

It is not the worst atrocity, it is one of them. D&M bombing was just women and children, so you think they deserved to die?

And I do not condone any attacks on civilains regardless of "reasons". You seem incapible of reading this same piece of my posts any time.

So I'll say it again

I DO NOT CONDONE ANY ATTACK ON CIVILIANS BY ANY DISSENDENT GROUP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS DIVIDE.

Now that is done, on with the thread

LordSutch

wolfpawnat wrote: »

So I'll say it again

I DO NOT CONDONE ANY ATTACK ON CIVILIANS BY ANY DISSENDENT GROUP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS DIVIDE.

Now that is done, on with the thread

Dissedents indeed, but what about Provisional IRA attacks :cool:

Fratton Fred

Poccington wrote: »

Ok, so I have read your post once again.

What I take from it is, that unless myself or anyone else posting on this thread regarding collusion between British security forces and Loyalists personally reported an incident to the authorities, everything else is just waffle.

Does the Stevens Inquiries fall under the "waffle" category? Does Brian Nelson's police statement fall under the "waffle" category? Does Colin Wallace and John Weir's personal experiences and admissions of collusion, fall under the "waffle" category?

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

You mean used the same methods that they would then refer to as Terrorism?.

LordSutch

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings are one of the more written about atrocities. And my father comes from Monaghan so for me there is the extra interest.

Yes, somebody else stated that D&M was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, so I pointed that it was actually Omagh. (Dublin & Monaghan were multiple).

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

My functioning brain cells tell me that some complete 'low lifes' with even fewer brain cells than me, planted a Bomb designed to maim & murder as many as possible!

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Then I am confused to your reason for staying on!?! If you are not happy with the way this thread is going, then why not abandon it and save yourself the depression/annoyance?

I'll tell you why I am staying on, its because this blasted thread is still here, in the middle of two UK election threads to which I am posting to.

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

You mean used the same methods that they would then refer to as Terrorism?.

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

Hopefully you'll hold the Civilians massacred in Dublin, Monaghan and Omagh in better esteem.

Mayo Exile

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

the forces of law and order.

Have such bodies ever, ever, ever done wrong in your eyes?

Also I am wondering were you mugged by a gang of vicious rationalists in the past which leads to your seemingly extremist empiricist viewpoint in this thread??

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Hopefully you'll hold the Civilians massacred in Dublin, Monaghan and Omagh in better esteem.

bah, you're just looking for a fight, you know full well what I mean.

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?

I do, do you?

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do, do you?

If the same rules are applied, then I've no issues. However, it doesn't look like this was the case now does it?

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

bah, you're just looking for a fight, you know full well what I mean.

Not really - you'd suggested the following:

"The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants."

Are you suggesting that those killed in Dublin and Monaghan were members of the IRA, or another Combatant group?.

Interesting that you put the UVF and the British Army in the same league there, incidentally.

FlutterinBantam

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Have such bodies ever, ever, ever done wrong in your eyes?

Also I am wondering were you mugged by a gang of vicious rationalists in the past which leads to your seemingly extremist empiricist viewpoint in this thread??

:rolleyes:

Makes a bit of a change from the usual fare being promulgated here I expect.

Mayo Exile

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Makes a bit of a change from the usual fare being promulgated here I expect.

Thought I'd tack twenty degrees to starboard for a change to examine your bunker from a different angle...........

But seriously though, surely you must attach some credence to the methods of investigation and resultant outcomes of tribunals and enquiries into the supposed wrongdoings of those charged with the upkeep of law & order?

Of course whether one believes these outcomes or not is one's own personal opinion..............

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Not really - you'd suggested the following:

"The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants."

Are you suggesting that those killed in Dublin and Monaghan were members of the IRA, or another Combatant group?.

Interesting that you put the UVF and the British Army in the same league there, incidentally.

no I'm not. i said a lot, not all. stop looking for a fight.

who else was the collusion supposed to have been between?

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no I'm not. i said a lot, not all. stop looking for a fight.

who else was the collusion supposed to have been between?

Stop looking for a fight?. Do you just not want to answer the questions?

wolfpawnat

Camelot wrote: »

Yes, somebody else stated that D&M was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, so I pointed that it was actually Omagh. (Dublin & Monaghan were multiple).

Indeed the death and injury toll from the one bomb in Omagh had a great amount than most, this of course is due to the fact that the people that day were herded into the area where the bomb was, so naturally causing larger numbers of casualities(ergo my brain cells comment). That said however, the strenght of the attack is based on any and all parts of it, so the 4 bombs in Dublin would be seen as one, the 1 bomb in Omagh is one attack, and just as an example the 2 at Warrenpoint would all be see as one. So the attrocities are seen with a calculation of all damage done rather than just the strenght of the one bomb.

Camelot wrote: »

My functioning brain cells tell me that some complete 'low lifes' with even fewer brain cells than me, planted a Bomb designed to maim & murder as many as possible!

The sad fact is, many of these groups are more intelligent than we think they are! They have acquired very up to date bomb making techniques and clearly as a result, better bomb makers!

Camelot wrote: »

I'll tell you why I am staying on, its because this blasted thread is still here, in the middle of two UK election threads to which I am posting to.

How is heavens name has that got anything to do with this thread

wolfpawnat

Camelot wrote: »

Dissedents indeed, but what about Provisional IRA attacks :cool:

Well I would have seen the PIRA as a dissedent group though that was not a word that applied to them at the time, so I will say this.

I do not condone any act by any dissendent group on either side of the divide, nor do I condone any act by an group that is sees themself as an army (legitimite or otherwise) of which harms civilians regardless of said civilians religious or olitical beliefs!

Is that better

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Stop looking for a fight?. Do you just not want to answer the questions?

OK, I'll write this slowly this time to see if you can understand it better.

No I'm not, I said "A lot" not all.

moonpurple

wolpawnat wrote:

'this of course is due to the fact that the people that day were herded into the area where the bomb was,'

yes the ruc would have herded a crowd into the path of a bomb, just as the people of nagasaki and hiroshima danced with delight as the atomic bombs were dropped on their city

I do not type for you my brother as you are probably 12, I type for the young who might digest your nonsense,

when you start to think the the Irish in the north who do not bend the knee to Rome are less equal to any other Irish then you start to think and talk in this way,

you should be banned by now but it is better to shed light on the distorted views of the small group of nutters inbreeding will always produce on a small island on the western coast of europe,

ta an troid idir na Gael agus na Sassanaigh criochnaithe, is e seo an sceal amhain

Nodin

moonpurple wrote: »

when you start to think the the Irish in the north who do not bend the knee to Rome are less equal to any other Irish then you start to think and talk in this way,

To my knowledge, nobody has suggested any such thing, nor could any reasonable reading of any post made lead to such a conclusion. I'd suggest either quoting the post that made you make this statement, or withdrawing the remark.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, I'll write this slowly this time to see if you can understand it better.

No I'm not, I said "A lot" not all.

But in the context of this debate you were flaming and you know it. Elements of the British military provided a bomb and logistical support to terrorists who killed 33 innocent people in no warning car bombs in a neighbouring state. Can you not see any problem with that?

It is somewhat depressing that the three English guys on the thread are using varying levels of tactic to confuse the issue or defend the collusion. Shoe is on the other foot with something like the Eddie Fullerton muder and the Garda involvment, yet very few Irish people will defend their actions.

I know its only the internet, but if you are wrapping the flag round you on this issue, how are we to move forward as two states in friendship?

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But in the context of this debate you were flaming and you know it. Elements of the British military provided a bomb and logistical support to terrorists who killed 33 innocent people in no warning car bombs in a neighbouring state. Can you not see any problem with that?

It is somewhat depressing that the three English guys on the thread are using varying levels of tactic to confuse the issue or defend the collusion. Shoe is on the other foot with something like the Eddie Fullerton muder and the Garda involvment, yet very few Irish people will defend their actions.

I know its only the internet, but if you are wrapping the flag round you on this issue, how are we to move forward as two states in friendship?

The context of this debate changed several times. You are looking for flaming, but it isn't there.

Can someone explain what the "Proof" is that the British provided the support you claim? Or is this like a lot of things, if someone says it enough times, it must be true?

LordSutch

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Elements of the British military provided a bomb and logistical support to terrorists who killed 33 innocent people in no warning car bombs in a neighbouring state.

You convieniently forgot the word 'allegedly'.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It is somewhat depressing that the three English guys on the thread are using varying levels of tactic to confuse the issue or defend the collusion. Shoe is on the other foot with something like the Eddie Fullerton muder and the Garda involvment, yet very few Irish people will defend their actions.

Three 'English' guys? are you sure . . .

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I know its only the internet, but if you are wrapping the flag round you on this issue, how are we to move forward as two states in friendship?

Move forward in friendship indeed, but not when words like 'allegedly' are convienently left out. By the way Oh No, if any elements of the security forces actually provided the Bomb & statistical support, then you can be perfectly sure that the three English guys you speak of + me would have no hesitation whatsoever in condeming them as scum bags, however, if your allegations were true (big if), it would point to the fact that those involved were low life renegades, who were certainly not ordered by their superiors to act in such a way, > Whereas when takling about IRA/INLA Bombs, that was their game, that was what they did on a weekly basis, that was what they were ordered to do, (from the Top down), their very Raison d'Etre was (to Bomb & maim at will on a regular basis) . . . .

It wasn't me!

How about we acknowledge that there was murder and mayhem on both sides, a huge proportion of which will never be properly confronted, and move on towards peace? That was the sentiment of the Good Friday Agreement, after all. What's more important, peaceful cooperation and community integration or answers? If you want to try and press things to people and governments, you're just going to undermine the spirit of the most important statement of peaceful intent this island has ever seen.

OhNoYouDidn't

Camelot wrote: »

You convieniently forgot the word 'allegedly'.

It was quite deliberate. Too many members of the British security apperatus have admitted it and Don Mullan in particular has a very commpelling body of evidence.

Camelot wrote: »

Move forward in friendship indeed, but not when words like 'allegedly' are convienently left out. By the way Oh No, if any elements of the security forces actually provided the Bomb & statistical support, then you can be perfectly sure that the three English guys you speak of + me would have no hesitation whatsoever in condeming them as scum bags, however, if your allegations were true (big if), it would point to the fact that those involved were low life renegades, who were certainly not ordered by their superiors to act in such a way, >

That is painful naivety.

Camelot wrote: »

Whereas when takling about IRA/INLA Bombs, that was their game, that was what they did on a weekly basis, that was what they were ordered to do, (from the Top down), their very Raison d'Etre was (to Bomb & maim at will on a regular basis) . . . .

But we aren't talkign about the IRA/INLA. We are talking about RUC Special Branch, MI6, FRU the UDR and 14th Int. Agencies of the British state, funded by the British taxpayer who organisised death squads and bombings of a soverign capital to kill civilians to force political change. The fact that you are showing a moral equivalence between the behaviour of the British state and these groups is preciscely the problem with this debate. You are defending it.

OhNoYouDidn't

It wasn't me! wrote: »

How about we acknowledge that there was murder and mayhem on both sides, a huge proportion of which will never be properly confronted, and move on towards peace? That was the sentiment of the Good Friday Agreement, after all. What's more important, peaceful cooperation and community integration or answers? If you want to try and press things to people and governments, you're just going to undermine the spirit of the most important statement of peaceful intent this island has ever seen.

There was always supposed to be some form of reconciliation forum which was shelved.

But the Dublin government abjectly failed to defend its citizens from foreign military attack and actively covered up the incident. Thats got nothing to do with the GFA and we should press for answers regardless.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The context of this debate changed several times. You are looking for flaming, but it isn't there.

We are talking about a specific bomb attack on Dublin and Monaghan. You are defending the British fighting dirty in taking out IRA men. Join the dots yourself...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can someone explain what the "Proof" is that the British provided the support you claim? Or is this like a lot of things, if someone says it enough times, it must be true?

As has been spelt out more than once, there are a queue of former British spooks whistleblowing and I would recommend Don Mullans book on the Dublin and Monahgan bombings.

LordSutch

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Agencies of the British state, funded by the British taxpayer who organisised death squads and bombings of a soverign capital to kill civilians to force political change. The fact that you are showing a moral equivalence between the behaviour of the British state and these groups is preciscely the problem with this debate. You are defending it.

I can see what you are up to Oh No, but i'm not playing ball ........

OhNoYouDidn't

Camelot wrote: »

I can see what you are up to Oh No, but i'm not playing ball ........

I'm not 'up to' anything. That is the context in which this debate is framed. Who did it, why, who knew and why did the Irish government cover it up?

They are legitimate questions regardless of your political viewpoint.

It wasn't me!

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There was always supposed to be some form of reconciliation forum which was shelved.

But the Dublin government abjectly failed to defend its citizens from foreign military attack and actively covered up the incident. Thats got nothing to do with the GFA and we should press for answers regardless.

If you think so. Personally I'd rather see a very painful thirty years shelved, and the future looked to. It's more important, and that particular aspect of the past need play no part in it. We've moved past the entrenched positions which saw O'Neill unable to fulfill his campaign promises in the sixties, and further integration is key to undermining latent divides further, in my opinion. That doesn't come from re-examining old scars, however painful they may be.

wolfpawnat

Ok, we will try this AGAIN *why isnt there a frustrated smilie?*

And could you either quote me fully, or not at all!!!:mad: not nit picking your choices through parts of my sentences to make it look like I do not know what I am talking about!

moonpurple wrote: »

wolpawnat wrote:

'this of course is due to the fact that the people that day were herded into the area where the bomb was,'

yes the ruc would have herded a crowd into the path of a bomb, just as the people of nagasaki and hiroshima danced with delight as the atomic bombs were dropped on their city

Wow you really have no idea how the Japanese feel about 2 cities, approximately 300,000 people dieds (directly and as a result of combined) and years of carcinogenic gases and generations of birth defects(!)

The police lead the civilians away from the area they believed the bomb was placed, sadly this meant that they were sheparded to where the bomb was actually placed, there seems to be several theories on why thiss occured, but the fact remains the police on the street acted on the info the were given and no, they did not put the lives of themselves and the civilians in danger. It is this reason, that caused the increased number of casualties, police were injured that day too, you highly doubt they would risk their lives!

moonpurple wrote: »

I do not type for you my brother as you are probably 12, I type for the young who might digest your nonsense

For the record, I am actually woman. I was a teenager when Omagh happened so I do actually remember everything I saw in tv and read in the papers, besides 12 years ago is not too long ago to remember for anyone over the age of 8!

moonpurple wrote: »

when you start to think the the Irish in the north who do not bend the knee to Rome are less equal to any other Irish then you start to think and talk in this way,

Where in the name of all that is merciful did anything I say in the 10 pages of this thread imply this!?!?!?!

moonpurple wrote: »

you should be banned by now but it is better to shed light on the distorted views of the small group of nutters inbreeding will always produce on a small island on the western coast of europe

Eh, it you who should be banned for your attempt at insults, as well as your constant attempts to make this thread go OT and for your immaturity at not being able to deal with the fact that most people on here have the intellect to not only challenge the invalidity of your posts but to also rise above your infantile ways.

Go raibh maith agat agus slán leat, a chara

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, I'll write this slowly this time to see if you can understand it better.

No I'm not, I said "A lot" not all.

Don't worry, the speed at which you type isn't really going to make any difference, as long as you are happy enough with the outcome. Honestly, it's an Internet message board - take your time - be happy with what you type, because it reads the same no matter how long you take to type it all out.

Let's have a look what you have written though:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

I then asked you:
As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

I asked:
As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?
and
Hopefully you'll hold the Civilians massacred in Dublin, Monaghan and Omagh in better esteem.

Cue accusations about looking for fights, etc, but you answered the following regarding the application of the same set of rules:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do, do you?

I'm just wondering - given you think it's acceptable to use Terrorism to Murder Irish Citizens, and that is what happened here - Do you find it equally acceptable for the IRA to Murder a few British ones, given that a lot of them may have been in the UVF, or the British Army, such as the Guildford Bombings, or the Shankill Road Bombings?.

You Probably don't, but could you perhaps at least have empathy for a lot of it?. Given that the the IRA became what it did from the late 60's by the complete failure of the British State to even start to permit anything close to Civil rights for a significant proportion of the Northern Irish Population, you can probably understand why people turned to the IRA and agents of violence, given their attempts at Peaceful means got a bunch of them shot?
Or the fact that it was not until 1992 that the UDA was declared to be an illegal organisation, despite it being a case that they killed 80 people in 1972 alone.
Do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it?.

moonpurple

in the 70s and 80s the ira and the south became siezed with the idea of undertaking what we saw in bosnia and its surrounding area, ethnic cleansing, a reversal of the year 1600 plantation of ulster,

they found that they could not though,because international opinion apart from the UK would not allow it, witness US hardline prevention of fund raising in the U.S.

british tommies will not be snipe shooting in derry any time soon again

and the one million irish who live in the north east and have an affection for london are never going to be targetted for 'one big push',
'push them into the sea' is still a favourite pub phrase with rira and cira

as the leader of the DUP observed: do you also expect those living in the south east of england of Irish ancestry to also leave,

the good friday agreement represents progress and resolution of an 800 year issue by all four main sides, ira uda london and dublin

mise le meas
is mile buichos,
neither catholic nor protestant, but ancient gaelic dissenter

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Don't worry, the speed at which you type isn't really going to make any difference, as long as you are happy enough with the outcome. Honestly, it's an Internet message board - take your time - be happy with what you type, because it reads the same no matter how long you take to type it all out.

Let's have a look what you have written though:



I then asked you:
As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?



I asked:
As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?
and
Hopefully you'll hold the Civilians massacred in Dublin, Monaghan and Omagh in better esteem.

Cue accusations about looking for fights, etc, but you answered the following regarding the application of the same set of rules:



I'm just wondering - given you think it's acceptable to use Terrorism to Murder Irish Citizens, and that is what happened here - Do you find it equally acceptable for the IRA to Murder a few British ones, given that a lot of them may have been in the UVF, or the British Army, such as the Guildford Bombings, or the Shankill Road Bombings?.

You Probably don't, but could you perhaps at least have empathy for a lot of it?. Given that the the IRA became what it did from the late 60's by the complete failure of the British State to even start to permit anything close to Civil rights for a significant proportion of the Northern Irish Population, you can probably understand why people turned to the IRA and agents of violence, given their attempts at Peaceful means got a bunch of them shot?
Or the fact that it was not until 1992 that the UDA was declared to be an illegal organisation, despite it being a case that they killed 80 people in 1972 alone.
Do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it?.

I don't think it is ok to murder any civilians, you are putting words in my mouth. You asked if I apply the same rules to both sides, I do. The question is, do you,

I doubt it very much.

I can't understand the use of bombs to kill any civilians, so no, I don't have any empathy. I have empathy where people chose to kill to protect themselves or others, but if that were the case, the people being kiled would not be civilians.

Dublin, Monaghan, Guildford, Birmingham or wherever were mindless acts of terrorism. That is obvious to me. Is it to you?

Nodin

moonpurple wrote: »

in the 70s and 80s the ira and the south became siezed with the idea of undertaking what we saw in bosnia and its surrounding area, ethnic cleansing, a reversal of the year 1600 plantation of ulster,

No, I'm afraid not.

FTA69

Nodin wrote: »

No, I'm afraid not.

He's right Nodin, have you never seen the famous mass graves of Fermanagh? Every time I've been in Belcoo I still hear them harping on about cutting down the tall trees.

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't understand the use of bombs to kill any civilians, so no, I don't have any empathy. I have empathy where people chose to kill to protect themselves or others, but if that were the case, the people being kiled would not be civilians.

Let me get this straight, you are expecting someone to have empathy with British soldiers who colluded with terrorists groups, in order to murder Irish people (including a lot of civillians). However, you then say yourself that you don't have any empathy? Double standards.. no???

You can't undertstand the use of bombs to kill civillians, does that mean
you can understand the use of guns?