Still no answers for families of Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

Fratton Fred

You are just looking for an excuse to be outraged.

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are just looking for an excuse to be outraged.

If that's the case, I don't need to look for very long.

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

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?

collusion..lets see,the dublin goverment gave £100000 to the defence committees of the IRA,[wiki]

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

collusion..lets see,the dublin goverment gave £100000 to the defence committees of the IRA,[wiki]

That's nothing to do with what I posted. I was simply surprised that the previous poster was insinuating that a Boards member should have a little bit of empathy for the British soldiers that colluded in the murder of Irish civillians, while at the same time saying that he personally has no empathy for Irish people that killed British civillians. That to me is hypocrisy.

I'm judging by those remarks that, he's not Irish and that his "empathy" for the British soldiers is based on national pride as opposed to a psychological understanding of a soldiers mind.

I'm not willing to get into a historical debate on an internet forum, however, I will say that I'm no more outraged by the actions of the IRA than I am with the actions of the British army and the UVF/UDA. Furthermore I wouldn't have the audacity to ask a British person to have empathy with the actions of the IRA. Likewise, I wouldn't react well if a British person expected me to have empathy with the British soldiers, that were directly responsible for the deaths of people in my family.

Fratton Fred

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

If that's the case, I don't need to look for very long.

I thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying.

I can understand how a lot of the collusion came about. If you are a sergeant and a young private in ypur care is killed, either on the streets of Belfast or even at a train station in England on his way back for duty, and the person who did it is well known, in fact they even boast about the killing because they know full well they would ever be caught. Then in those circumstances I can understand how collusion came about.

The IRA never wore a uniform. If a man was killed by the UVF in Derry, he was automatically a civilian, but in a lot of cases they weren't, they were active members of the IRA. In those cases, whilst I would never condone, I wouldn't condemn either (to use a well known phrase).

The bombings in Monaghan and Dublin could never be excused in anyway, they were acts of bloody terrorism.

Feel free to get all high, mighty and moralistic.

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying..

Its obvious from reading your previous posts that your "thoughts" are pretty mixed up so don't worry about it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

II can understand how a lot of the collusion came about. ..

Thats fine, but irrellevant. My issue was that you were trying to convince another member of boards that he too should have empathy with these men, despite admiting that you have personally no empathy with the Irish side. I was highlighting obvious double standards.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA never wore a uniform. If a man was killed by the UVF in Derry, he was automatically a civilian, but in a lot of cases they weren't...

This is blatantly false. Even people with a dubious IRA connection were automatically labelled as IRA activists at the height of the troubles. Meanwhile, RUC men (many of whom were connected to the UVF/UDA) were classed as civillians.

Here's an interesting rundown of deaths from a British source.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html

What's your obessesion with a "uniform" anyway?? Does a uniform automatically justify murder? Besides, a huge amount of British army operations were carried out without uniforms. Also, the UDA/UVF never wore one either.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Feel free to get all high, mighty and moralistic.

I don't agree with you. I am new to this site, but judging by the content of your posts i'm sure I'm not the first person to disagree with you, and I won't be the last. You can put it down to "my atitude" if it makes you feel better, but honestly its not that complicated. Its simple, I think you're wrong.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought it (.....) and moralistic.

Your first post on the thread gives the context for the rest of your posts. I've bolded the relevant line

all governments have people who work in murky circumstances and when you are fighting an enemy that plays by whatever rules it sees fit, then i am glad that those people exist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65827854&postcount=88

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

They placed them themselves for the most part, however they were constructed and the operation was planned with British input. The loyalists never showed that kind of ability again.

The reasoning behind the bombs was to try to get the Irish Govt to impose internment south of the border.

Thats like gospel, is it :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Its obvious from reading your previous posts that your "thoughts" are pretty mixed up so don't worry about it.

no, my thoughts are pretty straight forward. don't make the mistake of reading the words other posters are putting into my mouth.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Thats fine, but irrellevant. My issue was that you were trying to convince another member of boards that he too should have empathy with these men, despite admiting that you have personally no empathy with the Irish side. I was highlighting obvious double standards.

now you are doing it. when did I say I have no empathy with the Irish side?

I was asking another poster a question by the way, not try8ng to convince them that they should have empathy. There is a difference.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

This is blatantly false. Even people with a dubious IRA connection were automatically labelled as IRA activists at the height of the troubles. Meanwhile, RUC men (many of whom were connected to the UVF/UDA) were classed as civillians.

and you can demonstrate this how?

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Here's an interesting rundown of deaths from a British source.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html

sorry, but what does this demonstrate other than the well known fact that a lot of civilians were killed in the troubles.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

What's your obessesion with a "uniform" anyway?? Does a uniform automatically justify murder? Besides, a huge amount of British army operations were carried out without uniforms. Also, the UDA/UVF never wore one either.

because an army wears a uniform, that way they distinguish themselves from civilians and there is no ambiguity regarding their status when they are killed.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I don't agree with you. I am new to this site, but judging by the content of your posts i'm sure I'm not the first person to disagree with you, and I won't be the last. You can put it down to "my atitude" if it makes you feel better, but honestly its not that complicated. Its simple, I think you're wrong.

good. feel free to put me on your ignore list then.

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA never wore a uniform. If a man was killed by the UVF in Derry, he was automatically a civilian, but in a lot of cases they weren't, they were active members of the IRA. In those cases, whilst I would never condone, I wouldn't condemn either (to use a well known phrase).

Just on this Fred, it's true of course that the IRA never wore a uniform but over the course of the conflict the UVF killed very few active members of the IRA in comparison to ordinary civilians.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because an army wears a uniform, that way they distinguish themselves from civilians and there is no ambiguity regarding their status when they are killed.

Were the SAS and the FRU not part of the brit army, they wore civilian clothes when carrying out their killings along with their Loyalist buddies

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Just on this Fred, it's true of course that the IRA never wore a uniform but over the course of the conflict the UVF killed very few active members of the IRA in comparison to ordinary civilians.

I wouldn't argue, but how many people died as a result of collusion? In most civilian deaths there has never been any suggestion of collusion. They were simply brutal sectarian killings.

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

I never put any words in you mouth. Read it a bit more slowly again if it's an issue, I quoted you. I'll type at my own speed though.

Its completely obvious to me that bombings wherever they were were acts of Terrorism. My issue is that you deem it to be "Understandable" from an "Empathatic" perspective as to why some would involve themselves with this, but at the same time you have an issue when the same rules are applied to opposing sides.

This is the issue I have.

Nodin

Camelot wrote: »

Thats like gospel, is it :rolleyes:

Yes, it is. The only question is how high up the chain of command it went. Information on this is all in the public domain, I suggest you research it.

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

I never put any words in you mouth. Read it a bit more slowly again if it's an issue, I quoted you. I'll type at my own speed though.

Its completely obvious to me that bombings wherever they were were acts of Terrorism. My issue is that you deem it to be "Understandable" from an "Empathatic" perspective as to why some would involve themselves with this, but at the same time you have an issue when the same rules are applied to opposing sides.

This is the issue I have.

You obviously have difficulty reading English, or rather you are reading my post through your own biased eyes.

Tell me where in the post you quoted there is any hypocrisy? I view Dublin, Monaghan, Guildford and Birmingham with equal amounts of abhorration, ok, no hypocrisy there.

I have no problem with someone killing someone to defend themselves - statement, where is the hypocrisy?

Please don't judge me by your standards, or the standards of the other "RA Heads" on here

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have no problem with someone killing someone to defend themselves - statement, where is the hypocrisy?

I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Unless of course the people "defending themselves" are in the process of carrying out an armed occupation( that included the internment of thousands of innocent people without trial).

I think people are commenting on your hypocrisy because you said you had empathy with British soldiers that colluded with terrorists(for the various reasons you already outlined), but that you had no empathy for the IRA ( which you refuse to judge according to the same criteria). You're presenting your views as if you are looking at the issue from a logical point of view when it is obviously emotionally driven.

BTW you don't have to judge them by the same criteria, you just have to stop pretending that you're being objective.

People sometimes don't like to acknowledge this, but just like the British army, not all IRA men were simply blood thirsty killers. Both carried out atrocities as part of a war which they both believed was one of self defence.


As for your "RA head " comment. Not everyone who rejects the "British point of view" is a "RA head". In fact the minority are. "RA head" is a label used to undermine anyone who critcizies British policies towards Ireland. In the same way Israel calls any of its critics "anti-semite."

Fratton Fred

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Unless of course the people "defending themselves" are in the process of carrying out an armed occupation( that included the internment of thousands of innocent people without trial).

armed occupation? that maybe says quite a bit about where you are coming from.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I think people are commenting on your hypocrisy because you said you had empathy with British soldiers that colluded with terrorists(for the various reasons you already outlined), but that you had no empathy for the IRA ( which you refuse to judge according to the same criteria).

did I, where? like I said, read what I have written, not what other people have accused me of writing.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

You're presenting your views as if you are looking at the issue from a logical point of view when it is obviously emotionally driven.

I acknowledge that, that is why I can fully understand how some British soldiers got involved with terror organisations.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

As for your "RA head " comment. Not everyone who rejects the "British point of view" is a "RA head". In fact the minority are. "RA head" is a label used to undermine anyone who critcizies British policies towards Ireland. In the same way Israel calls any of its critics "anti-semite."

you mean a bit like everyone who doesn't vote SF and support Celtic is a west Brit?

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Unless of course the people "defending themselves" are in the process of carrying out an armed occupation( that included the internment of thousands of innocent people without trial).

I think people are commenting on your hypocrisy because you said you had empathy with British soldiers that colluded with terrorists(for the various reasons you already outlined), but that you had no empathy for the IRA ( which you refuse to judge according to the same criteria). You're presenting your views as if you are looking at the issue from a logical point of view when it is obviously emotionally driven.

BTW you don't have to judge them by the same criteria, you just have to stop pretending that you're being objective.

People sometimes don't like to acknowledge this, but just like the British army, not all IRA men were simply blood thirsty killers. Both carried out atrocities as part of a war which they both believed was one of self defence.


As for your "RA head " comment. Not everyone who rejects the "British point of view" is a "RA head". In fact the minority are. "RA head" is a label used to undermine anyone who critcizies British policies towards Ireland. In the same way Israel calls any of its critics "anti-semite."

living in a country surrounded by islamic countries who still believe[lets make no bones about it] they should not exist,they are bound to think they are ant-islamic,and as ireland is also run by a church that used jewish slaves in germany in WW 11,is not itself pro-jewish just what do you expect.

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

armed occupation? that maybe says quite a bit about where you are coming from.

Do you have a problem with the term "aoccupation"? The Bitish army occupied Northern Ireland. Thats a fact that I've never heard anyone deny ( until now :rolleyes:). It won't take you long to google numerous British sources that refer to the NI "occupation". The BBC even made a drama about it.... called.... eh... oh yea....occupation.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem admiting that my full sympathy as an Irishman, is with the Irish citizens of Northern Ireland. I make no apologies for that, and I'll make not attempt to persuade you to see it from my point of view because I don't need to. From my experience the vast majority of Irish people have similar views to me. They are not extremists, they don't vote Sinn Fein, they don't fit into the "bracket" that people like you would like to put them in. Remember, we broke away from the UK so obviously the majority of people on this island have similar views to me...not you.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I acknowledge that, that is why I can fully understand how some British soldiers got involved with terror organisations.?

Good for you. But don't expect everyone to agree with you. You seem to adopt a childish atitude with anyone who doesn't.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you mean a bit like everyone who doesn't vote SF and support Celtic is a west Brit?

That level of childish facetiousness is in line with the rest of your comments. You have no credibility because you can't hold a reasonable debate without resorting to such drivel.

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

living in a country surrounded by islamic countries who still believe[lets make no bones about it] they should not exist,they are bound to think they are ant-islamic,and as ireland is also run by a church that used jewish slaves in germany in WW 11,is not itself pro-jewish just what do you expect.

What on earth are you talking about?? You went off on a total tangent and have ended up somewhere east of sanity. Anti-islamic?? WW2??? Catholic church using "Jewish slaves"????

Have you read the title of this thread?

Fratton Fred

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Do you have a problem with the term "aoccupation"? The Bitish army occupied Northern Ireland. Thats a fact that I've never heard anyone deny ( until now :rolleyes:). It won't take you long to google numerous British sources that refer to the NI "occupation". The BBC even made a drama about it.... called.... eh... oh yea....occupation.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem admiting that my full sympathy as an Irishman, is with the Irish citizens of Northern Ireland. I make no apologies for that, and I'll make not attempt to persuade you to see it from my point of view because I don't need to. From my experience the vast majority of Irish people have similar views to me. They are not extremists, they don't vote Sinn Fein, they don't fit into the "bracket" that people like you would like to put them in. Remember, we broke away from the UK so obviously the majority of people on this island have similar views to me...not you.



Good for you. But don't expect everyone to agree with you. You seem to adopt a childish atitude with anyone who doesn't.



That level of childish facetiousness is in line with the rest of your comments. You have no credibility because you can't hold a reasonable debate without resorting to such drivel.

As you say, you are new to these boards.

This circular discussion has been had time after time after time and always ends up the same way. Someone will come out with the usual "Illegal occupation of the six counties" statement (which will then get thanked by Nodin. Dlofnep, Slab Murphy et al) and then the whataboutery will start.

There will then be the misquotes, accusations and presumptions that lead to a slanging match. Usually because the afore mentioned people are sat at their kewyboards waiting for someone to quote something that isn't in the Sinn Fein handbook that they can then get all morally outraged about, before defending the bombing of Guildford and blaming the Enniskillen bombing on British Army radios.

We've seen it all before mate.

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?? You went off on a total tangent and have ended up somewhere east of sanity. Anti-islamic?? WW2??? Catholic church using "Jewish slaves"????

Have you read the title of this thread?

you are the one who brought up the jews and linked them with the british,or dident you read your own posts ?

Carlos_Ray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As you say, you are new to these boards.

This circular discussion has been had time after time after time and always ends up the same way.

Yes I'm new to boards. So what's your excuse for your continued participation in these "circular" ( and evidently fruitless) discussions?

Fratton Fred

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Yes I'm new to boards. So what's your excuse for your continued participation in these "circular" ( and evidently fruitless) discussions?

I thought this one might be a bit different for some reason. I was wrong.

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

you are the one who brought up the jews and linked them with the british,or dident you read your own posts ?

Seriously what are you smoking ??

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Seriously what are you smoking ??

at this moment ,royal dutch cigars, and they are very nice,i am going to light up another

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

at this moment ,royal dutch cigars, and they are very nice,i am going to light up another

I'll have to get me some of those.

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I'll have to get me some of those.

i understand carlos just what you are trying to say,but you must realise that when the free state negotiated inderpendence it was supposed to have been a peacefull change over,as ireland was very unstable and many thousends prostestants and catholics ran for their lives ,see cork galway limerick,the new irish goverment could not protect them,both london and dublin went back and agreed that the six counties would stay legally under british rule,the rest is history,now there is light at the end of the tunnel as long as the republican terrorist element do not distrupt it

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

i understand carlos just what you are trying to say,but you must realise that when the free state negotiated inderpendence it was supposed to have been a peacefull change over,as ireland was very unstable and many thousends prostestants and catholics ran for their lives ,see cork galway limerick,the new irish goverment could not protect them,both london and dublin went back and agreed that the six counties would stay legally under british rule,the rest is history,now there is light at the end of the tunnel as long as the republican terrorist element do not distrupt it

Where did all this come from? Its got nothing to do with anything that was discussed previously. It's a frankenstein's monster post, compiled of various (innacurate) statements (which I suspect are intended to get a reaction). I'm not prepared to spend time giving you a history lesson, but I'm sure if you do even a little bit of research, you'll find out for yourself that your current grasp of events is....poor (I'm being kind).

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Where did all this come from? Its got nothing to do with anything that was discussed previously. It's a frankenstein's monster post, compiled of various (innacurate) statements (which I suspect are intended to get a reaction). I'm not prepared to spend time giving you a history lesson, but I'm sure if you do even a little bit of research, you'll find out for yourself that your current grasp of events is....poor (I'm being kind).

i was only educated in ireland for one year,and what the brothers taught me on irish history was nothing like the truth,by all means i am here to be enlightened

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

i was only educated in ireland for one year,and what the brothers taught me on irish history was nothing like the truth,by all means i am here to be enlightened

There are hundreds of books written on the subject. I suggest you buy one.

getz

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

There are hundreds of books written on the subject. I suggest you buy one.

as i suspected, avoidance

Carlos_Ray

getz wrote: »

as i suspected, avoidance

Exactly, avoidance of giving a complete stranger ( who has an obvious agenda) a free history lesson over the internet ( which I know he will use as an opportunity to sell his own brand of the "truth" which I have no interest in whatsoever).

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You obviously have difficulty reading English, or rather you are reading my post through your own biased eyes.

Tell me where in the post you quoted there is any hypocrisy? I view Dublin, Monaghan, Guildford and Birmingham with equal amounts of abhorration, ok, no hypocrisy there.

I have no problem with someone killing someone to defend themselves - statement, where is the hypocrisy?

Please don't judge me by your standards, or the standards of the other "RA Heads" on here

Here it is agaon for you:

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: »

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.

Me 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?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do, do you?

So do you or don't you empathise with the use of and collusion with Terrorists by members of the British Armed forces, which lead to the Murder of Innocent Civilians, rather than the appropriate use of Law and Order?.

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

So do you or don't you empathise with the use of and collusion with Terrorists by members of the British Armed forces, which lead to the Murder of Innocent Civilians, rather than the appropriate use of Law and Order?.

Er, for the umpteenth ****ing time, no I don't and I never said I did. How the **** do you come to the assumption I did from those posts?

Christ on a bike, you are like a dog with a bone, you just won't let go will you.

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Er, for the umpteenth ****ing time, no I don't and I never said I did. How the **** do you come to the assumption I did from those posts?

Christ on a bike, you are like a dog with a bone, you just won't let go will you.

Good.

But you do empathise with the use of and collusion with Terrorists by members of the British Armed forces, which lead to the Murder of Members of the IRA and other Terrorist organisations, rather than the appropriate use of Law and Order?.

FlutterinBantam

Buddy!

Since when did the battle against terrorism have to confine itself to law and order?

It's 360 war here !!! your theory might be valid up to 1948 but not now friend.


Fight fire with fire.


The enemy don't wear uniforms!

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Good.

But you do empathise with the use of and collusion with Terrorists by members of the British Armed forces, which lead to the Murder of Members of the IRA and other Terrorist organisations, rather than the appropriate use of Law and Order?.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Abso-bloody-lutely.

Well then you can empathise with the IRA's efforts with the Shankill Road and Guildford bombings, given it was Terrorist means against a State that resorted to Terrorist means themselves?.

Rules are the same remember.

Fratton Fred

Blackjack wrote: »

Well then you can empathise with the IRA's efforts with the Shankill Road and Guildford bombings, given it was Terrorist means against a State that resorted to Terrorist means themselves?.

Rules are the same remember.

Ok. So the people killed were members of the armed forces were they?

Methinks you are being a wee bit daft now.

moonpurple

in reply to OP, who appears to live outside of ireland
still no answer to who signed off on the hiroshima atomic bomb
or the fire bombing of dresden
or the sneak attack on pearl harbour
the list is E n d l e s s

the war in Ireland between 1969 and the 1990's led to three main things
the british army found they could not fully defeat the ira and its civilian support
the ira found they could not defeat the british army

the good friday agreement voted in by a majority of the many flavours of Irishness brought resolution and a way forward

just as the 1922 government of ireland act brought an end to the anglo irish war 1916-to1921

Blackjack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok. So the people killed were members of the armed forces were they?

Methinks you are being a wee bit daft now.

Thats correct. The Guildford Pub Bombings Targeted British Soldiers, 4 of whom were killed, and one Civilian. This would tie in the the "A lot, not all".

The Shankill Road Bombings Targeted Seniors in the UDA and UFF.

Terrorism is terrorism, and Murder is Murder, regardless of who's carrying it out.

baalthor

moonpurple wrote: »

in reply to OP, who appears to live outside of ireland
still no answer to who signed off on the hiroshima atomic bomb
or the fire bombing of dresden
or the sneak attack on pearl harbour

You want the OP to tell you the names of the people responsible for Hiroshima, Dresden and Pearl Harbor???

They are well documemted and part of the historical record so I don't see how this helps your case.

Poccington

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy!

Since when did the battle against terrorism have to confine itself to law and order?

It's 360 war here !!! your theory might be valid up to 1948 but not now friend.


Fight fire with fire.


The enemy don't wear uniforms!

So, was Pat Finucane's murder part of the "Battle against terrorism"? Since the Stevens Inquiry 3 found that collusion took place in the lead up to his murder.

The BA weren't deployed to NI to "Battle terrorism", they were supposed to be a neutral force in helping restore order and prevent the sectarian attacks which were being carried out against the Catholic community.

The didn't do that. They aided terrorist organisations, so much for the "Battle against terrorism" eh?

moonpurple

total whataboutery

for every pat finucane there is an equivalent from the other side
.. the southern garda who gave the movements of an ruc officer on his way back from a meeting in dublin

for every event there is a tit for tat event.. s t f u

the northern ireland conflict is over, and if you are too young to have observed it, count yourself bloody lucky,

now you do not have to explain no warning bombs in enniskillen to beautiful swedish women on your holidays, you can discuss football or boards.ie with them
rather than explain why some nurse in her twenties died holding her dads hand half covered in masonry that crushed her vital organs

thats about as glamerous as the depraved NI conflict ever was, kids

wolfpawnat

moonpurple wrote: »

in reply to OP, who appears to live outside of ireland
still no answer to who signed off on the hiroshima atomic bomb
or the fire bombing of dresden
or the sneak attack on pearl harbour
the list is E n d l e s s

the war in Ireland between 1969 and the 1990's led to three main things
the british army found they could not fully defeat the ira and its civilian support
the ira found they could not defeat the british army

the good friday agreement voted in by a majority of the many flavours of Irishness brought resolution and a way forward

just as the 1922 government of ireland act brought an end to the anglo irish war 1916-to1921

What would make you think I live outside Ireland? I have lived in Ireland all of my life! I was educated in Ireland and I did damn well in my Leaving Cert History!

Hiroshima&Nagasaki/Dresden/Pearl Harbour are not in my country, 2 of which are not even in my continent and all of which are from a war my country had no part in so please stop taking this OT!

Also the war from 1969-1990's brought to light the Irish Governments willingness to allow other nations sodemize it, the British governments sheer contempt to the Irish nation as a whole, and also the selective memory of the public to remember the IRA and not the UVF as the only dissedent groups!

To everyone on this thread, what I also find saddening is that the memorials in the 4 areas the bombs went off are placed there by a group consisting of families and friends of those lost that day and not large memorials as are seen in Belfast and in the likes of Béal na Bláth. As I am sure people would agree every Irish citizen is equally important, and we are all equally to the likes of Collins I know James Connolly would agree

OhNoYouDidn't

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy!

Since when did the battle against terrorism have to confine itself to law and order?

It's 360 war here !!! your theory might be valid up to 1948 but not now friend.


Fight fire with fire.
The enemy don't wear uniforms!

And if that fire is deemed by employees of the British state to be the ordinary citizens of a neighbouring state via no warning car bombs, then what? Are they 'the enemy'?

There is rank hypocricy here. Killing civilians is only bad when they do it.