WikiLeaks & Sinn Fein

Monty Burnz

danbohan wrote: »

no , its because the person making it has no understanding of the situation at that time and yet purports themselves as an expert on the situation

I'm not 'purporting [myself] an expert' (sic), I'm making a few different points, none of which you seem to want to address:

1. Shinners/IRA people can't complain about atrocities committed by others if they assert that there was a war going on (during which they committed atrocities like the murder of those children in Warrington).

2. I don't accept that there was a war. This is the first definition of a war I found, from Webster: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The IRA were involved in a terrorist insurgency.

3. There is no essential difference between the terrorist campaigns of the IRA (and other NI terror groups) and Al Qaeda.

4. Sinn Fein/IRA members continue to be involved in serious criminality in this state and in NI. Sinn Fein need to address this issue and purge the criminal element that pervades their organisation (Bernard Dempsey and the other O'Snodaigh 'election workers' are just the guys who got caught).

Monty Burnz

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

It was very much a war between the IRA and the British army. If you think it was a terrorist campaign and not a war, then it must of been 2 terrorist campaigns, between the British army and the IRA which doesn't really make sense. Unless you believe the British army are somehow not terrorists and the IRA are. In that case your definition of the word terrorist would be rather strange. As the British army murdered children, some would argue the British army declared war on the nationalist community on bloody sunday.

The IRA used terror against the people who were terrorising the nationalist community.

So were Tim Parry (aged 12) and Jonathan Bell (aged 3) perhaps doing some undercover work for the British Army in Warrington when they were murdered? Was this a serious blow to the logistics of the British Army in NI?

Monty Burnz

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

I am not talking about isolated incidents during a 30 year period.

Well that is convenient, isn't it. Can we also call 'Bloody Sunday' an isolated incident, and ignore that atrocity too? :rolleyes:

KeithAFC

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Fenian is not offensive, it is a badge of honour.

You are beginning to sound like a kid in a playground crying for the teachers, reporting posts after provoking posters.

No one is provoking anyone. You would not like me calling you that, so i don't see why it should be allowed.

KeithAFC

The IRA were normal people who volunteered to fight an oppressive force because of their circumstances and surroundings

So planting bombs near chip shops is a way of fighting that oppressive force.. Nonsense. More republican nonsense.

maccored

Dear Jesus, for Christmas, can these people please grow the **** up?

Lonesome Boatman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So were Tim Parry (aged 12) and Jonathan Bell (aged 3) perhaps doing some undercover work for the British Army in Warrington when they were murdered? Was this a serious blow to the logistics of the British Army in NI?

Do you believe the British army are terrorists? They certainly inflicted terror upon innocent Irish people, and continue to do so in the middle east today, they murder innocent people. If you believe it was just a terrorist campaign carried out by the IRA and not a war between the IRA and the British army. Where does the British occupation of Ireland come into things?

What about the Ballymurphy massacre? What about bloody Sunday? If we are going to pick out isolated incidents during the conflict, then i can do the exact same as you and pick out the Irish children the British army murdered during their occupation of Ireland. How can it be a terrorist campaign by one side and not the other? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

The IRA's objectives were to remove the British presence from Ireland, the British army occupy part of Ireland. By your exact logic the British army carried out a terrorist campaign against the Irish people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayXcfps1MUA

And to mirror your crude quote above, were these children undercover IRA terrorists?

Before you dismiss all this and say you are just talking about the IRA and not the British army, this debate has evolved into the wider conflict and whether or not it was a war is being discussed. You have to look at both side both sides (British army) and (IRA) to determine if it was a war or not.

In my opinion it was a war between the IRA and the British army, no doubt about it. The North of Ireland was a war zone, it was a war situation between the IRA and the British army/forces.

Monty Burnz

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

In my opinion it was a war between the IRA and the British army, no doubt about it. The North of Ireland was a war zone, it was a war situation between the IRA and the British army/forces.

How do you define a war then? Please give a clear definition. We can then explore it in more detail.

Lonesome Boatman

KeithAFC wrote: »

So planting bombs near chip shops is a way of fighting that oppressive force.. Nonsense. More republican nonsense.

Another isolated incident. There was a loyalist death squad base above the chip shop, directing terrorists attacks against innocent catholics. You make it sound like a random chip shop, shouldn't of happened but did. Most republicans hold the person who carried it out in contempt. As i would imagine most British patriots would hold the British soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday in contempt. Its easy to generalise and pick out isolated incidents during a 30 year period isn't it?

KeithAFC

were these children undercover IRA terrorists?

Was Kathryn Eakin a member of the British armed forces?

Eight-year-old Kathryn was cleaning the windows of her family's shop when the first bomb went off. She died instantly.

Her mother, Merle, saw a bomber leave what would be the second bomb beside their shop, not knowing what horror it would bring to her family.

"When he stepped out of that car, he saw Kathryn standing at that window," she said.

"He should have shouted at her. But he didn't, he just walked away."

KeithAFC

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Another isolated incident. There was a loyalist death squad base above the chip shop, directing terrorists attacks against innocent catholics. You make it sound like a random chip shop, shouldn't of happened but did. Most republicans hold the person who carried it out in contempt. As i would imagine most British patriots would hold the British soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday in contempt. Its easy to generalise and pick out isolated incidents during a 30 year period isn't it?

How are they isolated? The IRA killed lots of people who weren't British armed forces members.

Bottle_of_Smoke

danbohan wrote: »

of course all killings are abhorrent whatever the source , junder has never once condemned the actions of loyalists / british army murders

If that is the case then why bring up loyalist/BA murders when queried about IRA atrocities? When you do that it looks like you're implying that somehow makes those IRA ops somewhat more justified.

I mean I could understand you saying say the Warrenpoint ambush was justified based on BA actions against nationalists.

However I could never accept the Shankill bombing/Enniskillen/Kingsmille/La Mon type operations could be mitigated based on murders carried out by loyalists/brit security forces. So it is irritating you would bring that up when someone comments on IRA actions.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Another isolated incident. There was a loyalist death squad base above the chip shop, directing terrorists attacks against innocent catholics. You make it sound like a random chip shop, shouldn't of happened but did. Most republicans hold the person who carried it out in contempt. As i would imagine most British patriots would hold the British soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday in contempt. Its easy to generalise and pick out isolated incidents during a 30 year period isn't it?

Not aware of that to be honest. The story I've heard from republicans is the the plan was to go in and shout a warning to evacuate the shop. The bomb however went off early killing several people and injuring hundreds. And on that day there were no loyalists in the office above.

The IRA man who was killed got a military style funeral and Gerry Adams carried his coffin so I'd hardly say he is held in contempt.

Lonesome Boatman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you define a war then? Please give a clear definition. We can then explore it in more detail.

I was hoping for you to address the points i made properly or at least have the decency to answer my questions, you have been asking plenty of questions in this thread and expect people to answer you yet refuse to answer questions yourself. But im happy to debate things with you if it is done in a reasonable way and not the hyperbole you have been posting through out this thread.

The debate of what defines a war is another kettle of fish and more complicated. For me a war is simply 2 armed forces in a conflict situation, some would say there is a distinct difference between a war and an occupation. A good example of this would be the Iraq war, Bush went on TV and declared his army victorious and the war won not long after their invasion. Lots of years later and they are still there, so the war ended when he declared victory and the occupation began.

With an occupation you have occupation fighters using guerilla warfare tactics to overthrow the oppressive force, usually these tactics are used because the oppressive force has a numerical advantage along with better weaponry.

How do you define a terrorist? Someone who goes against the American or UK government? Or someone who inflicts terror regardless?

Lonesome Boatman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not aware of that to be honest. The story I've heard from republicans is the the plan was to go in and shout a warning to evacuate the shop. The bomb however went off early killing several people and injuring hundreds. And on that day there were no loyalists in the office above.

The IRA man who was killed got a military style funeral and Gerry Adams carried his coffin so I'd hardly say he is held in contempt.

That is the story i have heard as well, but the bomb went off early and Sean Kelly lost his eye and the other guy died. He got a military style funeral because he was in the IRA, plain and simple. Would you of expected him not to of got one? I have yet to come across a republican who does not hold Sean Kelly in contempt. He is a scumbag.

KeithAFC

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

That is the story i have heard as well, but the bomb went off early and Sean Kelly lost his eye and the other guy died. He got a military style funeral because he was in the IRA, plain and simple. Would you of expected him not to of got one? I have yet to come across a republican who does not hold Sean Kelly in contempt. He is a scumbag.

Gerry Adams didn't think so...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

That is the story i have heard as well, but the bomb went off early and Sean Kelly lost his eye and the other guy died. He got a military style funeral because he was in the IRA, plain and simple. Would you of expected him not to of got one? I have yet to come across a republican who does not hold Sean Kelly in contempt. He is a scumbag.

If he was held in contempt he would not get one. Touts didn't for example. I don't knwo anything about Sean Kelly to be honest - what is it about him that makes you call him a scumbag - do you know of any online articles about him?

Lonesome Boatman

Keith what is your opinion on the British army terrorists and their murdering of children. Did you a buy a poppy this year and fund the medical care of these terrorists? I expect you did, since you are a loyalist?

Lonesome Boatman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If he was held in contempt he would not get one. Touts didn't for example. I don't knwo anything about Sean Kelly to be honest - what is it about him that makes you call him a scumbag - do you know of any online articles about him?

The man who died wasn't Sean Kelly. The man who died, died while on active service, he got a military funeral because of that. Same as any other soldier from any other army would of got a military funeral.

I think he went back to jail after the GFA for criminal activities, so imo he is a scumbag.

KeithAFC

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Keith what is your opinion on the British army terrorists and their murdering of children. Did you a buy a poppy this year and fund the medical care of these terrorists? I expect you did, since you are a loyalist?

Yes i did buy a poppy.

Monty Burnz

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

The debate of what defines a war is another kettle of fish and more complicated. For me a war is simply 2 armed forces in a conflict situation

So, by this definition, Al Qaeda are at war with the West?

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

How do you define a terrorist? Someone who goes against the American or UK government? Or someone who inflicts terror regardless?

Here's a handy definition of terrorist that I found:
"An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result."

Monty Burnz

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Keith what is your opinion on the British army terrorists and their murdering of children. Did you a buy a poppy this year and fund the medical care of these terrorists? I expect you did, since you are a loyalist?

Lonesome, can you please provide proof of the British Army murdering children? I am genuinely curious as to what they have done. I would make this proviso: if a child/civilian is killed in a manner that is totally unforseeable (for example, a ricochet, or a civilian being in the middle of an army patrol) then I would not call that muder.

For me, murder would be when you do something that deliberately puts civilians at risk of their lives.

There is a grey area where - say - a high value target like Bin Laden is in a village somewhere with civilians around him and you can attack him with a missile from a drone, knowing that there would be civilian casualties. Some people would say that is acceptable (the American government, probably). I would say that it is not.

Lonesome Boatman

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes i did buy a poppy.

#

Your money goes to the people who served in Northern Ireland.

The people who murdered children. How do you feel about this?

Or do you regard the British army as heroes? I think you do.

If so you have no right to sit here and copy and paste children that the IRA have murdered, when you fund the medical care and pensions of British soldiers who murdered innocent Irish children.

I find this whole thing very sick. You obviously do not care about the children the IRA have murdered, you are just using it to point score.

Do you not see anything wrong with supporting the British army who inflict terror on innocent people and have a long history of murdering innocents? While in the same breath copy and pasting IRA atrocities to point score?

I find it sickening.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So, by this definition, Al Qaeda are at war with the West?


Here's a handy definition of terrorist that I found:
"An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result."

'The west' is too broad a description, as is Al Qaeda to an extent.

The people fighting against the British soldiers and Americans in the middle east are mainly lots of different small groups scattered around the place, and not one big Al Qaeda group.

Al Qaeda are systematically trying to destroy western culture and do not have any military targets as far as i can see, Sharia law is what they want. Not any political objectives just religious fanatics therefore they are not a legitimate force. I would call them islamo fascists.

I think in order for a force to be a legitimate force in a war situation they need to have clear objectives and target military targets, a cause, the IRA's cause was a just one imo.

Anything else would be war crimes .

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

The man who died wasn't Sean Kelly. The man who died, died while on active service, he got a military funeral because of that. Same as any other soldier from any other army would of got a military funeral.

I think he went back to jail after the GFA for criminal activities, so imo he is a scumbag.

I know that just you said the ones who carried out the attack were held in contempt and it appeared you meant they were held in contempt for the attack which I don't believe is true. Look at it this way if that bomb killed paramilitaries but the civillians escaped they'd be regarded as heroes.

Lonesome Boatman

Would you hold him in contempt for it? Or think it was just unlucky.

Lonesome Boatman

Another thing, guerilla warfare is the same tactics used by the British and Americans in the middle east, the same tactics the IRA used. The same tactics Micheal Collins, Liam Lynch used. The IRA used the same tactics and had the same objectives, just the part of the country was in the North. So whats the difference, how is it a terrorist campaign in the North and in the south its heroic freedom fighters and all the usual stuff.

You could do the exact same thing and pick out incidents where the IRA killed innocents in the 20's, you could pick out incidents where the British army have killed innocents. The most important issue is the cause these people were fighting for and whether it was just or not as innocents die in all wars.

KeithAFC

Your money goes to the people who served in Northern Ireland.

The people who murdered children. How do you feel about this?

Or do you regard the British army as heroes? I think you do.

If so you have no right to sit here and copy and paste children that the IRA have murdered, when you fund the medical care and pensions of British soldiers who murdered innocent Irish children.

I find this whole thing very sick. You obviously do not care about the children the IRA have murdered, you are just using it to point score.

Do you not see anything wrong with supporting the British army who inflict terror on innocent people and have a long history of murdering innocents? While in the same breath copy and pasting IRA atrocities to point score?

I find it sickening.

I support our troops. Im happy to buy a poppy. By bringing up the British Army, you are going to get the other side of the coin.

Forgetting about the IRA and basically being an apologist and only laying into the British Army.

Fratton Fred

U

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Another thing, guerilla warfare is the same tactics used by the British and Americans in the middle east, the same tactics the IRA used. The same tactics Micheal Collins, Liam Lynch used. The IRA used the same tactics and had the same objectives, just the part of the country was in the North. So whats the difference, how is it a terrorist campaign in the North in the south its heroic freedom fighters and all the usual stuff.

Where in the middle east?

junder

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

#

Your money goes to the people who served in Northern Ireland.

The people who murdered children. How do you feel about this?

Or do you regard the British army as heroes? I think you do.

If so you have no right to sit here and copy and paste children that the IRA have murdered, when you fund the medical care and pensions of British soldiers who murdered innocent Irish children.

I find this whole thing very sick. You obviously do not care about the children the IRA have murdered, you are just using it to point score.

Do you not see anything wrong with supporting the British army who inflict terror on innocent people and have a long history of murdering innocents? While in the same breath copy and pasting IRA atrocities to point score?

I find it sickening.



'The west' is too broad a description, as is Al Qaeda to an extent.

The people fighting against the British soldiers and Americans in the middle east are mainly lots of different small groups scattered around the place, and not one big Al Qaeda group.

Al Qaeda are systematically trying to destroy western culture and do not have any military targets as far as i can see, Sharia law is what they want. Not any political objectives just religious fanatics therefore they are not a legitimate force. I would call them islamo fascists.

I think in order for a force to be a legitimate force in a war situation they need to have clear objectives and target military targets. Anything else would be war crimes .

I wear metal poppy all year round and have no issue about the money helping wounded and disabled veterans since I am a British soldier. The thing that sepperates me from your heroes is that as an individual soldier I am now responsible for my own actions, there is no 'I was just following orders' defence or 'it's a war' if I commit a war crime I can be charged by my unit, my regiment, the army, the government and the Hague, provies on the other get to be in government. All armies within the un are accountable to the law of international armed conflict, within that law there are strict diffinitions if what constitutes a legitimate target, also within that law are the definitions if what constituted a army, paramilitary force or guerilla group and the ira falls into non of these definitions, it is by definition under the law of international armed conflict a terrorist organisation.

danbohan

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not 'purporting [myself] an expert' (sic), I'm making a few different points, none of which you seem to want to address:



1. Shinners/IRA people can't complain about atrocities committed by others if they assert that there was a war going on (during which they committed atrocities like the murder of those children in Warrington).

2. I don't accept that there was a war. This is the first definition of a war I found, from Webster: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The IRA were involved in a terrorist insurgency.

3. There is no essential difference between the terrorist campaigns of the IRA (and other NI terror groups) and Al Qaeda.

4. Sinn Fein/IRA members continue to be involved in serious criminality in this state and in NI. Sinn Fein need to address this issue and purge the criminal element that pervades their organisation (Bernard Dempsey and the other O'Snodaigh 'election workers' are just the guys who got caught).

1/ , wars dont usally get fought in dictonarys ,or books , try the real thing, only complaints were against british forces murders , of course if you accept the fact that the british army was a terrorist army as i do then it is acceptable

2/the IRA for the first place were involved in a defensive war of nationalist areas against attacks by loyalist/british forces while the free state goverment stood idly by , it later became a war of liberation

3/ their was a huge difference in the actions of the IRA and the likes of UVF , UFF LVF whose actions were purely sectarian in nature, i am sure many in middle east people feel AL Qaeda are their freedom fighters and US army are terrorist . one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

4/ you have produced no evidence of this , their are people who would say fianna fail are involved in criminality as well