WikiLeaks & Sinn Fein

Oasis_Dublin

Indeed. The Irish Language thread has turned into a "normies" vs. "bigoted petty nationalist" debate. Such a shame. Still, I hope people will continue to vote for a party like FF with its proven corrupt leaders (Charlie, Bertie) and refuse to vote for a party like Sinn Féin (Adams' beard is sooo 70s).

M three

junder wrote: »

Well you have dodged the issue, pointed fingers and generally done everything you can to try and shift the empahsis from the pira's criminality. So about the kidnapping, smuggling, extortion, murder (garada McCabe?), robberys, racketeering, done by the pira, got anything to say about that or are you just going to beat around the bush again.

It was a WAR you child. go eat some sweets.......

If you are so concerned about Gerry McCabe at least learn how to spell Garda

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Provide the said evidence then please.



It's quite simple. He has been the forefront of Republican politics for decades, and has kept the issue alive and relevant in 21st century Ireland.



He was an ardent critic of Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams. Do you always look at critics when seeking a balanced, and unbiased account of someone - or is only when you're looking to find faults in Republicanism?

Just look at some of the posts. Even proud republicans know he was in the PIRA.

junder

M three wrote: »

It was a WAR you child. go eat some sweets.......

If you are so concerned about Gerry McCabe at least learn how to spell Garda

So war justifies crimanlty ? What was the excuse for pira criminal activities in the republic?

Aidan1

It was a WAR you child. go eat some sweets.......

And again, for the nth time, no, it was not. It was a terrorist campaign, based on murder, intimidation and outright thuggery. The primary aim, at least since the mid 1970s, was to use that violence to bring about a reaction from the BA and the State in NI. To the eternal discredit of the BA, it even worked for a time, and to the eternal discredit of the British State, they were far too slow to put a stop to some of the activities of the RUC and other bodies. But none of that justifies murder, and bringing it up to 'excuse' the activities of the PIRA (or INLA, or CIRA) is whataboutery of the highest order.

If was a 'war', then why alll the moaning about 'shoot to kill'? Why all the giving out about 'collusion'? If it was a 'war', why did the killing of 3 PIIRA members on 'active service' in Gibralter give rise to such protests? Face it, calling it a war is a post hoc justification of a 30 year campaign of murder and intimidation, north and south of the border, which resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 people. If it was a 'war', and the gloves were off, the PIRA, north and south of the border, would have lasted about 2 days. And by the way, deliberate murder of civilians is a war crime, even in a declared war.

And giving out about people 'provo bashing' is rather pathetic, to someone old enough to remember the popular reaction in this country to events like Enniskillen, or the murder of children in Britain. To the great majority of Irish people, the actions of the PIRA/SF in the period were (and are) reprehensible in the extreme, and the fact the senior leadership of SF were centrally involved in planning and authorising these activities, and then supported them in public, means that a great number of people will never vote for them.

The fact that Republicans are surprised that normal people would denounce activities like murder, kidnapping, extortion and widespread intimidation is actually kind of sad, to be honest, and makes one wonder what kind of parallel moral universe some people live in.

Can'tseeme

Aidan1 wrote: »

And again, for the nth time, no, it was not. It was a terrorist campaign, based on murder, intimidation and outright thuggery. The primary aim, at least since the mid 1970s, was to use that violence to bring about a reaction from the BA and the State in NI. To the eternal discredit of the BA, it even worked for a time, and to the eternal discredit of the British State, they were far too slow to put a stop to some of the activities of the RUC and other bodies. But none of that justifies murder, and bringing it up to 'excuse' the activities of the PIRA (or INLA, or CIRA) is whataboutery of the highest order.

If was a 'war', then why alll the moaning about 'shoot to kill'? Why all the giving out about 'collusion'? If it was a 'war', why did the killing of 3 PIIRA members on 'active service' in Gibralter give rise to such protests? Face it, calling it a war is a post hoc justification of a 30 year campaign of murder and intimidation, north and south of the border, which resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 people. If it was a 'war', and the gloves were off, the PIRA, north and south of the border, would have lasted about 2 days. And by the way, deliberate murder of civilians is a war crime, even in a declared war.

And giving out about people 'provo bashing' is rather pathetic, to someone old enough to remember the popular reaction in this country to events like Enniskillen, or the murder of children in Britain. To the great majority of Irish people, the actions of the PIRA/SF in the period were (and are) reprehensible in the extreme, and the fact the senior leadership of SF were centrally involved in planning and authorising these activities, and then supported them in public, means that a great number of people will never vote for them.

The fact that Republicans are surprised that normal people would denounce activities like murder, kidnapping, extortion and widespread intimidation is actually kind of sad, to be honest, and makes one wonder what kind of parallel moral universe some people live in.

FFS, where do you start:rolleyes:

Was the war of Independence a terrorist campaign?

Why all the moaning about collusion, shoot to kill, killing of civilians by BA/Loyalists/RUC? Because it shows that the British WERE at war with the Irish people in the North. Not just that, organisations and regiments within British security forces had a deep seeded hatred of Irish nationalist in the North and during the conflict had a chance to 'go to town on them' and get away with it. We all know about PIRA bomb attacks, killings, etc. Let's now have an open and honest account of what the British got up to in the North, Dublin and Monaghan, etc. What did Paisley's Protestant Volunteers get up to, what did the RUC get up to, Paisley and Robinson's Ulster Resistance, I could go on.

OhNoYouDidn't

Aidan1 wrote: »

If was a 'war', then why alll the moaning about 'shoot to kill'? Why all the giving out about 'collusion'? If it was a 'war', why did the killing of 3 PIIRA members on 'active service' in Gibralter give rise to such protests? n.

Two reasons.

1: The British stated policy was that of criminalisation. Yet they sent out special forces and loyalist hit squads to take out Republicans. The disconnect between stated policy and actual behaviour was hypocritical and worthy of comment.

2: In Gibralter, three unarmed volunteers were riddled with bullets by soldiers out of uniform with no warning or opportunity to surrender, in direct violation of numerous Geneva conventions

junder

Can'tseeme wrote: »

FFS, where do you start:rolleyes:

Was the war of Independence a terrorist campaign?

Why all the moaning about collusion, shoot to kill, killing of civilians by BA/Loyalists/RUC? Because it shows that the British WERE at war with the Irish people in the North. Not just that, organisations and regiments within British security forces had a deep seeded hatred of Irish nationalist in the North and during the conflict had a chance to 'go to town on them' and get away with it. We all know about PIRA bomb attacks, killings, etc. Let's now have an open and honest account of what the British got up to in the North, Dublin and Monaghan, etc. What did Paisley's Protestant Volunteers get up to, what did the RUC get up to, Paisley and Robinson's Ulster Resistance, I could go on.

Here we go again more Obfuscation from republicans.

OhNoYouDidn't

junder wrote: »

Here we go again more Obfuscation from republicans.

Its actually not. All this shows to me is the need for a genuine truth commission like in South Africa. Too late now.

The Provo's were bad. We know that. The Loyalists were bad. We know that too.

The third pillar of British military and Intellegence services and their behaviour is the murkiest world and one that was never properly investigated.

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Two reasons.

1: The British stated policy was that of criminalisation. Yet they sent out special forces and loyalist hit squads to take out Republicans. The disconnect between stated policy and actual behaviour was hypocritical and worthy of comment.

2: In Gibralter, three unarmed volunteers were riddled with bullets by soldiers out of uniform with no warning or opportunity to surrender, in direct violation of numerous Geneva conventions

does the Geneva convention apply when you aren't at war? If it did, what rules were broken?

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

does the Geneva convention apply when you aren't at war? If it did, what rules were broken?

If they werent at war then they sent out hit squads to kill criminals.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If they werent at war then they sent out hit squads to kill criminals.

I think the term you are looking for is terrorists about to commit mass murder.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think the term you are looking for is terrorists about to commit mass murder.

What like in Gibraltar?

Aidan1

FFS, where do you start

When you try to justify murder, whereever you want apparently.

It can't be a war when you want, and not a war when you don't. So, if a British Army unit killing an unarmed and un-uniformed PIRA ASU without warning is wrong (and, on balance, it is), then so is a PIRA gang killing unarmed and un-uniformed members of the RUC or BA (or unarmed and un-uniformed children shopping on a Saturday in England).

The British policy was of criminalisation - there were very few outright assassinations of republicans during the troubles (and they were both wrong and counter productive). In fact, the BA soon learned after 1972 that the use of conventional military force was entirely counter productive. Repeated attempts by republicans to goad the security forces into reprisals had only limited effect after the mid 1970s (although behaviour by troops on a street level was often less helpful). Critically, given the intelligence they had to hand on the activities of republicans at all levels in the organisation, had they actually wanted to 'take out' the PIRA in NI, it could have been done in fairly short order, albeit with significant collateral damage. The important point to note is that this didn't happen. If it were a war, it would have. So retrospectively claiming to have fought a war against the BA is laughable, frankly.

I understand why and how some would try and retroactively try and create a justification for previous deeds, in order to sustain a current political affiliation(or to engage in a Bohan-esque bout of whataboutery). Put simply put lads, throughout the troubles, the vast majority of the population of this State abhored the actions of the PIRA, and attempts to re-write history and portray them as heroes are always going to draw this type of reaction from those who did not and do not countenance murder in their name. And this is before you count in the reaction owing to those responsible for the murder of members of the Gardai and of the Defence Forces.

Btw, I'm all for a Truth and Reconciliation type system. I'd love to hear who authorised and carried out the abduction, torture and murder of Jean McConville, the death of Peter Wilson, or the La Mon fire bombings. It's nauseating to hear the likes of Adams and McGuiness attempt to minimise their past, and deny any involvement in activities, and with the next breath call for an inquiry into other events (like the Finucane murder).

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

does the Geneva convention apply when you aren't at war? If it did, what rules were broken?

Of course they do. They are the set of rules that militaries have to operate by.

Off the top of my head

1: Not wearing a uniform
2: Killing clearly unarmed people

KeithAFC

If it was a war, the PIRA sucked at it. Could not get rid of loyalists, could not bring down the state and could not make a United Ireland happen. Basically anyone who didn't surrender.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it was a war, the PIRA sucked at it. Could not get rid of loyalists, could not bring down the state and could not make a United Ireland happen. Basically anyone who didn't surrender.

hahaha

OhNoYouDidn't

Aidan1 wrote: »

It can't be a war when you want, and not a war when you don't. So, if a British Army unit killing an unarmed and un-uniformed PIRA ASU without warning is wrong (and, on balance, it is), then so is a PIRA gang killing unarmed and un-uniformed members of the RUC or BA (or unarmed and un-uniformed children shopping on a Saturday in England).

I don't disagree with that, but fair is fair. The Provos always claimed it to be a war and proclamed themselves a standing army.

Aidan1 wrote: »

The British policy was of criminalisation - there were very few outright assassinations of republicans during the troubles (and they were both wrong and counter productive). In fact, the BA soon learned after 1972 that the use of conventional military force was entirely counter productive. Repeated attempts by republicans to goad the security forces into reprisals had only limited effect after the mid 1970s (although behaviour by troops on a street level was often less helpful). Critically, given the intelligence they had to hand on the activities of republicans at all levels in the organisation, had they actually wanted to 'take out' the PIRA in NI, it could have been done in fairly short order, albeit with significant collateral damage. The important point to note is that this didn't happen. If it were a war, it would have. So retrospectively claiming to have fought a war against the BA is laughable, frankly.

I think you are massively understating the level and nature of the dirty war fought by the British.

Aidan1 wrote: »

I understand why and how some would try and retroactively try and create a justification for previous deeds, in order to sustain a current political affiliation(or to engage in a Bohan-esque bout of whataboutery). Put simply put lads, throughout the troubles, the vast majority of the population of this State abhored the actions of the PIRA, and attempts to re-write history and portray them as heroes are always going to draw this type of reaction from those who did not and do not countenance murder in their name. And this is before you count in the reaction owing to those responsible for the murder of members of the Gardai and of the Defence Forces.

Who is trying to do that though?

Aidan1 wrote: »

Btw, I'm all for a Truth and Reconciliation type system. I'd love to hear who authorised and carried out the abduction, torture and murder of Jean McConville, the death of Peter Wilson, or the La Mon fire bombings. It's nauseating to hear the likes of Adams and McGuiness attempt to minimise their past, and deny any involvement in activities, and with the next breath call for an inquiry into other events (like the Finucane murder).

But I think the point is that at a high level we know what happened in all those cases you listed and they were rigorously investigated by the autorities at the time. All we are missing is the names of the players.

The issue is that the actions of the British state were never in any way investigated by themselves. Finucane, Rosmary Nelson, Dublin and Monaghan, Dublin again, Seamus Ludlow, FRU and their links to the Loyalists etc. And thats not looking at military activities. The Bloody Sunday enquiry had to be dragged out of them and cost a fortune because of the stonewalling.

Like it or not, the British state has to be held up to a higher standard than the paramilitaries.

I don't disagree on Adams and McGuinness, the Adams denial of his membership is laughable and calls everything he says into question. I think it has simply gone on too long now and he can't back down.

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Of course they do. They are the set of rules that militaries have to operate by.

Off the top of my head

1: Not wearing a uniform
2: Killing clearly unarmed people

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Hague Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions deals with POW's, wounded and sick and the protection of civilian persons.

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Of course they do. They are the set of rules that militaries have to operate by.

Off the top of my head

1: Not wearing a uniform
2: Killing clearly unarmed people

so in a war both armies need to wear a uniform and only kill armed people?

Then it clearly wasn't a war.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

hahaha

lol, its true though.

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Hague Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions deals with POW's, wounded and sick and the protection of civilian persons.

To be fair, maybe I am, but the point I was angling at, is if the British call the IRA criminals, then they are civilians, and use of the Para's and SAS is not acceptible to deal with crime.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in a war both armies need to wear a uniform and only kill armed people?

Then it clearly wasn't a war.

I don't disagree, but it clearly wasn't a crime situation either.

Interesting aside, the Vietnam war was not a war

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I don't disagree, but it clearly wasn't a crime situation either.

Interesting aside, the Vietnam war was not a war

Planting bombs and killing innocent people aren't crimes?

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To be fair, maybe I am, but the point I was angling at, is if the British call the IRA criminals, then they are civilians, and use of the Para's and SAS is not acceptible to deal with crime.

The Troubles would fall under the definition of Non International Armed Conflict, in that it was Government forces up against rebel forces, so only parts of the Third Geneva Convention would apply to them as well as parts of Protocol II.

So while the British may have viewed them as criminals, a state of armed conflict still existed. I won't attempt to try dissect the legalities of using undercover SAS members against unarmed IRA ASU members as International Law wouldn't be my strong point.

While the Brits may have called their actions criminal, I very much doubt they actually viewed ASU members as purely criminals or civilians... They were of course an enemy in the military sense.

KeithAFC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12018242

The unemployed Catholic, who had learning disabilities, left his home in the Beechmount area of west Belfast in 1973. He was never seen again.

It is believed he was abducted and killed by members of the IRA.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Planting bombs and killing innocent people aren't crimes?

Again, I'm not here to speak for the 'Ra.

But the counter argument is that the British state did both those things.

No-one wins from this whataboutery

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To be fair, maybe I am, but the point I was angling at, is if the British call the IRA criminals, then they are civilians, and use of the Para's and SAS is not acceptible to deal with crime.

Why not? There is no police force in the world with the ability and resources to fight an organisation like the IRA.

Look at some of the attacks the IRA carried out. Bombing unarmed cavalry on ceremonial duty, killing scores of off duty soldiers and in some cases killing or wounding their families ( they even shot and killed a 6 month old daughter of an Airman in Germany).

Who else should/could tackle these sorts of people and exactly how much sympathy do you think active IRA members are going to get.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why not? There is no police force in the world with the ability and resources to fight an organisation like the IRA.

Look at some of the attacks the IRA carried out. Bombing unarmed cavalry on ceremonial duty, killing scores of off duty soldiers and in some cases killing or wounding their families ( they even shot and killed a 6 month old daughter of an Airman in Germany).

Who else should/could tackle these sorts of people and exactly how much sympathy do you think active IRA members are going to get.

I'm not here to defend them or their activities, but you can't argue they were a criminal gang in any meanigful sense of the word. And despite the title, the British resposne was not a police action any any meanigful sense of the word.

PomBear

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it was a war, the PIRA sucked at it. Could not get rid of loyalists, could not bring down the state and could not make a United Ireland happen. Basically anyone who didn't surrender.

Wrong.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

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