WikiLeaks & Sinn Fein

Oasis_Dublin · 17-12-2010 5:31pm

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.

Give it a few more years Keith. The Gerrymandered Protestant ruled state has already been smashed and is soon to be led by a Fenian guttersnipe (one Marin McGuinness). Only a matter of time before Unionists (and Loyalists like yourself) are coerced into out fair state. Parliament in Dublin, tri-colour and Amhrán na bhFiann.

KeithAFC · 17-12-2010 5:34pm

PomBear wrote: »

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

It was the PIRA who had the aim to over turn the state and create a United Ireland. Which they failed to do.

Oasis_Dublin, Agent Martin can take that role all he wants. I will be happy if he takes it. Hopefully he does a better job than Peter robinson and actually gets things done for Northern Ireland.

Oasis_Dublin · 17-12-2010 5:36pm

He won't be able to with Unionists at him all the time. Looking forward to them being a Labour-esque <20% minority in the new 32 county state.

KeithAFC · 17-12-2010 5:41pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

He won't be able to with Unionists at him all the time. Looking forward to them being a Labour-esque <20% minority in the new 32 county state.

If it makes you sleep better at night.

Oasis_Dublin · 17-12-2010 5:46pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it makes you sleep better at night.

I couldn't care less. I live in Dublin, thank God.

KeithAFC · 17-12-2010 5:47pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I couldn't care less. I live in Dublin, thank God.

I should of been able to tell..

Oasis_Dublin · 17-12-2010 5:49pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

I should of been able to tell..

You can read my location, maith an fear.

PomBear · 17-12-2010 5:52pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

It was the PIRA who had the aim to over turn the state and create a United Ireland. Which they failed to do.

Oasis_Dublin, Agent Martin can take that role all he wants. I will be happy if he takes it. Hopefully he does a better job than Peter robinson and actually gets things done for Northern Ireland.

It's not as if they aren't close, there are few political analysts, politicians or anyone believes a United Ireland won't happen in the next 50 years.

KeithAFC · 17-12-2010 5:54pm

PomBear wrote: »

It's not as if they aren't close, there are few political analysts, politicians or anyone believes a United Ireland won't happen in the next 50 years.

The thing is, they aren't. It seems as if Sinn Fein have just accepted the state and now work for the state. Hince why so many breakaways.

junder · 17-12-2010 6:31pm

The geneva convention has been replaced by the international law of armed conflict, if memory serves me correct it also replaced the hague convention, the international law if armed conflict aims to cover all aspects of armed conflict from prisoners to legitimate targets to what defines a soldier, paramilitary, guerilla and terrorist. The pira falls under the terrorist category. Pira do not carry thier weapons openly, they do not have a uniform or clear displayed identifying badges or insignia, they do not engage in open warfare and armed confrontations, under the international law of armed conflict pira members are not intitled to pow status.

Poccington · 17-12-2010 7:09pm

junder wrote: »

The geneva convention has been replaced by the international law of armed conflict, if memory serves me correct it also replaced the hague convention, the international law if armed conflict aims to cover all aspects of armed conflict from prisoners to legitimate targets to what defines a soldier, paramilitary, guerilla and terrorist. The pira falls under the terrorist category. Pira do not carry thier weapons openly, they do not have a uniform or clear displayed identifying badges or insignia, they do not engage in open warfare and armed confrontations, under the international law of armed conflict pira members are not intitled to pow status.

Neither the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions have been replaced. I dunno where you pulled that from.

Also, while they're not entitled to POW Status I'd suggest you read Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, which deals with Non-International Armed Conflict. It states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an
international character occurring in the
territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be
bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and
those placed hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall
in all circumstances be treated humanely,
without any adverse distinction founded on
race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or
wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and
shall remain prohibited at any time and in
any place whatsoever with respect to the
above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in
particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(d) he passing of sentences and
the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court affording all the
judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be
collected and cared for.

So while the PIRA weren't entitled to POW status, there was still guidelines which the BA had to follow when dealing with them.

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 7:14pm

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

There was no war in the Republic, even if there was a 'war' in NI (which I don't believe there was, there was a terrorist insurgency). The butchering of Gerry McCabe was a bank robbery by some criminals who murdered a guy who got in their way.

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 7:15pm

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.

Great post.

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 7:18pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

Where do I start? I'm actually laughing out loud. Tell Tim Parry and Jonathan Bell about their rights under the Geneva Convention, or hundreds others.

It was a war when it suits the Provos, and then it's not when it doesn't. If it was a war, the British would have been within their rights to pick up every IRA 'soldier' not in uniform, try them as spies and execute them. They didn't. Either they were incredibly tolerant and moral, or it wasn't a war.

Oasis_Dublin · 17-12-2010 7:22pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

The thing is, they aren't. It seems as if Sinn Fein have just accepted the state and now work for the state. Hince why so many breakaways.

Demography, ultimate aims of both Sinn Féin and SDLP etc You read up on them wee lad and get back to us. Of course some Nationalists up the north may choose to lick the soup bowl one last time but that won't prevent it (re-unification) happening.

So many breakaways me hat! O'Bradaigh broke away from Official Sinn Féin in 86 and the so-called Republican Sinn Féin have achieved no electoral success. They are akin to the anti-de Valera Sinn Féin after 1926; no use to themselves or their supposed cause. It's the same as all the other break away groups. Useless. Adams' Sinn Féin has one long-term aim and one long-term aim only.

Poccington · 17-12-2010 7:48pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Where do I start? I'm actually laughing out loud. Tell Tim Parry and Jonathan Bell about their rights under the Geneva Convention, or hundreds others.

It was a war when it suits the Provos, and then it's not when it doesn't. If it was a war, the British would have been within their rights to pick up every IRA 'soldier' not in uniform, try them as spies and execute them. They didn't. Either they were incredibly tolerant and moral, or it wasn't a war.

Eh, how?

AlorStar · 17-12-2010 8:18pm

It's never too late to pay compliment. You put it best when you wrote: It is/was in everyones interest, IMHO, that they get away with it. Sun tzu put it best, if you want your enemy to retreat, give them an exit.
DeV.

Lonesome Boatman · 17-12-2010 8:23pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Where do I start? I'm actually laughing out loud. Tell Tim Parry and Jonathan Bell about their rights under the Geneva Convention, or hundreds others.

It was a war when it suits the Provos, and then it's not when it doesn't. If it was a war, the British would have been within their rights to pick up every IRA 'soldier' not in uniform, try them as spies and execute them. They didn't. Either they were incredibly tolerant and moral, or it wasn't a war.

I thought you didn't support political violence?

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 10:52pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Give it a few more years Keith. The Gerrymandered Protestant ruled state has already been smashed and is soon to be led by a Fenian guttersnipe (one Marin McGuinness). Only a matter of time before Unionists (and Loyalists like yourself) are coerced into out fair state. Parliament in Dublin, tri-colour and Amhrán na bhFiann.

Who was it who used to always complain about 'Unionist triumphalism'? Oh yeah, the Shinners. One rule for them, another for us, huh?

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 10:53pm

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

I thought you didn't support political violence?

I don't. But war is war, isn't it? When did executing spies become political violence?

Monty Burnz · 17-12-2010 10:55pm

Poccington wrote: »

Eh, how?

Because those are the rules of war. See how far you would get in WW2 as an Allied soldier out of uniform captured by the Axis, or vice versa. In your uniform, you are fine - you are a soldier of a belligerent power, and if you surrender, you are protected (in theory) by the Geneva Convention. Out of uniform, you are a spy.

maccored · 17-12-2010 11:34pm

Originally Posted by Monty Burnz

If it was a war, the British would have been within their rights to pick up every IRA 'soldier' not in uniform, try them as spies and execute them.

they didnt need to bother - the likes of the ruc, loyalists death squads and yer man Stone where all trying their hardest to do that. Granted they killed lots of innocent people in the process instead mind you.

Monty Burnz · 18-12-2010 12:19am

maccored wrote: »

they didnt need to bother - the likes of the ruc, loyalists death squads and yer man Stone where all trying their hardest to do that. Granted they killed lots of innocent people in the process instead mind you.

I take it that in a roundabout way you are acknowledging that they didn't do it, because there wasn't a war, there was at best an insurgency.

Oasis_Dublin · 18-12-2010 4:14am

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Who was it who used to always complain about 'Unionist triumphalism'? Oh yeah, the Shinners. One rule for them, another for us, huh?

I just used language like "coerced" because I know paranoid Unionists use it also. Of course the "Shinners" (a misspelling if ever there was one), which you so assumptiously suggest I am, were never as triumphalist as Unionists. Unionists are fighting a losing battle. That ain't triumphalism, it's fact. Sorry fella.

KeithAFC · 18-12-2010 9:58am

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I just used language like "coerced" because I know paranoid Unionists use it also. Of course the "Shinners" (a misspelling if ever there was one), which you so assumptiously suggest I am, were never as triumphalist as Unionists. Unionists are fighting a losing battle. That ain't triumphalism, it's fact. Sorry fella.

:pac: Your funny. Sinn Fein want a United Ireland, they want Dublin to rule. As long as there is loyalists, there will always be resistence.

Wolfe Tone · 18-12-2010 3:15pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

:pac: Your funny. Sinn Fein want a United Ireland, they want Dublin to rule. As long as there is loyalists, there will always be resistence.

tbh I doubt that would, or should, happen. I would prefer a federal type deal with devolved governments for each Provence.

OhNoYouDidn't · 18-12-2010 3:58pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There was no war in the Republic, even if there was a 'war' in NI (which I don't believe there was, there was a terrorist insurgency). The butchering of Gerry McCabe was a bank robbery by some criminals who murdered a guy who got in their way.

Again, read the court transcripts. It was a personal matter between a local Provo and a local Branch man.

dlofnep · 18-12-2010 8:50pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

:pac: Your funny. Sinn Fein want a United Ireland, they want Dublin to rule. As long as there is loyalists, there will always be resistence.

As long as there are Republicans, there will always be resistance. What's your point?

All political parties in the south aspire to see Irish reunification. The majority of the people on the Island aspire to see it. And it's irrelevant where Ireland is ruled from. It doesn't matter if it's Belfast or Dublin, or Cork or Derry. All political parties would be represented in the parliamentary house.

Di0genes · 18-12-2010 10:48pm

OhNoyoudidnt wrote:

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

Three unarmed volunteers who were attempting to murder a marching band, IRA sympathisers usually neglect to mention that part.

Oasis_Dublin · 18-12-2010 11:05pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

:pac: Your funny. Sinn Fein want a United Ireland, they want Dublin to rule. As long as there is loyalists, there will always be resistence.

Ha! Wait until we "force" you under "Rome rule!" Then they loyalist pip will squeak:cool:

WikiLeaks & Sinn Fein

Comments