the murder of pat finucane

KeithAFC

Can'tseeme wrote: »

A statement on behalf of Mr Cameron said: "The prime minister expressed his profound sympathy for the family and said it was clear from (the) Stevens and Corey (inquiries) that state collusion had taken place in Mr Finucane's murder and he accepted these conclusions.
"On behalf of the government he apologised to the family.

Ok, fair enough. Case closed then. I think David Cameron himself is sick of these enquires.

Monty Burnz

There was a war on, hurt on both sides, no side has a monopoly on suffering, we need to move on and stop living in the past, let's look forwards and not backwards, there's no point in dragging up the past again, innocent people die in wars, it's all very sad, but we need to move on in a spirit of forgiveness and hope.

Or does that stuff only apply to terrorist murders?

maccored

no , that applies both ways - British gov terrorists included. point is, one side (namely the british government) denies there was a war on. republicans arent denying that.

still does that give the uk government the right to kill a civillian?

Many on here constantly give out about civillian deaths in IRA actions ... why arent the same people condemning this death too?

KeithAFC

maccored wrote: »

no , that applies both ways - British gov terrorists included. point is, one side (namely the british government) denies there was a war on. republicans arent denying that.

still does that give the uk government the right to kill a civillian?

Many on here constantly give out about civillian deaths in IRA actions ... why arent the same people condemning this death too?

Many Republicans over the years have denied it was a war when you look at the amount of moaning and slating of the SAS to this day for killing PIRA members or Loyalists trying to kill Gerry Adams.

maccored

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many Republicans over the years have denied it was a war when you look at the amount of moaning and slating of the SAS to this day for killing PIRA members or Loyalists trying to kill Gerry Adams.

I dont know what republicans you've been talking to. they all know there was a war on.

The reason loughgall annoyed so many was that the british constantly deny there being a war, and painted the ira out to be terrorists, rather than combatants in a war.

You cant have it both ways.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

no , that applies both ways - British gov terrorists included. point is, one side (namely the british government) denies there was a war on. republicans arent denying that.

They have been forced to accept it by freeing all the terrorists murderers. Sauce for the goose and all that suggests that they may as well get the same dispensation.

maccored wrote: »

still does that give the uk government the right to kill a civillian?

Yes, if the 'civilian' is sheltering terrorists. The IRA killed people for working in the wrong canteens, and murdered a woman who was going door-to-door collecting the census forms. When the IRA appropriately punish the people who committed those murders, then I'll expect to see the British government do the same.

maccored wrote: »

Many on here constantly give out about civillian deaths in IRA actions ... why arent the same people condemning this death too?

Because of SF/IRA hypocrisy?

maccored

how about answering my question? All I read above me is gibberish.

maccored

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They have been forced to accept it by freeing all the terrorists murderers. Sauce for the goose and all that suggests that they may as well get the same dispensation.

I have no idea what this means

Yes, if the 'civilian' is sheltering terrorists. The IRA killed people for working in the wrong canteens, and murdered a woman who was going door-to-door collecting the census forms. When the IRA appropriately punish the people who committed those murders, then I'll expect to see the British government do the same.

So its OK then for the brits to murder civillians. nice of you to say so. Hypocrisy anyone? I dont think any self respecting republican has ever said IRA civillian deaths were OK. sometimes unavoidable as is with most wars, but not OK.

Because of SF/IRA hypocrisy?

You're the one being hypocritical. Plus 'Because of SF/IRA hypocrisy?' is a cop out of an answer that explains nothing. As I said - gibberish.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

how about answering my question? All I read above me is gibberish.

I answered the question you asked. If a civilian is helping the enemy in a war situation, he's no longer a civilian, is he?

Can you explain how working in a canteen makes you a 'legitimate' terrorist target, but actively working to help combatants escape does not?

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

I have no idea what this means

If there was a war, then there was a war for both sides.

maccored wrote: »

So its OK then for the brits to murder civillians. nice of you to say so. Hypocrisy anyone?

So you are saying murdering civilians is wrong? Because the IRA deliberately murdered a helluva lot of civilians, and 'accidentally' murdered many more.

maccored wrote: »

You're the one being hypocritical. Plus 'Because of SF/IRA hypocrisy?' is a cop out of an answer that explains nothing. As I said - gibberish.

With all due respect, your counterarguments are very, very weak.

maccored

you've made yourself pretty clear. You aren't really in a position to be high horsing anyone.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

you've made yourself pretty clear. You aren't really in a position to be high horsing anyone.

Would you like to address the questions I asked you, or are you a hypocrite about that too?

maccored

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If there was a war, then there was a war for both sides.

So you are saying murdering civilians is wrong? Because the IRA deliberately murdered a helluva lot of civilians, and 'accidentally' murdered many more.

With all due respect, your counterarguments are very, very weak.

Seriously, with all due respect - grow up. admit there was a war for a start and yes, murdering civillians is wrong .. I dont think you'll ever find me ever saying anything else. You though, say its bad in some cases but good in other. Hypocritical.

maccored

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would you like to address the questions I asked you, or are you a hypocrite about that too?

what questions? I can do this bull**** type of debate you seem to favour all day if you want.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

what questions? I can do this bull**** type of debate you seem to favour all day if you want.

I'll try to make it easier for you. See if you can spot the questions this time around. There are clues.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I answered the question you asked. If a civilian is helping the enemy in a war situation, he's no longer a civilian, is he?

Can you explain how working in a canteen makes you a 'legitimate' terrorist target, but actively working to help combatants escape does not?

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
It appears that some posters on this thread are getting a bit too personal with their comments. Play the ball, not the man. Please.

maccored

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'll try to make it easier for you. See if you can spot the questions this time around. There are clues.

personally, I have never agreed with the IRAs theory of killing people who were helping the RUC - so in my view, no they aren't.

You though, seem to agree that the IRA had every right to kill people working for the RUC since you think pat finucanes death is alright.

Can you explain that to me? Watch you dont backtrack now - you've made it pretty clear.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

personally, I have never agreed with the IRAs theory of killing people who were helping the RUC - so in my view, no they aren't.

Great, we agree on that. So the IRA are responsible for hundreds of totally unjustifiable murders.

maccored wrote: »

You though, seem to agree that the IRA had every right to kill people working for the RUC since you think pat finucanes death is alright.

I agree with the idea that if it was acceptable for the IRA to kill civilians for spurious reasons, then it was ok for the other side to do the same. Of course I don't agree with the premise.

maccored wrote: »

Can you explain that to me? Watch you dont backtrack now - you've made it pretty clear.

I hope that is sufficiently clear. From my perspective, murders of civilians are not acceptable, hence I would hold that the IRA are guilty of war crimes. Collusion is not acceptable to me either - but it rather grinds my gears when SF/IRA complain about collusion without bringing to justice those that they know are responsible for war crimes.

maccored

Backtracking I say. In this thread you condoned his death, now you backtrack. No point debating with you anyway

Monty Burnz wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

personally, I have never agreed with the IRAs theory of killing people who were helping the RUC - so in my view, no they aren't.

Great, we agree on that. So the IRA are responsible for hundreds of totally unjustifiable murders.

maccored wrote: »

You though, seem to agree that the IRA had every right to kill people working for the RUC since you think pat finucanes death is alright.

I agree with the idea that if it was acceptable for the IRA to kill civilians for spurious reasons, then it was ok for the other side to do the same. Of course I don't agree with the premise.

maccored wrote: »

Can you explain that to me? Watch you dont backtrack now - you've made it pretty clear.

I hope that is sufficiently clear. From my perspective, murders of civilians are not acceptable, hence I would hold that the IRA are guilty of war crimes. Collusion is not acceptable to me either - but it rather grinds my gears when SF/IRA complain about collusion without bringing to justice those that they know are responsible for war crimes.

Can'tseeme

This is to do with the Finucane family trying to get answers to the circumstances surrounding Pat's death, nothing else. The Irish government, SF and the SDLP have nothing to do with it other than to give the family support.

I find the mudding of waters throwing in by certain posters regarding what Republicans/British forces/loyalists/ got up to totally unhealthy and unhelpful.

Some of the victims of the conflict know what happened their family members, others don't. Those outstanding issues need to be resolved and for the truth to come out. That's whether it's Claudy, Finucane, etc.

Point scoring over victims is simply wrong.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

Backtracking I say. In this thread you condoned his death, now you backtrack. No point debating with you anyway

You are proven wrong on the back-tracking thing, and instead of admitting it you claim that I did so anyway and declare that you're taking your ball home.

Well played sir.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Some of the victims of the conflict know what happened their family members, others don't. Those outstanding issues need to be resolved and for the truth to come out. That's whether it's Claudy, Finucane, etc.

Agreed. So where is the campaign to find the murders of Mary Travers, Joanne Mathers and so forth? I wonder if the Finucane family have any information for those families?

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

I agree on all points until the last paragraph.
Surely it is in the interests of humanity to at least try to ensure that there are rules, and that they should be adhered to?

Well the forces of law and order should be held to a higher standard, I don't know how that works legally. They still have to be convicted in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt.

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There was a war on, hurt on both sides, no side has a monopoly on suffering, we need to move on and stop living in the past, let's look forwards and not backwards, there's no point in dragging up the past again, innocent people die in wars, it's all very sad, but we need to move on in a spirit of forgiveness and hope.

Or does that stuff only apply to terrorist murders?

Why did David Cameron apologise yesterday?

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Agreed. So where is the campaign to find the murders of Mary Travers, Joanne Mathers and so forth? I wonder if the Finucane family have any information for those families?

You would need to ask the Travers family and the Mathers family?

Your last point is strange? Why should the Finucane family have information for those families?

maccored

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are proven wrong on the back-tracking thing, and instead of admitting it you claim that I did so anyway and declare that you're taking your ball home.

Well played sir.

when the conversation goes nowhere and when you wont admit you condone some murders and not others and when you cant make up your mind if there was a war going on in the north or not - at that stage of the game theres no point in trying to discuss these things as you are - and i say this respectfully - talking out of the side of your mouth. saying one thing, insinuating another. I prefer straight talkers.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Why did David Cameron apologise yesterday?

Presumably because it looks pretty clear that there was collusion involved in the murder of Finucane, no?

And civilised people believe that the murder of civilians is wrong.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Your last point is strange? Why should the Finucane family have information for those families?

Because Mr. Finucane's brothers were in the IRA, and because he was involved in defending IRA suspects.

Monty Burnz

maccored wrote: »

I prefer straight talkers.

I think I'm pretty clear where I stand: I don't think there was a war, I think there was a terrorist insurrection. Whether and to what degree that insurrection was justified is of course another debate. And I abhor all the murders that were carried out in NI, not particularly those carried out by one side or the other.

Is that clear? I don't think there's any inconsistency in my position. I do detect inconsistency in those who state that there was a war, and then complain about IRA members and representatives who were killed. And I also detect inconsistency in those that state we must all move on and not mention the past when talking about Martin McGuinness's role in IRA murders, but also insist we reopen and dig into the past when talking about Nationalist/Republican/IRA deaths.

These inconsistencies are what I am trying to draw attention to.

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because Mr. Finucane's brothers were in the IRA, and because he was involved in defending IRA suspects.

Pat Finucane was a human Rights lawyer, he also represented Loyalist, Republicans and non political citizens. Nothing new really in that, it's what solicitors do.

I don't know about his brothers. I know his wife, two sons and daughter weren't in the IRA. I also know they're the ones involved in their fathers campaign for truth.

Do you support the family and their campaign?

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Do you support the family and their campaign?

I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money and little new will be learned. On the other hand, it would be nice to know exactly who was involved, and collusion in murder is clearly wrong.

I'd be a lot happier to support it if the IRA came out and delivered up the war criminals on their side of the conflict.

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Do you support the family and their campaign?

I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money and little new will be learned. On the other hand, it would be nice to know exactly who was involved, and collusion in murder is clearly wrong.

I'd be a lot happier to support it if the IRA came out and delivered up the war criminals on their side of the conflict.

I thought you were a straight talker.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

I thought you were a straight talker.

Straight talkers aren't allowed to have mixed feelings?

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money and little new will be learned. On the other hand, it would be nice to know exactly who was involved, and collusion in murder is clearly wrong.

I'd be a lot happier to support it if the IRA came out and delivered up the war criminals on their side of the conflict.

How do you know how little will be learnt?

Maybe the way through this is an International Truth and Reconciliation Commission like what happened in S. Africa. Then all combatants tell their story.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

How do you know how little will be learnt?

Because it seems to have been acknowledged at the highest levels in the UK that collusion was a reality. I'm not sure if it is worth spending hundreds of millions to find names and dates, especially if we are supposed to be leaving the past behind and living in the future.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Maybe the way through this is an International Truth and Reconciliation Commission like what happened in S. Africa. Then all combatants tell their story.

Perhaps. But if I recall correctly, in the SA case it was a forum primarily for victims of violence and abuses, and the perpetrators could appear to respond to the allegations and ask for amnesty for their acts. In NI, the amnesty has already been granted to the terror groups so there is not the same incentive to participate.

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because it seems to have been acknowledged at the highest levels in the UK that collusion was a reality. I'm not sure if it is worth spending hundreds of millions to find names and dates, especially if we are supposed to be leaving the past behind and living in the future.

Finding the names and dates may not be important for you or the general public but it does to the family.

Tbh, I find what you're saying totally hyprocritical Monty.

Reading your posts, you're for screaming for Republicans to come out and admit what they've done, name and shame, etc. But on the other hand you don't think there's any great point in the British Government to name and shame and admit to their part in the conflict. Because it would cost too much??

It's true that we can't be bound by the past, there was hurt caused by all sides, we have to build for the future and the GFA is based on those principles. But also as part of the agreement was for unresolved, outstanding issues to be settled. That's either through the HET, Police Ombudsman or inquiries.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps. But if I recall correctly, in the SA case it was a forum primarily for victims of violence and abuses, and the perpetrators could appear to respond to the allegations and ask for amnesty for their acts. In NI, the amnesty has already been granted to the terror groups so there is not the same incentive to participate.

Amnesty is in place also for British forces.

If the will was there on all sides, a framework could be a agreed on.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Tbh, I find what you're saying totally hyprocritical Monty.

Reading your posts, you're for screaming for Republicans to come out and admit what they've done, name and shame, etc. But on the other hand you don't think there's any great point in the British Government to name and shame and admit to their part in the conflict. Because it would cost too much??

It would cost nothing for SF/IRA to name the war criminals. They know exactly who they are. I think it would be a good thing for them to do.

I also think that it would be good if those involved in collusion came forward, but this is as unlikely as the SF/IRA war criminals coming forward of their own free will. If there are people in the UK who can 'out' those involved with collusion, that would be very welcome.

I don't think the idea of something costing too much is outrageous - what sort of health or education cuts could be prevented by saving a few hundred million from a backward-looking enquiry? How much do you think would be reasonable to spend?

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It would cost nothing for SF/IRA to name the war criminals. They know exactly who they are. I think it would be a good thing for them to do.

I also think that it would be good if those involved in collusion came forward, but this is as unlikely as the SF/IRA war criminals coming forward of their own free will. If there are people in the UK who can 'out' those involved with collusion, that would be very welcome.

Again....a Truth and Reconciliation process would be the way forward to deal with these issues. The amnesty would be there for Republican, Loyalist and British Forces to tell their story. None of the combatants are going to tell their story unless everyone else involved discloses theirs.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think the idea of something costing too much is outrageous - what sort of health or education cuts could be prevented by saving a few hundred million from a backward-looking enquiry? How much do you think would be reasonable to spend?

That'a a naive response Monty.

The cost of Bloody Sunday was £200 million was because the British security forces wouldn't hand papers over to disclose the truth over what happened. So it had to go through the courts.

The Finucane family had been promised the enquiry and agreed a format with the British Government.

Enquiries happen all the time for these sort of incidents. The reason for enquiries is to make sure the state don't break the law or abuse their own citizens. If we adopt your attitude, we'd be letting News International away with hacking into peoples phones, allowing police corruption to go unchallenged like the Met Police killing of Jean charles de Menezes. Two incidents inwhich the current British Government have opened enquiries on.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

That'a a naive response Monty.

But a response which, to be fair, you didn't address.

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But a response which, to be fair, you didn't address.

I did.

Re-read my last post.

TOMASJ

There was a good item today on the Pat Kenny show, with Pat Finucane's wife Geraldine,
might clarify for some posters here, as to why a inquiry is needed.
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

I did.

Re-read my last post.

But I asked how much you think would be worthwhile to pay to the legal industry for such an enquiry? There must surely be a cut-off point where it's just not worth it any more. I'm wondering where you would put that cut-off.

Can'tseeme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But I asked how much you think would be worthwhile to pay to the legal industry for such an enquiry? There must surely be a cut-off point where it's just not worth it any more. I'm wondering where you would put that cut-off.

Come on now Monty. What would be the sense of anyone plucking figures out of the sky on an enquiry on an internet forum. The only logical thing would have an agreed format between the family and Government for the enquiry to be as cost effective as possible. This is something that had been agreed by the British Government and the family.

Monty Burnz

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Come on now Monty. What would be the sense of anyone plucking figures out of the sky on an enquiry on an internet forum. The only logical thing would have an agreed format between the family and Government for the enquiry to be as cost effective as possible. This is something that had been agreed by the British Government and the family.

Ok, fair enough. But I did try to answer your questions honestly (even when I have conflicting views) and I hope you did the same here.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

Well the forces of law and order should be held to a higher standard, I don't know how that works legally. They still have to be convicted in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed.Otherwise the legal system is a farce.

I don't believe that anyone who colluded with loyalist forces would ever be convicted in a British court, though. The length of time it took for the truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday proves that imo.

Maybe in another 30 years, there may be a general consensus, on all sides, that the events of Bloody Sunday shaped events in NI for many years afterwards.

Right now, I think people on both sides are still fixated on what "the other side" did wrong.
Maybe these enquiries, if conducted by an impartial body, could go a long way towards healing.

snafuk35

Can'tseeme wrote: »

This is to do with the Finucane family trying to get answers to the circumstances surrounding Pat's death, nothing else. The Irish government, SF and the SDLP have nothing to do with it other than to give the family support.

I find the mudding of waters throwing in by certain posters regarding what Republicans/British forces/loyalists/ got up to totally unhealthy and unhelpful.

Some of the victims of the conflict know what happened their family members, others don't. Those outstanding issues need to be resolved and for the truth to come out. That's whether it's Claudy, Finucane, etc.

Point scoring over victims is simply wrong.

You are unbelievable naive. It's tragic really that anyone could really believe that point scoring is just going to magically stop. Come on!

Wolfe Tone

How many times does this need to be pointed out, there is NO AMNESTY. Thats why the UVF etc are kicking up a big fuss.

Instead there are selective prosecutions. Gerry McGeough needs to be jailed it seems, but sure soldier F is left alone. British justice eh

Under the GFA people still get tried and sentenced, but they will only serve 2 years.

This is simply stupid, there should be a full amnesty then no one will have anything to fear from the truth coming out.

snafuk35

I remember two armed british soldiers driving at speed into a cortage at an IRA funeral, "they were shot" I suppose that was fair game, using you rationale

The IRA in the crowd assumed the two plainclothes soldiers were either UVF or SAS assassins or else just got their hands on 'Brits'. If the two soldiers shot dead their attackers they had every right to. The two soldiers were killed because the republicans wanted to send a message to the British government. If an IRA member was sitting at home with his baby on his knee or if he was masked with a gun on his way to kill someone, he was fair game for the simple fact he was an IRA member. The same went for members of the British security forces. If you admit it was a war then the rules of the war were that if they hit you then you hit them. The Brits had every right to kill who they like if the IRA claimed they had every right to bomb, shoot and kill who they liked. Time people grew up!

the IRA knee-capped a lot of joy riders, do you think the IRA celebrated every time they knee-capped a joyrider?

Yes they enjoyed it. Lots of people in the IRA enjoyed injuring and killing people. Lots of Brits enjoyed injuring and killing people too. Soldiers in every war wouldn't do what they do unless they get pleasure in injuring and killing their enemies.

though "as you claim" the joyriders worked for the IRA

It is well known that joyriders or other criminals were put to work to put the British Army off the scent when an operation was going down.

would you apply that logic to the killing of "say" - Airey Neave or Ian Gow

and do you think it would be "tactically sound" if the IRA in your words "took out" the solicitors "who got Glegg off"

Do you think if you were a terrorist that if you could kill MPs and lawyers on the opposite side you wouldn't do it to advance your cause?

snafuk35

Noreen1 wrote: »

I agree on all points until the last paragraph.
Surely it is in the interests of humanity to at least try to ensure that there are rules, and that they should be adhered to?

If the rules prevent combatants from adopting tactics that will win the war then the rules can go jump.

This is why terrorists and insurgents use terror. A core of a few hundred hardcore individuals with bomb making know how and weapons if they fought in uniform and took on a conventional army head to head would be wiped out.

Instead the IRA targeted civilians and civilian areas, attacked commercial property, kidnapped business people, attacked British soldiers and RUC officers, bombed English pubs, restaurants, the underground, buses, bombed politicians and murdered a member of the Royal Family. They shook the British state to the core.

If they had fought fair they would have been slaughtered.

Also the most effectively loyalist gang in the Troubles were the Shankill Butchers who adopted the tactic of selecting random targets and carving their throats open. They absolutely terrified the Catholic population of Belfast. Their methods were savage but tactically sound. Loyalists murder gangs would pick off random Catholics whenever the IRA launched a successful attack.

The terrorisation of the Catholics in the North played a major role in wearing them down the leadership of the IRA who could see no end in sight and proved the loyalists were never going to give in to a united Ireland.

The British sent the SAS to Northern Ireland to demonstrate to the IRA that they would be rubbed out without mercy law or no law. SAS shot IRA in the head to send a clear message.

Adams was shot and wounded in the early 1980s and that sent a clear message to him that it was either normal politics or a hole in the ground.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This is simply stupid, there should be a full amnesty then no one will have anything to fear from the truth coming out.

I'd agree on that. Still think some will not come clean because it might damage political careers, but it's a good starting point.