the murder of pat finucane

Monty Burnz

gurramok wrote: »

You just don't get it. The IRA were classed as terrorists and until recently by yourself as 'war' criminals when their enemy said there was no war. The British are a sovereign state and are suppose to have the high respectability over the likes of the IRA, you know upholding the law.

Its obvious the British do not want any Truth & Reconciliation Commission as it will expose their dirty hand in directing Loyalist killings, we cannot ruin the "British good reputation in NI" as well as their army overseas. This is at the heart of the cover up of Finucane's murder as well as countless others like Bloody Sunday.

But these are the circles we keep going around in. If there was a war, then you can expect bad things like collusion to happen. And if you say 'but even in war, there are rules', I would agree, and point to many of the murders carried out by the IRA (and others, of course) as being war crimes. If we are seeking equal treatment for all, as is fair, and we are calling the UK to account for crimes carried out by its agents, then can we expect the same self-examination from the IRA for those members who carried out war crimes, and appropriate punishment for them?

(Bear in mind that for the purposes of the discussion, I am not considering attacks on the British military as crimes at all)

walrusgumble

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But then so did many (most of?) the IRA's attacks. War crimes?

If you ever make any comment that smacks of "whatabouterry" towards other posters I hope you are temporarily banned for hypocrisy.

Isn't it Britain, along with Dáil Éireann as its lap dog, who tried to stay on the moral high ground during those days?

You are again suggesting, rather foolishly and very unfairly, that Mr Finucane was a member of the IRA. You also clearly imply that all lawyers who represent client's responsible or accused of heinous crimes should get the same treatment or punishment as their client's. You also conveniently forget that during internment, genuinely innocent people were arrested and suffered ill treatment while in detention.

Finucane, like many Unionist and Republican sympathetic or dissenters, or people who wanted nothing to do with the problems, were entirely innocent and had no dealing with paramilitary. Last time I check, those who condemn 1916 and the Troubles (I am not trying to say they are linked) people such as Fintan O'Toole , keep saying that these type of acts were war crimes. Funny how one side will say they murdered their men, but when their men kill, its call a killing or an attack (that applies to both sides)

Are you saying that Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA? Do you have proof of this? If you do, why did you never report it to the Gardaí or RUC?


Is it one thing to attack soldiers and police and proven informers in a war sense, its a complete different story when its innocent civilians (and I refer equally to the victims of the IRA as I do of the Loyalist/British section)

KeithAFC

walrusgumble wrote: »

If you ever make any comment that smacks of "whatabouterry" towards other posters I hope you are temporarily banned for hypocrisy.

Isn't it Britain, along with Dáil Éireann as its lap dog, who tried to stay on the moral high ground during those days?

You are again suggesting, rather foolishly and very unfairly, that Mr Finucane was a member of the IRA. You also clearly imply that all lawyers who represent client's responsible or accused of heinous crimes should get the same treatment or punishment as their client's. You also conveniently forget that during internment, genuinely innocent people were arrested and suffered ill treatment while in detention.


Are you saying that Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA? Do you have proof of this? If you do, why did you never report it to the Gardaí or RUC?

The PIRA shot RUC officers off duty. Pat Finucane was a solicitor for people like Bobby Sands and other PIRA members. I can see why people do think the case should be dropped.

This wasn't a normal time in the conflict. If you are found out to even be linked to the PIRA, you are a target. It really was as simple as that.

Monty Burnz

walrusgumble wrote: »

If you ever make any comment that smacks of "whatabouterry" towards other posters I hope you are temporarily banned for hypocrisy.

Isn't it Britain, along with Dáil Éireann as its lap dog, who tried to stay on the moral high ground during those days?

I'm not sure if this is what is meant by 'whataboutery' - I'm not excusing anything or deflecting blame due to something someone else did, I'm asking whether it's reasonable for all parties to the conflict to be held to account in a similar way in future with regard to resolving crimes that occurred.

I'm not sure what the moral high ground has to do with this - it seems pretty clear that no organisation in the 'war' has a claim to it. What do you think?

walrusgumble wrote: »

You are again suggesting, rather foolishly and very unfairly, that Mr Finucane was a member of the IRA.

No, I'm not. You can withdraw that. Alternately I can create my own straw man for you and they can do battle.

walrusgumble wrote: »

You also clearly imply that all lawyers who represent client's responsible or accused of heinous crimes should get the same treatment or punishment as their client's.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that (from a war perspective) Finucane was aiding the 'soldiers' of the enemy. If a judge is a legitimate target for the IRA for carrying out his legal duties, then why not a lawyer?

walrusgumble wrote: »

You also conveniently forget that during internment, genuinely innocent people were arrested and suffered ill treatment while in detention.

What were you saying about whataboutery and hypocrisy? :pac:

walrusgumble wrote: »

Are you saying that Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA? Do you have proof of this? If you do, why did you never report it to the Gardaí or RUC?

No, this is a straw man that you just invented. Keep running with it though, you are getting great mileage out of it.

gurramok

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But these are the circles we keep going around in. If there was a war, then you can expect bad things like collusion to happen. And if you say 'but even in war, there are rules', I would agree, and point to many of the murders carried out by the IRA (and others, of course) as being war crimes. If we are seeking equal treatment for all, as is fair, and we are calling the UK to account for crimes carried out by its agents, then can we expect the same self-examination from the IRA for those members who carried out war crimes, and appropriate punishment for them?

(Bear in mind that for the purposes of the discussion, I am not considering attacks on the British military as crimes at all)

Their crimes(IRA) were thoroughly investigated and punished accordingly with many jailed and executed. The British ones especially of civilians were not. Justice was not served hence further acting as a recruitment agent for the IRA. If the British crimes were punished by the British state, you'd be guaranteed the IRA would not have lasted as long as they did.

I am very surprised you specify that attacks on the British military were not crimes, that's some change of stance?

Of course if there was this Truth & Reconciliation Commission established, all the deeds of the IRA and British would be exposed but the British do not want any of their deeds exposed. It took 40 years to get to the truth of Bloody Sunday for example.

Its now 22 years and counting for collusion to be even recognised in the murder of Finucane, should they have to wait another 22 years for the truth to be unveiled?

walrusgumble

KeithAFC wrote: »

The PIRA shot RUC officers off duty. Pat Finucane was a solicitor for people like Bobby Sands and other PIRA members. I can see why people do think the case should be dropped.

This wasn't a normal time in the conflict. If you are found out to even be linked to the PIRA, you are a target. It really was as simple as that.

Taking your second part aside for a minute (which is fair enough, but then I expect you will then see the same could be said for almost every person killed by the IRA and that person's link with para military loyalist groups )

Bull****, if a lawyer representing Stone, Adair, Spence etc had been murdered in cold blood before his family by the IRA you would change your tune.

It is not about who they are representing. People's opinions go out the window when they do their professional job. Everyone is entitled to due process, targeting an innocent lawyer ain't going to achieve much. Fact is the British got nose out of joint because these people, represented by Finucane embarrassed the British before the ECtHR on allegations of proven Torture, breach of right to silence and the like.

We should put a brick into the widow of the Smithwick Tribunal and tell the judge to take a hike so? (No obviously we won't)

maccored

KeithAFC wrote: »

If you are found out to even be linked to the PIRA, you are a target. It really was as simple as that.

You know that, and I know that - I just wish the british government would stand up and admit to that.

Monty Burnz

gurramok wrote: »

Their crimes(IRA) were thoroughly investigated and punished accordingly with many jailed and executed. The British ones especially of civilians were not. Justice was not served hence further acting as a recruitment agent for the IRA. If the British crimes were punished by the British state, you'd be guaranteed the IRA would not have lasted as long as they did.

But many crimes have gone totally unpunished, and many of the perpetrators of what we might term war crimes were let out under the GFA just the same as those convicted of attacking military targets. The murderer of Mary Travers has never been convicted, for example.

gurramok wrote: »

I am very surprised you specify that attacks on the British military were not crimes, that's some change of stance?

I've been making a concerted effort to see things from the perspective of IRA/SF. I'm willing to imagine things from frames of reference other than my own (e.g. the Unionist perspective, the SF/IRA perspective). Hence I specify here that for the purposes of this discussion I'm entering the SF/IRA frame of reference where Crown forces were legitimate targets, and not considering those attacks as crimes. Proxy human bombings, the execution of innocents like Mary Travers and so forth - under that frame of reference - remain war crimes.

gurramok wrote: »

Its now 22 years and counting for collusion to be even recognised in the murder of Finucane, should they have to wait another 22 years for the truth to be unveiled?

Again, I would argue that there should be an enquiry from my own perspective, but from a British frame of reference, it seems grossly unfair that the murder of Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell and all the others never saw the inside of a prison, yet they are expected to investigate and prosecute those involved in collusion who perceived themselves as combating the IRA murderers.

KeithAFC

walrusgumble wrote: »

Taking your second part aside for a minute (which is fair enough, but then I expect you will then see the same could be said for almost every person killed by the IRA and that person's link with para military loyalist groups )

Bull****, if a lawyer representing Stone, Adair, Spence etc had been murdered in cold blood before his family by the IRA you would change your tune.

It is not about who they are representing. People's opinions go out the window when they do their professional job. Everyone is entitled to due process, targeting an innocent lawyer ain't going to achieve much. Fact is the British got nose out of joint because these people, represented by Finucane embarrassed the British before the ECtHR on allegations of proven Torture, breach of right to silence and the like.

We should put a brick into the widow of the Smithwick Tribunal and tell the judge to take a hike so? (No obviously we won't)

I actually wouldn't. Not when you consider the circumstances. The British government isn't going to admit to everything and neither are people in the Loyalist community or the Republican community.

walrusgumble

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is what is meant by 'whataboutery' - I'm not excusing anything or deflecting blame due to something someone else did, I'm asking whether it's reasonable for all parties to the conflict to be held to account in a similar way in future with regard to resolving crimes that occurred.

I'm not sure what the moral high ground has to do with this - it seems pretty clear that no organisation in the 'war' has a claim to it. What do you think?

No, I'm not. You can withdraw that. Alternately I can create my own straw man for you and they can do battle.


Not at all. I'm pointing out that (from a war perspective) Finucane was aiding the 'soldiers' of the enemy. If a judge is a legitimate target for the IRA for carrying out his legal duties, then why not a lawyer?

What were you saying about whataboutery and hypocrisy? :pac:

No, this is a straw man that you just invented. Keep running with it though, you are getting great mileage out of it.

You are ridiculously full of ****. Even in War, laws continue to be applied, whether a form of marital/emergency law or a more limited civil law. Even if there was a court martial, that person would still be entitled to legal representation of some sort. Even the "kangaroo" courts. Moral Countries try to keep that in mind , knowing that the world will judge them later.

A laywer is an agent of the Court. Here, Finuance was an agent of the Crown Court. All Lawyers take a promise that they will represent all whom they are asked to represent. Most of the time they despise what their client's have been accused of doing (I am not saying that Finuance is completely the case here) There was outrage when Crown Court Judges were murdered, so its no different to the death of Finunane.

There are absolutely no legitimacy in any war, for targeting lawyers. You hear all the pinko liberals creaming themselves over the attacks against Pakistani Lawyers in the past.

By your contention, your line of thought would also support the killing of doctors and nurses who, may have attended to para militants on both sides.


With regard to your accountability issue, all should be held accountable. But, As I repeatedly said all ready, this campaign is not being ran by politicians but is being ran by the family of Finucane. There was a promise by both the Irish and British to hold respective inquiries. Ireland is keeping its promise on the inquiry involving RUC men (No matter what Shatter says, he won't interfere). British are breaching their side of the promise. A promise had already been made

As for moral high ground, I agree, but that it not how the British or Southern Irish play it, and it was not the impression that your last post gave.

There is no justification for attacking members of the media and judiciary and lawyers, period! There is absolutely no justification, regardless of who is responsible for it.


I have invented nothing. It was very reasonable to suggest that you were really trying to say those things.

Lonesome Boatman

A 1995 report into the murder of Pat Finucane

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sf31398.htm

don't know if its been posted, may be of interest to some

British army are a great bunch of lads :rolleyes:

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

gurramok

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But many crimes have gone totally unpunished, and many of the perpetrators of what we might term war crimes were let out under the GFA just the same as those convicted of attacking military targets. The murderer of Mary Travers has never been convicted, for example.

I've been making a concerted effort to see things from the perspective of IRA/SF. I'm willing to imagine things from frames of reference other than my own (e.g. the Unionist perspective, the SF/IRA perspective). Hence I specify here that for the purposes of this discussion I'm entering the SF/IRA frame of reference where Crown forces were legitimate targets, and not considering those attacks as crimes. Proxy human bombings, the execution of innocents like Mary Travers and so forth - under that frame of reference - remain war crimes.

Again, I would argue that there should be an enquiry from my own perspective, but from a British frame of reference, it seems grossly unfair that the murder of Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell and all the others never saw the inside of a prison, yet they are expected to investigate and prosecute those involved in collusion who perceived themselves as combating the IRA murderers.

You're very good at mentioning victims names, shall I start listing names of some unarmed kids too who were shot dead by the British Army? They got zero justice from the supposed sovereign state that upholds the law and who were supposed to have the moral high ground over 'terrorist organisations'.

You see where this is going, creating a hierarchy of victims where yours seem to be more important that than the ones I list. The majority of the victims of British\Loyalist collusion were innocent, and those that were not innocent should have been arrested and convicted in a court of law, this seems lost on you.

Monty Burnz

walrusgumble wrote: »

You are ridiculously full of ****. Even in War, laws continue to be applied, whether a form of marital/emergency law or a more limited civil law. Even if there was a court martial, that person would still be entitled to legal representation of some sort. Even the "kangaroo" courts. Moral Countries try to keep that in mind , knowing that the world will judge them later.

A laywer is an agent of the Court. Here, Finuance was an agent of the Crown Court. All Lawyers take a promise that they will represent all whom they are asked to represent. Most of the time they despise what their client's have been accused of doing (I am not saying that Finuance is completely the case here) There was outrage when Crown Court Judges were murdered, so its no different to the death of Finunane.

So why were judges and magistrates 'legitimate targets' for the IRA? Can we have some consistency here please? Either the legal profession were out of bounds or they were not.

walrusgumble wrote: »

There are absolutely no legitimacy in any war, for targeting lawyers. You hear all the pinko liberals creaming themselves over the attacks against Pakistani Lawyers in the past.

By your contention, your line of thought would also support the killing of doctors and nurses who, may have attended to para militants on both sides.

It's not my line of thinking, it's the IRA line of thinking. Why did they make judges and magistrates legitimate targets if you are arguing that the agents of the law are out of bounds?

walrusgumble wrote: »

With regard to your accountability issue, all should be held accountable. But, As I repeatedly said all ready, this campaign is not being ran by politicians but is being ran by the family of Finucane. There was a promise by both the Irish and British to hold respective inquiries. Ireland is keeping its promise on the inquiry involving RUC men (No matter what Shatter says, he won't interfere). British are breaching their side of the promise. A promise had already been made

No issue with anything you say there.

walrusgumble wrote: »

As for moral high ground, I agree, but that it not how the British or Southern Irish play it, and it was not the impression that your last post gave.

There is no justification for attacking members of the media and judiciary and lawyers, period! There is absolutely no justification, regardless of who is responsible for it.

Right, but the IRA set out to murder members of the judiciary. Shall we add those attacks to the list of war crimes?

walrusgumble wrote: »

I have invented nothing. It was very reasonable to suggest that you were really trying to say those things.

It would be reasonable if I had said them. I didn't. I read that Finucane's brothers were in the IRA. I also read that his wife was from the Unionist community. I'm not suggesting that he was in the IRA, merely that he was aiding IRA members.

Monty Burnz

gurramok wrote: »

You're very good at mentioning victims names, shall I start listing names of some unarmed kids too who were shot dead by the British Army? They got zero justice from the supposed sovereign state that upholds the law and who were supposed to have the moral high ground over 'terrorist organisations'.

You see where this is going, creating a hierarchy of victims where yours seem to be more important that than the ones I list. The majority of the victims of British\Loyalist collusion were innocent, and those that were not innocent should have been arrested and convicted in a court of law, this seems lost on you.

Is there any chance you can address the issue of accountability for IRA war crimes? Can you see why it might be a problem from a Unionist/British frame of reference that all their dirty linen must be dragged out and punished, while there's no move from SF/IRA to out and punish those members guilty of war crimes?

It's not about creating a hierarchy of victims (although I don't see why such a hierarchy should not exist - some were clearly totally innocent, some played a role in making themselves targets) but about arranging a quid pro quo so that fairness is maintained.

gurramok

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is there any chance you can address the issue of accountability for IRA war crimes? Can you see why it might be a problem from a Unionist/British frame of reference that all their dirty linen must be dragged out and punished, while there's no move from SF/IRA to out and punish those members guilty of war crimes?

It's not about creating a hierarchy of victims (although I don't see why such a hierarchy should not exist - some were clearly totally innocent, some played a role in making themselves targets) but about arranging a quid pro quo so that fairness is maintained.

Sure bring everyone to account. It won't happen as the British have more to lose than the IRA whose dirty linen operations we all know well about that have been well documented over many years especially in the media.

Anything exposed of British deeds will be lets face it a severe shock to most British people and alot of Irish people too. It would be a case on many of these people's faces of "i thought our British Army would never stoop to the level of the IRA, it can't be true!". The propaganda they have been fed by their media and govt that their army were 100% do gooders in NI would hurt your average Brit when the truth is revealed.

Noreen1

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

A 1995 report into the murder of Pat Finucane

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sf31398.htm

don't know if its been posted, may be of interest to some

British army are a great bunch of lads :rolleyes:

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

There's more than enough proof there to justify an enquiry, imo.

Whereas it is true that some republicans who committed murders remain unpunished - that is because they are unknown. AFAIK, there is nothing to prevent their being prosecuted should their identities become known.
Hence, saying that this murder or that murder remains unpunished is a straw man. There are plenty of non political murders that also remain unpunished. the difference is that there is no state collusion in either the murders, or in the murderers being brought to trial.

Where the identity of murderers is known, they should be tried for their crimes.

It is time the truth came out.

Monty Burnz

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hence, saying that this murder or that murder remains unpunished is a straw man. There are plenty of non political murders that also remain unpunished. the difference is that there is no state collusion in either the murders, or in the murderers being brought to trial.

Where the identity of murderers is known, they should be tried for their crimes.

But the identities of the war criminals are known - known even to members of the NI government. They just aren't telling their own police force. It's a ridiculous situation when you think about it.

Wolfe Tone

Monty I think we have some common ground here, lets cut to the chase shall we?

Do you think there should be an enquiry?

Do you think there should be a truth comission like SF are pushing for?

Do you think its a case of one or the other, or if there is to be no comission enquiries are better than nothing?

Finally on cost, how much is a foundation for a lasting peace worth, how much is allowing people to move on worth? Money should be no onject for something so important.

Wolfe Tone

Just on punishment, I see no.point in sending people to jail for 2 years, most people just want the truth these days, but a great insight into British 'justice' is the imprisonment of Gerry McGeogh while the various Brit soldiers from Bloody Sunday, killer of Aiden McAnespie etc etc etc walk free. Its not as if they don't know who those soldiers are!

walrusgumble

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So why were judges and magistrates 'legitimate targets' for the IRA? Can we have some consistency here please? Either the legal profession were out of bounds or they were not.

I will say it again, there is no justification in attacking any Agent of the Court or member of the media. No point asking me, I am were/not a member of the IRA. The issue is about Finucane, others made a valid whatabouttery. I have made my position clear on this. So if you are asking for consistency, read what is put before you and not try to put words that are not there please. You will say the same about me, but prior to a few confirmations, it would be reasonable for anyone to the impression that was taken.

As for the others, I don't see anyone here saying that the Judiciary was a legitimate target, nor do I see anyone complaining that a similar inquiry should be given to them. There will be some who are complaining about the Smithwick Tribunal, but the problem with that is the sources who are giving evidence, ie people who completely lack credibility.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not my line of thinking, it's the IRA line of thinking. Why did they make judges and magistrates legitimate targets if you are arguing that the agents of the law are out of bounds?

That was not the impression that I got. But you have now confirmed it. In fact, the impression I took from you was the line of thinking of the British. That is why others complained about Britain's moral double standards.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, but the IRA set out to murder members of the judiciary. Shall we add those attacks to the list of war crimes?

In my book, attacks on innocent civilians is a war crime. So yes. Unfortunately, it happens all the time by every side (I don't wish to sound blase about this, it is , as you point out, a matter of fact - that in no way is an attempt to justify or qualify the events) In fact, the attacks on the Judiciary, despite the Diplock Courts, went down like a led ballon in light of the reaction of Irish nationalists, north and south. It achieved nothing for their cause. Groups like the IRA need support and goodwill of the people, and at least some International countries willing to hold a candle for them (for whatever reason). This did not achieve this.

The issue with Republicans is the precieved keenest of the British, and worst, the Irish (who in their eyes did not do enough to help the north - no, not send the guns up - yet still ranted rhetoric of being the Republican Party and NI being a failed entity etc) to focus more on the their activities and throw a blind eye or make no comment on the actions of the others. Of course, Dublin and Monaghan bombings slightly changed that, but even there, that's forgotten (there is of course a huge danger of putting victims at a hierarchy, and maybe its best that Ireland just got on with the British very quickly)

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It would be reasonable if I had said them. I didn't. I read that Finucane's brothers were in the IRA. I also read that his wife was from the Unionist community. I'm not suggesting that he was in the IRA, merely that he was aiding IRA members.

Yes, you would have noted that I made reference to his family background. His brothers served, in some major actions, and some were killed. Finucane Senior was involved in a very important Extradition case in 1990. The problems is with some geniuses, is they add one plus one and get 5 when it comes to Pat.

He also aided Unionist members. What do you mean by aiding anyway? You make it sound dirty.

Giving legal advice, within the limits of the standards and practice of rules of his profession. Someone else would have done it. So what? So the lawyers were some how aiding all the well known criminal gang murders, like John Gilligan? They are evil are they? When real evidence is in a case, the jury will decide the case. So long as the Police followed the law in setting up the case, and the other lawyer does everything, their might be very little the "IRA" lawyer can do little for their client, bar make sure the best possible case is presented.

Lawyers like Finucane made headlines because the facts of the cases were clear that serious breaches of International law were breached by a supposed Democratic state. (let's for one second forget that that was Britain) The same is now happening for the past 4-6 years in the ECtHR in cases involving the former Soviet States.


The great Sean MacBride, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER and major figure behind Amnesty International, former Tánaiste, represented ALL the major IRA cases from 1940-1970, including a few cop killings (one of which famously was struck out, because the cops planted evidence on an innocent person - he was in the IRA,but had nothing to do with the killing) Granted, he himself was a member prior to the end of civil war, can he be seen by most Southerners as a bad person?

To be quite blunt, the inquiry will in most part, highlight facts that we already know.

Monty Burnz

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Monty I think we have some common ground here, lets cut to the chase shall we?

Do you think there should be an enquiry?

Do you think there should be a truth comission like SF are pushing for?

I would sat yes to these two from my own frame of reference. But as I keep saying, in SA the victims came to the truth commission to report crimes against them, and the perpetrators came to apologise and beg for clemency. In the NI case, clemency has already been granted, so it's hard to see why many of the perpetrators would even bother turning up.

Monty Burnz

walrusgumble wrote: »

I will say it again...

Actually, there is very little that you say in this whole post that I disagree with.

Lonesome Boatman

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Just on punishment, I see no.point in sending people to jail for 2 years, most people just want the truth these days, but a great insight into British 'justice' is the imprisonment of Gerry McGeogh while the various Brit soldiers from Bloody Sunday, killer of Aiden McAnespie etc etc etc walk free. Its not as if they don't know who those soldiers are!

Have the British army ever apologised for any of the atrocities they commited in Ireland other than Bloody Sunday? At least the IRA have apologised for the innocents they killed, wheres the justice for the families of the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre.

swordofislam

paky wrote: »

i was just wondering what your views are on the murder of pat finucane. is this a hazard people in the law profession must face when representing criminals or subversives or do you think that pat finucane was going beyond his legal obligations to help the ira? its clear from books published by loyalist paramilitaries that suggest ruc involvement

Bobby Sands said that everyone had a part to play in the struggle for Irish freedom. Finuacane was playing his part in that struggle.
The British had him killed.
This should only be shocking to a liberal Englishman who would not believe that his government would have its enemies killed.
It should not be surprising to any rational person that the British state would act in this way.

It is tedious. What is so special about Finucane.
Change the channel Marge this show's boring.

pat321

it would quite interesting if martin mcguinness were summoned to the tribuneral. of course he would have no knowledge of wat was goin on.

TOMASJ

pat321 wrote: »

it would quite interesting if martin mcguinness were summoned to the tribuneral..

What tribuneral?

Fratton Fred

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Have the British army ever apologised for any of the atrocities they commited in Ireland other than Bloody Sunday? At least the IRA have apologised for the innocents they killed, .

When was that then?

glic71rods46t0

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When was that then?

Ref the Bloody Sunday Enquiry
15th June 2010. Her Majesty's Prime Minister David Cameron "I am deeply sorry"
The head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, said he fully supported Mr Cameron's apology.
They will invent a cure for amnesia Fred - don't give up hope!

Fratton Fred

r1kbdj4ey3tf2c wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When was that then?

Ref the Bloody Sunday Enquiry
15th June 2010. Her Majesty's Prime Minister David Cameron "I am deeply sorry"
The head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, said he fully supported Mr Cameron's apology.
They will invent a cure for amnesia Fred - don't give up hope!

Yes, very smart, I'm aware of David Cameron's appropriate apology, what I'm not aware if is a public apology from the IRA.

glic71rods46t0

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, very smart, I'm aware of David Cameron's appropriate apology, what I'm not aware if is a public apology from the IRA.

They didnt kill unarmed civil rights campaigners on Bloody Sunday so they probably didnt see the need to apologise

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, very smart, I'm aware of David Cameron's appropriate apology, what I'm not aware if is a public apology from the IRA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2132113.stm

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, very smart, I'm aware of David Cameron's appropriate apology, what I'm not aware if is a public apology from the IRA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2132113.stm

Who made the apology. Having you PR people put together a statement isn't a public apology. How many members of the IRA war council signed that statement?

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who made the apology. Having you PR people put together a statement isn't a public apology. How many members of the IRA war council signed that statement?

It was an official IRA statement Fred, one of those would not be issued without the permission of the Army Council who no doubt wrote it.

It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

So there you have it, an apology from the IRA.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who made the apology. Having you PR people put together a statement isn't a public apology. How many members of the IRA war council signed that statement?

It was an official IRA statement Fred, one of those would not be issued without the permission of the Army Council who no doubt wrote it.

It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

So there you have it, an apology from the IRA.

That was big of them. An anonymous statement isn't an apology, it is a tick in a box to keep their gullible supporters happy.

glic71rods46t0

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, very smart, I'm aware of David Cameron's appropriate apology, what I'm not aware if is a public apology from the IRA.

Did Cameron represent you when he made that appropriate apology?

PARKHEAD67

r1kbdj4ey3tf2c wrote: »

They didnt kill unarmed civil rights campaigners on Bloody Sunday so they probably didnt see the need to apologise

true

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That was big of them. An anonymous statement isn't an apology, it is a tick in a box to keep their gullible supporters happy.

So what would you be happy with? It was an official apology from the IRA for all their actions which killed or maimed non combatants...

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That was big of them. An anonymous statement isn't an apology, it is a tick in a box to keep their gullible supporters happy.

So what would you be happy with? It was an official apology from the IRA for all their actions which killed or maimed non combatants...

From who?

Who stood up and made themselves accountable?

No one owned that statement, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

From who?

Who stood up and made themselves accountable?

No one owned that statement, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

I don't understand entirely where you are coming from Fred. You said you were not aware of a public apology from the IRA which is fair enough. Another poster provided you with a link to an old news story pertaining to the apology.

You don't have to accept the IRA apology in the same way that others don't want to accept the loyalist apology or the British apology, that is your choice.

You are asking who is accountable, the same could be said about the British apology to Bloody Sunday. It finally came 38 years after the event. In fairness to David Cameron although he made the actual apology, is he really accountable for it, how old was he when it happened? I would not hold him personally accountable for what happened that day.

RMD

r1kbdj4ey3tf2c wrote: »

They didnt kill unarmed civil rights campaigners on Bloody Sunday so they probably didnt see the need to apologise

What about the 600+ civilians they killed on other days?

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

From who?

Who stood up and made themselves accountable?

No one owned that statement, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

I don't understand entirely where you are coming from Fred. You said you were not aware of a public apology from the IRA which is fair enough. Another poster provided you with a link to an old news story pertaining to the apology.

You don't have to accept the IRA apology in the same way that others don't want to accept the loyalist apology or the British apology, that is your choice.

You are asking who is accountable, the same could be said about the British apology to Bloody Sunday. It finally came 38 years after the event. In fairness to David Cameron although he made the actual apology, is he really accountable for it, how old was he when it happened? I would not hold him personally accountable for what happened that day.

I agree, I have stated several times in boards that the fact no one has been charged over bloody Sunday is a national humiliation.

However, once again the IRA is being held up as some sort if saintly organisation. We see it a lot in these boards, usually from people who hadn't even reached puberty when the GFA was signed.

Paddy De Plasterer

was Finucane actually in the IRA. Sean O Callaghan said he was and attended meetings with Adams.

guttenberg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

However, once again the IRA is being held up as some sort if saintly organisation. We see it a lot in these boards, usually from people who hadn't even reached puberty when the GFA was signed.

Nobody is holding the IRA as "some sort of saintly organisation". The IRA, by most people, is/was a terrorist organisation, illegal and largely unaccountable. Violence by a terrorist organisation and those acting on behalf of a legal, well known Govt. are too vastly different things and should be seen as such.

K-9

Thread is over a year old plus there's a new one here.