Sinn Fein- Never forget

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you'd care to point out specific actions I'd be happy to look into them but there s not much I can do when you're using generalities like "restaurants and pubs."
As for bloody friday and Warrington, well, warnings were sent for each and every bomb on Bloody Friday. They were either ignored, not followed properly or werent communicated properly by the bombers. But the fact that 21 bombs went off almost simultaneously across Belfast, a fairly small city, and there were only six civilian deaths (yes, six too many) that would be a fairly clear indication that civilians were not the targets.
Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.
It was nothing short of tragic those children were killed and their families have my total sympathy. Again, warnings were sent and not followed, pretty unlikely they would have done that if civilians were the target.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these actions, it is pretty clear that civilians were not the targets.

You've shifted the target! You didn't mention anything about warnings originally. Ok, so who was Warrington targeting, what was the legitimate target?

What were the targets on Bloody Friday?

The Harrods bombing would be another one, 6 dead, can't see much of a target there either.

Laminations

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Everyone has skeletons so vote for no one? Really?

When one of your skeletons is alive and well and sitting in the Dail it's a bit different. Martin Ferris welcomed out and chauffeured away Garda killers in the very recent past. Put your skeletons in a closet and you'll have a point

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you'd care to point out specific actions I'd be happy to look into them but there s not much I can do when you're using generalities like "restaurants and pubs."
As for bloody friday and Warrington, well, warnings were sent for each and every bomb on Bloody Friday. They were either ignored, not followed properly or werent communicated properly by the bombers. But the fact that 21 bombs went off almost simultaneously across Belfast, a fairly small city, and there were only six civilian deaths (yes, six too many) that would be a fairly clear indication that civilians were not the targets.
Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.
It was nothing short of tragic those children were killed and their families have my total sympathy. Again, warnings were sent and not followed, pretty unlikely they would have done that if civilians were the target.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these actions, it is pretty clear that civilians were not the targets.

I think that placing bombs in the middle of a busy city centre street on a Saturday afternoon a la Warrington can only be considered targeting civilians.

Hannibal

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So the end justified the means, essentially?

When you see what the situation was like to begin with and now you see the results, from the horrors of war and after the rule of a viscious apartheid state it's a pretty amazing transformation in the 16 years of peace.

Einhard wrote: »

You really don't get it. The people you speak abotu blame the IRA and Sinn Fein, and the Brits, and the Loyalist terrorists, and bigots like Paisley. The fundamental difference however, is that neither the Brits nor the Loyalists nor Paisley are seeking the vote of the people of Ireland!! How is that basic concept so difficult to comprehend?

So Sinn Féin should not be allowed into a democratic election?

FF, FG and Labour all have a shady past and we can't keep looking into the past.

Yes McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris were once leading IRA men. But look anywhere in the world and you have US Presidents who have committed far worse crimes and are never condemned, all leaders in the Middle East have blood on their hands, the unelected English Queen who is being celebrated this year but was head of the armed forces of many atrocities stretching back nearly 60 years.

The difference with McGuinness etc is that they have faced upto the wrong doings but crucially also understand the situation that created the mess and are working tirelessly and selflessly to turn around a two sided province and are trying to build bridges between peoples and communities who have been blinded by secterian hatred for centuries. Yet somehow these same republican leaders are condemned for this

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

You've shifted the target! You didn't mention anything about warnings originally. Ok, so who was Warrington targeting, what was the legitimate target?

What were the targets on Bloody Friday?

The Harrods bombing would be another one, 6 dead, can't see much of a target there either.

I most certainly have not shifted the target. You said the IRA targeted civilians and I provided you with the evidence that they did not.
As I said, Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the reality of what their government was doing in Ireland home to English people. First target was a gas facility second was a high street. Warnings given for both and the first led to no injuries.
Harrods was part of the same campaign to bring the war to England and a 40 minute warning was given. The IRA also denied sanctioning this.
Bloody Friday had a number of economic and military targets.
Again, i must stress I am not arguing on the rights or wrongs of these incidents, merely pointing out that your accusation that the IRA targeted civilians is false.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

I think that placing bombs in the middle of a busy city centre street on a Saturday afternoon a la Warrington can only be considered targeting civilians.

Then why give warnings?

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What irks me is the one-sidedness and double standards of people who come on here to condemn all things republican/nationalist without placing it in the wider context of what happened up north.

I think people are only too happy to place things in context, but that's not the nature of these threads. I've commented before about how the Brits share a huge amount of the blame for the Troubles, and how obscene it is that the likes of Gusty Spence were transformed into respectable figures. However, people down south are obviously going to be more preoccupied with Sinn fein because it's SF on the posters outise their doors, SF canvassers asking for their vote, and SF seeking to represent them. I'm sure everyone here heartily dislikes Viktor Yanukovych's regime in Ukraine, but there are little or no comments about him because he doesn't really concern Irish voters. And neither, to be honest, do Loyalists, or the Brits. It's only rational then, that SF are the focus of such debates.

On the double standards - you can be sure that almost every single person writing in these forums voted yes for power sharing and the GFA in the north yet the idea of SF being democratically elected into government in the south appals them.

I don't think that's double standards at all. After WW II, the allies decided against a widespread de-Nazification programme in Germany because they realised both how difficult it would be to implement, and how damaging it would be to the nascent German states. I'm sure that many people were appalled by the prospect of some quite prmominent Nazis remaining untouched, but they had to live with it for the greater good. It wasn't hypocritical, and it wasn't an example of double standards.

It's the same with the GFA. Many people voted for it almost under protest. They disliked its provisions, but the alternative was far worse. That surely doesn't mean that, after accepting the lesser of evils, they should embrace the very people who perpetrated that very evil.

hungrypig

gaffer91 wrote: »

On the internet recently(I think it was something to do with Egypt) I was reminded of the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe by the IRA.

The 16th anniversary of his brutal slaying at the hands of IRA members occurs next week. As we see the seemingly unending rise in support for Sinn Fein, I think it is important to gently remind people, particularly young people who are seriously considering voting/giving a transfer to SF, that they are not at all as far removed from the yobs who terrorised people on both sides of the border (and both sides of the Irish Sea) as they'd have you believe. It is also important to remember that it was Martin Ferris who picked up the murderers (because this is what they are; they only received the manslaughter verdict because of witness intimidation as anyone familiar with the case knows) upon their unfairly premature release from prison in 2009. While SF would like to sweep these despicable actions under the rug, it is important that they are always kept fresh in people's minds.

When deciding whether or not to vote for SF, if you bear in mind their voodoo economics (it's amazing how far they think the pension reserve fund will stretch isn't it?), the bank robberies, the bombings, the murders of people like Robert McCartney (all of this not even 20 years ago), their questionable expenses and then still decide to vote for them, then I fear for you, and for this country.

While this thread serves to remind people of SF's disgraceful past, the question I want to ask is- when you bear all this in mind how does anyone vote for SF, never mind 1 in 5 voters?

is there any end to threads like these, they are so repetitive and tedious. just accept that 20% of the population disagree with you and get over yourself

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I most certainly have not shifted the target. You said the IRA targeted civilians and I provided you with the evidence that they did not.
As I said, Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the reality of what their government was doing in Ireland home to English people. First target was a gas facility second was a high street. Warnings given for both and the first led to no injuries.
Harrods was part of the same campaign to bring the war to England and a 40 minute warning was given. The IRA also denied sanctioning this.
Bloody Friday had a number of economic and military targets.
Again, i must stress I am not arguing on the rights or wrongs of these incidents, merely pointing out that your accusation that the IRA targeted civilians is false.

Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

Hannibal

K-9 wrote: »

Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

Army barracks are generally well secured and difficult to get near, shopping areas can cause major commercial destruction and the costs on the state can be more severe due to lots of buildings in close proximity which is how it's a legitimate target due to costs.

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

So Sinn Féin should not be allowed into a democratic election?

Of course they should. Have I suggested otherwise? Are you seriously trying to equate my stringent criticism of SF with an anti-democratic agenda?

FF, FG and Labour all have a shady past and we can't keep looking into the past.

Oh I agree. The different though, is that SF's shady past is very, very recent. Can you truly not appreciate the distinction?

Yes McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris were once leading IRA men. But look anywhere in the world and you have US Presidents who have committed far worse crimes and are never condemned,

I condemn them. What you're basically saying is that, because some people have committed worse atrocities than the IRA and have not been condemned, that the IRA therefore should similarly escape censure? Pretty f*ked up logic if you don't mind me saying so.

the unelected English Queen who is being celebrated this year but was head of the armed forces of many atrocities stretching back nearly 60 years.

The most recent opinion poll in the UK had a massive majority of people in support of the monarchy, so the "unelected" bit is a red herring to be honest.

Worse though, to insinuate that QE II had any input or say in the British army actions in Northern Ireland is ridiculous,

Incidentally, I condemn wholeheartedly the British army for her actions in Northern Ireland. You can;t seem to bring yourself to do the same with either SF or the IRA.

The difference with McGuinness etc is that they have faced upto the wrong doings

They were forced to kill innocent people? Come off it.

but crucially also understand the situation that created the mess and are working tirelessly and selflessly

Hmm, selflessly eh? To my eyes, the likes of Adams and McGuinness are amongst the biggest winners from the peace process.

to turn around a two sided province and are trying to build bridges between peoples and communities who have been blinded by secterian hatred for centuries. Yet somehow these same republican leaders are condemned for this

Please...stop...with...the...deliberate...misinterpretations...

Nobody is condemning MMG and Gerry Adams for their work in the peace process. However, their actions there doesn't absolve them or anyone else of the burden of their past actions. If I were to claim that Bertie's actions re the GFA entirely mitigated his actions in government here, or that Tony Blair's actiosn re the war in Iraq were entirely absolved because of his work in the North, I'd be ridiculed. And yet that seems to be the premise of every Sinn Fein argument.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Then why give warnings?

So that they could say "well yeah, we did plant a massive bomb in the midst of civilians, but obviously we didn't mean civilian casualties".

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

Army barracks are generally well secured and difficult to get near, shopping areas can cause major commercial destruction and the costs on the state can be more severe due to lots of buildings in close proximity which is how it's a legitimate target due to costs.

Blow 'em up at night. Simple.

Chucky the tree

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That was one point out of several the poster made and I was merely pointing out that it was interesting to hear some other points on it rather than the usual hsyterical screaming from some people who could give a shit about Jerry McCabe or his family but just like having a nice emotive stick to beat SF with.
In fact talking about class, as it seems to mean so much to you, there is nothing very classy about that at all. SF seem to be the only ones with any dignity on the matter. As soon as he was killed they condemned it outright and left his family to grieve unlike FF, FG, Lab etc..who like to drag his name up every time it looks like people might actually be beginning to listen to Sinn Fein's message

Let him family grieve? They pushed for his killers release and then a SF TD meet them on their release and shock their hands. That shows great dignity right there alright.

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.

Einhard

Also: Enniskillen, Kingsmill, Bayardo Bar attack...just three of may IRA attacks in which civilians were deliberately targeted, or the IRA just didn't give a sh*t that civilians would be murdered as part of the attack.

I'm sure though, we'll get the usual mealy mothed explanations of their murders.

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.

Explain Kingsmill.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Then why give warnings?

A fig-leaf? Why plant the bombs in civilian areas at all?

It's the terrorist equivalent of a kid milling his arms at another kid and walking towards them, warning them that if they get hit, it's the other kid's fault.

junder

realies wrote: »

As SF rise & rise in the country's political arena,You can expect much more scutinity and hyterical threads like this one here. Bit like the time when MMG decided to run in the presidential race, I don't mind the scrutiny but its the complete one sided view of some of the posters here re the troubles/war/terrorism etc that happened in the last 3/4 decades,

Never forget http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dublin%20bombing%20commeration%202012&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublinmonaghanbombings.org%2Fnews.html&ei=lxHFT6TYC5CLhQed0tiUCg&usg=AFQjCNGLofPrelekxsgl84wGKkqJz2oV1w

I think sinn feins so called rise is greatly over estimated, with the current econmic crisis in the republic and the collapse of fina foil sinn fein had a golden oppunity to capitalise they manages a paltry 14 seats, if that's all the can manage in a crisis and with the protest votes when normal politics resumes I expect sinn feins vote to decline

Crooked Jack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Let him family grieve? They pushed for his killers release and then a SF TD meet them on their release and shock their hands. That shows great dignity right there alright.

SF pushed for the full implementation of the GFA. It had difficult bits for everybody. such is the nature of compromise.

Hannibal

Einhard wrote: »

Of course they should. Have I suggested otherwise? Are you seriously trying to equate my stringent criticism of SF with an anti-democratic agenda?

Oh I agree. The different though, is that SF's shady past is very, very recent. Can you truly not appreciate the distinction?

I condemn them. What you're basically saying is that, because some people have committed worse atrocities than the IRA and have not been condemned, that the IRA therefore should similarly escape censure? Pretty f*ked up logic if you don't mind me saying so.

The most recent opinion poll in the UK had a massive majority of people in support of the monarchy, so the "unelected" bit is a red herring to be honest.

Worse though, to insinuate that QE II had any input or say in the British army actions in Northern Ireland is ridiculous,

Incidentally, I condemn wholeheartedly the British army for her actions in Northern Ireland. You can;t seem to bring yourself to do the same with either SF or the IRA.



They were forced to kill innocent people? Come off it.



Hmm, selflessly eh? To my eyes, the likes of Adams and McGuinness are amongst the biggest winners from the peace process.



Please...stop...with...the...deliberate...misinterpretations...

Nobody is condemning MMG and Gerry Adams for their work in the peace process. However, their actions there doesn't absolve them or anyone else of the burden of their past actions. If I were to claim that Bertie's actions re the GFA entirely mitigated his actions in government here, or that Tony Blair's actiosn re the war in Iraq were entirely absolved because of his work in the North, I'd be ridiculed. And yet that seems to be the premise of every Sinn Fein argument.



So that they could say "well yeah, we did plant a massive bomb in the midst of civilians, but obviously we didn't mean civilian casualties".

Einhard wrote: »

Blow 'em up at night. Simple.

Yep simple and simplistic pretty much like your whole post. Not a lot of understanding about the causes of war and how to end war and not a lot of political realism to be honest.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.

You welcomed killing people in England, is that what you are saying there?

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

Yep simple and simplistic pretty much like your whole post. Not a lot of understanding about the causes of war and how to end war and not a lot of political realism to be honest.

I gave a detailed rebutall of your post; you don't even attampt to address my points, and yet have the audacity to accuse my response as simple? Answer my points; if you don't I'll safely assume that you can't.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

You welcomed killing people in England, is that what you are saying there?

I welcomed the bombing of the country that was the root cause of the problem instead of blowing up Irish towns and cities.

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

people down south are obviously going to be more preoccupied with Sinn fein because it's SF on the posters outise their doors, SF canvassers asking for their vote, and SF seeking to represent them

Fair point but SF was an all island party with a unification agenda at the time of the GFA so people really shouldn't be too surprised that they try to expand their influence on an all island basis.

It's the same with the GFA. Many people voted for it almost under protest. They disliked its provisions, but the alternative was far worse.

Yes, it must have been extremely difficult for people who lost innocent loved ones in the conflict. I can only imagine how painful it was to vote for something that secured the release of someone who killed a family member.

That surely doesn't mean that, after accepting the lesser of evils, they should embrace the very people who perpetrated that very evil.

I'm not sure SF are asking people to embrace them at the door but I take your points.

Hannibal

Einhard wrote: »

I gave a detailed rebutall of your post; you don't even attampt to address my points, and yet have the audacity to accuse my response as simple? Answer my points; if you don't I'll safely assume that you can't.

They're not even points worth engaging in to be honest, it's mostly simplistic blinkered nonsense.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fair point but SF was an all island party with a unification agenda at the time of the GFA so people really shouldn't be too surprised that they try to expand their influence on an all island basis.

Oh I'm not, and I don't blame them. Indeed, my attitude to SF has softened somewhat over the past few years as they've welcomed an influx of new faces untainted by association with the Troubles. If a SF canvasser darkens my door, I'll outline politely why i think their economic policies are bonkers and likely not even mention the Troubles. It's only in debates, either here or in person, with people who, to my mind, seek to downplay, deny, obfuscate, defend the murder of innocent civilians that my ire is drawn. As I mentioned earlier, I could see myself consdiring a SF vote in maybe 10-15 years, once the likes of MMG and Ferris have left the party, and their renunciation of violence has been tested by time.

Yes, it must have been extremely difficult for people who lost innocent loved ones in the conflict. I can only imagine how painful it was to vote for something that secured the release of someone who killed a family member.

Yes, but I don't think such reservations were confined merely to those directly affected by the Troubles.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

Explain Kingsmill.

Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)
Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.
Before you calling calling me an apologist I will once again stress that this does not make it ok and I totally and unreservedly condemn kingsmill.
You asked me to explain it and there it is.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I welcomed the bombing of the country that was the root cause of the problem instead of blowing up Irish towns and cities.

What an ignorant and ill infommed little rant ^ That is a disgraceful thing to say, have you no morals?

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

They're not even points worth engaging in to be honest, it's mostly simplistic blinkered nonsense.

I've re-read my post, and to be honest, I think you're talking nonsense here. It's patently not blinkered, and it's not simplistic. It's not what you want to here obviously, but then the nature of debates is engaging constructively with those who hold different opinions. That, unfortunately, seems to be beyond you.

Just to note: you insinuated that I wanted SF out of democratic elections. I countered that I had said no such thing. You have not provided any evidence to back up your initial assertion. Indeed, you have ignored my response entirely. You made something up. You were called on it. And you refused to respond. Which of us is simplistic again?

You then sought to equate the lack of condemnation of US presidents with blood on their hands with the condeemnation here of IRA members with blood on their hand.

I stated that I condemn both. I pointed out that you were insinuating that the IRA should get away with criticism because, in your opinion, others have gotten away with their crimes. I pointed out what a ridiculous notion that is. I answered your shoddy analogy honestly and fairly. And you simply ignored the response.

Finally, you lied'misprepresented a position again. You claimed that the criticism levelled against SF here is directed at their work in the peace process. I pointed out that that is manifestly not the case. Instead of finding the posts which would readily prove me wrong, you again ignored my response.

All my responses were considered and thought-through. Two of yours at least were deliberate misprepresentations at the very least. Your response was a three line ad hominem which shirked any attempt to address my points. And you claim that my post was simplistic? Incredible. If you don;t wish to partake in a debate, then it's probably best just to stand apart altogether, rather than raise points and then respond in such a puerile manner when you are called on them.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

What an ignorant and ill infommed little rant ^ That is a disgraceful thing to say, have you no morals?

There was a war going on and bombs in England drew the attention of English people to what their government was doing in Ireland. Bombs or shootings in Ireland barely made the news over there, they caused the problem so they were going to have to deal with it.
I never said it was nice or pleasant but as a military tactic it made sense and as soon as larger bombs started wrecking england's financial centres the brits got their arses to the negotiating table fairly sharpish. Sad but true, it's the only way to deal with them.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)

Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.

junder

The Odd thing about the while Garda McCabe thing is that according to the pira's own green book, murder of Irish state forces by an Ira activist is actully punshiable by death, and yet here we have sinn fein members meeting two people that by the Ira's own rules were guilty of serious breaches of ira law

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)
Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.
Before you calling calling me an apologist I will once again stress that this does not make it ok and I totally and unreservedly condemn kingsmill.
You asked me to explain it and there it is.

Ah, beginning to see a trend here...

IRA plants bombs in a busy street packed with civilians...civilians rather predictably die...not the IRA's fault...blame the Brits for not getting people away...

IRA shoots dead Protesetant workmen on their way home from work...IRA absolved of responsibility...by the IRA...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We are supposed to take the word of the IRA as definitive on matters of murder concerning the IRA? I'm sure if the British Army were to start claiming that their agents who colluded with Loyalist terrorists were rogue elements, you'd laugh in their face. And yet, when it comes to the IRA, your default position is to trust the word of the IRA on their guilt or otherwise. It's truly remarkable. What next- ask Larry Murphy whether he was actually guilty of those nasty things people said about him??

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.

As i said, the IRA have stood whole brigades down and expelled volunteers for such actions before. As for this particular case I dont know, I am not privy to every decision ever made by the Army Council. I certainly hope so though.

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.

The different between you and me in this, is that I condemn the Loyalist terror groups and the Republican terro groups for their sundry massacres and atrocities, whereas you seek only to absolve the IRA of their responsibility. Kingmill was rogue, Enniskillen was rogue, anything that should shame the IRA is rogue...how bloody convenient.

guinnessdrinker

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.

Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?

Einhard

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?

And when people condemned the British army and, even 30 years later, demaned some accountability, were the likes of Dotsey and Crookedjack telling them to shut up and move on and stop living in the past as they are wont to do when it comes to IRA atrocities?

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.

The inherent risk of bombing economic targets is a loss of civilian life. You originally said they didn't target civilians, the problem is their choice of economic targets made it unavoidable there would be civilian targets.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

There was a war going on and bombs in England drew the attention of English people to what their government was doing in Ireland. Bombs or shootings in Ireland barely made the news over there, they caused the problem so they were going to have to deal with it.
I never said it was nice or pleasant but as a military tactic it made sense and as soon as larger bombs started wrecking england's financial centres the brits got their arses to the negotiating table fairly sharpish. Sad but true, it's the only way to deal with them.

The Provisional IRA took it upon themselves to wage a Terrorist campaign on anybody and everybody who got in their way, they were the enemy within this state, they were the enemy in the North, and they were the enemy in Britain. War was never declared by the Irish people against the British people, and neither did Ireland declare war on Britain (and/or England). The Provisional IRA was a prerscribed Terrorist organisation which caused terrible hurt to many people on these two islands, they were the scourge of this island and Britain, they gave Irish people a bad name, and they put back any chance of reconcilliation between the different traditions on this island by decades - Those two sentences of yours really are a disgrace, specially considering the loss of life, and I am not even sure if you should be allowed to openly say that?

What do you say K9.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

Ah, beginning to see a trend here...

IRA plants bombs in a busy street packed with civilians...civilians rather predictably die...not the IRA's fault...blame the Brits for not getting people away...

IRA shoots dead Protesetant workmen on their way home from work...IRA absolved of responsibility...by the IRA...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We are supposed to take the word of the IRA as definitive on matters of murder concerning the IRA? I'm sure if the British Army were to start claiming that their agents who colluded with Loyalist terrorists were rogue elements, you'd laugh in their face. And yet, when it comes to the IRA, your default position is to trust the word of the IRA on their guilt or otherwise. It's truly remarkable. What next- ask Larry Murphy whether he was actually guilty of those nasty things people said about him??

I think you'll find I just looked at the facts. We were discussing whether or not the IRA targeted civilians and I was pointing out that this would be nonsensical as it would not further their goals and would cause them to lose support. They also gave warnings, which would be pointless if civilians were the target and I suspect that if they were the number of civilian deaths would be much higher. In fact in the first chapter of Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, he says that one of the overriding factors of the IRA's whole campaign was a reluctance to "go for the jugular" (his term) and just kill as many people as possible. End result, the IRA did not target civilians and no amount of twisting my words will make it so they did.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The Provisional IRA took it upon themselves to wage a Terrorist campaign on anybody and everybody who got in their way, they were the enemy within this state, they were the enemy in the North, and they were the enemy in Britain. War was never declared by the Irish people against the British people, and neither did Ireland declare war on Britain (and/or England). The Provisional IRA was a prerscribed Terrorist organisation which caused terrible hurt to many people on these two islands, they were the scourge of this island and Britain, they gave Irish people a bad name, and they put back any chance of reconcilliation between the different traditions on this island by decades - ........

A rather bizzarre reading of the condition of the sectarian statelet of NI. Peaceful protest was beaten off the streets.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

The different between you and me in this, is that I condemn the Loyalist terror groups and the Republican terro groups for their sundry massacres and atrocities, whereas you seek only to absolve the IRA of their responsibility. Kingmill was rogue, Enniskillen was rogue, anything that should shame the IRA is rogue...how bloody convenient.

Funny how you left THE VERY NEXT LINE i wrote out, where i say I TOTALLY AND UNRESERVEDLY condemn Kingsmill.
If you want to debate then lets debate but dont twist my words or misrepresent what I say, particularly when its written a few inches above your own twisted pontificating.

Chuck Stone

I just want to make my position clear here in case there is any doubt.

Kingsmill was an indefensible, sectarian massacre of civilians.

The victims tried to hide a Catholic guy because they thought it was a loyalist ambush at first.

Awful.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

A rather bizzarre reading of the condition of the sectarian statelet of NI. Peaceful protest was beaten off the streets.

Oh dear Lord, not you (self proclaimed Provo supporter) again :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?

No idea. Probably the same number as the number of IRA men punished for murdering civilians.

what2do

Einhard wrote: »

And when people condemned the British army and, even 30 years later, demaned some accountability, were the likes of Dotsey and Crookedjack telling them to shut up and move on and stop living in the past as they are wont to do when it comes to IRA atrocities?

This I think it a very good point. Move on from some atrocities but not others?? How is it decided that those who were victims on SF should move on but anything attributable to the British Army should be investigated until answers are received?

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

In fact in the first chapter of Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, he says that one of the overriding factors of the IRA's whole campaign was a reluctance to "go for the jugular" (his term) and just kill as many people as possible. End result, the IRA did not target civilians and no amount of twisting my words will make it so they did.

Coogan's quote does not, in any way, shape, or form, state that the IRA didn't target civilians.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Funny how you left THE VERY NEXT LINE i wrote out, where i say I TOTALLY AND UNRESERVEDLY condemn Kingsmill.
If you want to debate then lets debate but dont twist my words or misrepresent what I say, particularly when its written a few inches above your own twisted pontificating.

LOL this is funny. I stated that you seek to absolve the IRA or responsibility for their actions...which you do. I never stated that you don't condemn such actions, merely that you seek to deflect the blame from the IRA. All true. Perhaps if you weren't so worked up about my twisted pontifications, you'd be able to read the words that i actually type...

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

The inherent risk of bombing economic targets is a loss of civilian life. You originally said they didn't target civilians, the problem is their choice of economic targets made it unavoidable there would be civilian targets.

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

I think it's quite obvious that they were happy to plant thousands of bombs, and if a civilian happened to get in the way of it, well...

Of course, the proxy-bomb campaign would surely count as a crime against humanity in any arena. I wonder were they all unauthorised too?

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

LOL. Brilliant. If the IRA were not targeting civilians, and yet managed to kill 800 of them, they were pretty spectacularly bad at not targting them. Jesus H Christ, you couldn't make it up. You state yourself that the IRA killed 800 civilians, but none of them were targeted....800 accidents eh? This is incredible. Absolutely incredible.