Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've studied this subject in depth, it's quite clear what the brits were up to. Sign this or die. Classic british democracy.

Then try studying something other than an phoblacht, because you are very very wrong.

Manassas61

Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings.

Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.

FTA69

Manassas61 wrote: »

Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings.

Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army.

Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.

She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.

Fratton Fred

Manassas61 wrote: »

Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings.

Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.

How many times was the Europa Hotel bombed?

And what did Claudy do to warrant three car bombs?

Karl Stein

I don't believe that, unlike Loyalists death gangs, the PIRA had a policy of targeting civilians but they did do things that had a high risk of civilian casualties and that's why there was hundreds of dead civilians due to their actions.

Personally, I think bombing pubs just because soldiers socialise there is a nasty business because they're public bars after all which means that it's highly likely there will be civilians killed.

Our next-door-neighbour was killed in the Droppin' Well pub bombing in Ballykelly carried out by the INLA. She was just a young woman out having a few drinks and lost her life to a pretty callous attack. I was a young kid at the time so the whole thing went over my head somewhat but looking back now I can only imagine the grief it caused.

Edit:

Suspicion immediately fell upon the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), who denied involvement. By 8 December, the British Army was blaming the INLA on grounds that the IRA, in a mixed village, would have made greater efforts not to risk killing civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then try studying something other than an phoblacht, because you are very very wrong.

Yeah, that degree I got from An Phoblact is a joke.

Manassas61

FTA69 wrote: »

Manassas61 wrote: »

Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army.



She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.

There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer.

The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.

Manassas61

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How many times was the Europa Hotel bombed?

And what did Claudy do to warrant three car bombs?

The little girl cleaning a window was obviously a threat to a United Ireland..

Tramps Like Us

I'm trying to remember a war where no civilians were killed, or even just a bombing campaign, whether its Lancaster bombers or newfangled drones. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable, tragic, regrettable consequence of war and always have been (especially with a 30 year one) - which is why everything must be carefully considered before entering one. Dissident republicans (who this thread is about) who outright advocate a continuation of the campaign (as distinct from those who just disagree with the GFA) don't have a coherent political analysis or even any political or military strategy beyond the idea to keep plugging away and see if something happens - it is on this basis they should be challenged (if you want to do something which is actually useful)

The argument some posters here are putting forward and the moralizing over civilian deaths should not be taken at face value, given the fact that they accept the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths their own countries army has inflicted - for these people it is not really about civilian deaths and they should not pretend it is - there is no mention of the murders of civilians which founded NI and helped maintain it and why would there be, they don't fit their agenda.

Tramps Like Us

Manassas61 wrote: »

There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer.

The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.

And who were the law?

Here's some bedtime reading for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/23/cruel-britannia-ian-cobain-review

And there is evidence that she was an informer, why else would they kill the mother of an IRA member who was in Long Kesh? (that fact rarely makes the narrative)

Manassas61

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I'm trying to remember a war where no civilians were killed, or even just a bombing campaign, whether its Lancaster bombers or newfangled drones. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable, tragic, regrettable consequence of war and always have been (especially with a 30 year one) - which is why everything must be carefully considered before entering one. Dissident republicans (who this thread is about) who outright advocate a continuation of the campaign (as distinct from those who just disagree with the GFA) don't have a coherent political analysis or even any political or military strategy beyond the idea to keep plugging away and see if something happens - it is on this basis they should be challenged (if you want to do something which is actually useful)

The argument some posters here are putting forward and the moralizing over civilian deaths should not be taken at face value, given the fact that they accept the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths their own countries army has inflicted - for these people it is not really about civilian deaths and they should not pretend it is - there is no mention of the murders of civilians which founded NI and helped maintain it and why would there be, they don't fit their agenda.

Actually many of us don't and think we should not have went to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Karl Stein

I don't believe people like Manassa61 really care about Jean Mc Conville - they care about trying to make Republicans look evil so what they do is focus in on killings that will provide the most 'emotional capital' to help underpin their anti-Republican crusades.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I don't believe people like Manassa61 really care about Jean Mc Conville - they care about trying to make Republicans look evil so what they do is focus in on killings that will provide the most 'emotional capital' to help underpin their anti-Republican crusades.

You can try to dress it up what ever you want, it is a factual historical reality that they picked her up and murdered her and didn't return her body. This is not a lie, this did happen and she was a civilian.

Tramps Like Us

Manassas61 wrote: »

You can try to dress it up what ever you want, it is a factual historical reality that they picked her up and murdered her and didn't return her body. This is not a lie, this did happen and she was a civilian.

If she was a British agent, and I believe she was, she was not a civilian.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

You can try to dress it up what ever you want

You're the one doing the dressing up not I.

If I could easily go on a similar crusade to paint British Soldiers as child killers by awaking the ghosts of some of the children they murdered.

Unlike you, and your fellow travellers, I won't dance on their graves by using their deaths to my own selfish ends. Also, I'm not so stupid as to think the BA or RUC was made up exclusively of bloodthirsty degenerates.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You're the one doing the dressing up not I.

If I could easily go on a similar crusade to paint British Soldiers as child killers by awaking the ghosts of some of the children they murdered.

Unlike you, and your fellow travellers, I won't dance on their graves by using their deaths to my own selfish ends. Also, I'm not so stupid as to think the BA or RUC was made up exclusively of bloodthirsty degenerates.

You would not find me defending those actions. Same way I would not expect to find anyone trying to even remotely "defend" what happened to Jean Mcconville.

Godge

Manassas61 wrote: »

You would not find me defending those actions. Same way I would not expect to find anyone trying to even remotely "defend" what happened to Jean Mcconville.

Did you not know the real story?


It wasn't us.
Maybe it was a renegade group.
We didn't torture her.
It really wasn't us.
She deserved it.
She was sleeping with a British soldier.
It definitely wasn't us.
She was an informer.
We don't know what happened.
It was a British government plot to discredit the IRA, they probably know where she is.
Maybe it was a beach in Dundalk but we don't know for certain because it wasn't us.
Did the Irish government turn a blind eye to whoever did it.
She deserved it because she was an informer.
It definitely wasn't us.
Oh. OK, it was us and we are sorry but we are not taking back any of the other things we said.

The list of SF/IRA excuses, stories and slander in relation to Jean McConville is lengthy and disgraceful.

Manassas61

Godge wrote: »

Did you not know the real story?


It wasn't us.
Maybe it was a renegade group.
We didn't torture her.
It really wasn't us.
She deserved it.
She was sleeping with a British soldier.
It definitely wasn't us.
She was an informer.
We don't know what happened.
It was a British government plot to discredit the IRA, they probably know where she is.
Maybe it was a beach in Dundalk but we don't know for certain because it wasn't us.
Did the Irish government turn a blind eye to whoever did it.
She deserved it because she was an informer.
It definitely wasn't us.
Oh. OK, it was us and we are sorry but we are not taking back any of the other things we said.

The list of SF/IRA excuses, stories and slander in relation to Jean McConville is lengthy and disgraceful.

Yes it is. But sadly not surprising. When desperation hits, you do tend to say anything.

Howard Juneau

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

If she was a British agent, and I believe she was, she was not a civilian.

You would believe wrong.

Tramps Like Us

And what do you base that on?

Howard Juneau

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

And what do you base that on?

The fact she wasn't a British collaborator

Tramps Like Us

Howard Juneau wrote: »

The fact she wasn't a British collaborator

Why do you think that?

Iwasfrozen

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Why do you think that?

I don't know whether she was or not but informing on a terrorist organisation is a noble act that shouldn't have seen her killed.

The who

Manassas61 wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer.

The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.

Of course her family said she wasnt an informer, they were mad that she was shot and turned agaisnt the army

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't know whether she was or not but informing on a terrorist organisation is a noble act that shouldn't have seen her killed.

Let's look at who she was passing information to for a second will we? In the early 1970s the British Army was implementing internment, a process whereby thousands of innocent people were abducted from their homes and imprisoned without trial in camps. Within these camps the British Army routinely beat and tortured their captives and were later taken to the European Court for things such as mock executions, throwing people out of helicopters and general other torture tactics. They had also, a few months before, killed 14 innocent civilians on the streets of Derry as well as committed a massacre of civilians in Ballymurphy. And you think collaborating with that shower is a "noble act"?

Unfortunately there has always been a dose of cringing toadyism in Ireland and the above statement shows it's alive and well today.

Howard Juneau

FTA69 wrote: »

Let's look at who she was passing information to for a second will we? In the early 1970s the British Army was implementing internment, a process whereby thousands of innocent people were abducted from their homes and imprisoned without trial in camps. Within these camps the British Army routinely beat and tortured their captives and were later taken to the European Court for things such as mock executions, throwing people out of helicopters and general other torture tactics. They had also, a few months before, killed 14 innocent civilians on the streets of Derry as well as committed a massacre of civilians in Ballymurphy. And you think collaborating with that shower is a "noble act"?

Unfortunately there has always been a dose of cringing toadyism in Ireland and the above statement shows it's alive and well today.

Let's see any of this information passed, any records at all , maybe a smidgen of a piece of paper?

Crooked Jack

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Let's see any of this information passed, any records at all , maybe a smidgen of a piece of paper?

We'd all love to see some of the british army records from those days. im always amused that people take brendan hughes and marion price's word as gospel when they say Adams ordered her killing, but suddenly the same people have no credibility when they say she was klled because she was a brit agent

FTA69

Yeah, because that sort of information is always in the public domain like. It's hardly common practice to divulge records of your informants. She was apparently caught twice, Ed Moloney details the incident in his book. And it's a far more likely scenario than her being shot for no reason other than Republican psychopathy.

Howard Juneau

Crooked Jack wrote: »

We'd all love to see some of the british army records from those days. im always amused that people take brendan hughes and marion price's word as gospel when they say Adams ordered her killing, but suddenly the same people have no credibility when they say she was klled because she was a brit agent

Have never suggested that Adams had anything to do with it

Howard Juneau

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah, because that sort of information is always in the public domain like. It's hardly common practice to divulge records of your informants. She was apparently caught twice, Ed Moloney details the incident in his book. And it's a far more likely scenario than her being shot for no reason other than Republican psychopathy.

So no proof then? Ah that's grand.

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

Let's look at who she was passing information to for a second will we? In the early 1970s the British Army was implementing internment, a process whereby thousands of innocent people were abducted from their homes and imprisoned without trial in camps. Within these camps the British Army routinely beat and tortured their captives and were later taken to the European Court for things such as mock executions, throwing people out of helicopters and general other torture tactics. They had also, a few months before, killed 14 innocent civilians on the streets of Derry as well as committed a massacre of civilians in Ballymurphy. And you think collaborating with that shower is a "noble act"?

Unfortunately there has always been a dose of cringing toadyism in Ireland and the above statement shows it's alive and well today.

What nonsense. The point in bold is the only point I'll concede. When Howard Juneau rightly called your bluff and asked for evidence you couldn't provide any. I'm not interested in discussing fevered republican ranting.

Howard Juneau wrote: »

So no proof then? Ah that's grand.

Who needs proof when we already know they did it? :rolleyes:

FTA69

What nonsense. The point in bold is the only point I'll concede. When Howard Juneau rightly called your bluff and asked for evidence you couldn't provide any. I'm not interested in discussing fevered republican ranting.

I couldn't care less what you may or may not feel like conceding to be honest, everything I've stated is demonstrable fact.

1) Internment happened. Most victims of it were innocent people who had nothing to do with the IRA.
2) In the internment camps, captives were subjected to prohibited human rights abuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
3) The Brits killed eleven civilians in Ballymurphy in 1971. One died of a heart attack after a mock execution in the street after a soldier dry-fired a pistol in his mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballymurphy_Massacre

Everything I've said above is well-recorded historical fact. I'm sorry if that spoils your ridiculous black-and-white notion of noble Brits and evil Paddies, but yet it remains the case. And you're telling us all it's a "noble act" to collaborate with the people above? Gas man altogether. And what's even more funny is your acute ignorance of what they actually got up to in Ireland.

FTA69

Howard Juneau wrote: »

So no proof then? Ah that's grand.

So why do you think she was killed?

Howard Juneau

FTA69 wrote: »

So why do you think she was killed?

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the IRA, so I wouldn't like to guess, it'd probably be as wrong as the informant propaganda

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

1) Internment happened. Most victims of it were innocent people who had nothing to do with the IRA.

First off don't use the word victims. Secondly imagine actually locking up someone who might turn out to be innocent. Damn FTA those Brits sure are evil. I'm surprised you haven't been mauled to death in London!

Back to the topic at hand locking up a person suspected of terrorism is hardly a cruel or usual punishment. Maybe the person isn't a terrorist but maybe they are and if so it's vitally important that they're taken off the streets asap. Ok innocent people may be arrested but they always are in any investigation.

2) In the internment camps, captives were subjected to prohibited human rights abuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques

1. Did you even read your own link? The article states explicitly that the five techniques did not amount to torture.
2. The British, after the findings of the court admitted they were wrong and ceased carrying out the methods. What's the problem?

3) The Brits killed eleven civilians in Ballymurphy in 1971. One died of a heart attack after a mock execution in the street after a soldier dry-fired a pistol in his mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballymurphy_Massacre

"The unit selected for this operation was the Parachute Regiment; the same regiment who were later responsible for the shootings in Derry on 30 January 1972."

You shouldn't blame the entire army for one bad unit. Remember the British were there as peacekeepers. The republicans saw them as a foreign army and were hostile to them. Tensions flared and isolated incidents like this were inevitable.

Everything I've said above is well-recorded historical fact. I'm sorry if that spoils your ridiculous black-and-white notion of noble Brits and evil Paddies, but yet it remains the case. And you're telling us all it's a "noble act" to collaborate with the people above? Gas man altogether. And what's even more funny is your acute ignorance of what they actually got up to in Ireland.

I don't have a black white view of anything I have very little love for Northern Ireland at all and I hope to God your grimy history and hate filled fractious little country never despoils the Republic.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You shouldn't blame the entire army for one bad unit. Remember the British were there as peacekeepers. The republicans saw them as a foreign army and were hostile to them. Tensions flared and isolated incidents like this were inevitable.

.

The type of action seen in NI in the early 1970's was typical 'colonial policing' and was bog standard in the BA. The notion of some rogue unit is laughable.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

First off don't use the word victims. Secondly imagine actually locking up
someone who might turn out to be innocent

I don't see why "victim" doesn't apply and I've no idea where you're going with the rest of that.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

What nonsense. The point in bold is the only point I'll concede

You're denying the beatings now?

.jacksparrow.

I find it funny the same people asking for proof of certain things, are the first to point to Adams been in the Ira without any proof.

.jacksparrow.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

First off don't use the word victims. Secondly imagine actually locking up someone who might turn out to be innocent. Damn FTA those Brits sure are evil. I'm surprised you haven't been mauled to death in London!

Back to the topic at hand locking up a person suspected of terrorism is hardly a cruel or usual punishment. Maybe the person isn't a terrorist but maybe they are and if so it's vitally important that they're taken off the streets asap. Ok innocent people may be arrested but they always are in any investigation.

1. Did you even read your own link? The article states explicitly that the five techniques did not amount to torture.
2. The British, after the findings of the court admitted they were wrong and ceased carrying out the methods. What's the problem?

"The unit selected for this operation was the Parachute Regiment; the same regiment who were later responsible for the shootings in Derry on 30 January 1972."

You shouldn't blame the entire army for one bad unit. Remember the British were there as peacekeepers. The republicans saw them as a foreign army and were hostile to them. Tensions flared and isolated incidents like this were inevitable.


I don't have a black white view of anything I have very little love for Northern Ireland at all and I hope to God your grimy history and hate filled fractious little country never despoils the Republic.

Well if they weren't victims what were they?

You're opinion that people should be interned on suspicion of something is as dangerous as the US of As great idea about gunentamano bay
and how they deal with people.

If you think this is acceptable behavior of governments you must have a warped view of human and civil rights.

Tramps Like Us

I know a number of men who were interned and tortured, one of whom had only slight connections to the civil rights movement and none to the republican movement - he was just staying in a friends house - it actually beggars belief that someone is defending internment and how they were treated

.jacksparrow.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I know a number of men who were interned and tortured, one of whom had only slight connections to the civil rights movement and none to the republican movement - he was just staying in a friends house - it actually beggars belief that someone is defending internment and how they were treated

Just shows the mindset of some people, in their eyes this is acceptable in this day and age.

Then they question why people had no choice but to fight back.

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I know a number of men who were interned and tortured, one of whom had only slight connections to the civil rights movement and none to the republican movement - he was just staying in a friends house - it actually beggars belief that someone is defending internment and how they were treated

No more unbelievable than people defending any other outrage during the troubles to be honest.

Internment without trial, torture, execution without trial, mistaken identity. All indefensible, yet people will bend over backwards to point out that their side doing it was ok, but an outrage when the other side did.

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

First off don't use the word victims. Secondly imagine actually locking up someone who might turn out to be innocent.

So what would you call an innocent civilian who is in bed at 4am only to have his door kicked in by soldiers, his house trashed, has the sh*t kicked out of him and is then thrown into a camp for three odd years without trial and subjected to banned interrogation/torture techniques? Victim is a perfectly adequate term. It's the only adequate term really.

Back to the topic at hand locking up a person suspected of terrorism is hardly a cruel or usual punishment. Maybe the person isn't a terrorist but maybe they are and if so it's vitally important that they're taken off the streets asap. Ok innocent people may be arrested but they always are in any investigation.

Grand job. Weren't you going about being on the side of democracy earlier on? Laughable.

1. Did you even read your own link? The article states explicitly that the five techniques did not amount to torture.
2. The British, after the findings of the court admitted they were wrong and ceased carrying out the methods. What's the problem?

Something tells me if you were beaten, threatened with attack dogs, subjected to mock execution, deprived of food and sleep, made to hold stress positions and deprived of all sleep you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Also if you think that British torture ended in 1975 you're codding yourself. How do you think they extracted all of those "verbal confessions" in Castlereagh during the 1980s?

You shouldn't blame the entire army for one bad unit. Remember the British were there as peacekeepers. The republicans saw them as a foreign army and were hostile to them. Tensions flared and isolated incidents like this were inevitable.

First of all the Brits were deployed "in aid of the civil power" i.e. to prop up Stormont. That was the official phrase used. Secondly do you honestly think the Paras were the only soldiers guilty of that sort of thing in Ireland? Please stop posting. Your argument has no substance and is unraveling rapidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aidan_McAnespie
http://www.u.tv/news/Fresh-doubts-over-rubber-bullet-death/8a5156b4-e86c-4c4b-ace2-6960ff17ed03

I hope to God your grimy history and hate filled fractious little country never despoils the Republic.

Which country is that? Cork?

SoulandForm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Back to the topic at hand locking up a person suspected of terrorism is hardly a cruel or usual punishment. Maybe the person isn't a terrorist but maybe they are and if so it's vitally important that they're taken off the streets asap. Ok innocent people may be arrested but they always are in any investigation.

You shouldn't blame the entire army for one bad unit. Remember the British were there as peacekeepers. The republicans saw them as a foreign army and were hostile to them. Tensions flared and isolated incidents like this were inevitable.

I don't have a black white view of anything I have very little love for Northern Ireland at all and I hope to God your grimy history and hate filled fractious little country never despoils the Republic.

First off from a purely political point of view internment was wrong because it massively strengthened support for the Provisional IRA and fed rather than decreased violence- it completely failed in its stated objective. Of course it was totally immoral as well and could be used easily to justify people picking gun but anyways- if the state starts behaving towards your community like that how are you are going to react? Than there is the fact that internment was almost exclusively aimed at Republicans while Loyalists were out there slaughtering people based purely on their religious background. Second off; even British Tories will tell you that the Parachute regiment should NEVER have been used to used in the Northern Ireland, sending them in was either particularly stupid or particularly evil whatever way you want to look at it. Third off; you accuse me of being a psycho nationalist and than come out with that? Three of our counties are already besmirching your precious "Republic" anyway.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

First off from a purely political point of view internment was wrong because it massively strengthened support for the Provisional IRA and fed rather than decreased violence- it completely failed in its stated objective. Of course it was totally immoral as well and could be used easily to justify people picking gun but anyways- if the state starts behaving towards your community like that how are you are going to react? Than there is the fact that internment was almost exclusively aimed at Republicans while Loyalists were out there slaughtering people based purely on their religious background. Second off; even British Tories will tell you that the Parachute regiment should NEVER have been used to used in the Northern Ireland, sending them in was either particularly stupid or particularly evil whatever way you want to look at it. Third off; you accuse me of being a psycho nationalist and than come out with that? Three of our counties are already besmirching your precious "Republic" anyway.

At the height of the cold war, sending a regiment whose job was to jump out of an airplane and fight toe to toe with the red army, into a housing estate was beyond stupid.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At the height of the cold war, sending a regiment whose job was to jump out of an airplane and fight toe to toe with the red army, into a housing estate was beyond stupid.

.....yet they weren't the only regiment in there shooting men of 'fighting age'. While they may have been harder men than the rest, the overall attitude would have been the same. It was the same type of action used the world over.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

.....yet they weren't the only regiment in there shooting men of 'fighting age'. While they may have been harder men than the rest, the overall attitude would have been the same. It was the same type of action used the world over.

Im not going to defend the British Army as an organization- Im not a fan of armies full stop- but I think its beyond that some regiments did actually behave much worse than others. Similarly some in the RUC were working hand in glove with the Loyalist death squads while others actually did their best to put Loyalists behind bars- there also differences between PIRA units.

Tramps Like Us

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At the height of the cold war, sending a regiment whose job was to jump out of an airplane and fight toe to toe with the red army, into a housing estate was beyond stupid.

Or deliberate.

Tramps Like Us

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im not going to defend the British Army as an organization- Im not a fan of armies full stop- but I think its beyond that some regiments did actually behave much worse than others. Similarly some in the RUC were working hand in glove with the Loyalist death squads while others actually did their best to put Loyalists behind bars- there also differences between PIRA units.

From talking to people the consensus seems to be that the Scottish were by far the worst and most vindictive. That doesnt mean the others were handing out daffodils, they all acted despicably just some were worse than others.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

.....yet they weren't the only regiment in there shooting men of 'fighting age'. While they may have been harder men than the rest, the overall attitude would have been the same. It was the same type of action used the world over.

Hang on a sec, one of the IRA fan boys was lauding the fact the IRA killed only 724 civilians and claimed if they were blood thirsty savages, the figures would have been a lot higher.

The British army killed less than a third of the number of civilians than the IRA, but apparently they were going around killing any one of fighting age?

Good old republican hypocrisy strikes again.

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I find it funny the same people asking for proof of certain things, are the first to point to Adams been in the Ira without any proof.

Every major player in the PIRA said Gerry Adams was in the PIRA. Brendan Hughes for example said he WAS in the PIRA. This is from a person who lived it during that time.

He has no credibility left now anyway and most people aren't stupid, they know what his past was.