Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Busted Flat.

feargale wrote: »

A just war is one that, among other things, has a mandate from its people.

Can you give me an example of a just war which had a mandate.

rockatansky

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Can you give me an example of a just war which had a mandate.

The Irish war of Independence! Oh no wait second....

Karl Stein

feargale wrote: »

A just war is one that, among other things, has a mandate from its people.

How do minorities get a mandate in this neat package, black and white world?

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

There are none so blind as those who choose not see.
If Jean McConville was an informer she was was essentially an agent of the British Army and was a legitimate target in the context of a conflict.

So McConville is to be viewed as an (alleged!) informer and could only expect to be treated the harsh way such people were treated in a conflict. But Nelson and Finucane were to be viewed as civilians with the conflict largely irrelevant.

You seem to have the same confused attitude to the troubles as most republicans, insisting that it was a war and the rules of (guerrilla) war prevailed for republican combatants but simultaneously insisting that British forces should abide by normal peace-time rules. To be fair, the British did the very same thing.

Karl Stein wrote: »

I got you confused with some other anti-Republican.

Anti-nationalist to be precise. Also, anti-religion and anti- any other dangerous man-made nonsense. But my argument here is not about this, it is about inconsistencies in the way victims of the troubles are viewed.

Busted Flat.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So McConville is to be viewed as an (alleged!) informer and could only expect to be treated the harsh way such people were treated in a conflict. But Nelson and Finucane were to be viewed as civilians with the conflict largely irrelevant.

You seem to have the same confused attitude to the troubles as most republicans, insisting that it was a war and the rules of (guerrilla) war prevailed for republican combatants but simultaneously insisting that British forces should abide by normal peace-time rules. To be fair, the British did the very same thing.
Anti-nationalist to be precise. Also, anti-religion and anti- any other dangerous man-made nonsense. But my argument here is not about this, it is about inconsistencies in the way victims of the troubles are viewed.

Going by your posts you are either not old enough to understand what went on in those years, or only listened to a one sided discussion in your parents house as a child. There is serious questions to be answered by the so called authorities both here and in the UK about state terrorism, hopefully you are not an apologist for their actions. I will hold my judgement till I hear your response.

William F

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You seem to have the same confused attitude to the troubles as most republicans, insisting that it was a war and the rules of (guerrilla) war prevailed for republican combatants but simultaneously insisting that British forces should abide by normal peace-time rules. To be fair, the British did the very same thing.

Gunning down Civil Rights protesters isn't guerrilla warfare?

But you've hit the nail on the head though. The British Government is seeking an amnesty and it's using coercion as means of getting what it wants.

I don't think any group would be stupid enough to sign up to one considering the effects it would have on their support.

Those who were involved in Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy should brought to justice and jailed for the lives they took.

feargale

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Can you give me an example of a just war which had a mandate.

The war fought by the Spanish Republic 1936-1939, the struggle of the French Resistance 1940-45, Australia's war against the Japanese 1942-45, Finland's war against the Soviets 1940.
You might also note that before the Rebellion of 1848 Smith O'Brien toured Ireland to test the mood of the people for an uprising. That was the proper way to do it when the populace were not afforded the opportunity to confer a mandate. Hungarians in 1956 and Indians in the 19th century were reasonable in their belief that they had a mandate for military action,

feargale

rockatansky wrote: »

The Irish war of Independence! Oh no wait second....

Certainly not 1916. No need to wait a second there.

Busted Flat.

feargale wrote: »

The war fought by the Spanish Republic 1936-1939, the struggle of the French Resistance 1940-45, Australia's war against the Japanese 1942-45, Finland's war against the Soviets 1940.
You might also note that before the Rebellion of 1848 Smith O'Brien toured Ireland to test the mood of the people for an uprising. That was the proper way to do it when the populace were not afforded the opportunity to confer a mandate. Hungarians in 1956 and Indians in the 19th century were reasonable in their belief that they had a mandate for military action,

A mandate to support a war where more than 50% supports the decision, where did that happen. Can you give me a link in the countries you named had such a vote.

Fr Tod Umptious

Busted Flat. wrote: »

A mandate to support a war where more than 50% supports the decision, where did that happen. Can you give me a link in the countries you named had such a vote.

Hair splitting.
Typical of a NI thread.
Goes hand in hand with the whataboutery we are also seeing here.

William F

Whether there was a mandate or not, it doesn't take away the fact that the war lasted for 30+ years.

IRA members of former conflicts such as the 50s, addressing the reason why they failed, mentioned that they didn't have the support of the people unlike the Provisionals.

feargale

Busted Flat. wrote: »

A mandate to support a war where more than 50% supports the decision, where did that happen. Can you give me a link in the countries you named had such a vote.

You mean you want to see the referendum date being fixed, and canvassing and campaigning taking place, as the invaders are streaming over the frontier? Ah no. It's not done like that at all. In a democracy, you see, ( that's government of the people by the people for the people ) it's not practical to have every citizen voting on every issue, so what you do is this: you elect people to sit in a parliament and they make decisions on your behalf, like when to go to war. If you don't like the decisions you'll get a chance later to kick them out. Sometimes they do awful things, like choosing a head of government that neither you nor I can abide. We hope to change things at the next election, but sometimes the damned people change nothing and we have to put up with it a while longer. In peacetime we might be consulted about a thing or two in a referendum. It's all usually covered in a document called the constitution. I hadn't thought about doing war your way i.e. consulting the people as Genghis Khan is bearing down on us. I suppose it could work - if there were enough bomb shelters to accomodate the polling booths.

feargale

Karl Stein wrote: »

How do minorities get a mandate in this neat package, black and white world?

Why don't you ask how does a minority of a minority get a mandate? They don't.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So McConville is to be viewed as an (alleged!) informer and could only expect to be treated the harsh way such people were treated in a conflict. But Nelson and Finucane were to be viewed as civilians with the conflict largely irrelevant.

The solicitors were working within the British justice system. They were murdered for using the system against itself.

You seem to have the same confused attitude to the troubles as most republicans, insisting that it was a war and the rules of (guerrilla) war prevailed for republican combatants but simultaneously insisting that British forces should abide by normal peace-time rules.

Wrong. I've never once complained about the shoot-to-kill policy the British used. Indeed I've said that I thought folks who've complained about it were hypocritical.

Anti-nationalist to be precise.

Anti nationalist is a hell of a lot more bizarre than being nationalist #smileyface.

feargale

William F wrote: »

IRA members of former conflicts such as the 50s, addressing the reason why they failed, mentioned that they didn't have the support of the people unlike the Provisionals.

If the IRA had the support of the people during the troubles, what did the SDLP have?

Nodin

feargale wrote: »

Funny. I always thought belief wasn't enough to secure a conviction. There had to be proof. Dare I say beyond reasonable doubt? At least, that's what I hear when some people talk of the Birmingham Six and other British miscarriages of justice.

Read my comments re war earlier.

Nodin

feargale wrote: »

If the IRA had the support of the people during the troubles, what did the SDLP have?

The support of two grateful governments.

twowheelsgood

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Going by your posts you are either not old enough to understand what went on in those years, or only listened to a one sided discussion in your parents house as a child. There is serious questions to be answered by the so called authorities both here and in the UK about state terrorism, hopefully you are not an apologist for their actions. I will hold my judgement till I hear your response.

Odd that you direct an accusation of being one-sided at me? I am doing the very opposite. Nelson, Finucane and McConcille (allegedly) engaged in actions that amounted to giving aid to one side in the conflict. And in all cases it could be conceivably argued that there might be people alive today had they not so done.

I am quite consistent in my views on all three.
Pat Finucane was murdered. No equivocation.
Rosemary Nelson was murdered. No equivocation.
Jean McConville was murdered. No equivocation.

Quite a few posters here will agree with me on the first two. But on the third, we get all sorts of contorted (and irrelevant) arguments about informing not being the same as lawyering and the like. I.e. a one-sided take on the conflict, to use your own phrase.

Busted Flat. wrote: »

A mandate to support a war where more than 50% supports the decision, where did that happen. Can you give me a link in the countries you named had such a vote.

The recent conflict in Ireland was fairly unique in that it was possible to demonstrate that the Irish people did not support the IRA because we can see who they did support. Nationalists backed what were termed constitutional republican parties (a UI but not using violence) and of course unionists did not want a UI by any means. We didn’t need a vote. But this is OT.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Anti nationalist is a hell of a lot more bizarre than being nationali

I should have said anti-nationalism. And I mean anti- all nationalism. If this urge in Englishmen has been supressed in recent centuries there would have been no ambition to go off and build their Empire, and many in the world, including ourselves, might just possibly have been a little bit better off, wouldn’t you say? But also, OT.

pablomakaveli

rockatansky wrote: »

The Dublin and Monaghan bombings and Bloody Sunday were not attacks on Republicans, they were attacks targeting Innocent Irish Civilians.

There is no hypocracy on this.

There is when consider the possibility that Jean McConville may have just been an innocent civilian herself. The IRA certainly weren't averse to killing civilians themselves.

Dr.Tank Adams

pablomakaveli wrote: »

There is when consider the possibility that Jean McConville may have just been an innocent civilian herself. The IRA certainly weren't averse to killing civilians themselves.

TBF, they didn't tend to abduct and execute innocent civilians, they may have been responsible for the death of innocent civilians, but nearly all of them were as the result of bomb blasts. Picking up a random person and shooting them was almost an exclusively Loyalist pursuit. If they killed her it was almost certainly because they truly believed she was an informer, whether that was actually the case or not remains to be seen. I suspect she probably was, not that that will make much of a difference in court anyway.

feargale

Nodin wrote: »

...there's prisons, a functioning state....it's rather a different set-up than the chaos of war.

Correct me if I'm wrong please. Have you not expressed yourself in another thread as a supporter of a dissident group that rejects the legitimacy of the Good Friday Agreement?

Nodin

feargale wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong please. Have you not expressed yourself in another thread as a supporter of a dissident group that rejects the legitimacy of the Good Friday Agreement?

No, you have me confused with somebody else there.

pablomakaveli

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

TBF, they didn't tend to abduct and execute innocent civilians, they may have been responsible for the death of innocent civilians, but nearly all of them were as the result of bomb blasts. Picking up a random person and shooting them was almost an exclusively Loyalist pursuit. If they killed her it was almost certainly because they truly believed she was an informer, whether that was actually the case or not remains to be seen. I suspect she probably was, not that that will make much of a difference in court anyway.

Actually they did. The kingsmill massacre being one of the more prominent examples.

As for what they believed it matters not one bit if she was innocent. It's still a dead innocent wrongly killed which is the case regardless of what side did the killing.

holyhead

I always believed she Ms McConville, was targeted because she tended to an injured British Soldier. Maybe I'm wrong in this. Btw if its true not sure it justifies depriving a large and young family of their mother.

Dr.Tank Adams

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Actually they did. The kingsmill massacre being one of the more prominent examples.

As for what they believed it matters not one bit if she was innocent. It's still a dead innocent wrongly killed which is the case regardless of what side did the killing.

The Kingsmill massacre was a highly isolated incident, it was a retaliation killing in which a group of PIRA members took it upon themselves to carry out an atrocity. They certainly didn't abduct or torture the men before they killed them though, so not really that comparable to the Loyalist brand of killing.

Busted Flat.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

The Kingsmill massacre was a highly isolated incident, it was a retaliation killing in which a group of PIRA members took it upon themselves to carry out an atrocity. They certainly didn't abduct or torture the men before they killed them though, so not really that comparable to the Loyalist brand of killing.

Between the beginning of the truce (10 February 1975) and the Kingsmill massacre, loyalist paramilitaries killed 25 Catholic civilians in County Armagh and just over the border in County Louth.[12][13] In that same period, republican paramilitaries killed 14 Protestant civilians and 16 members of the security forces in County Armagh.[12]
On 1 September, five Protestant civilians were killed by masked gunmen at Tullyvallan Orange Hall near Newtownhamilton. The attack was claimed by a group calling itself the "South Armagh Republican Action Force".[12] This was the first time the name had been used.
On 19 December, loyalists detonated a car bomb at Kay's Tavern in Dundalk, a few miles across the Irish border. No warning was given beforehand and two civilians were killed.[12] Later that day, three Catholic civilians were killed and six were wounded in a gun and grenade attack on Donnelly's Bar in Silverbridge. The "Red Hand Commandos" claimed responsibility for both attacks.[12] Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers investigating the attack said they believed the culprits included an RUC officer and a British soldier from the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR).[14]
On 31 December, three Protestant civilians were killed in an explosion at Central Bar, Gilford. The "People's Republican Army" claimed responsibility.[12] It is believed this was a cover name used by members of the INLA.[15]
Four days later, on 4 January 1976, the UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade shot dead six Catholic civilians in two co-ordinated attacks. They killed three members of the Reavey family in Whitecross and three members of the O'Dowd family in Ballydougan, within twenty minutes of each other. The Irish News reported that the killings were in revenge for the bombing in Gilford.[16] RUC officer Billy McCaughey admitted taking part and accused another officer of being involved.[14] His colleague, John Weir, said that two police officers and a British soldier were involved.[14]
The HET report found that while the massacre was in "direct response" to the Reavey and O'Dowd killings, the attack was planned before that: "The murderous attacks on the Reavey and O’Dowd families were simply the catalyst for the premeditated and calculated slaughter of these innocent and defenceless men".[17]




https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKingsmill_massacre&ei=yF8vU9DgFdSP7AabuYHoBg&usg=AFQjCNF44QNGpPdfyjjSfBeZYumtTGIxmg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZGU


Ps, I know it is embarrassing for some poster to have to come to terms with the fact that there were unlawful killings on both sides. It has happened in all wars, My Lai is a prime example, I will add no more, all posters have access to Google and Wikipedia. Please use it before posting, it will save embarrassment.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

The Kingsmill massacre was a highly isolated incident, it was a retaliation killing in which a group of PIRA members took it upon themselves to carry out an atrocity. They certainly didn't abduct or torture the men before they killed them though, so not really that comparable to the Loyalist brand of killing.

So when confronted with evidence that their side massacred innocent civilians, the poster somehow tries to down play it by mentioning that it's not as bad as what the other side did.

Sick, sick, sick individuals on this thread.

God help ye.

feargale

Nodin wrote: »

The support of two grateful governments.

You mention government as if it were a dirty word. Those Dublin governments were popularly elected. Are you questioning their legitimacy? You say they supported the SDLP. Better their support than that of Peter King and some of the most bigoted, racist and imperialist Irish-Americans who holler " Brits out of Ireland," but not, ironically " Yanks out of New Mexico" or " Irish out of the Land of the Iroquois." You imply that the SDLP's only support came from Dublin and Westminster. Ironic, since you posted earlier on the difference between genuine belief and lies. The SDLP headed Sinn Féin in every general election held during the murder campaign. Acknowledge it.

Nodin wrote: »

Read my comments re war earlier.

I see, so war justifies that meted out to those "shot at dawn" for alleged cowardice in World War I, after a perfunctory "trial" by a military donkey, without right of appeal. Even they got the benefit of more procedure than Jean McConville and those who got romper room "justice" in Belfast.

Fratton Fred

Jesus, talk about off topic.

I've a couple of questions to ask the "experts", of which there seems to be many.

I've heard it often said that the IRA would not kill the mother of one of their soldiers without good reason.

Was her son Robbie in the PIRA or the OIRA?

also, was her husband in the British Army as claimed on Wikipedia?

Fratton Fred

Just read the police ombudsman's report, it appears her husband was in the BA.

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jesus, talk about off topic.

I've a couple of questions to ask the "experts", of which there seems to be many.

I've heard it often said that the IRA would not kill the mother of one of their soldiers without good reason.

Was her son Robbie in the PIRA or the OIRA?

also, was her husband in the British Army as claimed on Wikipedia?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMurder_of_Jean_McConville&ei=QSowU-W9CcWM7Qbd3YDABg&usg=AFQjCNElnf6maGTaqvVVcisfyxw4a2Qbyg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZGU

Jean McConville was born into a Protestant family in East Belfast but converted to Catholicism after marrying Arthur McConville, a Catholic man and former member of the British Army[1] by whom she had ten children. After being intimidated out of a Protestant district, the McConville family moved to West Belfast's Divis Flats in the Lower Falls Road.[2] Arthur died in 1971. One of her sons, Robbie McConville, was imprisoned in Long Kesh at the time of her death for Official IRA activities before defecting to the newly formed Irish National Liberation Army in 1974.[3]

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMurder_of_Jean_McConville&ei=QSowU-W9CcWM7Qbd3YDABg&usg=AFQjCNElnf6maGTaqvVVcisfyxw4a2Qbyg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZGU

Jean McConville was born into a Protestant family in East Belfast but converted to Catholicism after marrying Arthur McConville, a Catholic man and former member of the British Army[1] by whom she had ten children. After being intimidated out of a Protestant district, the McConville family moved to West Belfast's Divis Flats in the Lower Falls Road.[2] Arthur died in 1971. One of her sons, Robbie McConville, was imprisoned in Long Kesh at the time of her death for Official IRA activities before defecting to the newly formed Irish National Liberation Army in 1974.[3]

I was trying to avoid relying on Wikipedia.

ChicagoJoe

feargale wrote: »

A just war is one that, among other things, has a mandate from its people.

Do you think when nationalists homes came under attack in August 1969 from the RUC and unionist mobs, they should have gathered around first and questioned if they had a mandate to defend themselves ?

And since mandates mean so much to you, when did the British have a mandate to occupy any part of Ireland or partition it, or for that matter any other countries around the world ?

feargale

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Do you think when nationalists homes came under attack in August 1969 from the RUC and unionist mobs, they should have gathered around first and questioned if they had a mandate to defend themselves ?

Would you like a good man read the thread before posting. Scroll back in particular to the posting about the Genghis Khan scenario. Of course people have a right to defend themselves. Did I say otherwise? A little common sense would go a long way here.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

And since mandates mean so much to you [\quote]

They do. They should to you too, unless you're a fascist.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

when did the British have a mandate to occupy any part of Ireland or partition it? [\quote]

If you tot up the votes cast in elections in Northern Ireland around 1900 to 1920 you will find that more voted for the union than against it. A century or so earlier more people in Canada favoured not joining the USA but remaining associated with Britain. That led to a little misunderstanding in 1812. ( Do you favour kicking the Irish and other European occupiers out of North America? ) But whatever the rights and wrongs of partition, you are missing the point here. A majority of the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland always favoured addressing the issue by non-violent means, and Sinn Fein secured nationalist majority support only after they abandoned violence. The mandate we are discussing is one for violence.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

or for that matter any other countries around the world ?

I'm with you on most if not all of those. Rhodes made huge mischief in Southern Africa and they should have been kicked out of there. Ditto India if Gandhi had chosen violent means but he didn't, which goes to show that respect for other people's views is not the only means of saving lives. Wisdom can play a part too.
On the other hand, when they read about how our liberal Dutch, Belgian and Danish friends treated their colonial subjects, maybe they should be thankful for small mercies.

ChicagoJoe

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Did senior people in the IRA / Sinn Féin make sure that he was removed from the provisional scene after it became apparent that the charge of being an informer, which was used an excuse to murder Jean, was absolutely baseless?

If so, then surely certain people in IRA / SF are not being honest when they claim that they know nothing about the disappearance and murder of Jean. Thankfully this latest development provides hope to those who want to see the truth, and nothing but the whole truth, emerge. At the very least this might help provide some closure for the family - and let this dark chapter in Irish history be put behind us.

There must be some very, very disappointed posters from Boards.ie hearing this news about Bell's arrest. Gerry Adams or any senior members of Sinn Fein have not been arrested in connection with her death.

Fratton Fred

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Do you think when nationalists homes came under attack in August 1969 from the RUC and unionist mobs, they should have gathered around first and questioned if they had a mandate to defend themselves ?

And since mandates mean so much to you, when did the British have a mandate to occupy any part of Ireland or partition it, or for that matter any other countries around the world ?

How is murdering a widowed mother of ten defending nationalists?

gallag

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is murdering a widowed mother of ten defending nationalists?

How is murdering more nationalists than any other group defending nationalists? It's like believing loyalist paramilitarys were a good thing for the unionist community.

Godge

Busted Flat. wrote: »

You should read what the French, Polish, Slavs, Italians and several other countries under the rule of Hitler did to Nazi informers. War is War it is devastating to all sides, cut out the crocodile tears and move on.

Godwin the thread with the sixteenth post, well done.

Nodin wrote: »

...to prevent the death of IRA members and members of the republican/nationalist community.

You can't be serious, citing that as justification for murder. Maybe Busted Flat was thinking of you when he wrote this:

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Going by your posts you are either not old enough to understand what went on in those years, or only listened to a one sided discussion in your parents house as a child.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Odd that you direct an accusation of being one-sided at me? I am doing the very opposite. Nelson, Finucane and McConcille (allegedly) engaged in actions that amounted to giving aid to one side in the conflict. And in all cases it could be conceivably argued that there might be people alive today had they not so done.

I am quite consistent in my views on all three.
Pat Finucane was murdered. No equivocation.
Rosemary Nelson was murdered. No equivocation.
Jean McConville was murdered. No equivocation.

Quite a few posters here will agree with me on the first two. But on the third, we get all sorts of contorted (and irrelevant) arguments about informing not being the same as lawyering and the like. I.e. a one-sided take on the conflict, to use your own phrase.
The recent conflict in Ireland was fairly unique in that it was possible to demonstrate that the Irish people did not support the IRA because we can see who they did support. Nationalists backed what were termed constitutional republican parties (a UI but not using violence) and of course unionists did not want a UI by any means. We didn’t need a vote. But this is OT.
I should have said anti-nationalism. And I mean anti- all nationalism. If this urge in Englishmen has been supressed in recent centuries there would have been no ambition to go off and build their Empire, and many in the world, including ourselves, might just possibly have been a little bit better off, wouldn’t you say? But also, OT.

Some excellent points there twowheels but there are deaf ears around here.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

Godwin the thread with the sixteenth post, well done.



You can't be serious, citing that as justification for murder. .........

Why isn't it?

Dr.Tank Adams

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So when confronted with evidence that their side massacred innocent civilians, the poster somehow tries to down play it by mentioning that it's not as bad as what the other side did.

Sick, sick, sick individuals on this thread.

God help ye.

God help me indeed, I'm truly a troublex individual:rolleyes:
I never said the PIRA didn't kill innocent civilians, I simply said that they didn't do it as often, or in the same calculated manner, as Loyalists so often did. But of course you aren't allowed to point out these differences, because to suggest that one group in the Troubles behaved any differently to another is a mortal sin...

William F

Until the people in the south treat Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy and Finuncane/Nelson murders with equal disgust and revulsion I'm not in the slightest bit interested in the collective amnesia people in the south of Ireland seem to share.

Everybody knows the circumstances of her death, just like others, it was a total tragedy and unnecessary. What we see here is the British Government's refusal to own up to its part in the conflict and we see this immaturity played out in the Irish media, such as last Friday night, when Tubridy had the gawl to ask Mary Lou McDonald her opinion on the McConville arrest.

Are we honestly expected to believe that what happened in northern Ireland was a terrorist campaign and that the British Government had nothing to answer for? People are moving on with their lives. This happened 42 years ago and yet it still makes headlines. People are so blind in this country and Tubridy is a disgrace. There are vested interests in Ireland and Britain who are concerned with the democratic rise of certain parties and are willing to use all means to destroy the democratic process. That is what people should be concerned with!

twowheelsgood

William F wrote: »

Until the people in the south treat Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy and Finuncane/Nelson murders with equal disgust and revulsion

They do regard all of these atrocities with equal disgust. Part of the reason there is an on-going debate about the McConville case is because they are some in the republican side who insist on downplaying that atrocity. At best, many of them see her as just another tragic victim of the conflict; at worst, some dismiss her as a tout who got what she deserved.

William F wrote: »

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in the collective amnesia people in the south of Ireland seem to share.

I think Sinn Fein would dearly welcome an outbreak of amnesia amongst some of us of a certain age. Alas, we remember only too well!

Busted Flat.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They do regard all of these atrocities with equal disgust. Part of the reason there is an on-going debate about the McConville case is because they are some in the republican side who insist on downplaying that atrocity. At best, many of them see her as just another tragic victim of the conflict; at worst, some dismiss her as a tout who got what she deserved.

I think Sinn Fein would dearly welcome an outbreak of amnesia amongst some of us of a certain age. Alas, we remember only too well!

Blinkered vision, still prevails, as you have shown in your post. Realize, it was a war and a very nasty one at that. No one has come out with clean hands at the end. Whingers will always criticize the Nationalist cause to cover the time when they closed their eyes when confronted with government participation in these atrocities. That is where the guilt comes into it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

God help me indeed, I'm truly a troublex individual:rolleyes:
I never said the PIRA didn't kill innocent civilians, I simply said that they didn't do it as often, or in the same calculated manner, as Loyalists so often did. But of course you aren't allowed to point out these differences, because to suggest that one group in the Troubles behaved any differently to another is a mortal sin...

But you could not acknowledge the point that republicans committed a massacre against ordinary workmen without having to contextualise it against what loyalists did.

It's as if you are trying to convince yourself that the massacre was not all that bad compared to the things the loyalists got up to , and thus you do not fell as bad about the fact that republicans, your side of the conflict, went out a murdered men indiscriminately

twowheelsgood

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Blinkered vision, still prevails, as you have shown in your post. Realize, it was a war and a very nasty one ....

You are attempting to deflect to avoid answering the question I have put. Do you consider the murder of Jean McConville to be every bit as vile as the murder of Rosemary Nelson? And if not, can you outline the material difference between the two?

Dr.Tank Adams

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But you could not acknowledge the point that republicans committed a massacre against ordinary workmen without having to contextualise it against what loyalists did.

It's as if you are trying to convince yourself that the massacre was not all that bad compared to the things the loyalists got up to , and thus you do not fell as bad about the fact that republicans, your side of the conflict, went out a murdered men indiscriminately

Of course I acknowledge that Republican's have committed atrocities, where did I ever deny that? I'm wouldn't class myself as a Republican anyway, in that I don't agree with violent nationalism, certainly not in today's climate where there are feasible political processes by which to achieve nationalist aims. The only "Republican" group that I believe HAD any merit whatsoever in the Troubles was the Provisionals, and it is simply my opinion that they are constantly held up to be the boogey men when in reality there were far worse groups out there that get away with their transgressions relatively easily. There are no good people or sides in war, there are however differing levels of evil and wrongdoing. Every side was guilty of wrongdoing, some however were less guilty than others...

Busted Flat.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You are attempting to deflect to avoid answering the question I have put. Do you consider the murder of Jean McConville to be every bit as vile as the murder of Rosemary Nelson? And if not, can you outline the material difference between the two?

I agree, but her handlers in the brit army should have removed her out after she was exposed in the first place. If you use Hughes's statement to condemn Adams, then you should come to the conclusion that Hughes gave her a yellow card, when they found the first Sterno radio. Why was she not protected, is that why the Regiments diaries are sealed till 2059, all other military diaries have been released after 30 years, what are the brits covering up.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Of course I acknowledge that Republican's have committed atrocities, where did I ever deny that? I'm wouldn't class myself as a Republican anyway, in that I don't agree with violent nationalism, certainly not in today's climate where there are feasible political processes by which to achieve nationalist aims. The only "Republican" group that I believe HAD any merit whatsoever in the Troubles was the Provisionals, and it is simply my opinion that they are constantly held up to be the boogey men when in reality there were far worse groups out there that get away with their transgressions relatively easily. There are no good people or sides in war, there are however differing levels of evil and wrongdoing. Every side was guilty of wrongdoing, some however were less guilty than others...

That's where I think you are deluded, and many more like you.

Terry Gilliam Beard

REXER wrote: »

So how do you feel about the death sentence?

Get ready for the usual "there was a war on" argument that only applies to IRA atrocities, but not Loyalist or British Army murders...

twowheelsgood

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I agree, but her handlers in the brit army should have removed her out after she was exposed in the first place. If you use Hughes's statement to condemn Adams, then you should come to the conclusion that Hughes gave her a yellow card, when they found the first Sterno radio. Why was she not protected, is that why the Regiments diaries are sealed till 2059, all other military diaries have been released after 30 years, what are the brits covering up.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that the British were entirely cavalier in their attitude to her safety and well-being? Fine. I have no difficulty in believing that this might have been the case. But this has nothing to do with my point.

And whether Adams was involved or not is not relevant to my point either. I believe he was in the PIRA because it is simply laughable to suggest he was not. But as I say, this is not relevant.