Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

REXER

Khomeini wrote: »

Too many act is if Jean McConville was killed for fun or something.

This is what touting does.

WRONG! Too many on here act as if her murder were anything else but murder!

The fact is that the heros that carried this out were nothing but violent criminals and hopefully now they will get their just deserts!

The death penalty is not in favour because of the possibility of the system with all the resourses that it has making a mistake that is fina and irrevocable, but here we had murderous thugs playing Judge, Jury and Executioner.

If she had been an informer it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have turned her, after all with such a large family she was exceptionally vunerable!

Busted Flat.

REXER wrote: »

WRONG! Too many on here act as if her murder were anything else but murder!

The fact is that the heros that carried this out were nothing but violent criminals and hopefully now they will get their just deserts!

The death penalty is not in favour because of the possibility of the system with all the resourses that it has making a mistake that is fina and irrevocable, but here we had murderous thugs playing Judge, Jury and Executioner.

If she had been an informer it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have turned her, after all with such a large family she was exceptionally vunerable!

Is that what the First Gloucesters were relying on.

Happyman42

REXER wrote: »

WRONG! Too many on here act as if her murder were anything else but murder!

The fact is that the heros that carried this out were nothing but violent criminals and hopefully now they will get their just deserts!

The death penalty is not in favour because of the possibility of the system with all the resourses that it has making a mistake that is fina and irrevocable, but here we had murderous thugs playing Judge, Jury and Executioner.

If she had been an informer it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have turned her, after all with such a large family she was exceptionally vunerable!

Whenever anybody is killed by another human being, then somebody is playing judge, jury and executioner.
Less of the hysterics please.

ChicagoJoe

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They had the support of the people of the UK (including a majority of people in Northern Ireland) who elected the government who in turn directed the army. The PIRA had no such authority. And there was no uncertainly about what the people wanted. Those that favoured Irish unity overwhelmingly rejected violence.

It is this quaint notion of democracy that some of us have something of a fondness for but which many republicans seem mystified by.

Granted, they like to talk about it, and can work up a right indignation at George Bush wading into Iraq without one but dare to suggest to republicans that maybe the fate of Ireland should be decided by the Irish and that the PIRA did not have this and you'll be asked "So what?"

Trying to ignore the elephant in the room again The British only have their presence in the six counties not by mandate but by violence and the threat of more of it. NI is as you know well, a sectarian gerrymander, it's existence has nothing whatsoever to do any mandate from the Irish people. (It should be up to the Irish people and the Irish people alone on how there country should be governed but since you mentioned the people of the UK, if the ordinary English person could have a referendum on the six counties, they'd get rid of them).

REXER

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whenever anybody is killed by another human being, then somebody is playing judge, jury and executioner.
Less of the hysterics please.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Terrorist sympathisers are past masters at SPIN.

Happyman42

REXER wrote: »

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Terrorist sympathisers are past masters at SPIN.

Explain how it is spin? If somebody is killed, then somebody is deciding to do that, for a reason and they are physically committing the act...judge, jury and executioner.

Perhaps, you could tell us how it differs from any other killing in the troubles?


And please remember where you are, this isn't AH or a place for scurrilous hysterical accusations.

ChicagoJoe

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I perceived as his pacifist motives, but the programme revealed his feet of clay, a huge ego.

Sounds exactly what the SDLP the party of solicitors, teachers, accountants from a nationalist background who have always been about getting their butts onto political office, quangos, state boards etc

REXER

Happyman42 wrote: »

Explain how it is spin? If somebody is killed, then somebody is deciding to do that, for a reason and they are physically committing the act...judge, jury and executioner.


And please remember where you are, this isn't AH or a place for scurrilous hysterical accusations.

When a group of murderous thugs get together, conspire to commit murder, sally forth and kidnap their victim, transport their victim across an international boundary, commit god only knows what outrage on their victim and then execute their victim that is clearly acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Anyone trying to defend that has to acept that they will be percieved as a sympathiser!

No hysterics involved at all!

Happyman42

REXER wrote: »

When a group of murderous thugs get together, conspire to commit murder, sally forth and kidnap their victim, transport their victim across an international boundary, commit god only knows what outrage on their victim and then execute their victim that is clearly acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Anyone trying to defend that has to acept that they will be percieved as a sympathiser!

No hysterics involved at all!

And how does it differ from any other killing during the troubles? In almost all the killings of the troubles, omebody decided that somebody should die, their organisation agreed, and somebody committed the act = JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER.

Jean McConville's killing was no worse than any of the almost 4000 deaths during the troubles.
No amount of hysterical hand wringing will change that.

BrendanHughes1

Happyman42 wrote: »

Explain how it is spin? If somebody is killed, then somebody is deciding to do that, for a reason and they are physically committing the act...judge, jury and executioner.


And please remember where you are, this isn't AH or a place for scurrilous hysterical accusations.

Don't mind him right wing loons are masters at avoiding facts & not answering questions.

The facts are there's been a war in the North since the time of the plantations & innocent people have been the main victims, 69 - 1998 was just the latest chapter. It's ridicouls to label anyone a terrorist because of some 16th century foreign policy that has never been addressed & caused centuries of conflict.

To prosecute Bell because of this is just a form of victors justice.

REXER

Happyman42 wrote: »

And how does it differ from any other killing during the troubles? In almost all the killings of the troubles, omebody decided that somebody should die, their organisation agreed, and somebody committed the act = JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER.

Jean McConville's killing was no worse than any of the almost 4000 deaths during the troubles.
No amount of hysterical hand wringing will change that.

Stop hiding behind your smoke screen, this thread as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

Fratton Fred

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

Don't mind him right wing loons are masters at avoiding facts & not answering questions.

The facts are there's been a war in the North since the time of the plantations & innocent people have been the main victims, 69 - 1998 was just the latest chapter. It's ridicouls to label anyone a terrorist because of some 16th century foreign policy that has never been addressed & caused centuries of conflict.

To prosecute Bell because of this is just a form of victors justice.

Do you really believe this, or is this just some tough sounding rhetoric you picked up somewhere?

Happyman42

REXER wrote: »

Stop hiding behind your smoke screen, this thread as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

You gonna answer any questions or just hurl insults and false accusations?

Khomeini

Do people expect a tout not to be killed?

twowheelsgood

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The British only have their presence in the six counties not by mandate but by violence and the threat of more of it.

No, the majority of people in Northern Ireland favour being part of the United Kingdom. That is their mandate. But even if you don’t agree this does nothing to justify the behaviour of the IRA – yours is a playground retort, “if they didn’t need one (mandate) I don’t need one either”.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

NI is as you know well, a sectarian gerrymander

No it isn’t. No more than the free state was a gerrymander or indeed, a 32 county free state, has it came about, would have been a gerrymander. One of the sillier things republicans like to say.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

It should be up to the Irish people and the Irish people alone on how there country should be governed

Unfortunately republicans disagreed. They believed their tiny grouping, and not the wider population of Irish people, knew what was best for Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Khomeini wrote: »

Do people expect a tout not to be killed?

Yes.

You have evidence that she was a tout, I presume?

Mr Cumulonimbus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes

So you'll just as unconditionally condemn the French, Poles, Czechs, etc for killing informers from 1939 to 1945 then?

Originally posted by twowheelsgood: a 32 county free state, has it came about, would have been a gerrymander...... not the wider population of Irish people, knew what was best for Ireland.

But the "wider population of Irish people" desired some form of independence pre-partition. How is that a gerrymander?

REXER

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you'll just as unconditionally condemn the French, Poles, Czechs, etc for killing informers from 1939 to 1945 then?

There you go again, meandering off to quote what happened in an actual war! Smoke screen.

Stop hiding behind your smoke screen, this thread as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

Mr Cumulonimbus

REXER wrote: »

There you go again, meandering off to quote what happened in an actual war!

So the killing of informers in an "actual war" is acceptable then?

this thread as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

And your point is...?

REXER

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So the killing of informers in an "actual war" is acceptable then?



And your point is...?

My point is that you lot keep veering off all over the place to try and justify the actions of a band of murderous thugs!

Please pay attention and try to keep on subject.

This thread, as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

BrendanHughes1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you really believe this, or is this just some tough sounding rhetoric you picked up somewhere?

What part do you not agree with or are you just another one liner wonder who adds nothing to debates?

marienbad

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

What part do you not agree with or are you just another one liner wonder who adds nothing to debates?

And you answered that in just one line !!

BrendanHughes1

REXER wrote: »

There you go again, meandering off to quote what happened in an actual war! Smoke screen.

Stop hiding behind your smoke screen, this thread as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

The Polish, Czech, French resistances etc... didn't have mandates either guess that makes them murdering thugs to.

Richard

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you'll just as unconditionally condemn the French, Poles, Czechs, etc for killing informers from 1939 to 1945 then?

Yes, I would, certainly.

Though if you can't see the difference between the situations then that is rather worrying.

BrendanHughes1

marienbad wrote: »

And you answered that in just one line !!

And you replied to it with one line.

marienbad

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

And you replied to it with one line.

Yep

marienbad

And reduced that to one word !

Mr Cumulonimbus

REXER wrote: »

you lot

What? I didn't express a support for any side.

keep veering off all over the place to try and justify the actions of a band of murderous thugs!

Please pay attention and try to keep on subject.

This thread, as per the title (Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation) is about the arrest of Ivor Bell for the murder of Jean McConville.

Can you answer the question?

Originally posted by Richard: Yes, I would, certainly.

Regardless of the consequences of such actions?

Though if you can't see the difference between the situations then that is rather worrying.

Then that's not unconditional is it?

REXER

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you'll just as unconditionally condemn the French, Poles, Czechs, etc for killing informers from 1939 to 1945 then?



But the "wider population of Irish people" desired some form of independence pre-partition. How is that a gerrymander?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

What? I didn't express a support for any side.



Can you answer the question?

Regardless of the consequences of such actions?

Then that's not unconditional is it?

I believe that that was an attempt to link the actions of a bunch of murderous thugs to the actions real patriots. So I believe that answers your question.

twowheelsgood

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But the "wider population of Irish people" desired some form of independence pre-partition. How is that a gerrymander?

True. And the greater number in Northern Ireland desired the establishment of that state. And in any created / modified constituency anywhere that gerrymandering did occur, then by design a greater number in that new constituency desired it.

That a majority within should desire the modification is surely the purpose of gerrymandering and not an argument that it does not count as gerrymandering?

But you are right. The establishing of a 32 county free state was no more be gerrymandering than the actual establishing of the 26 county and 6 county ones.

twowheelsgood

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

The Polish, Czech, French resistances etc... didn't have mandates either guess that makes them murdering thugs to.

They didn’t have a formal mandate but they did have the support of their people, or at the very least, they might reasonably assume that they did.

What is unique about modern day physical force republicans, any what sets them apart from their predecessors, is that we can demonstrate that they did not have the support of the people and therefore no mandate. No guesswork is needed.

marienbad

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They didn’t have a formal mandate but they did have the support of their people, or at the very least, they might reasonably assume that they did.

What is unique about modern day physical force republicans, any what sets them apart from their predecessors, is that we can demonstrate that they did not have the support of the people and therefore no mandate. No guesswork is needed.

The French and Czech etc partisans did have a mandate operating as they did in conjunction with their governments in exile in London.

Busted Flat.

marienbad wrote: »

The French and Czech etc partisans did have a mandate operating as they did in conjunction with their governments in exile in London.

As Mike Murphy used to say "Bullocks".

twowheelsgood

marienbad wrote: »

The French and Czech etc partisans did have a mandate operating as they did in conjunction with their governments in exile in London.

But my point remains. At worst, you can question the validity of their mandate. You can not unequivocally demonstrate, as you can with PIRA, that they did not have a mandate.

R P McMurphy

twowheelsgood wrote: »

But my point remains. At worst, you can question the validity of their mandate. You can not unequivocally demonstrate, as you can with PIRA, that they did not have a mandate.

Did the PIRA have a mandate within certain areas of the country

Busted Flat.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Did the PIRA have a mandate within certain areas of the country

You would be surprised where it came from.

twowheelsgood

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Did the PIRA have a mandate within certain areas of the country

Yes they did. And if they had styled themselves as some kind of defence militia to protect Catholics and nothing more, then there would be little issue with them.

But of course there was more. Much, much more. At one point they were even regarding themselves as the legitimate government (and army) of Ireland. And they certainly had no mandate to do that.

Mr Cumulonimbus

REXER wrote: »

the actions real patriots.

So "real patriots" can kill informers then?

Originally posted by twowheelsgood: The establishing of a 32 county free state was no more be gerrymandering than the actual establishing of the 26 county and 6 county ones.

I don't think you can associate the term "gerrymandering" with the establishment of a 32 county state at all, since that what the majority in Ireland wanted.

twowheelsgood

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I don't think you can associate the term "gerrymandering" with the establishment of a 32 county state at all, since that what the majority in Ireland wanted.

I don't. It would be a silly suggestion. But it is also silly to apply the term to Northern Ireland.

marienbad

Busted Flat. wrote: »

As Mike Murphy used to say "Bullocks".

Care to elaborate ?

Busted Flat.

marienbad wrote: »

Care to elaborate ?

No Mike always called as it was.

Mr Cumulonimbus

twowheelsgood wrote: »

to apply the term to Northern Ireland.

Why not though? The "wider population of Irish people" (your words), didn't desire a two state solution.

Fratton Fred

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

What part do you not agree with or are you just another one liner wonder who adds nothing to debates?

All of it to be honest. Using several centuries of history for carrying out wanton acts of brutality is just an excuse for a failed campaign of terror.

marienbad

Busted Flat. wrote: »

No Mike always called as it was.

'Bullocks'

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

All of it to be honest. Using several centuries of history for carrying out wanton acts of brutality is just an excuse for a failed campaign of terror.

Are you finally admitting the brits have done that in our country for centuries, fair play to you in your admission of guilt on behalf of Lizzie's visit. I always thought that when she apologized at the garden of remembrance that the hardcore loyalists would follow through.

twowheelsgood

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why not though? The "wider population of Irish people" (your words), didn't desire a two state solution.

Why does that say anything about the creation of the Northern state amounting to Gerrymandering? Would the creation of a 32 county state have also amounting to Gerrymandering if it were the case (I don’t say it was) that the majority of people in the UK of GB and I as it was then, opposed the creation of any Irish state?

Part of the Irish question was the matter of what constituency should determine the fate of the island. Certainly, the island as a whole would be one candidate. But it is not the only one.

BrendanHughes1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

All of it to be honest. Using several centuries of history for carrying out wanton acts of brutality is just an excuse for a failed campaign of terror.

You don't think the troubles have any connection what so ever to the plantations. 1640's sectarian butcheries between settlers & natives, same in 1790's, rioting & sectarian murders through out the 1800's, sectarian massacres during the 1920's & 69-1998 was just a continuation of that cycle. No need to blame the RUC for the their failed campaign of terror.

BrendanHughes1

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Why does that say anything about the creation of the Northern state amounting to Gerrymandering? Would the creation of a 32 county state have also amounting to Gerrymandering if it were the case (I don’t say it was) that the majority of people in the UK of GB and I as it was then, opposed the creation of any Irish state?

Part of the Irish question was the matter of what constituency should determine the fate of the island. Certainly, the island as a whole would be one candidate. But it is not the only one.

Should the majority of people in the UK be deciding Scotland's future as well then? And Ireland was never voluntarily apart of the union unlike Scotland.

I wouldn't personally mind joining the union but that's up to the people decide. What I support is the people of the island acting as a single unit to decide their future whether the outcome is union with GB, a 32 county Republic or the 51st state I couldn't care less.

BrendanHughes1

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They didn’t have a formal mandate but they did have the support of their people, or at the very least, they might reasonably assume that they did.

What is unique about modern day physical force republicans, any what sets them apart from their predecessors, is that we can demonstrate that they did not have the support of the people and therefore no mandate. No guesswork is needed.

So basically like the PIRA then. Most people in occupied Europe made the choice to live under the Nazi's & said don't resist because for every one Nazi killed 400 were killed in reprisal. Maybe about 10% of occupied Europe resisted the Nazi's & the rest made the choice to live under them.

twowheelsgood

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

What I support is the people of the island acting as a single unit to decide their future

There is a chicken and egg problem here, or was (the matter is now resolved). To determine the constitutional status of Ireland going in to the future (i.e. a single 32 county state or two states) you must first decide who is the legitimate constituency to make that decision (the island as a whole or the two jurisdictions separately). But to determine the legitimate constituency you must decide the constitutional status.

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

So basically like the PIRA then. Most people in occupied Europe made the choice to live under the Nazi's & said don't resist because for every one Nazi killed 400 were killed in reprisal. Maybe about 10% of occupied Europe resisted the Nazi's & the rest made the choice to live under them.

The Irish did not elect not to use violence to end the British presence Ireland, not because the British had a war machine threatening them if they dared to try, but because they did and do think that a united Ireland is not worth spilling blood for.