breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

Sunnyisland

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the IRA were soldiers why didn't they wear uniforms and fight on a battlefield instead of hiding behind civilians.

The foco theory of revolution by way of guerrilla warfare,

Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery.

— Che Guevara

Iwasfrozen

rockatansky wrote: »

Guerrilla warfare, its commonly used when you are out manned and out gunned. It was successfully used during the War of Independence to free the 26 Counties from British Rule

Yes but it caused needlessly high civilian casualties.

drunkmonkey

I see Cameron is trying to get compensation from Libya for weapons they gave to the IRA as they want to compensate the victims.
Should we in turn start looking for compensation from the UK for British made weapons and vehicles used to kill Irish.

We should probably start with landrover.

rockatansky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes but it caused needlessly high civilian casualties.

You're absolutely right. However show me any war where there is no needlessly high civilian casualties.

I would consider myself an Irish Republican and absolutely believe that it was essential for the IRA to exist, but some of the tactics used by them were absolutely insane.

Tail Docker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's easy for you to say. She wasn't your mother.

Was she yours? Are you suggesting we gather every person who lost a loved one during the troubles, hold an inquiry into every case, launch a full-scale effort to bring each and every perpetrator to justice, regardless of whether they were a Provo, a Loyalist, a soldier or in the RUC? How much time do you have, this could drag a bit..

I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, that under the terms of the GFA, a line was being drawn. Obviously, the person drawing the line wasn't given a ruler, they were given a can of spray paint, and have a wobbly hand.

LuckyLloyd

MonsterCookie wrote: »

That's a fair question. However, my over riding sense is that I'd like to know if GA was involved in this or other murders. He is a prominent politician and for that reason I think the voting public deserves to know. He also deserves the opportunity to clear his name, if he is innocent...keep in mind that this could work out in his favour.

Are you suggesting that the victims family's shouldn't be supported in seeking to know the truth?

He was involved in ordering / planning / facilitating the deaths of hundreds of people probably as a senior IRA figure. If you really want to know exactly which deaths (as far as it can be remembered) you need to create a process based on immunity that involved all parties and lay it on the table once then consign it to history.

By voting for the GFA, there is an implication that you were willing to move on from the conflict and accept the right of political parties linked to paramilitary groups on both sides to fully engage in the democratic process.

You want your cake and eat it too. You want an ala carte peace where you can still apply the law to parties you don't like. Such a nonsense position to be frank.

wazky

Its a pity nobody told the British it was a war, such as when they treated Republican prisoners like animals and not like PoWs as they should have.

Although they are quick to describe it as war when they are questioned over their shoot to kill policy. Funny that.

Iwasfrozen

Tail Docker wrote: »

Was she yours? Are you suggesting we gather every person who lost a loved one during the troubles, hold an inquiry into every case, launch a full-scale effort to bring each and every perpetrator to justice, regardless of whether they were a Provo, a Loyalist, a soldier or in the RUC? How much time do you have, this could drag a bit..

I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, that under the terms of the GFA, a line was being drawn. Obviously, the person drawing the line wasn't given a ruler, they were given a can of spray paint, and have a wobbly hand.

Yes. No matter how long it takes we've got another 50 years or so until the last of them die off.

RandomName2

rockatansky wrote: »

Guerrilla warfare, its commonly used when you are out manned and out gunned.

You can still be soldiers while waging guerrilla warfare: you know - things like wearing uniforms, representing a government, adhering to the Geneva Convention. No? Oh.

rockatansky wrote: »

It was successfully used during the War of Independence to free the 26 Counties from British Rule

First of all the War of Independence was very, very different from the Troubles. Second, nothing that wouldn't have been achieved anyway through political means.

RandomName2

wazky wrote: »

Its a pity nobody told the British it was a war, such as when they treated Republican prisoners like animals and not like PoWs as they should have.

Although they are quick to describe it as war when they are questioned over their shoot to kill policy. Funny that.

The Republican prisoners weren't POWs - though you may agree with their stance.

But it's true that the BA were fast to be hypocritical, lie, and cover up their crimes.

padd b1975

He might as well go 'on the blanket' now for what it's worth.

tomwaterford

RandomName2 wrote: »

You can still be soldiers while waging guerrilla warfare: you know - things like wearing uniforms, representing a government, adhering to the Geneva Convention. No? Oh.



First of all the War of Independence was very, very different from the Troubles. Second, nothing that wouldn't have been achieved anyway through political means.

how???
I really don't see the difference

one was guerrilla army fighting british...other was???
if anything its a credit to keep going as long as they did...to achieve stalemate in face of such huge numbers
that is how they could never win...both sides had an endless supply for people to fight

as for Geneva convention...britin in place to throw that in peoples face:rolleyes:

rockatansky

RandomName2 wrote: »

First of all the War of Independence was very, very different from the Troubles.

No, No it wasn't.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Republican prisoners weren't POWs - though you may agree with their stance.

But it's true that the BA were fast to be hypocritical, lie, and cover up their crimes.

Er yes they were.

R P McMurphy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the IRA were soldiers why didn't they wear uniforms and fight on a battlefield instead of hiding behind civilians.

It is not the 18th century. Why did the SAS and FRU do the same or is that different

martinedwards

so just to clarify....

any pre GFA actions are now dead and gone and shouldn't be investigated or prosecuted.

thats ALL pre GFA events, regardless of who was involved ON EITHER SIDE.

including Bloody Sunday and the McConville Murder.

just to be clear, I'm asking for clarification........

end of the road

twowheelsgood wrote: »

why should the British voluntary give up their soldiers who did wrong when republicans will not do likewise?

because the BA are agents of the state, their actions were on behalf of the british state sanctioned by the british government, they aren't entitled to do something because republicans did it, any murder they commited was on behalf of the british government

wazky

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Republican prisoners weren't POWs

Well as it was said here multiple times it was a war and they were soldiers?, so what type of prisoner were they?

Iwasfrozen

R P McMurphy wrote: »

It is not the 18th century. Why did the SAS and FRU do the same or is that different

It's not the 18th century it was however the 20th...

Iwasfrozen

wazky wrote: »

Well as it was said here multiple times it was a war and they were soldiers?, so what type of prisoner were they?

You're drawing a conclusion based on your initial assumption that they were soldiers.

wazky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're drawing a conclusion based on your initial assumption that they were soldiers.

So they weren't soldiers then?

end of the road

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Because Unionists generally have nothing to do with the British Army.

oh dear, come on now, you know that isn't true, everyone knows the BA and unionists were in it together.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

There is no "Unionist" squadron.

the unionists weren't a part of the army, but the unionists and BA worked together.

Iwasfrozen

wazky wrote: »

So they weren't soldiers then?

No

Ignorant etc.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL
- My understanding is that he wasn't arrested for actually killing her while in Louth.
- UK law covers terrorism abroad.
- Our Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 removed the separate jurisdiction loophole.

And as you probably know most of the stuff that could be challenged was challenged in the European Court over the years so it's unlikely there are any get out of jail cards left.


After 16 years of peace ?
Unless you had politically active 4 year olds there are plenty of youths who could sit on a jury, not to mention all the recent immigrants. So it wouldn't be too difficult to find a jury who didn't know or care who he is.

LOL? Arrogant much?

Immigrants maybe, not that the north of Ireland has ever been famed for immigration. Plus you're looking at it from a southern viewpoint. I would say very few people in the north aren't in some way either sympathetic to unionism/loyalism on the one hand, or nationalism/republicanism on the other. Then there is the trial by media which is going on which can prejudice any case let alone a particularly high profile one.

wazky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No

How do you reckon that?

For lads that weren't soldiers, the 'greatest army in the world' had awful trouble for 30 years trying to quell them.

RandomName2

tomwaterford wrote: »

how???
I really don't see the difference

one was guerrilla army fighting british...other was???
if anything its a credit to keep going as long as they did...to achieve stalemate in face of such huge numbers
that is how they could never win...both sides had an endless supply for people to fight

rockatansky wrote: »

No, No it wasn't.

Different countries, half a century apart, wherein the fighting was considerably different, with a vastly different political backdrop. Political (and military) events prior to both unfolding were significantly different. The aims, and compositions of the respective sides in both conflicts. The length of the conflicts, the social setting, the political ramifications, and the respective international response. Also the conclusions to both: both immediate and longer term, including other conflicts that broke out due to their termination (like the Civil War).

So yeah...

Nodin

wazky wrote: »

How do you reckon that?

For lads that weren't soldiers, the 'greatest army in the world' had awful trouble for 30 years trying to quell them.

It's easy to be "the greatest army in the world" when for years the opposition has barely a rifle between them.

Iwasfrozen

wazky wrote: »

How do you reckon that?

For lads that weren't soldiers, the 'greatest army in the world' had awful trouble for 30 years trying to quell them.

The army where there to keep the peace not fight a civil war...

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

It's easy to be "the greatest army in the world" when for years the opposition has barely a rifle between them.

Yeah the French were throwing stones in America..

Not to mention the Russians in Crimea and the Chinese in Canton.

wazky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The army where there to keep the peace not fight a civil war...

The British Army, world renowned for its peace keeping abilities....