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

twowheelsgood

end of the road wrote: »

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

You are making an augment here that is contrary to the position always taken by republicans (and ironically, is evident in some posts before and after yours) that a distinction can be drawn between the BA and the PIRA because the former were in some sense a normal (i.e. regular) army under the control of a sovereign government while the PIRA were in essence renegades with no authority. You can’t have it both ways.

And in any case, actions of individual ‘volunteers’ were on behalf of the PIRA / republicans, even if you take that no further and try and argue it was on behalf of the Irish people or a mythical Irish republic.

So again, why should the BA shop their own renegades if republicans won’t? The wrongs BA troops did were in the name of the British, the wrongs PIRA did were in the name of republicans. No difference.

diomed

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Oh and to the person who responded to my original comment with "lol". Its a proven fact that McConville was killed in Louth. Whilst British law may extend to terrorism conducted elsewhere in the world, as far as I know, and you must feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the Irish legal system also takes a very dim view of acts of unlawful killing.

Only the killers would know where she was killed.

From Wiki
On the night of her kidnapping, four girls took McConville from her home at gunpoint, and she was driven to an unknown location. Dolours Price admitted that she was one of the girls involved. After being interrogated and apparently tortured—her later post-mortem revealed cracked bones and mutilated hands—she was shot in the back of the head, allegedly in a kneeling position. The body was then taken across the border and secretly buried on Shellinghill Beach (also known as Templetown Beach) on the Cooley Peninsula in County Louth, about 50 miles from her home.

twowheelsgood

realies wrote: »

That's not what your beloved brittish army thought it describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act
The 100 page document analyses in detail the army's role over 37 years.

It also says that he did not defeat the IRA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

That goes to how efficient / effective they were, not their nature as either criminals of freedom fighters. Organised criminals are nigh on impossible to defeat, they are still criminals.

sillyoulfool

end of the road wrote: »

no, that was made up, they were shot because they were irish, as part of thatchers shoot to kill policy for irish people



the people who murdered their children should have been locked up

Didn't they receive IRA funerals, and are they or are they not still referred to by republicans as Volunteers and included on the so called IRA roll of honour??
If so they got what they deserved.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/roll-of-honour

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

that was supposibly the reason they were send there, however they not only decided to act as a military dictator style police force, they didn't keep the peace, but faught a civil war, and took sides, the side of the unionists, and went in to bed with them, helping them, covering up for them, and more

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

no, SAS shot them because they were irish, remember maggie had a shoot to kill policy in NI which was strictly for irish people only



the vermin who shot their children being locked up along with money would have been better

Embarrassing the levels some posters will stoop to try and get a reaction :rolleyes:

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah the French were throwing stones in America..

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

The 1700's.

The Crimea was a disaster.

The Chinese....? the boxers?....the opium wars? Surprised you mentioned that one.

Sunnyisland

sillyoulfool wrote: »

My beloved B.A.? cheap,sad and pathetic. D- must try harder.

A discussion document is not any admission of official policy.
The IRA/UVF/INLA/UDA were all quite rightly considered to be criminals and treated as such. They were charged under criminal law, convicted in the criminal courts, and sentenced to imprisonment as criminals, that is a fact.

Your attempt to brand Irish resistance to the British occupation of Ireland as a criminal conspiracy without political motivation is so naive, whether you agree with there aims or not, Irish republican prisoners who had been arrested under special laws, interrogated in special barracks (for example, Castlereagh) and sentenced in special non-jury courts were just common criminals ??

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

no, that was made up, they were shot because they were irish, as part of thatchers shoot to kill policy for irish people



the people who murdered their children should have been locked up

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The Diabolical Monocle

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Criminals, same as any other murderer.

... or pirate.

rockatansky

RandomName2 wrote: »

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...

Thats just waffle.

sillyoulfool

realies wrote: »

Your attempt to brand Irish resistance to the British occupation of Ireland as a criminal conspiracy without political motivation is so naive, whether you agree with there aims or not, Irish republican prisoners who had been arrested under special laws, interrogated in special barracks (for example, Castlereagh) and sentenced in special non-jury courts were just common criminals ??

The IRA was never "Irish resistance to the British occupation of Ireland". It never sought nor never received any mandate from the Irish people for its actions, nor did ever command anything more than a miniscule level of public support.

Jawgap

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Ah so the killings were justified.

Shoot to kill.

Both armies should never have killed anyone.

Well, to quote Peter Mayhew, they don't have a shoot to tickle policy.....

Every armed force, including the armed elements of AGS, are taught that when you fire you aim for the lowest most central point on the largest body mass visible.

Shooting someone and 'winging' them is Hollywood nonsense.

Plus as the case of Gerry McCabe demonstrated the IRA are not prone to throwing down weapons they are carrying and coming quietly.

Do you really think if they had intel on an SAS patrol's movements they'd have lain in wait and given them an opportunity to surrender?

Complaining about armed IRA members being shot, is like showing up to a boxing match and complaining that the other guy just hit you.....

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90227965&postcount=2074

Do you have the same view if it was an IRA soldier who killed a British soldier?

If you are talking about a uniformed soldier supporting the rule of law, then no, because the IRA were / are called 'subversives' for a reason. The soldier is expected to act according to his RoE and can be held accountable for his actions - who holds the IRA to account?

Saying that, a special ops soldier or a plain clothes one effectively operating outside the law does so at their own risk.

end of the road wrote: »

Jawgap wrote: »

They were armed, returning weapons to an arms dump

the SAS made that up

because they were shot for being irish

well when you have an army backed by the state in bed with a paramilitary group murdering people left right and centre, covering for each other, giving weapons, and refusing to protect both sides like they were supposed to, then its not surprising the IRA said it was "war"

...and you have evidence for that? I've a copy of Mark Urban's Big Boys Rules and he covers the shootings in some depth - he makes no mention of them being shot because they were Irish, and he covers all the gory details of the incident, and presents the various accounts that exist, pointing to how they seriously contradict the official version...........but maybe he missed something......

BTW- if you, as you say, it was a war you can hardly complain when the other side shoots back.....

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

The 1700's.

The Crimea was a disaster.

The Chinese....? the boxers?....the opium wars? Surprised you mentioned that one.

Yes the 1700s. The time of the British Empire.

The allies won and the majority of casualties were on the Turkish and French side.

The Opium wars exactly, last time I looked the Chinese had guns in that war and overwhelming numbers but they lost the war due to their own incompetence.

LuckyLloyd

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Don't have a problem with your first two paragraphs above. But you went off the rails a little then.

You're saying that I want to apply the law to one party and not the other...show me where I said that. If any political leader on either side was suspected of playing a role in such a dreadful murder then I would want to know the facts before I decide to vote for them or not...now what is so nonsensical about that?

The British army were not political figures.

As for the rest, you can pretty much take it that Adams and other old guard high ranking members of SF were likely involved in the IRA at senior levels and therefore played a role in numerous killings during the Troubles. However, they were then instrumental in creating the peace.

In an ideal world, they would be able to say 'I was in the IRA' and ultimately able to play their part in a fully inclusive truth and reconciliation process. They are unable to do that though because of the laws as written. As such, they are forced into this silly political game where they have to deny the obvious truth of the issue.

We certainly have enough information in the public domain for people to know what the past is when they go to vote. It is 20 years in the past now however, and it is 15 years since the historic agreement to leave the past in the past and move on.

In my opinion, the details of Jean McConville's death and who ordered it / pulled the trigger won't achieve anything worthwhile. She was killed on the premise that she was informing on IRA activities and was therefore a legitimate target. Dredging this stuff up in this manner for a maximum two year sentence helps no - one.

end of the road

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You are making an augment here that is contrary to the position always taken by republicans (and ironically, is evident in some posts before and after yours) that a distinction can be drawn between the BA and the PIRA because the former were in some sense a normal (i.e. regular) army under the control of a sovereign government while the PIRA were in essence renegades with no authority. You can’t have it both ways.

And in any case, actions of individual ‘volunteers’ were on behalf of the PIRA / republicans, even if you take that no further and try and argue it was on behalf of the Irish people or a mythical Irish republic.

So again, why should the BA shop their own renegades if republicans won’t? The wrongs BA troops did were in the name of the British, the wrongs PIRA did were in the name of republicans. No difference.

because their agents of a state and a government, their not entitled to do anything that republican groups do, their not entitled to protect their own, as it was the british government allowing a sectarian statelet on its door step that discriminated against people on the basis of religion that ultimately lead to the civil rights movement, which the british government wanted to shut down, so they murdered some of them on the streets, and it all backfired giving the IRA large support possibly setting back any resolution to the troubles by decades. had they not let this sectarian statelet develop, and promoted civil and equal rights for all then while their could have been some trouble the IRA probably wouldn't have got the support it did and most likely wouldn't have kept fighting, at least not as long as it did

Sunnyisland

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The IRA was never "Irish resistance to the British occupation of Ireland". It never sought nor never received any mandate from the Irish people for its actions, nor did ever command anything more than a miniscule level of public support.

Nor did the 1916 men and women, but you can bet your last euro that the majority of the people of this Island will commemorate/celebrate them all in 2016. As for the provisional republican support,it had a lot more support than will ever be regonised as if it haven't got that support that armed campaign would have fizzled out in the early seventies and not continue right up until the ceasefire and the present where SF are now actually in goverment.

twowheelsgood

end of the road wrote: »

because their agents of a state and a government, their not entitled to do anything that republican groups do, their not entitled to protect their own, as it was the british government allowing a sectarian statelet on its door step that discriminated against people on the basis of religion that ultimately lead to the civil rights movement, which the british government wanted to shut down, so they murdered some of them on the streets, and it all backfired giving the IRA large support possibly setting back any resolution to the troubles by decades. had they not let this sectarian statelet develop, and promoted civil and equal rights for all then while their could have been some trouble the IRA probably wouldn't have got the support it did and most likely wouldn't have kept fighting, at least not as long as it did

You're just soap boxing and have not addressed the question at all. If you or anyone else could give a plausible answer you would do so.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes the 1700s. The time of the British Empire.
.

Yep. The vast majority of which was in the undeveloped world

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The allies won and the majority of casualties were on the Turkish and French side. .

The French were on the allied side and did most of the fighting - the majority of British deaths were rather famously due to disease. They had to re-organise the army afterwards. Evidently selling a commission to Sir Charles Gin-Goutworthy didn't work when the opposition was half organised. They dodged getting involved again until the first world war. It's all rather well documented.

The Russians were still fighting with muskets.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Opium wars exactly, last time I looked the Chinese had guns in that war and overwhelming numbers but they lost the war due to their own incompetence.

A cult-like peasant rebellion. Though I reckon you could say that their wars to flog opium did fall into the "peace keeping" bracket, in some sense. Very noble.

end of the road

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You're just soap boxing and have not addressed the question at all. If you or anyone else could give a plausible answer you would do so.

i have, an agent of a government isn't entitled to the same immunitys from something that a revolutionary group are given in the name of peace

steddyeddy

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The IRA was never "Irish resistance to the British occupation of Ireland". It never sought nor never received any mandate from the Irish people for its actions, nor did ever command anything more than a miniscule level of public support.

The civil rights movement in America never had a democratic vote either nor did Nelson Mandela's ANC.

wazky

steddyeddy wrote: »

The civil rights movement in America never had a democratic vote either nor did Nelson Mandela's ANC.

That's odd, because British politicians (including Ms. Thatcher) branded Mandela and the ANC as terrorists.

Can't think where they have pulled that one before...

bmcc10

Haven't really followed this but just heard he's gonna be charged, This common knowledge already?

MonsterCookie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The British army were not political figures.

As for the rest, you can pretty much take it that Adams and other old guard high ranking members of SF were likely involved in the IRA at senior levels and therefore played a role in numerous killings during the Troubles. However, they were then instrumental in creating the peace.

In an ideal world, they would be able to say 'I was in the IRA' and ultimately able to play their part in a fully inclusive truth and reconciliation process. They are unable to do that though because of the laws as written. As such, they are forced into this silly political game where they have to deny the obvious truth of the issue.

We certainly have enough information in the public domain for people to know what the past is when they go to vote. It is 20 years in the past now however, and it is 15 years since the historic agreement to leave the past in the past and move on.

In my opinion, the details of Jean McConville's death and who ordered it / pulled the trigger won't achieve anything worthwhile. She was killed on the premise that she was informing on IRA activities and was therefore a legitimate target. Dredging this stuff up in this manner for a maximum two year sentence helps no - one.

So to be clear, I didn't actually say it was ok to apply the law to one party etc etc contrary to your earlier post.

bumper234

wazky wrote: »

That's odd, because British politicians (including Ms. Thatcher) branded Mandela and the ANC as terrorists.

Can't think where they have pulled that one before...

And the American government branded the IRA as terrorists, what's your point?

DubVelo

• On 13 March 1973 information was received from the military suggesting that the abduction was an elaborate hoax;

• On 24 March 1973 further information was received from the military stating that the abduction was a hoax, that Mrs McConville had left of her own free will and was known to be safe.

If she was entirely white as snow, why were the BA spreading misinformation about her disappearance? Something fairly murky about that.

Jawgap

DubVelo wrote: »

If she was entirely white as snow, why were the BA spreading misinformation about her disappearance? Something fairly murky about that.

eh....I think the military were just passing on information they received through their own sources........but you feel free to read something else entirely into those statements.....

wazky

bumper234 wrote: »

And the American government branded the IRA as terrorists, what's your point?

Do you really need an explanation to that one?, the American government would be undermining one of their closest allies.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bmcc10 wrote: »

Haven't really followed this but just heard he's gonna be charged, This common knowledge already?

And where have you just heard this?

DubVelo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

all communities in Ireland, nationalist, republican, loyalist, unionist, indifferent and immigrant deserve the opportunity to pursue a peaceful existance.

The problem with that is that all your neighbours have to want the same thing, if one group doesn't want to live in peaceful co-existence the only option is to fight back against them whether you want to or not.