Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will challenge you to show where I came even close to saying that.

The republic was involved in the conflict/war. That is why they are involved in the solution and all the processes arising from the search for solutions and the much vaunted, but never properly addressed - closure.

No, the republic was involved in the protection of its citizens, and the safety of the state.
No, we did not allow terrorists to use our country, as much as we could stop them, in exactly the same way that we would not allow Isis or PKK or ETA or whichever terrorist organisation you pick, to use our country to further their terrorist ideals.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

No, the republic was involved in the protection of its citizens, and the safety of the state.
No, we did not allow terrorists to use our country, as much as we could stop them, in exactly the same way that we would not allow Isis or PKK or ETA or whichever terrorist organisation you pick, to use our country to further their terrorist ideals.

We were 'involved' then.
The Irish state caused death and injury and has information. Just like all the other players.

No matter what you think, they involved themselves in the conflict and consequently have involved themselves in the solution and healing process. As this one (of many) document shows.
http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/FATRdoclaid210116_100026.pdf
Take it up with YOUR government if you have a problem with that.

Jawgap

It's a bit of a pathetic strategy of SF to make a leap from 'involvement' to 'causation.'

I presume it's an extension of their 'no hierarchy of victims' rhetoric to include the conflict's actors......as in anyone involved is equally complicit regardless of motive or action. If it wasn't so transparent it might actually be a clever way of deflecting and diluting their own culpability in driving and sustaining the conflict.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a bit of a pathetic strategy of SF to make a leap from 'involvement' to 'causation.'

I presume it's an extension of their 'no hierarchy of victims' rhetoric to include the conflict's actors......as in anyone involved is equally complicit regardless of motive or action. If it wasn't so transparent it might actually be a clever way of deflecting and diluting their own culpability in driving and sustaining the conflict.

When did SF make this 'leap'?

You can try to wash the hands of individual players as much as you like but their self admitted involvement is right there on the record in black and white.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think if you read this and just accept the simple fact that if we are involved in the solution, then we must have accepted that we were involved in the problem, conflict/war.

It is just head in the sand, deflection to try and deny that anymore.

http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Lib...116_100026.pdf

I don't think you are in any place to be accusing anyone of deflection TBH.

Senator George Mitchell was sent by the US Govt to help broker a solution. By your warped logic I guess you think they were part of the conflict too then?

K-9

The state had to protect itself, a simple example would be bank robberies. It can't just let gangs treat banks as cash cows!

Did the Guards and prison officers sometimes go over board, well yes, that is going to happen when a subversive organisation sees you as the enemy. "The only good guard is a dead one" is a phrase I've heard a few times in Republican circles.

blackwhite

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a bit of a pathetic strategy of SF to make a leap from 'involvement' to 'causation.'

I presume it's an extension of their 'no hierarchy of victims' rhetoric to include the conflict's actors......as in anyone involved is equally complicit regardless of motive or action. If it wasn't so transparent it might actually be a clever way of deflecting and diluting their own culpability in driving and sustaining the conflict.

It's pretty clear that, for members of SF and for their supporters here, that SF or the IRA will never be deemed responsible for anything. Everything, be it the murder of innocents, rape, paedophilia and child abuse, and the associated cover ups, are always some one else's fault - if they can't find away to blame the British or the Unionists, then it must have been the victims' own fault.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

I don't think you are in any place to be accusing anyone of deflection TBH.

Senator George Mitchell was sent by the US Govt to help broker a solution. By your warped logic I guess you think they were part of the conflict too then?

Did the US put this in an intergovernmental agreement?

Article 4
Definitions
For the purposes of this Agreement:
1. A ‘death within the remit of the Commission’ means a death which was
wholly caused by physical injuries or physical illness that were the direct result of
an act of violence or force carried out in Ireland, the United Kingdom or the rest
of Europe between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998:
(a) for a reason related to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland
or to political or sectarian hostility between persons there; or
(b) in connection with preventing, investigating, or otherwise dealing
with the consequences of, an act intended to be done, or done, for a
reason related to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or to
political or sectarian hostility between persons there.
2. An ‘eligible family request’ means:
(a) a request made by a person who:
(i) is a close family member of the deceased; and
(ii) meets the residency qualification; or
(b) a request made by a person who:
(i) is a close family member of the deceased; but
(ii) does not meet the residency qualification;

In short what that means is that the Irish government has accepted it has and had a role in the conflict.
That there are deaths in Ireland that are related to the conflict.

Unless you can find a clause in there that says 'deaths caused by the Irish security forces are not included' then I think you are just deflecting.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

It's pretty clear that, for members of SF and for their supporters here, that SF or the IRA will never be deemed responsible for anything. .

despite both organisations publically taking responsibility for their roles in the conflict/war and addressing them at length?

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

The state had to protect itself, a simple example would be bank robberies. It can't just let gangs treat banks as cash cows!

Did the Guards and prison officers sometimes go over board, well yes, that is going to happen when a subversive organisation sees you as the enemy. "The only good guard is a dead one" is a phrase I've heard a few times in Republican circles.

Yes, I agree. The state had to protect itself, but the state frequently went above and beyond that, causing death and injury and a host of families/survivors with questions. Questions they have 'committed' (but not yet done any thing useful) to answer.

Wasn't it Michael O'Leary under questions/attempting to explain about the abuse and mistreatment of an innocent man that said 'You never question the word of a guard'?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did the US put this in an intergovernmental agreement?



In short what that means is that the Irish government has accepted it has and had a role in the conflict.
That there are deaths in Ireland that are related to the conflict.

Unless you can find a clause in there that says 'deaths caused by the Irish security forces are not included' then I think you are just deflecting.

You might want to work on your comprehension skills there. :rolleyes:

The quote references acts carried out "in Ireland" - you'll have to explain how that means that the Irish Government was automatically a party to those acts purely because of the location (other than, of course, the general rules of law that you and your pals seem to think the SF/IRA should be exempt from).

Are you next going to try and argue that the fact that IRA fundraising happened in the USA means that Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior were all involved in the conflict as well?

Jawgap

blackwhite wrote: »

I don't think you are in any place to be accusing anyone of deflection TBH.

Senator George Mitchell was sent by the US Govt to help broker a solution. By your warped logic I guess you think they were part of the conflict too then?

.....not forgetting de Chastelain - bloody Canadians! I guess using the logic of "involvement is causation" Trudeau will have a lot to answer for.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

.....not forgetting de Chastelain - bloody Canadians! I guess using the logic of "involvement is causation" Trudeau will have a lot to answer for.

Please explain how anybody is claiming 'involvement is causation'?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did the US put this in an intergovernmental agreement?



In short what that means is that the Irish government has accepted it has and had a role in the conflict.
That there are deaths in Ireland that are related to the conflict.

Unless you can find a clause in there that says 'deaths caused by the Irish security forces are not included' then I think you are just deflecting.

Wasn't that agreement negotiated under the Stormont House Agreement, which was brokered by Haas (the US Special Envoy for Northern Ireland) - so wouldn't they be 'involved' with it?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Wasn't that agreement negotiated under the Stormont House Agreement, which was brokered by Haas (the US Special Envoy for Northern Ireland) - so wouldn't they be 'involved' with it?

This is all you need.

Article 4
Definitions
For the purposes of this Agreement:
1.

A ‘death within the remit of the Commission’ means a death which was
wholly caused by physical injuries or physical illness that were the direct result of
an act of violence or force carried out in Ireland,

the United Kingdom or the rest
of Europe between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998:

A commitment to hand over information for deaths caused by Irish security forces is included under that remit, regardless of 'why' they happened. And there were plenty that needn't have happened, plenty of abuse and intimidation that needn't have happened. As a state we were involved, good bad or indifferent. Right from the get go, when the most recent conflict started and Jack Lynch debated sending in troops.
Your opinion of those 'involved' or what they were doing, or what they represented is not important in discussing this, taht is an entirely different debate.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is all you need.





A commitment to hand over information for deaths caused by Irish security forces is included under that remit, regardless of 'why' they happened. And there were plenty that needn't have happened, plenty of abuse and intimidation that needn't have happened. As a state we were involved, good bad or indifferent. Right from the get go, when the most recent conflict started and Jack Lynch debated sending in troops.
Your opinion of those 'involved' or what they were doing, or what they represented is not important in discussing this, taht is an entirely different debate.

The Cabinet debated sending in troops alright......thankfully the CoS, MacEoin, had the courage to stand up the politicians......when your chief soldier styles a contingency as Exercise ARMAGEDDON you'd like to think the pols would take notice! Might as well have called it Operation CERTAIN DEATH!

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The Cabinet debated sending in troops alright......thankfully the CoS, MacEoin, had the courage to stand up the politicians......when your chief soldier styles a contingency as Exercise ARMAGEDDON you'd like to think the pols would take notice! Might as well have called it Operation CERTAIN DEATH!

And then we have the Arms Trial where the Director of Army Intelligence Colonel Michael Hefferon confirmed testimony from Captain Kelly that there was a chain of command directing the importation of arms for use in NI leading all the way back to the Cabinet. The two accused were acquitted on the basis of his evidence. i.e. the court believed the Colonel's testimony. There is an ongoing campaign by Hefferon's and Kelly's family to have these events fully investigated.
It was also revealed that Defence Minister at the time Jim Gibbon's name was removed from Hefferon's testimony.


Just more grist to the mill for those claiming we were not involved.

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

The state had to protect itself, a simple example would be bank robberies. It can't just let gangs treat banks as cash cows!

Did the Guards and prison officers sometimes go over board, well yes, that is going to happen when a subversive organisation sees you as the enemy. "The only good guard is a dead one" is a phrase I've heard a few times in Republican circles.

Sometimes go over board?

It was the policy of successive governments to have their agents "go over board". And not just when dealing with the provos. Our wee state loved pulling.

Or break the law as you should call it. But the various arms of the state never worried too much about that as we've seen time and time again.

I'd like to finish by attributing some bull**** quote about "the only good child murder is a covered up one" to donegal fianna fail circles.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And then we have the Arms Trial where the Director of Army Intelligence Colonel Michael Hefferon confirmed testimony from Captain Kelly that there was a chain of command directing the importation of arms for use in NI leading all the way back to the Cabinet. The two accused were acquitted on the basis of his evidence. i.e. the court believed the Colonel's testimony. There is an ongoing campaign by Hefferon's and Kelly's family to have these events fully investigated.
It was also revealed that Defence Minister at the time Jim Gibbon's name was removed from Hefferon's testimony.


Just more grist to the mill for those claiming we were not involved.

no one is saying we're not or were not involved - I'm saying the Irish State was not responsible for the perpetual violence in Ni during the "Troubles."

The State was doing its best to keep it from spreading in this direction - a doctor may be 'involved' in stopping an infection spreading, they may even have to amputate......it doesn't mean they caused or were responsible for the infection.

billy few mates

So The Netherlands can also consider themselves 'involved' in the IRA global web of terrorism thanks to the slaughter of two innocent Australian tourists by the IRA in Roermond in 1990..
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/parents-of-forgotten-ira-victim-in-appeal-for-justice-28551151.html
Likewise Germany can consider themselves 'involved' due to the countless murders carried out by the IRA there.
But shouldn't Colombia also be 'involved' due to the activities of the IRA in training FARC rebels in the murder of security forces there or should they be exempt because that activity was related more to the criminality and narcotics side of the business than the 'uniting Ireland' part...?

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And then we have the Arms Trial where the Director of Army Intelligence Colonel Michael Hefferon confirmed testimony from Captain Kelly that there was a chain of command directing the importation of arms for use in NI leading all the way back to the Cabinet. The two accused were acquitted on the basis of his evidence. i.e. the court believed the Colonel's testimony. There is an ongoing campaign by Hefferon's and Kelly's family to have these events fully investigated.
It was also revealed that Defence Minister at the time Jim Gibbon's name was removed from Hefferon's testimony.


Just more grist to the mill for those claiming we were not involved.

But as far as we know it wasn't sanctioned at Government level. There are questions about how much Lynch knew but I don't think there was any suggestion the actual Irish Government approved the importation. Basically Haughey went rogue!

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

no one is saying we're not or were not involved - I'm saying the Irish State was not responsible for the perpetual violence in Ni during the "Troubles."

Who made that claim here?

The State was doing its best to keep it from spreading in this direction - a doctor may be 'involved' in stopping an infection spreading, they may even have to amputate......it doesn't mean they caused or were responsible for the infection.

Again, nobody said they caused or were solely responsible for the conflict/war.
How far the state went is a matter for debate.
What cannot be debated when the state agrees to take part in a process of discovery is that we as a state were involved in the conflict

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

But as far as we know it wasn't sanctioned at Government level. There are questions about how much Lynch knew but I don't think there was any suggestion the actual Irish Government approved the importation. Basically Haughey went rogue!

The Chief of Staff of the Irish Army testified that it went all the way to the Cabinet and Jim Gibbons the Minister (whose name was removed from his testimony)
Haughey and Blayney were acquitted.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

So The Netherlands can also consider themselves 'involved' in the IRA global web of terrorism thanks to the slaughter of two innocent Australian tourists by the IRA in Roermond in 1990..
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/parents-of-forgotten-ira-victim-in-appeal-for-justice-28551151.html
Likewise Germany can consider themselves 'involved' due to the countless murders carried out by the IRA there.
But shouldn't Colombia also be 'involved' due to the activities of the IRA in training FARC rebels in the murder of security forces there or should they be exempt because that activity was related more to the criminality and narcotics side of the business than the 'uniting Ireland' part...?

Have any of those countries involved themselves in an international agreement and committed to disclose details to surviving families of deaths they caused.

No, they haven't, so I think that answers your question. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made that claim here?


Again, nobody said they caused or were solely responsible for the conflict/war.
How far the state went is a matter for debate.
What cannot be debated when the state agrees to take part in a process of discovery is that we as a state were involved in the conflict

Well this isn't SF so actually things can be debated - individuals don't get to unilaterally impose their view on what can or cannot be discussed.

The Republic was not solely, jointly or severally responsible for what went on in NI. It may have been involved and/or felt obligated to become involved, on humanitarian grounds, but that doesn't make it responsible for the mess.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well this isn't SF so actually things can be debated - individuals don't get to unilaterally impose their view on what can or cannot be discussed.

The Republic was not solely, jointly or severally responsible for what went on in NI. It may have been involved and/or felt obligated to become involved, on humanitarian grounds, but that doesn't make it responsible for the mess.

The state, like everyone was involved, that is why the entire island was 'involved' in the agreement that ended it.
The level of involvement we can debate.
There isn't any real debate outside this thread that the Irish State was involved.
The documentary evidence posted shows they are willing to disclose all information that they have although they have not progressed this past rhetoric and report writing thus involving themselves in problems with the long term solutions.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The state, like everyone was involved, that is why the entire island was 'involved' in the agreement that ended it.
The level of involvement we can debate.
There isn't any real debate outside this thread that the Irish State was involved.
The documentary evidence posted shows they are willing to disclose all information that they have although they have not progressed this past rhetoric and report writing thus involving themselves in problems with the long term solutions.

So by you declaring our 'involvement' in the troubles in NI you can rationalise and legitimise the murder of Brian Stack, is that what you're trying to do?
Because that's what it looks like...
'The whole island was 'involved' ergo everyone on that island is a legitimate target...?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

So by you declaring our 'involvement' in the troubles in NI you can rationalise and legitimise the murder of Brian Stack, is that what you're trying to do?
Because that's what it looks like...
'The whole island was 'involved' ergo everyone on that island is a legitimate target...?

No again Billy. My view of the Stack murder is prominently displayed on this very thread. Read it?

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No again Billy. My view of the Stack murder is prominently displayed on this very thread. Read it?

I've read your ramblings, forensically actually, unfortunately while they might be heavy on rhetoric, they're light on logic or sense. I have no idea what it is you're trying to spin or why you're so desperate to 'involve' us in matters beyond our borders....

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

I've read your ramblings, forensically actually, unfortunately while they might be heavy on rhetoric, they're light on logic or sense. I have no idea what it is you're trying to spin or why you're so desperate to 'involve' us in matters beyond our borders....

'Brian Stacks murder was wrong and should not have happened' lacks sense and logic?

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

Sometimes go over board?

It was the policy of successive governments to have their agents "go over board". And not just when dealing with the provos. Our wee state loved pulling.

Or break the law as you should call it. But the various arms of the state never worried too much about that as we've seen time and time again.

I'd like to finish by attributing some bull**** quote about "the only good child murder is a covered up one" to donegal fianna fail circles.

Not sure how I'm to reply to that last bit, seems just an angry addition.

The IRA and the Guards got on great, great respect for each other. That okay? Neither ever at a bad word for each other.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

But as far as we know it wasn't sanctioned at Government level. There are questions about how much Lynch knew but I don't think there was any suggestion the actual Irish Government approved the importation. Basically Haughey went rogue!

K-9 wrote: »

Not sure how I'm to reply to that last bit, seems just an angry addition.

The IRA and the Guards got on great, great respect for each other. That okay? Neither ever at a bad word for each other.

Do you guys believe that we should/or need full disclosure by the way?

Is it important to find out if a plot went to cabinet level or prison officers were under instruction to use inhumane tactics?

Can you really demand full disclosure from the likes of SF and ignore other contributory factors to the deepening and development of a conflict that affected the whole island physically and mentally.

Would be interested in answers to that.

Eamondomc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you guys believe that we should/or need full disclosure by the way?

Is it important to find out if a plot went to cabinet level or prison officers were under instruction to use inhumane tactics?

Can you really demand full disclosure from the likes of SF and ignore other contributory factors to the deepening and development of a conflict that affected the whole island physically and mentally.

Would be interested in answers to that.

You could and can. I would say there is quite a percentage of people here in the republic that were quite indifferent to the troubles other than to be abhorred at the atrocities it produced.
I think most though would like to know about the history and involvement of the people who stand for election here and think that their involvement in the atrocities that the troubles in general brought, both north and south of the border should have no consequence or need for appraisal now, whether they are from the north or south of the border.
SF is rooted in violence and while it can be argued about its justification in the north, I think most would wonder about its justification in the south!

FrancieBrady

It's

Eamondomc wrote: »

You could and can. I would say there is quite a percentage of people here in the republic that were quite indifferent to the troubles other than to be abhorred at the atrocities it produced.
I think most though would like to know about the history and involvement of the people who stand for election here and think that their involvement in the atrocities that the troubles in general brought, both north and south of the border should have no consequence or need for appraisal now, whether they are from the north or south of the border.
SF is rooted in violence and while it can be argued about its justification in the north, I think most would wonder about its justification in the south!

I think SF were just late to the party in the south, given that the southern parties were born out of violence. The archives of that conflict, which had been sealed until it's contributors were dead, had still 40 yrs to go until they were opened in 1969. That is how recent it all was.
Charlie Haughey, Neil Blaney both serving ministers, or allegedly the cabinet were behind the plot to arm combatants. Jack Lynch considered a violent invasion and Gardai and Prison Officers were encouraged and provisioned (allegedly) to violently and unlawfully overstep the mark

To be honest, it's a bit rich to be singling out one party, is it not?

You never said if you favoured full disclosure by everybody BTW.

billy few mates

billy few mates wrote: »

I'm sure the families of Private Patrick Kelly, Sgt Gerry McCabe and PO Brian Stack will take great comfort from that...

And recruit garda Gary Sheehan

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

And recruit garda Gary Sheehan

114 people died in the south as a result of the conflict
12 of them were Gardai
1 was a prison officer

Just posting those figures for information purposes

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

And recruit garda Gary Sheehan

And inspector Sam Donegan
And garda Michael Clerkin
Gardai John Morley & Henry Byrne
Detective garda Seamus Quaid
Garda Patrick Reynolds
Detective Frank Hand
Sergeant Pat Morrissey
All killed by IRA/INLA
not to mention Adriann Donoghue and Tony Golden, both killed by dissidents.

It's almost like republicans think they were at war against the republic

Adampower78

Adampower78 wrote: »

Funny that because because the IRA had a policy that under no circumstances whatsoever can the Irish security forces be harmed, not to say some provisionals on the run didn't panic and open fire but it was a very rare occurrence.

Please check my Posts
Nor very rare at all...

Jawgap

Adampower78 wrote: »

Funny that because because the IRA had a policy that under no circumstances whatsoever can the Irish security forces be harmed, not to say some provisionals on the run didn't panic and open fire but it was a very rare occurrence.

Really? Fired in panic?

Det Garda McCabe and a colleague, Det Garda Ben O’Sullivan, were on duty escorting a post office truck during a cash delivery at Adare, Co Limerick. As the patrol car pulled up close by, a vehicle driven by members of the IRA crashed into their vehicle. Within seconds, other gang members opened fire on the patrol car. Det Garda McCabe was killed and his colleague seriously wounded.

Det Garda Hand and a colleague were on duty in an unmarked patrol car which was providing an armed escort to a post office van. As they pulled up outside the local post office to make the delivery, they were ambushed by armed members of the IRA. Gardaí and the raiders exchanged gunfire and Det Garda Hand was killed.

In November 1983, businessman Don Tidey was kidnapped by the IRA in Dublin. Following a tip-off, gardaí focused their search on the Ballinamore area of Leitrim the following month. Garda Gary Sheehan (23), a new recruit, and Pte Patrick Kelly were killed in a subsequent shoot-out.

FrancieBrady

Do you favour full disclosure Jawgap and bubblypop?

Jawgap

Adampower78 wrote: »

Who knows, it was a fair fight between Argentina and Britain and I'm sure we would have had far more sympathy than them.

Who knows?

So you think the outcome would be uncertain?

The equivalent of a light infantry brigade being sent on offensive operations against the equivalent of a mechanised division, with two battalions of infantry just off the Northern Flank mission, with total air supremacy, fast air and heli support, artillery and armour.......would have had an uncertain outcome?

Really?

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We were 'involved' then.
The Irish state caused death and injury and has information. Just like all the other players.

No matter what you think, they involved themselves in the conflict and consequently have involved themselves in the solution and healing process. As this one (of many) document shows.
http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/FATRdoclaid210116_100026.pdf
Take it up with YOUR government if you have a problem with that.

No we weren't "involved" actually.
How exactly did the Irish state cause death and injury in this so called conflict Francie ? The IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries caused death and injury. The Irish army and state didn't.

But name what incidents caused death and injury that the Republic of Ireland caused as you claim. Thanks.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Who knows?

So you think the outcome would be uncertain?

The equivalent of a light infantry brigade being sent on offensive operations against the equivalent of a mechanised division, with two battalions of infantry just off the Northern Flank mission, with total air supremacy, fast air and heli support, artillery and armour.......would have had an uncertain outcome?

Really?

Completely off topic, but there was a political backdrop were the British were very afraid to enflame nationalists in the south, who knows (and they didn't) what would have happened if they wiped out and Irish battalion. The north overrun by enraged southern civilians would have been a very sticky problem for the British, who were keenly aware they would take a large share of the blame internationally.
A containment exercise and a negotiated solution was just as likely.

But we chickened out as we know and created the vacuum that the IRA filled. The rest is tragic history as we know.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you favour full disclosure Jawgap and bubblypop?

Full disclosure?
About what?
War crimes and murders/criminal offences committed in the Republic are not included in the so called 'war'
Unless of course, they were at 'war' with the Republic

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Completely off topic, but there was a political backdrop were the British were very afraid to enflame nationalists in the south, who knows (and they didn't) what would have happened if they wiped out and Irish battalion. The north overrun by enraged southern civilians would have been a very sticky problem for the British, who were keenly aware they would take a large share of the blame internationally.
A containment exercise and a negotiated solution was just as likely.

But we chickened out as we know and created the vacuum that the IRA filled.

No, North Atlantic Treaty would likely have been invoked, followed by criticism from the UN and denial of EEC membership was the more likely outcome condemning us to decades of isolation......

......and before someone gets a bit silly and mentions the US, it's worth remembering this was during the Nixon era - he didn't care about the Irish (as a West Coast politician) and the State Department was at its most Anglophilic since WW2, so unlikely to do anything except support the Brits.

Itssoeasy

bubblypop wrote: »

Full disclosure?
About what?
War crimes and murders/criminal offences committed in the Republic are not included in the so called 'war'
Unless of course, they were at 'war' with the Republic

But apparently they are part of the truth commission talked about by Sinn Fein on the tv and radio last weekend. And this despite the fact that no one can seem to work out why things that happened in the Republic are included.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Completely off topic, but there was a political backdrop were the British were very afraid to enflame nationalists in the south, who knows (and they didn't) what would have happened if they wiped out and Irish battalion. The north overrun by enraged southern civilians would have been a very sticky problem for the British, who were keenly aware they would take a large share of the blame internationally.
A containment exercise and a negotiated solution was just as likely.

But we chickened out as we know and created the vacuum that the IRA filled. The rest is tragic history as we know.

Francie this is just Rambo fantasy stuff , how you can post the above and expect to be taken seriously !

'overrun by enraged southern civilians ' - seriously .

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

But apparently they are part of the truth commission talked about by Sinn Fein on the tv and radio last weekend. And this despite the fact that no one can seem to work out why things that happened in the Republic are included.

Yea, shouldn't be in my opinion.
While I understand that the republic should try and help any attempts at reconciliation, I don't believe that any offences committed in the south should be included.
I can't understand why they would be?

Adampower78

Adampower78 wrote: »

Yes individuals in the IRA murdered them just like individuals in the British army murdered people down here it doesn't they were at war with us though?

When did the British army murder people in the Republic of Ireland?

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can't get the document open to find the name of the Commission but it isn't the one you named there. It was to be modelled on the disappeared commission and had the word Recovery in it.
Information on how loved ones where killed in both jurisdictions was to be made available.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/agreement-reached-in-northern-ireland-talks-1.2047479

I accept that I didn't name them correctly, couldn't remember as it all became a dead duck very quickly when the British rowed back and said they wouldn't fully disclose after all.

So, where is this truth and reconciliation/recovery commission mentioned?