Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Fleawuss

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If Ireland wasn't involved in the conflict/war why did it spend our money securing a border for unionists and the British, why did it censor Irish citizens, deploy and provision a Heavy Gang?

Of course we were all part of the conflict/war, why would Ireland be part of the agreement that saw it end if it had nothing to do with us?
Regina Doherty revisionist nonsense to be honest with you.
*We won't mention Jack Lynch's scardey cat attempt to get involved.

Ireland wasn't at war with anyone. The border was secured (badly) to try to stop the country being used by lunatics as a base for their lunacy. The border was secured for Ireland. Section 31 was used to stop propaganda from the revisionists and rejectionists in the Provos provoking more bloodshed. But the fact remains that Ireland wasn't at war with anyone. Now the self styled rejectionists of the Provos might have felt that were at war with Ireland but that was just them.

Ireland was part of the agreement on Good Friday to give an all Ireland dimension to the settlement to remind Unionist idiots and Provo idiots that a United Ireland is an aspiration of real Irish republicanism and endures despite the lunacy the Provos and the British murder gangs brought. But Ireland was not at war. We also had to give up the constitutional claim to the North because of the failure of the Provo murder campaign.

Revisionism is what SF have been trying to do since they accepted that they were riddled with spies and double agents, had lost support in their heartlands for violence and that they had achieved none of their aims.

Finally, I don't like you trying to use "we" about Ireland. For all of the the troubles the majority of voters rejected the Provos. SF need to ditch the Adams generation and see if they can find political traction outside welfare and working class estates. That won't happen as long as people remember the blood and carnage.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Where did Ireland secure a border?
I lived beside the border and I never saw any Irish army securing the border?

Wow. Just wow!
My town had over 80 gardai stationed in it at one time, today there are 2 or 3.
Have a read,
http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/policing-the-border-during-the-troubles/

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow. Just wow!
My town had over 80 gardai stationed in it at one time, today there are 2 or 3.
Have a read,
http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/policing-the-border-during-the-troubles/

Yep, Gardai in a station, same as my own town.
Not securing a border though!
The only army securing the border were English army.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, Gardai in a station, same as my own town.
Not securing a border though!
The only army securing the border were English army.

Sorry, can't be bothered debating this one.
They were just resting in the station, for free. Okie doke


*It was a British Army BTW.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, can't be bothered debating this one.
They were just resting in the station, for free. Okie doke


*It was a British Army BTW.

Oh I know who they were & why they were there.
Maybe because Of The IRA?

FrancieBrady

Fleawuss wrote: »

Ireland wasn't at war with anyone. The border was secured (badly) to try to stop the country being used by lunatics as a base for their lunacy. estates. .

The only bit of that I need to quote. We agree, they were involved then.

I disagree on describing them as lunatics.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Oh I know who they were & why they were there.
Maybe because Of The IRA?

You know who who were?

You know they were the British Army, but you called them the English Army?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You know who who were?

You know they were the British Army, but you called them the English Army?

Listen buttercup, I know people in that army & they call themselves English & British.
Maybe a big deal for you, not for them.
And really not important

weldoninhio

kbannon wrote: »

...and yet the majority of people choose anyone but SF.

And yet the gained 5x the seats they had after the last election.

Who do you vote for?? Not many stories about FF handcuffing people to carts and dropping live grenades into their pockets during the War of Independence. But "that's the past" now

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Listen buttercup, I know people in that army & they call themselves English & British.
Maybe a big deal for you, not for them.
And really not important

It is when you couple it with the rather bewildering statement that we didn't aid in securing a border.

weldoninhio

Jawgap wrote: »

How do they deserve credit for that when it was an organisation who enjoys their unconditional support that killed most, if not all, of them in the first place???

That really demonstrates just how warped SF logic is.

And seriously, I'd still well clear of mentioning suicide and SF in the same sentence......don't they control the Dept of Health in NI? Are they not in government there?

Suicide Among the Ceasefire Babies

You never mentioned if you were gonna hang Nelson Mandela either.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is when you couple it with the rather bewildering statement that we didn't aid in securing a border.

We didn't aid in securing a border.
We had Gardai in areas where terrorists were operating and there was a risk to the state.

FYI, Gardai also supply protection to ambassadors in this country that are at risk from other terrorists.
Do you think we shouldn't have any protection in this country from terrorists?

FrancieBrady

weldoninhio wrote: »

And yet the gained 5x the seats they had after the last election.

Who do you vote for?? Not many stories about FF handcuffing people to carts and dropping live grenades into their pockets during the War of Independence. But "that's the past" now

Locking the detail of that away for the guts of 100 years seems to have solved the problem for FF and FG, who now seem evangelic about full disclosure about a conflict/war that happened because they abandoned NI and stood idly by while it combusted and compounded that abandonment by tacitly (if not deliberately) taking the side of Britain and Unionism.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

We didn't aid in securing a border.
We had Gardai in areas where terrorists were operating and there was a risk to the state.

FYI, Gardai also supply protection to ambassadors in this country that are at risk from other terrorists.
Do you think we shouldn't have any protection in this country from terrorists?

I think I am confused here. You seem to be saying we did secure the border but yet we didn't. An English army, a British Army.

Fleawuss

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only bit of that I need to quote. We agree, they were involved then.

I disagree on describing them as lunatics.

They were not involved in any war. They were deployed to stop lunacy spreading. "Involved" is Provo speak for trying to reinvent reality. Give it a rest.

FrancieBrady

Fleawuss wrote: »

They were not involved in any war. They were deployed to stop lunacy spreading. "Involved" is Provo speak for trying to reinvent reality. Give it a rest.

We can argue about the classification of 'lunacy', because that is subjective. But there is no argument that we were involved in the conflict/war.

weldoninhio

kbannon wrote: »

So a TD is actively protecting a murderer and you're OK with that?
If it was a drug dealer that shot an unarmed woman in the street, would you be equally as tolerant of a TD protecting the murderer?


What would the purpose of such a process be?
Would amnesty be provided to all witnesses?
Which organisation would be first to "testify"?
Would all murderers provide full and complete information?
Would that information be in relation to sectarian crimes or all crimes including those not ordered by their superiors?


Adams goal here is to protect his friend(s) who murdered someone outside of his pretend army's command.


So rherefore if the IRA didn't exist, Stacks father would still be alive?
But the IRA didn't sanction the murder so what us your point?
Or are you simply trying to change the facts that are out there?

Hasn't Micheal Martin had the names too since 2013??

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think I am confused here. You seem to be saying we did secure the border but yet we didn't. An English army, a British Army.

Don't be confused
We had Gardai in areas that terrorists were active.
Are you suggesting that AGS shouldn't protect our citizens against terrorists?
The Irish state did not secure any border.

Fleawuss

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We can argue about the classification of 'lunacy', because that is subjective. But there is no argument that we were involved in the conflict/war.

Ireland was not involved in any war. Irish soldiers did not engage in any combat missions or battles. You are, like all Provos, deluded.

The lunacy in the North was born of both sides: the bastard statelet with its rabid sectarianism and anti Catholic violence and the wannabe soldiers among the Provos along with assorted psychopaths. Add to that British murder gangs and you have the basket case that was NI. History will acknowledge the achievement of successive Irish governments in keeping that contained to those who bred it. The late Brian Stack played his part in that.

FrancieBrady

I know the Politics Forum doesn't like these debates degenerating into pitched battles so let's try to refocus on the original question.
In my opinion the sign at the end of YET another cul de sac of faux outrage says, do not proceed past this point unless you are prepared to accept that every family needs closure, on all sides, and the only way to get that is to do what the combatants that became FF and FG did, which was to suppress all detail and consign the country to civil war politics for generations OR to construct a process were living survivors are given an opportunity to find out the why and were for of what happened to their loved ones.

All this is based on the real and present fact that no other process has worked here. See: Gerry's membership, Jean McConville, Maria Cahill, Brian Stack, Ballymurphyt, Bloody Sunday, Omagh, Enniskillen, Le Mon etc etc etc etc.

FrancieBrady

Fleawuss wrote: »

Ireland was not involved in any war. Irish soldiers did not engage in any combat missions or battles. You are, like all Provos, deluded.

The lunacy in the North was born of both sides: the bastard statelet with its rabid sectarianism and anti Catholic violence and the wannabe soldiers among the Provos along with assorted psychopaths. Add to that British murder gangs and you have the basket case that was NI. History will acknowledge the achievement of successive Irish governments in keeping that contained to those who bred it. The late Brian Stack played his part in that.

Not sure what I have to do here, let's try this. Even if they were aliens, we were still involved in trying to stop them. Involved = Involved.
Short of a diagram I'm not sure how I can help.

You can have you opinion of there mental health all you want. Personally I think the lunatics were those that thought you could SECURE a border on this island ad spent billions trying. Do you know how many IRA men and women were caught coming through the border? Look it up, you won't require many fingers to tally it up.

The main issue is, if you believe that the provos were in a war against England/ Britain / the UK
Then you can probably accept their terrorist acts against the mainland, or British forces in northern Ireland.
The IRA however, were never at war against the Irish State.
The Irish state, if I'm not mistaken, is what the IRA wanted the whole country to be?
So any single criminal act that they committed in southern Ireland is exactly that, a criminal offence.
Which includes the murders of all public servants in the south, as well as all robberies etc that they committed.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what I have to do here, let's try this. Even if they were aliens, we were still involved in trying to stop them. Involved = Involved.
Short of a diagram I'm not sure how I can help.

You can have you opinion of there mental health all you want.

Are we involved in a war against the PKK?
Are we involved in a war against ISIS?
AGS protect all citizens in this land against terrorists.
The state do not need to be at war with anyone to protect our citizens ( and others )

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Are we involved in a war against the PKK?
Are we involved in a war against ISIS?
AGS protect all citizens in this land against terrorists.
The state do not need to be at war with anyone to protect our citizens ( and others )

where did I say we(the Irish state) were at 'war'?
I said we involved ourselves by securing the border and the rest.

But 60-80 Garda, in a town of 2000 is apparently nothing to do with being involved in securing a border.

I have nothing more to say on the 'lunacy'of this particular sidebar.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

where did I say we(the Irish state) were at 'war'?
I said we involved ourselves by securing the border and the rest.

But 60-80 Garda, in a town of 2000 is apparently nothing to do with being involved in securing a border.

I have nothing more to say on the 'lunacy'of this particular sidebar.

But we didn't secure the border.
We protected our citizens from terrorists that were active on our side Of The border.
No securing any border by the Irish state. At all.

davycc

bubblypop wrote: »

But we didn't secure the border.
We protected our citizens from terrorists that were active on our side Of The border.
No securing any border by the Irish state. At all.

If you where too young to recall our average road crossing from RoI to NI was setup like so .on the northern side of the border RUC-British army and on the southern side armed and unarmed Gardaí and the Irish army.
I was part of the Irish army who secured our border on a daily basis on behalf of our state-government.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, can't be bothered debating this one.
They were just resting in the station, for free. Okie doke


*It was a British Army BTW.

So, as the poster who drove a whole aspect of this thread to discuss the semantics of the words 'blacked out van' - you are now complaining about someone pulling you up on your use of language and refusing to engage because they pulled out a single phrase from a post and took it literally.......riiiiiiiight.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

You never mentioned if you were gonna hang Nelson Mandela either.

Well what that has to do with anything, I don't know.

I wouldn't hang anyone because I don't believe in capital punishment and I certainly don't believe it should be meted out summarily on a Dublin street to a public servant 'guilty' of just doing their job.......or a taxi driver or widow, even if they did tout.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what I have to do here....

Let me help you, from what I can see your main role on here seems to be to engage with every single poster that challenges the approved doctrine or questions the motives of the party leader or any party member on a 24/7 basis by responding to every single post that challenges the narrative you're desperately trying to peddle.
Your current mission or project seems to be an attempt at rewriting the history of this island to spin the fanciful notion that the IRA were somehow 'involved in a war' with the Republic of Ireland in some sort of a desperate effort to sanitise and justify the brutal murder of a servant of this state, in order to save the blushes and political career of the party leader....

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Let me help you, from what I can see your main role on here seems to be to engage with every single poster that challenges the approved doctrine or questions the motives of the party leader or any party member on a 24/7 basis by responding to every single post that challenges the narrative you're desperately trying to peddle.
Your current mission or project seems to be an attempt at rewriting the history of this island to spin the fanciful notion that the IRA were somehow 'involved in a war' with the Republic of Ireland in some sort of a desperate effort to sanitise and justify the brutal murder of a servant of this state, in order to save the blushes and political career of the party leader....

Were did I do that now?

Talking of working things out, how would anyone seriously contend that the IRA were at war with the Irish state? A comparison of the casualty figures alone would show that to be a spurious argument. One prison officer?

My point is that the Irish state involved itself (you are entitled to opinion on that) in the conflict/war and therefore there were going to be casualties.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

So, as the poster who drove a whole aspect of this thread to discuss the semantics of the words 'blacked out van' - you are now complaining about someone pulling you up on your use of language and refusing to engage because they pulled out a single phrase from a post and took it literally.......riiiiiiiight.

Do you agree with the poster or not? That the Irish state assisted in securing the border they were constitutionally against?

Doesn't matter why you think they did it really, whether you think they were lunatics or aliens, they either did or they didn't. What would a potential PHd holder say?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you agree with the poster or not? That the Irish state assisted in securing the border they were constitutionally against?

Doesn't matter why you think they did it really, whether you think they were lunatics or aliens, they either did or they didn't. What would a potential PHd holder say?

Of course they did - look, we're a sovereign state and we are, to the best of our limited abilities, going to defend our borders......that's what sovereign states do.....

The purpose of the Defence Forces is to defend the State against armed aggression from either internal or external sources and to fulfil all other roles assigned by Government.

The ability of a sovereign nation-state to preserve and enhance the security and well-being of its people defines the defence role, and in the case of Ireland, the Defence Forces' role.

Roles Assigned to the Defence Forces by Government
• to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an ongoing Government assessment of threats;
• to aid the Civil Power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State);

Defence Forces’ Mission

To contribute to the security of the State by providing for the military
defence of its territorial integrity and to fulfil all roles assigned by
Government through the deployment of well-motivated and effective
Defence Forces.

Once again the subtlety of the argument and wording is proving elusive to you......being for a 'national territory' is not the same as asserting sovereignty or being constitutionally 'against' the border......in fact the 'old' Article 3 made it clear the sovereigny of the state is co-terminus with the boundaries defined for the Free State.....

.....the laws enacted by the parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you agree with the poster or not? That the Irish state assisted in securing the border they were constitutionally against?

Doesn't matter why you think they did it really, whether you think they were lunatics or aliens, they either did or they didn't. What would a potential PHd holder say?

Oh, and point of order.......I'm not "a potential PHd holder" - I'm an actual one.......the PhD in modern history I'm doing will be my second PhD, although the first is hardly relevant to the topic at hand as it doesn't relate to history or the interpretation thereof.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they did - look, we're a sovereign state and we are, to the best of our limited abilities, going to defend our borders......that's what sovereign states do.....

Thank you.

Once again the subtlety of the argument and wording is proving elusive to you......being for a 'national territory' is not the same as asserting sovereignty or being constitutionally 'against' the border......in fact the 'old' Article 3 made it clear the sovereigny of the state is co-terminus with the boundaries defined for the Free State.....

No argument that that was the theoretical case.
The reality on the ground was that they assisted the British is securing a border because of Unionist agitation. They stationed there what became known as the 'Heavy Gang' which concentrated on policing the Nationalist/Republican community alone. Policing that brought the attention of Amnesty International and much other criticism for it's violent and Stasi like qualities.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/lynch-urged-to-act-on-amnesty-report-into-garda-heavy-gang-1.995288

The reality was that that those actions enflamed the nationalist community who didn't quite see the subtleties you could on the ground. Which is critical when assessing/interpreting what actually happened.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thank you.








No argument that that was the theoretical case.
The reality on the ground was that they assisted the British is securing a border because of Unionist agitation. They stationed there what became known as the 'Heavy Gang' which concentrated on policing the Nationalist/Republican community alone. Policing that brought the attention of Amnesty International and much other criticism for it's violent and Stasi like qualities.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/lynch-urged-to-act-on-amnesty-report-into-garda-heavy-gang-1.995288

The reality was that that those actions enflamed the nationalist community who didn't quite see the subtleties you could on the ground. Which is critical when assessing/interpreting what actually happened.

No, they defended the State and the citizens - there's a reason they were called subversives......you really have a fixation with the "heavy gang" - and why capitalise the description especially as there was more than one?

btw, the Stasi were an intelligence agency, not a policing agency - again a subtle but very important distinction. You'd be better comparing Garda and RUC policing to the VoPo, rather than the Stasi, them's de boys that helped build the Berlin Wall etc

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

No, they defended the State and the citizens - there's a reason they were called subversives......you really have a fixation with the "heavy gang" - and why capitalise the description especially as there was more than one?

btw, the Stasi were an intelligence agency, not a policing agency - again a subtle but very important distinction. You'd be better comparing Garda and RUC policing to the VoPo, rather than the Stasi, them's de boys that helped build the Berlin Wall etc

Then they were 'involved'. It's not that hard to accept what I am saying. Really.

The Heavy Gang gathered intelligence too, quite a bit of it. And their methods were draconian.
But comparisons to other forces are valid too.

And I am not 'obsessed' with them, in my opinion they contributed to a large degree to the environment where 'shots were fired in anger' and situations got out of hand. Reactionary violence was always going to happen.
Similarly the behaviour and methods of officers in prisons and the alleged negligence of the minister for Justice (that were criticised by prison officers, see earlier link) led to reactionary violence.

At the risk of starting howls of derision I would contend that it is amazing that there were not more casualties among the Irish security forces and if anything, it shows, a large degree of restraint among republican activists.

Take that any way you want, it is not intended to defend any action against the Irish security forces, it's just a realistic opinion and an attempt to understand what happened.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But they don't abide when it suits. The UN sat on it's hands when the north combusted and the British and Irish govs sat idly by.
Forgive me if I think the UN is full of nonsense tbh.

They had to be invited in AFAIK.

They can't invade countries! No point getting angry at something they've no power over.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

They had to be invited in AFAIK.

They can't invade countries! No point getting angry at something they've no power over.

Nobody said they should 'invade'.
Paddy Hillery proposed that the UN send in a force in 1969
Hillery's laudable idea was to have an independent non partisan force in place to diffuse tensions as the situation reached boiling point.
Britain rejected the proposal.
The UN complied and said nothing, and criticised nothing
The armed forces of one of the 5 founding members of the UN then opened fire on innocent civilians on a human rights protest and the rest is tragic history.
Some Irish people knew what was about to happen but were ignored/brushed aside. To them and to me, the UN in an Irish context was as useful as a handshake from a wet fish.

blackwhite

Is the gist of the argument here now that people employed by the Irish Government were legitimate IRA targets, because the Govt "involved" itself by refusing to give specicial dispensation to the IRA and by not allowing IRA members break any laws they chose to?

Is that really the warped logic that is being peddled now?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then they were 'involved'. It's not that hard to accept what I am saying. Really.

The Heavy Gang gathered intelligence too, quite a bit of it. And their methods were draconian.
But comparisons to other forces are valid too.

And I am not 'obsessed' with them, in my opinion they contributed to a large degree to the environment where 'shots were fired in anger' and situations got out of hand. Reactionary violence was always going to happen.
Similarly the behaviour and methods of officers in prisons and the alleged negligence of the minister for Justice (that were criticised by prison officers, see earlier link) led to reactionary violence.

At the risk of starting howls of derision I would contend that it is amazing that there were not more casualties among the Irish security forces and if anything, it shows, a large degree of restraint among republican activists.

Take that any way you want, it is not intended to defend any action against the Irish security forces, it's just a realistic opinion and an attempt to understand what happened.

Of course they were involved - there was an armed bunch of thugs looking to subvert the democratically enacted constitution of the state and Oglaigh na hEireann and An Garda Siochana worked to mitigate that threat - that included co-operating with the British and securing, as far as was practical, the land border with the UK......

.......because that's what the citizens wanted. We didn't want to spend huge chunks of what little money we had building up a military capacity to fight NATO, we just wanted to get on with life.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Is the gist of the argument here now that people employed by the Irish Government were legitimate IRA targets, because the Govt "involved" itself by refusing to give specicial dispensation to the IRA and by not allowing IRA members break any laws they chose to?

Is that really the warped logic that is being peddled now?

Nobody is saying they were 'legitimate targets', no.

But if you are going to ignore the effect of Irish state security force actions but on the nationalist/republican community and indeed, on themselves, then I think that is a heavily partisan approach.
After all, the head of the Irish Prison Officers Union criticised the methods of some of the prison officers and management of Portlaoise and the negligence of the Minister of Justice Michael Noonan at the time. If that behaviour didn't have an affect on what happened then I think you are living in a bubble to be honest.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is saying they were 'legitimate targets', no.

But if you are going to ignore the effect of Irish state security force actions but on the nationalist/republican community and indeed, on themselves, then I think that is a heavily partisan approach.
After all, the head of the Irish Prison Officers Union criticised the methods of some of the prison officers and management of Portlaoise and the negligence of the Minister of Justice Michael Noonan at the time. If that behaviour didn't have an affect on what happened then I think you are living in a bubble to be honest.

Well if they were not legitimate targets, then was Brian Stack murdered? Bet you don't answer with a straightforward yes or no.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they were involved - there was an armed bunch of thugs looking to subvert the democratically enacted constitution of the state and Oglaigh na hEireann and An Garda Siochana worked to mitigate that threat - that included co-operating with the British and securing, as far as was practical, the land border with the UK......

.......because that's what the citizens wanted. We didn't want to spend huge chunks of what little money we had building up a military capacity to fight NATO, we just wanted to get on with life.

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if they were not legitimate targets, then was Brian Stack murdered? Bet you don't answer with a straightforward yes or no.

Yes he was.

Isn't that the information Austin Stack got at his meeting?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes he was.

Isn't that the information Austin Stack got at his meeting?

Ok then, shouldn't murderers be brought justice? And shouldn't our elected reps be doing everything they legally can as deputies of the people and as citizens to help bring them to justice?

.....and whose interests do you think a Dail deputy should put foremost, a murdered public servant's (and his family) or the murderer(s) and those that might support them?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact (for convenience) that the IRA had support from the community, for better or worse.
Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang, that policed the whole community and didn't discriminate between members of the IRA and ordinary civilians. In other citizens of this country's view, THEY were an 'armed bunch of thugs' 'subverting democracy' to the point that Amnesty International got involved.

Would an independent historian factor that reality into their assessment of what happened I wonder?

The IRA had support from the community? As SF are so fond of saying - evidence? Where was their mandate derived from?

......and while we're at it, you are now saying that in addition to the Guards and the Prison Service, that "Oglaigh na hEireann deployed a 'specially contrived' Heavy Gang" - evidence? And where's the evidence they 'policed' anything (hint: don't confuse the ATTCP mission with policing - legally and operationally they are hugely different)

....and I didn't mention "subverting democracy" - I mentioned "subverting the democratically enacted constitution" - again, you need to try and be more aware of the subtleties of the different arguments. We all, to a greater or lesser extent, subvert democracy - which is completely different to subverting the constitution.

Dyr

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they were involved - there was an armed bunch of thugs looking to subvert the democratically enacted constitution of the state and Oglaigh na hEireann and An Garda Siochana worked to mitigate that threat - that included co-operating with the British and securing, as far as was practical, the land border with the UK......

.......because that's what the citizens wanted. We didn't want to spend huge chunks of what little money we had building up a military capacity to fight NATO, we just wanted to get on with life.

Is that the same constitution that laid claim to what was on the other side of the border they were securing?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok then, shouldn't murderers be brought justice? And shouldn't our elected reps be doing everything they legally can as deputies of the people and as citizens to help bring them to justice?

.....and whose interests do you think a Dail deputy should put foremost, a murdered public servant's (and his family) or the murderer(s) and those that might support them?

Of course murderers should be brought to justice.

But you are in denial about the issues here. The 'real' issues.

Yes, deputies should be doing everything they can but what they shouldn't be doing is selecting murders, killings to be concerned about.

We already know why these incidents have to be seen as a whole and why they have to be addressed in the context of how and why they happened during a conflict.
A Truth Commission is not envisaged by Adams to be for the purpose of exonerating anybody, he has already said that if a family wish to pursue a case that they have to have that opportunity as part of the process.

The IRA have said that this was a murder so I think the subtext here is that the Stacks would get justice they seek.

But it won't come from destabilising one-sided addressing of what happened.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The IRA had support from the community?

Well, if you are again gonna ignore the ACTUAL reality, then I have no interest in pursuing the intellectual or constitutional niceties/subtleties with you.
I lived in and continue to live in, harsh reality with my feet firmly on the ground and my eyes and ears open.
The IRA had support, a lot of it. Quite a few of their former members are now in government in NI and politically active and elected in the south.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then they were 'involved'. It's not that hard to accept what I am saying. Really.

The Heavy Gang gathered intelligence too, quite a bit of it. And their methods were draconian.
But comparisons to other forces are valid too.

And I am not 'obsessed' with them, in my opinion they contributed to a large degree to the environment where 'shots were fired in anger' and situations got out of hand. Reactionary violence was always going to happen.
Similarly the behaviour and methods of officers in prisons and the alleged negligence of the minister for Justice (that were criticised by prison officers, see earlier link) led to reactionary violence.

At the risk of starting howls of derision I would contend that it is amazing that there were not more casualties among the Irish security forces and if anything, it shows, a large degree of restraint among republican activists.

Take that any way you want, it is not intended to defend any action against the Irish security forces, it's just a realistic opinion and an attempt to understand what happened.

By your standards then, AGS should be legitimate targets for organised criminal gangs also.