Opinions on Irish identity

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Terrible comparison.

For a start the soldiers of WWI were mostly conscripted.

Joining the IRA was always optional!

The Irish soldiers who went voluntarily then?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish soldiers who went voluntarily then?

Their country was legally at war with another. The IRA was and is a proscribed organisation on both sides of the Irish border. The people who joined this illegal organisation bear sole responsibility for any murders they committed.

That you're trying to shift the blame for the likes of the Warrington bombings from the utter scum who set the bombs on a bloody high street over to the British government is despicable in my eyes. The British state did commit crimes during the troubles and for these crimes they bear responsibility.

If you truly believe this sort of stuff then you must accept radical Islamists similar claims that murders they commit are the fault of western governments and not the actual perpetrators. Is that how you feel?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Their country was legally at war with another. The IRA was and is a proscribed organisation on both sides of the Irish border. The people who joined this illegal organisation bear sole responsibility for any murders they committed.

That you're trying to shift the blame for the likes of the Warrington bombings from the utter scum who set the bombs on a bloody high street over to the British government is despicable in my eyes. The British state did commit crimes during the troubles and for these crimes they bear responsibility.

If you truly believe this sort of stuff then you must accept radical Islamists similar claims that murders they commit are the fault of western governments and not the actual perpetrators. Is that how you feel?

What I said was, the British government allowed the circumstances to develop that saw NI society implode before the IRA got involved. For that they are ultimately the responsible power.
Instead of doing then what they eventually did-deliver on equal rights and demolishing the sectarian state-they underwrote and supported it. Tragic and imo criminal neglect of their responsibilities.
They are still doing it. 20 yrs of the GFA going down the pan because they will not force the DUP to deliver what they agreed to at St. Andrews.
All the other players bear their own responsibilities but none had the power that the British government had and has.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Their country was legally at war with another. The IRA was and is a proscribed organisation on both sides of the Irish border. The people who joined this illegal organisation bear sole responsibility for any murders they committed.

That you're trying to shift the blame for the likes of the Warrington bombings from the utter scum who set the bombs on a bloody high street over to the British government is despicable in my eyes. The British state did commit crimes during the troubles and for these crimes they bear responsibility.

If you truly believe this sort of stuff then you must accept radical Islamists similar claims that murders they commit are the fault of western governments and not the actual perpetrators. Is that how you feel?

I must say I think Governments have a high level of responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens. The British Gov. failed miserably in NI. Initially, the British Army were sent into Derry to protect the catholics and ended up shooting them in a peaceful protest. When the State fails to protect its own citizens they should not be surprised if those citizens take up arms.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What I said was, the British government allowed the circumstances to develop that saw NI society implode before the IRA got involved. For that they are ultimately the responsible power.
Instead of doing then what they eventually did-deliver on equal rights and demolishing the sectarian state-they underwrote and supported it. Tragic and imo criminal neglect of their responsibilities.
They are still doing it. 20 yrs of the GFA going down the pan because they will not force the DUP to deliver what they agreed to at St. Andrews.
All the other players bear their own responsibilities but none had the power that the British government had and has.

Going back to your earlier WWI analogy, your logic suggests that Hitler is completely innocent and that all of the blame for his acts lie with the countries that signed the Versailles Treaty as they created the circumstances that allowed for his rise to power. It is a preposterous argument that you are making, trying to excuse those who committed unforgiveable atrocities.

You are not alone in this, there are many out there who make similar excuses for "good" republicans. At the end of the day, people like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris etc. voluntarily joined the IRA and committed illegal atrocities. Nobody made them do it.

The WW1 example is also another red herring. If you go back to an earlier post of mine in this discussion I said:

"Doesn't take away from the truth, lines on maps, partitions, flags, languages, none of them cause violence, people do. Each and every person who committed an illegal act of violence is to blame for the conflict."

WW1 was a legal war, correct under international law. The criminal terrorist acts in Northern Ireland were not legal. Some of the actions of the security forces were not legal as we have seen from enquiries, but the majority of actions taken by the security forces in Northern Ireland during that time were legal.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Going back to your earlier WWI analogy, your logic suggests that Hitler is completely innocent and that all of the blame for his acts lie with the countries that signed the Versailles Treaty as they created the circumstances that allowed for his rise to power. It is a preposterous argument that you are making, trying to excuse those who committed unforgiveable atrocities.

You are not alone in this, there are many out there who make similar excuses for "good" republicans. At the end of the day, people like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris etc. voluntarily joined the IRA and committed illegal atrocities. Nobody made them do it.

The WW1 example is also another red herring. If you go back to an earlier post of mine in this discussion I said:

"Doesn't take away from the truth, lines on maps, partitions, flags, languages, none of them cause violence, people do. Each and every person who committed an illegal act of violence is to blame for the conflict."

WW1 was a legal war, correct under international law. The criminal terrorist acts in Northern Ireland were not legal. Some of the actions of the security forces were not legal as we have seen from enquiries, but the majority of actions taken by the security forces in Northern Ireland during that time were legal.

And who was responsible for allowing the set of circumstances to develop that saw society combust?

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

WW1 was a legal war, correct under international law. The criminal terrorist acts in Northern Ireland were not legal. Some of the actions of the security forces were not legal as we have seen from enquiries, but the majority of actions taken by the security forces in Northern Ireland during that time were legal.

So you're okay with atrocities once they're legal?

blanch152

Bambi wrote: »

So you're okay with atrocities once they're legal?

If they are atrocities, they are not legal, and international law has changed and evolved in the last century - human rights legislation, international criminal courts etc.

However, a poster was making a spurious point about WW1, which was conducted in a very different international and domestic legal framework. Much of what happened in WW1 would be considered unacceptable by today's standards which makes a comparison between Northern Ireland and WW1 superficial and a bit silly.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And who was responsible for allowing the set of circumstances to develop that saw society combust?

I addressed that issue in my post.

blanch152 wrote: »

Going back to your earlier WWI analogy, your logic suggests that Hitler is completely innocent and that all of the blame for his acts lie with the countries that signed the Versailles Treaty as they created the circumstances that allowed for his rise to power. It is a preposterous argument that you are making, trying to excuse those who committed unforgiveable atrocities.

You are not alone in this, there are many out there who make similar excuses for "good" republicans. At the end of the day, people like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris etc. voluntarily joined the IRA and committed illegal atrocities. Nobody made them do it.

The WW1 example is also another red herring. If you go back to an earlier post of mine in this discussion I said:

"Doesn't take away from the truth, lines on maps, partitions, flags, languages, none of them cause violence, people do. Each and every person who committed an illegal act of violence is to blame for the conflict."

WW1 was a legal war, correct under international law. The criminal terrorist acts in Northern Ireland were not legal. Some of the actions of the security forces were not legal as we have seen from enquiries, but the majority of actions taken by the security forces in Northern Ireland during that time were legal.

Your logic suggests that Hitler is completely innocent and that all of the blame for his acts lie with the countries that signed the Versailles Treaty as they created the circumstances that allowed for his rise to power.

That is clearly a preposterous notion, and your attempt to excuse the criminal thuggish behaviour of the IRA is similarly preposterous.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

That's a very fair point firstly.
As regards SF, I can wholly sympathise with their northern Irish support and indeed with any nationalist supporters in the north given the historic repression suffered there.
But realistically as a governing prospect for an independent nation their overall economic policies would be devastating to a country trying to build itself up.
No argument from me towards your view of the DUP either.
Living in the Republic though, I see any chance of a strengthening of SF's position as a big concern economically.
I would be happy as Larry with a united Ireland, but not with SF as is in power here.

Ireland isn't the big experiment. We are where we are. We like cycles of boom and bust. The trick is make as much as you can while in government then pass the buck when it begins to fall down around you. Ireland reached where it wanted to be decades ago. There's no plans to change the economic model. Sure tis grand

murphaph wrote: »

Their country was legally at war with another. The IRA was and is a proscribed organisation on both sides of the Irish border. The people who joined this illegal organisation bear sole responsibility for any murders they committed.

That you're trying to shift the blame for the likes of the Warrington bombings from the utter scum who set the bombs on a bloody high street over to the British government is despicable in my eyes. The British state did commit crimes during the troubles and for these crimes they bear responsibility.

If you truly believe this sort of stuff then you must accept radical Islamists similar claims that murders they commit are the fault of western governments and not the actual perpetrators. Is that how you feel?

Says who, the people who decided to fight it? Just because some government puts a stamp on atrocities, might make it legal in their own books, but it's apples and oranges. They've shown they are fine with breaching human rights and war crimes. One is only more morally legitimate than the other depending on your view.

We can't talk present day politics and then selectively throw in incidents from 30 or 40 years ago. Historically, this all kicked off with invasion, followed by a land grab by Scots who sold out their own for land from the English. We've seen atrocities perpetrated against the indigenous people. Roll on to the late last century, we've reactionary violence and thankfully a peaceful recognition, in some small way of all sides. If you want to harp on about the IRA, do it in the context of the whole situation. It's not Kate and Wills on the cover of Hello Vs. the 'RA of the 1970's.

As regards radical Islamists, they've more in common with the U.S. and Britian than the IRA. One claims to push religion, the other claims to push democracy, I would suggest both have more to do with monetary greed. However, ISIS etc. were certainly spurred on by the advances of the west.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

I must say I think Governments have a high level of responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens. The British Gov. failed miserably in NI. Initially, the British Army were sent into Derry to protect the catholics and ended up shooting them in a peaceful protest. When the State fails to protect its own citizens they should not be surprised if those citizens take up arms.

Against kids in Warrington etc? Bloody Sunday was criminal. It does not excuse a bomb in a bin on a British high Street 30 years later no matter what you think.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Against kids in Warrington etc? Bloody Sunday was criminal. It does not excuse a bomb in a bin on a British high Street 30 years later no matter what you think.

Who is excusing it?

The British and Irish governments created the circumstances for peace, which was fairly simple stuff and what people were looking for in 69.
It is logical therefore to ask who was responsible for those rights not being available in 69?

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Against kids in Warrington etc? Bloody Sunday was criminal. It does not excuse a bomb in a bin on a British high Street 30 years later no matter what you think.

At least the IRA gave a warning for the Warrington bomb, unlike the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in which 34 people were killed and from all reports these bombings were committed with the assistance of British security services. Of course we can't prove it as the British Gov. will not release documents that will prove their collusion.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

Against kids in Warrington etc? Bloody Sunday was criminal. It does not excuse a bomb in a bin on a British high Street 30 years later no matter what you think.

Exactly. Neither are events to be proud of. They don't cancel each other out, but each party is responsible for their actions. Picking one and side stepping the other is showing a bias.

All goes to show, talk of moving on and Irish identity is a waste of time when people will heavily look to one side over another and politicians of the caliber of O'Dea use the time for scoring political points.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

At least the IRA gave a warning for the Warrington bomb, unlike the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in which 34 people were killed and from all reports these bombings were committed with the assistance of British security services. Of course we can't prove it as the British Gov. will not release documents that will prove their collusion.

Oh I forgot about the warning. Ah well that's ok then.

Edward M

I think we are playing the blame game,or at least they were worse than those. Until that stops I don't see how progress can be achieved.
Many acts of violence in history have been regarded as illegal but in the fullness of time been celebrated as great actions, many such battle celebrations take place in our republic, as well as celebrating hero's who at the height of their fame were viewed as criminals and traitors.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is excusing it?

The British and Irish governments created the circumstances for peace, which was fairly simple stuff and what people were looking for in 69.
It is logical therefore to ask who was responsible for those rights not being available in 69?

Those who say it is about the circumstances. It simply isn't.

Those who choose to commit criminal terrorist acts choose to do so, they aren't guided by some invisible moral obligation.

At the end of the day, each and every terrorist act required someone to commit it as did each and every illegal act by the security forces.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Says who, the people who decided to fight it? Just because some government puts a stamp on atrocities, might make it legal in their own books, but it's apples and oranges. They've shown they are fine with breaching human rights and war crimes. One is only more morally legitimate than the other depending on your view.

This part of your post is inherently self-contradicting. You say on the one hand that a government can make it legal in their own books but then it is also a war crime.

The simple point of the matter is that there are international laws governing war between two States - Geneva Convention etc. - and there are statutes of the International Criminal Court as well. Further to that, there are international human rights legislation that most states have signed up to. Therefore, no State can make anything legal in their own books, they are subject to international law.

Here are some facts.

There is no doubt that there were a number of acts committed by British security forces in Northern Ireland that were illegal, and there should be prosecutions for those. How far up the chain of responsibility that goes is unclear but there is nothing I have seen that would appear to make a Prime Minister guilty of illegal acts under international or human rights law. It must also be said however, that the vast majority of British security operations in Northern Ireland were legal.

On the other hand, there may well be a tiny number of IRA actions that were justified or legal (possibly some of the earliest ones) but the vast vast majority of what the IRA did was neither legal nor justified, and as we have seen from the countless stories of kneecapping, punishment beatings and child sexual abuse, there were inexcusable breaches of civilian human rights.

Those are the simple facts under law.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Oh I forgot about the warning. Ah well that's ok then.

Well, its a damn side better than what happened in Dublin & Monaghan where 34 people were killed (including a pregnant woman).

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who say it is about the circumstances. It simply isn't.

Those who choose to commit criminal terrorist acts choose to do so, they aren't guided by some invisible moral obligation.

At the end of the day, each and every terrorist act required someone to commit it as did each and every illegal act by the security forces.

And they all took place because a set of circumstances that should not have developed were allowed to.

They don't happen in a vacumn, they happen because those responsible for the creation of a fair and equal society fail, either by incompetence or because they are underwriting a bigoted sectarian statelet.

Nobody is saying it was not partly the nationalists fault by the way.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This part of your post is inherently self-contradicting. You say on the one hand that a government can make it legal in their own books but then it is also a war crime.

Not at all. We see both all the time. The invasion of Iraq for example. A legal war, based on lies, coupled with war crimes. The point is;

blanch152 wrote: »

Those who say it is about the circumstances. It simply isn't.

Those who choose to commit criminal terrorist acts choose to do so, they aren't guided by some invisible moral obligation.

At the end of the day, each and every terrorist act required someone to commit it as did each and every illegal act by the security forces.

What is a terrorist, what is a criminal? Who decides? When you are fighting against a state, what that state decides to call you is inherently biased. We all have our own opinions of course, but it cannot be said one "illegal" act is more illegal than another depending on the politics and who carries it out.
I would suggest, 'we were only following orders' is a poor defense. Sending millions to their death for profit under the guise of democracy is a criminal act in my view, how ever legal.

blanch152 wrote: »

The simple point of the matter is that there are international laws governing war between two States - Geneva Convention etc. - and there are statutes of the International Criminal Court as well. Further to that, there are international human rights legislation that most states have signed up to. Therefore, no State can make anything legal in their own books, they are subject to international law.

Yes they are generally accepted and contravened by the likes of the U.S., Britain and Russia along with less popular states and groups.

blanch152 wrote: »

Here are some facts.

There is no doubt that there were a number of acts committed by British security forces in Northern Ireland that were illegal, and there should be prosecutions for those. How far up the chain of responsibility that goes is unclear but there is nothing I have seen that would appear to make a Prime Minister guilty of illegal acts under international or human rights law. It must also be said however, that the vast majority of British security operations in Northern Ireland were legal.

On the other hand, there may well be a tiny number of IRA actions that were justified or legal (possibly some of the earliest ones) but the vast vast majority of what the IRA did was neither legal nor justified, and as we have seen from the countless stories of kneecapping, punishment beatings and child sexual abuse, there were inexcusable breaches of civilian human rights.

Those are the simple facts under law.

I disagree. That simplistic view has us forever stuck in the past. You're basically trying to say one is worse than the other, in your view, therefore one holds the higher moral ground.
So if a British soldier carries out a 'crime' while on duty, the buck stops with him, but if an IRA member commits a 'crime' it's on the entire organisation?

Third of British people want to see Tony Blair tried as a war criminal over Iraq, finds YouGov poll
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tony-blair-war-criminal-iraq-trial-convicted-yougov-british-people-uk-prme-minister-wmds-dossier-a7870341.html

Exclusive: Devastating dossier on 'abuse' by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-devastating-dossier-on-abuse-by-uk-forces-in-iraq-goes-to-international-criminal-court-9053735.html

If there are countless stories of kneecapping, punishment beatings and child sexual abuse, inexcusable breaches of civilian human rights by the 'legal' British forces, during, what I expect you refer to wryly as 'security operations', that has no bearing on similar alleged actions by the UVF, IRA, shankill butchers etc. It may justify a personal opinion, but it won't allow people move on until all the laundry is accepted and aired.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not at all. We see both all the time. The invasion of Iraq for example. A legal war, based on lies, coupled with war crimes. The point is;



What is a terrorist, what is a criminal? Who decides? When you are fighting against a state, what that state decides to call you is inherently biased. We all have our own opinions of course, but it cannot be said one "illegal" act is more illegal than another depending on the politics and who carries it out.
I would suggest, 'we were only following orders' is a poor defense. Sending millions to their death for profit under the guise of democracy is a criminal act in my view, how ever legal.



Yes they are generally accepted and contravened by the likes of the U.S., Britain and Russia along with less popular states and groups.



I disagree. That simplistic view has us forever stuck in the past. You're basically trying to say one is worse than the other, in your view, therefore one holds the higher moral ground.
So if a British soldier carries out a 'crime' while on duty, the buck stops with him, but if an IRA member commits a 'crime' it's on the entire organisation?



If there are countless stories of kneecapping, punishment beatings and child sexual abuse, inexcusable breaches of civilian human rights by the 'legal' British forces, during, what I expect you refer to wryly as 'security operations', that has no bearing on similar alleged actions by the UVF, IRA, shankill butchers etc. It may justify a personal opinion, but it won't allow people move on until all the laundry is accepted and aired.

This government lied again and again about the depth of it's involvement in the conflict/war.
They lied and covered up Bloody Sunday, and in crimes of collusion. They refuse to release information about their alleged involvment in Dublin/Monaghan bombings. And there are plenty of other families and groups looking for answers. They have cases pending against them too where it is claimed they lied and covered up at the ECHR.

Claiming the high moral ground for them or diluting their responsibility is a bit obscene tbh.

They were the 'responsible' government and already there is enough proved to show they were far from it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This government lied again and again about the depth of it's involvement in the conflict/war.
They lied and covered up Bloody Sunday, and in crimes of collusion. They refuse to release information about their alleged involvment in Dublin/Monaghan bombings. And there are plenty of other families and groups looking for answers. They have cases pending against them too where it is claimed they lied and covered up at the ECHR.

Claiming the high moral ground for them or diluting their responsibility is a bit obscene tbh.

They were the 'responsible' government and already there is enough proved to show they were far from it.

Nobody is claiming high moral ground for anyone in this conflict. It is actually quite sickening to see the "it was the circumstances that made them do it" excuses being trotted out for the IRA time and again.

Bloody Sunday was wrong, the collusion by the security forces was wrong, nobody has disputed a single bit of that. Trying to create strawmen doesn't do the debate any good.

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

If they are atrocities, they are not legal, and international law has changed and evolved in the last century - human rights legislation, international criminal courts etc.

However, a poster was making a spurious point about WW1, which was conducted in a very different international and domestic legal framework. Much of what happened in WW1 would be considered unacceptable by today's standards which makes a comparison between Northern Ireland and WW1 superficial and a bit silly.

The massacres in Ballymurphy and Derry were legal, so you're okay with them

We've seen time and time again that state actors can commit atrocities that are legal as they are the ones who apply the law. Your argument has no real moral standing, it's more a convenience.

blanch152

Bambi wrote: »

The massacres in Ballymurphy and Derry were legal, so you're okay with them

We've seen time and time again that state actors can commit atrocities that are legal as they are the ones who apply the law. Your argument has no real moral standing, it's more a convenience.

Wait a minute, let us leave Ballymurphy to one side because the inquiry hasn't happened yet.

However, Bloody Sunday is clear.

Saville Report concluded that the killings were both "unjustified" and "unjustifiable". It found that all of those shot were unarmed, that none were posing a serious threat, that no bombs were thrown, and that soldiers "knowingly put forward false accounts" to justify their firing. So how was Bloody Sunday legal?

Here is what Cameron said:

"Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."

I really cannot believe that there are people still putting out the lie that the British government haven't faced up to Bloody Sunday.

So how can you say that I or anyone else is claiming that Bloody Sunday was legal? Just another attempt to distract and deflect.

munsterlegend

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming high moral ground for anyone in this conflict. It is actually quite sickening to see the "it was the circumstances that made them do it" excuses being trotted out for the IRA time and again.

Bloody Sunday was wrong, the collusion by the security forces was wrong, nobody has disputed a single bit of that. Trying to create strawmen doesn't do the debate any good.

Northern Ireland under the British watch became a basket case. All parties must share their responsibility but there is a greater onus on a government to treat their citizens equally. This did not happen and created an environment where violence flourished. In any country if one community is treated more favourably you are sowing the seeds of unrest.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute, let us leave Ballymurphy to one side because the inquiry hasn't happened yet.

However, Bloody Sunday is clear.

Saville Report concluded that the killings were both "unjustified" and "unjustifiable". It found that all of those shot were unarmed, that none were posing a serious threat, that no bombs were thrown, and that soldiers "knowingly put forward false accounts" to justify their firing. So how was Bloody Sunday legal?

Here is what Cameron said:

"Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."

I really cannot believe that there are people still putting out the lie that the British government haven't faced up to Bloody Sunday.

So how can you say that I or anyone else is claiming that Bloody Sunday was legal? Just another attempt to distract and deflect.

You cannot pick and choose. If the British carry out murders, legally, while carrying out 'security operations' and thirty-five years later, grudgingly put their hands up, after decades of being asked to do so, it cannot be written off as an illegal act, like they put their hands up and it was accepted as such the morning after the event and then use it as spin to defend their record, which is what you are doing, however aware of that you may or may not be.
Again, we're back to selling one as worse than the other based on legal killings over illegal killings, when the term suits and enough time has passed.
I'm not so sure if the IRA came out and said 'sorry' all would be right with the world and put to the side.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You cannot pick and choose. If the British carry out murders, legally, while carrying out 'security operations' and thirty-five years later, grudgingly put their hands up, after decades of being asked to do so, it cannot be written off as an illegal act, like they put their hands up and it was accepted as such the morning after the event and then use it as spin to defend their record, which is what you are doing, however aware of that you may or may not be.
Again, we're back to selling one as worse than the other based on legal killings over illegal killings, when the term suits and enough time has passed.
I'm not so sure if the IRA came out and said 'sorry' all would be right with the world and put to the side.

There is a clear distinction.

All of the operations by the IRA were criminal acts.

A minority of the operations by the security forces were criminal acts.

As for the doublespeak, how many times (e.g. Garda McCabe) do we see the IRA deny responsibility for their members' actions?

I am not defending what the British did wrong in the North, I am just pointing out the actual facts of the situation under law.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a clear distinction.

All of the operations by the IRA were criminal acts.

A minority of the operations by the security forces were criminal acts.

As for the doublespeak, how many times (e.g. Garda McCabe) do we see the IRA deny responsibility for their members' actions?

I am not defending what the British did wrong in the North, I am just pointing out the actual facts of the situation under law.

Surly the fact the British were writing the laws in the north is a very soft foundation to build your point on?? :pac:


Its like the young lad from wales up the ball one day playing football and ran with it to invent rugby...obviously againest the rules....but do anyone think inventing rugby was wrong????


Or for a more contemporary setting...like catalonia holding a independence referendum...which is illegal under Spain constitution. ...If majority in catalonia want independance....is it right that theyve to play to Spain rules which forbid it?

FrancieBrady

There is most definitely an Irish identity that will attempt to make what happened here the fault of one set of people.

It will refuse point blank to accept that it's governments that take the ultimate responsibility for the state of their societies and the northern Ireland society of 1969 had been in a failed state for decades.
It was a sectarian bigoted fiefdom, supported by Britain.

Nobody is making excuses for any group of players but this identity will see any blame apportioned to Britain, Unionism or the Irish government as an attempt to diminish what the IRA did.

It is the identity I suspect of Conor Cruise O'Brien, John Bruton etc and thankfully it is rare.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is most definitely an Irish identity that will attempt to make what happened here the fault of one set of people.

It will refuse point blank to accept that it's governments that take the ultimate responsibility for the state of their societies and the northern Ireland society of 1969 had been in a failed state for decades.
It was a sectarian bigoted fiefdom, supported by Britain.

Nobody is making excuses for any group of players but this identity will see any blame apportioned to Britain, Unionism or the Irish government as an attempt to diminish what the IRA did.

It is the identity I suspect of Conor Cruise O'Brien, John Bruton etc and thankfully it is rare.

Governments don't frame societies, people do.

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly the fact the British were writing the laws in the north is a very soft foundation to build your point on?? :pac:


Its like the young lad from wales up the ball one day playing football and ran with it to invent rugby...obviously againest the rules....but do anyone think inventing rugby was wrong????


Or for a more contemporary setting...like catalonia holding a independence referendum...which is illegal under Spain constitution. ...If majority in catalonia want independance....is it right that theyve to play to Spain rules which forbid it?

Except that the British weren't. Sure they bear some responsibility for the way they allowed Northern Ireland to develop over its first 50 years. However, with the imposition of direct rule, the aims and objectives of the civil rights movement were quickly met.

It is the people of Northern Ireland, firstly the unionists who created the discrimination, and latterly, the nationalists who committed unforgiveable terrorist atrocities who are to blame. Blaming the British is the cheap, easy way out.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a clear distinction.

All of the operations by the IRA were criminal acts.

A minority of the operations by the security forces were criminal acts.

As for the doublespeak, how many times (e.g. Garda McCabe) do we see the IRA deny responsibility for their members' actions?

I am not defending what the British did wrong in the North, I am just pointing out the actual facts of the situation under law.

You are, but we have to look at the bigger picture when one side considers it was at war and the other 'legal' side sets it's own rules, signs up to rules of other bodies and will break said rules when convenient. I'm trying hard to avoid getting into an IRA verses Brits measuring contest.
The point is you can stand behind the British 'acts' being legal but the fact that you accept, now, since Cameron's admission, that they carried out illegal criminal acts only proves you reserve judgment on the British, until they decide what side of their own law they fall on. It's a bit ridiculous to be fair. If you were an IRA supporter, you could make the same argument, for example, any act of war, was an atrocity, should they decide to apologise down the road.
While some carry that view, from either side, there will never be a North 'moved on' in any sense.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the people of Northern Ireland, firstly the unionists who created the discrimination, and latterly, the nationalists who committed unforgiveable terrorist atrocities who are to blame. Blaming the British is the cheap, easy way out.

So your saying unionists weren't British??

Werent backed to the hilt by the British?

The British instragence didn't prolong the troubles?

Even at the ira ceasefires,they didn't drag feet in face of facing down unionists?

At Drumcree they didn't batten charge Catholics off the streets to push through bigot parades??



Somehow this is all the fault of Irish nationlists??
Are you for real?



All this without mentioning individual incidents or collusion?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that the British weren't. Sure they bear some responsibility for the way they allowed Northern Ireland to develop over its first 50 years. However, with the imposition of direct rule, the aims and objectives of the civil rights movement were quickly met.

It is the people of Northern Ireland, firstly the unionists who created the discrimination, and latterly, the nationalists who committed unforgiveable terrorist atrocities who are to blame. Blaming the British is the cheap, easy way out.

So the Unionists created discrimination, but the nationalists committed unforgivable terrorist atrocities? And with people like your good self holding such a biased pro-British view, you look to blaming Sinn Fein for holding the north back from moving on?

If you as a foreign power, exert your will, through faux democracy and criminal activity, on a native population, chances are you'll get a negative reaction.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Governments don't frame societies, people do.

Governments create the framework in which societies function.

The British Giovernment allowed decades of sectarian bigoted government to thrive in northern Ireland and then when the lid came off (as it was inevitably going to do) they tried to sustain that state and further supress.

That is the factual history, you cannot re-write that and remain credible.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

However, with the imposition of direct rule, the aims and objectives of the civil rights movement were quickly met.

May as well keep fooling yourself because you're fooling nobody else.

Earlier this year [2017], a judge ruled that the PSNI had breached the human rights of the victims' families and it had frustrated "any possibility of an effective investigation".

bbc.com/news

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are, but we have to look at the bigger picture when one side considers it was at war and the other 'legal' side sets it's own rules, signs up to rules of other bodies and will break said rules when convenient. I'm trying hard to avoid getting into an IRA verses Brits measuring contest.
The point is you can stand behind the British 'acts' being legal but the fact that you accept, now, since Cameron's admission, that they carried out illegal criminal acts only proves you reserve judgment on the British, until they decide what side of their own law they fall on. It's a bit ridiculous to be fair. If you were an IRA supporter, you could make the same argument, for example, any act of war, was an atrocity, should they decide to apologise down the road.
While some carry that view, from either side, there will never be a North 'moved on' in any sense.

No, you are wrong there. I have never said that everything the British did was legal, I said that the majority of security force actions were legal. On the other hand, everything the IRA did was illegal.

Those are facts.

Now, you counter by the British having set the rules etc. Again, the fact is whether you judge the British by international law or British law, most of what the security forces did was legal.

If you believe that an undemocratic terrorist group are allowed set rules of conflict, then the world is a strange place.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

May as well keep fooling yourself because you're fooling nobody else.

Earlier this year [2017], a judge ruled that the PSNI had breached the human rights of the victims' families and it had frustrated "any possibility of an effective investigation".

bbc.com/news

Well the Gardai have breached peoples' human rights this year, so have the French Gendarme, the FBI, and every other police force. There is no police force or security force that has 100% of the time protected every single human right.

But, as I keep being told, the bad British men made the IRA do it. Not their fault, the poor innocent heroes, they had no choice other than to kill and bomb and knee-cap and sexually abuse.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you are wrong there. I have never said that everything the British did was legal, I said that the majority of security force actions were legal. On the other hand, everything the IRA did was illegal.

Those are facts.

Now, you counter by the British having set the rules etc. Again, the fact is whether you judge the British by international law or British law, most of what the security forces did was legal.

If you believe that an undemocratic terrorist group are allowed set rules of conflict, then the world is a strange place.

The IRA were a part of the conflict, it wasn't The IRA v everyone else.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Well the Gardai have breached peoples' human rights this year, so have the French Gendarme, the FBI, and every other police force. There is no police force or security force that has 100% of the time protected every single human right.

But, as I keep being told, the bad British men made the IRA do it. Not their fault, the poor innocent heroes, they had no choice other than to kill and bomb and knee-cap and sexually abuse.

Tbf If the British weren't there the ira wouldn't be fighting to free the country??


Using sexual abuse as a way of making a political point is very unbecoming and a poor debating tactic

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf I'd the British weren't there the ira wouldn't be fighting to free the country??


Using sexual abuse as a way of making a political point is very unbecoming and a poor debating tactic

I won't apologise for referring to sexual abuse. The IRA attracted pedophiles who operated safely within its power structures. The likes of Liam Adams and the abusers of Mairia Cahill were protected by the IRA. Second only to the killing of women and children, the sexual abuse by the IRA was most unforgiveable.

I apologise if you are offended by the reference, but that's what happened.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

May as well keep fooling yourself because you're fooling nobody else.

Earlier this year [2017], a judge ruled that the PSNI had breached the human rights of the victims' families and it had frustrated "any possibility of an effective investigation".

bbc.com/news

I'd take the PSNI over the Garda anyday. PSNI are probably the most regulated police force in the world. It's a loooong way from the RUC.

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf If the British weren't there the ira wouldn't be fighting to free the country??


Using sexual abuse as a way of making a political point is very unbecoming and a poor debating tactic

Obscene use of victims again. Long live Enda.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

I won't apologise for referring to sexual abuse. The IRA attracted pedophiles who operated safely within its power structures. The likes of Liam Adams and the abusers of Mairia Cahill were protected by the IRA. Second only to the killing of women and children, the sexual abuse by the IRA was most unforgiveable.

I apologise if you are offended by the reference, but that's what happened.

GtPM

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

GtPM

My teeth are fine, thank you very much, I have no need for Gore-Tex Periodontal Material.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Well the Gardai have breached peoples' human rights this year, so have the French Gendarme, the FBI, and every other police force. There is no police force or security force that has 100% of the time protected every single human right.

Whataboutery and it's not even a very good example because the Gardai and Irish state aren't trying to frustrate investigation into a campaign of mass-murder carried out with their assistance.

When the RUC started beating people to death, Catholics/Nationalists being imprisoned without trial, the BA massacring civil rights protesters, well, then the state loses its right to a monopoly on force.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Whataboutery and it's not even a very good example because the Gardai and Irish state aren't trying to frustrate investigation into a campaign of mass-murder carried out with their assistance.

When the RUC started beating people to death, Catholics/Nationalists being imprisoned without trial, the BA massacring civil rights protesters, well, then the state loses its right to a monopoly on force.

There is a very fevered attempt not to allow the catalogue of biased actions right the way through the conflict and before it, to be reviewed as a whole.
Because it shows abject irresponsibility and bias on behalf of britain, who thought they could forcibly keep the status quo. The status quo being a biased, sectarian bigoted statlet.

They were very much players in the conflict and as 'the government' bear the most responsibility.
That, again, does not remove or lessen the responsibility on other players.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Whataboutery and it's not even a very good example because the Gardai and Irish state aren't trying to frustrate investigation into a campaign of mass-murder carried out with their assistance.

When the RUC started beating people to death, Catholics/Nationalists being imprisoned without trial, the BA massacring civil rights protesters, well, then the state loses its right to a monopoly on force.

We know the state commited crimes (whether they went punished or not) especially before direct rule but you can't blame Bloody Sunday for 2 bombs placed in cast iron litter bins on an English high Street a little over two decades later.

By the way to the poster that claimed a warning was given...the Samaritans in Liverpool received a warning 30 minutes before detonation that a bomb was outside Boots. No mention of what town. Completely useless so not a warning at all. There were actually 2 bombs which exploded one after the other. After the first one crowds ran towards the second one.

They were and remain the scum of the earth.

May their victims (especially the many children) rest in peace.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

We know the state commited crimes (whether they went punished or not) especially before direct rule but you can't blame Bloody Sunday for 2 bombs placed in cast iron litter bins on an English high Street a little over two decades later.

By the way to the poster that claimed a warning was given...the Samaritans in Liverpool received a warning 30 minutes before detonation that a bomb was outside Boots. No mention of what town. Completely useless so not a warning at all. There were actually 2 bombs which exploded one after the other. After the first one crowds ran towards the second one.

They were and remain the scum of the earth.

May their victims (especially the many children) rest in peace.

Remember, it took an awful lot of complicity for Britain's establishment to create Widgery's whitewash. A concerted effort to take a side by a government that was supposed to be creating a fair and equal society.
There are many examples of this.

Were and are the British 'the scum of the earth' for Bloody Sunday and the 40 year cover-up?

Nobody is directly blaming the British for what the IRA did.
The conflict was about more than the IRA. They were just one of the symntoms of society falling apart.
Who was ultimately responsible for society falling apart?