How long before Irish reunification?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

maybe people should not take CAIN as the factual document they would like you to believe it is.

You don't get to rewrite history because it inconveniences the version of it you have in your head.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

You know you shouldn’t doubt me. I am a great believer in sticking to facts. And when you don’t have proof you should state that’s it’s just your belief.

Anyhow I think you will find Billy here , second from bottom - and proud his son should be. I’ll look forward to your acknowledgment. Thanks in advance.
And going forward maybe people should not take CAIN as the factual document they would like you to believe it is.
http://www.policerollofhonour.org.uk/forces/n_ireland/usc/usc_roll.htm

You are a lot of things. A fan of alternative facts chief among them

RobMc59

10-15 years

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We're only interested in the British fascination with holding part of our province hostage.
I'd suggest English people might feel more at ease in the Republic away from all the triumphalism over a centuries old battle, (against an English king) and bowler hats.

Matt,I see things from a British view and discussions here can sometimes get heated but I think Ireland is a wonderful place and enjoy time I spend there-I even enjoy exchanges of opinion with you, though you`re sometimes misguided!:)

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

Matt,I see things from a British view and discussions here can sometimes get heated but I think Ireland is a wonderful place and enjoy time I spend there-I even enjoy exchanges of opinion with you, though you`re sometimes misguided!:)

Lads.

We’re so misguided.

Our friend rob is here to help us and save us.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You don't get to rewrite history because it inconveniences the version of it you have in your head.

Is that the best you can do after I produce all the evidence requested to prove cain was wrong in the cases I highlighted. Which were the only cases I checked just because I knew them intimately

downcow

downcow wrote: »

You know you shouldn’t doubt me. I am a great believer in sticking to facts. And when you don’t have proof you should state that’s it’s just your belief.

Anyhow I think you will find Billy here , second from bottom - and proud his son should be. I’ll look forward to your acknowledgment. Thanks in advance.
And going forward maybe people should not take CAIN as the factual document they would like you to believe it is.
http://www.policerollofhonour.org.uk/forces/n_ireland/usc/usc_roll.htm

Fionn 1952. Any comment??

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

Fionn 1952. Any comment??

Here’s one. You got your arse handed to you. Switch accounts for a day or two.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'll take his son's word over yours, thanks.

You know you shouldn’t doubt me. I am a great believer in sticking to facts. And when you don’t have proof you should state that’s it’s just your belief.

Anyhow I think you will find Billy here , second from bottom - and proud his son should be. I’ll look forward to your acknowledgment. Thanks in advance.
And going forward maybe people should not take CAIN as the factual document they would like you to believe it is.
http://www.policerollofhonour.org.uk/forces/n_ireland/usc/usc_roll.htm

So 20 years previously he was a B-Special?

Aye, I'd be pretty happy classifying him as a civilian. As would his son it seems.

Just you and your weird issue with an internationally respected database.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

Ah ha! He was wearing a turquoise jumper, not a blue one, the entire database is wrong!

Talk about clutching at straws.

janfebmar

downcow wrote: »

You only needed to ask.
this is cumbersome to prove but here goes.

So my neighbour Paul Magorrian was shotby the army while wearing a balaclava as he took aim at the RUC as they left his neigbourhood after searches. little did he know that the army were watching him watching them and shot him dead. Now you need evidence:
Cain says "shot while walking through St Malachy's Estate, Castlewellan, Down.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057975134&page=262
The IRA say "Vol Paul Magorrian Castlewellan, killed on active service 14th August 1974" https://republican-news.org/archive/1998/August27/27ndil.html

Reports said he was carrying a sniper rifle, and the ira fired shots at his funeral, so I wonder why Cain put him as a civilian?

downcow wrote: »

So how about accepting that Cain is fairly inaccurate and is also open to interpretation and spin

Correct, people will often if not usually try to bend the truth to suit themselves.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1974.html

downcow

downcow wrote: »

This is a very crude measure. It seems to regard ex security forces as non-civilians and it assumes some terrorists are civillians.
I have just check the info on 3 neighbours killed and they are all wrong.
one was ex security and he is down as civillian (which is they way it should be but others are classed as ex security)
One is down as civillian when in fact he was an ira godfather
one is down as killed while walking through a park when in fack he had a balaclava on and was aiming a rifle at a police patrol about to shoot when the army shot him.
thats just the three i checked. so not much confidence in it

There has been a good deal of twisting, dancing and goal post moving in last few posts so I thought I should quote the post we were responding to for clarity.
I simply responded to a post which was using cain to try and tell us that the ira murdered more ‘British security forces’ than civilians.
I looked a only three examples which I had good personal knowledge of and they were all incorrect on cain.
I was basically told I was making it up so I provided solid evidence of what I was saying.
Of course, rather than some posters saying that was interesting, they have ducked and dived and talked about everything as ridiculous as ‘killed in action’ means you could have choked on a piece of turkey at you Christmas dinner as long as you are a Ra member through to what colour jumper someone was wearing.
So I will accept case proven in these local incidents. I would be keen if you guys look at you local case and let us know if CAIN is 100% wrong in those ceases also

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

This is a very crude measure. It seems to regard ex security forces as non-civilians and it assumes some terrorists are civillians.
I have just check the info on 3 neighbours killed and they are all wrong.
one was ex security and he is down as civillian (which is they way it should be but others are classed as ex security)
One is down as civillian when in fact he was an ira godfather
one is down as killed while walking through a park when in fack he had a balaclava on and was aiming a rifle at a police patrol about to shoot when the army shot him.
thats just the three i checked. so not much confidence in it

There has been a good deal of twisting, dancing and goal post moving in last few posts so I thought I should quote the post we were responding to for clarity.
I simply responded to a post which was using cain to try and tell us that the ira murdered more ‘British security forces’ than civilians.
I looked a only three examples which I had good personal knowledge of and they were all incorrect on cain.
I was basically told I was making it up so I provided solid evidence of what I was saying.
Of course, rather than some posters saying that was interesting, they have ducked and dived and talked about everything as ridiculous as ‘killed in action’ means you could have choked on a piece of turkey at you Christmas dinner as long as you are a Ra member through to what colour jumper someone was wearing.
So I will accept case proven in these local incidents. I would be keen if you guys look at you local case and let us know if CAIN is 100% wrong in those ceases also

You've told us one person from the IRA was classified as shot when walking through a park. The only thing undisputed about that person's death is that they were walking through a park.

You've told us one person was security forces but classified as a civilian....when that person was absolutely a civilian, but had been in the B-Specials 20 years earlier.

You have a third case where you can't name the person, but assure us that CAIN is wrong.

Looks like 2-0 in favour of the database to me, and a no contest on the third one.

You're certainly a master of convincing yourself that you're right though, Downcow.

I've checked a few family members on the database myself. They're classified correctly. I won't be providing specific links in this case, as it would be giving too much personal information which would compromise my anonymity.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

I would be keen if you guys look at you local case and let us know if CAIN is 100% wrong in those ceases also

It's hard to know whether you're tolling people to try to get them to react, or not, but let's look at the Paul Magorrian [PM's] case.

Status of person killed: IRA. ✓
Organisation [who killed him]: British Army. ✓
Location: St Malachy's estate, Castlewellan. ✓
Circumstances: disputed.

The circumstances of PM's death are immaterial to the fact that he was in the IRA and the British Army shot him so CAIN are correct to record this as an IRA man being killed by the British Army.

You are nitpicking largely inconsequential issues to try to discredit the thrust of the project.

Do you accept this? A 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You've told us one person from the IRA was classified as shot when walking through a park. The only thing undisputed about that person's death is that they were walking through a park.

You've told us one person was security forces but classified as a civilian....when that person was absolutely a civilian, but had been in the B-Specials 20 years earlier.

When i am wrong i always admit it. you are just spinning. the above is just spin.

bottom line is
Cain imply maggorian was walking through a park - IRA admit he was on 'active service'
I was categorically stated in this discussion by several people that i was wrong and that Billy Heenan was never a member of the security forces. I have proved to you I was right ....and republicans can't have it both ways. there is a prolonged discussion on here where many who were trying to claim the IRA did not mount a sectarian campaign against farmers give tis case as an example of one claimed as a sectarian killing which was actually because he was ex security. I have no doubt it was blatently sectarian but you should decide one or other

So i am curious Fionn, do you believed he was murdered because he was ex-security (Cain incorrect) or because he was a protestant (IRA sectarian) - fairly simple question??

janfebmar

He was shot while with a rifle, on active service. He was not shot as a civilian while having a walk in the park.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's hard to know whether you're tolling people to try to get them to react, or not, but let's look at the Paul Magorrian [PM's] case.

Status of person killed: IRA. ✓
Organisation [who killed him]: British Army. ✓
Location: St Malachy's estate, Castlewellan. ✓
Circumstances: disputed.

The circumstances of PM's death are immaterial to the fact that he was in the IRA and the British Army shot him so CAIN are correct to record this as an IRA man being killed by the British Army.

You are nitpicking largely inconsequential issues to try to discredit the thrust of the project.

Do you accept this? A 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.

Yes!
I accept your first three statements

Now do you accept he was on active service (IRA).
A yes no will suffice

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

I accept your first three statements

Do you accept that you are nitpicking largely inconsequential issues to try to discredit the entire body of work CAIN has produced? Yes/No.

Now do you accept he was on active service (IRA).

Yeah why not. It doesn't change that he was a Provo shot by the BA.

Also, 'active service' is not the same as 'imminent threat' which might be the thrust of the 'disputed circumstances'.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

There was someone here calling out Dev for shooting IRA members without a trial.

Here we have the British army shooting a suspected IRA member without a trial.

And he wasn’t an imminent threat either.

Strange dynamic. Hypocritical is the word.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There was someone here calling out Dev for shooting IRA members without a trial.

Here we have the British army shooting a suspected IRA member without a trial.

And he wasn’t an imminent threat either.

Strange dynamic. Hypocritical is the word.

If he classed himself as a soldier fighting a war then what is the argument?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

If he classed himself as a soldier fighting a war then what is the argument?

Take your point but it’s not a point that would stand in court if they were brought to trial for killing him.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

If he classed himself as a soldier fighting a war then what is the argument?

Just to have it on record Rob:

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Too good not to share. The Brits didn’t just want Michael Collins. They fancied him! Read the blurb underneath!

https://twitter.com/theirishfor/status/1168994567930175489?s=21

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

If he classed himself as a soldier fighting a war then what is the argument?

Just to have it on record Rob:

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

I don't want to see anyone killed although it was you who described the troubles as a war/conflict which made me reevaluate my view.Are you saying the BA shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't want to see anyone killed although it was you who described the troubles as a war/conflict which made me reevaluate my view.Are you saying the BA shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?

No. I asked you a very clear question.

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't want to see anyone killed although it was you who described the troubles as a war/conflict which made me reevaluate my view.Are you saying the BA shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?

No. I asked you a very clear question.

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

I'm happy for them to defend themselves and the public against ira operatives who were/are intent on killing or maiming indiscriminately and if in a shoot or be shot situation be able to react accordingly.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Here we have the British army shooting a suspected IRA member without a trial.

He was not a suspected IRA member. He was an armed IRA member, on active service. In fact have not Sinn Fein some offices named after him? I do not know of any unionist party which named their offices after a loyalist paramilitary killed in the troubles/ conflict / war, call it what you want.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just to have it on record Rob:

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

Nobody agrees with summary justice from security forces, but that wasn't necessarily the case in every situation where someone was killed by the security forces.

There are justifiable killings by security forces - where they are under threat, where there is a threat to civilian life, where there are people engaged in criminal activity for which there is no other possible response etc. - and each individual incident needs to be considered on its merits.

For example, in the Abbeylara case, the Barr Tribunal exonerated the ERU team of any legal culpability for John Carthy's death and concluded that they acted lawfully in genuine fear for safety of those in the area in the discharge of their firearms on the day. Others were criticised but those who fired the shots acted legally. That is a good example of where what some might call summary justice was legally permitted.

To me, too many posters on here make questions out of grand motherhood and apple pie sentiments and then try to apply them to every single situation, and rather than general debate, they engage in long, lengthy nitpicking of responses.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm happy for them to defend themselves

I didn't ask you about that.

and the public against ira operatives who were/are intent on killing or maiming indiscriminately and if in a shoot or be shot situation be able to react accordingly.

Nor that.

I asked you:

Are you happy for your government forces to be involved in summary justice in a conflict they steadfastly refused to call a war?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't ask you about that.
Nor that.

I asked you:

Thank you for just proving the point made in my last post.