President condemns brutal old IRA execution of elderly woman

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There were loyalists present in all of America's early wars, from Independence, Civil war, the subsequent war with Britain, and the Mexican war.

But I was talking about the US war of independence

Actually, I was trying the understand the point you wanted to make. Perhaps I didn't.

My point was simple. The British army and anti independence forces committed most of the atrocities in the Irish and American wars of independence.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

All war crimes.

Concentrating on the atrocities of the old IRA is like concentrating on the atrocities of the French resistance or the American rebels. The other side were far worse.

It's not concentrating. It's giving acknowledgement that committing the lesser amount of crimes does not absolve them of those acts.

It's not a competition to see who was worse. We all know that the British were far worse. However, the IRA did kill civilians directly, and engage in tactics that placed civilians in jeopardy. Intentionally.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

But I was talking about the US war of independence

Ok. No problem. I misunderstood.

My point was simple. The British army and anti independence forces committed most of the atrocities in the Irish and American wars of independence.

And I agree. They did.

votecounts

guy2231 wrote: »

I don't expect you to feel guilty I expect you to feel shame.

Why? Family fought for what they believed in.

guy2231

skallywag wrote: »

Yes, that happened quite a lot, you are completely correct. The IRA would regularly send out one man hit brigades, armed with nothing but a handgun, to strike the fear of God into the Paras, the Scot's Guards and the SAS. In fact they were so terrified of these legendary Lone Ranger gun slingers that they hid in their barracks and would not venture out unless being ferried about via a Lynx or a Chinook.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-88yKoKhUY&has_verified=1

Skip to 22.35

Immortal Starlight

In the village I grew up in the Black and Tans were an appalling lot of animals. One of the things they were known for was breaking into an elderly couples home and forcing the old couple to watch while the Black and Tans repeatedly raped their only daughter on the kitchen table. This happened many times and to lots of different families too. Another was shooting anyone they chose dead on sight. Any excuse was given such as someone being outside after curfew.
My grandfather was a member of the IRA along with his friends. I don’t want to live my life as anyone’s subject. I want to live as a free citizen of Ireland. I am very proud of my grandfather that he and others like him had the courage to stand up and enable me to do so.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not concentrating. It's giving acknowledgement that committing the lesser amount of crimes does not absolve them of those acts.

It's not a competition to see who was worse. We all know that the British were far worse. However, the IRA did kill civilians directly, and engage in tactics that placed civilians in jeopardy. Intentionally.

Sure, all resistance movements commit atrocities. I still doubt if the French are going to apologise for the atrocities of the French resistance, or a US president apologise for the atrocities of the rebels in the war of Independence ( which is to repeat the point I made before that you didn't understand). The other side(s) were worse.

Ireland has a strange population of right wingers, and they are mostly right wingers, who have basically transferred their nationalism to Ulster Unionism. Eoghan Harris, O'Hanlon, RDE, Conor Cruise O'Brien in later life are examples, but it runs through society. Claiming to be anti nationalists, they are nationalists for a different cause.

Orwell talked about this in Notes On Nationalism. He pointed out that communists were basically tribal nationalists for the Soviet Union, even though they claimed to despise English nationalism. The Soviet Union could do no wrong, every invasion was legit, every alliance to be welcomed, even with Nazi Germany.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Not even slightly. Nothing I've written even approaches such a thing. I have simply written about her, and the fact that for many Irish people they weren't enthusiastic about the IRA or independence from Britain.

The IRA didn't shoot her for a lack of enthusiasm towards the Republic though, did they?

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

The IRA didn't shoot her for a lack of enthusiasm towards the Republic though, did they?

She was a loyalist who believed in the British Empire. Just as Irish people chose to join the Volunteers or the IRA, she chose to make a stand for something she believed in.

Frankly, I admire her. She held true to her convictions. She sought to prevent the killing of British soldiers. She didn't take up weapons to kill Irish people. She informed on an ambush.

"Mrs Lindsay tumbled backward into the pit. Clarke slumped forward. The IRA officers untied him and pitched him into the grave on top of her … I told her she was going to die. She never blinked an eye. I will say this for her bravery, she was excellent.’

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Got herself, her driver and 5 others killed.

Played an absolute blinder, well done to her.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Sure, all resistance movements commit atrocities. I still doubt if the French are going to apologise for the atrocities of the French resistance, or a US president apologise for the atrocities of the rebels in the war of Independence ( which is to repeat the point I made before that you didn't understand). The other side(s) were worse.

You're belaboring that same point. The other side was worse. Yes, they were. As I said though, it doesn't mean we have to ignore the atrocities of the IRA. It doesn't mean that we're focusing on the IRA and ignoring what the British did.

It's simply the recognition that the IRA didn't have clean hands.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're belaboring that same point. The other side was worse. Yes, they were. As I said though, it doesn't mean we have to ignore the atrocities of the IRA. It doesn't mean that we're focusing on the IRA and ignoring what the British did.

It's simply the recognition that the IRA didn't have clean hands.

Anytime anyone shows support for the provos you get the usual stuff "well how do you justify the killing of innocent civilians" or "what about the disappeared" while at the same time these same people look at the old IRA as these marvel superheroes that could do no wrong even though they killed far more innocent civilians in respective of time period and disappeared far more in a 3 year campaign than the provos did in 30 years.

I don't know wether or not to put it down to plain old hypocricy I think it has more to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Anytime anyone shows support for the provos you get the usual stuff "well how do you justify the killing of innocent civilians" or "what about the disappeared" while at the same time these same people look at the old IRA as these marvel superheroes that could do no wrong even though they killed far more innocent civilians in respective of time period and disappeared far more in a 3 year campaign than the provos did in 30 years.

I don't know wether or not to put it down to plain old hypocricy I think it has more to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Meh. Nope. I disagree with you entirely... and that's not due to lack of knowledge or ignorance.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would seek to show support for the provos and how they've behaved over the decades. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of statements that the British were worse... but as you can see from my previous posts, I don't find that to be a great excuse.

Danzy

He had no business condemning it. Collaborators are often shot, especially when their treachery costs lives.

She made her bed when she sent others to their death.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meh. Nope. I disagree with you entirely... and that's not due to lack of knowledge or ignorance.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would seek to show support for the provos and how they've behaved over the decades. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of statements that the British were worse... but as you can see from my previous posts, I don't find that to be a great excuse.

Can you elaborate more as to why?

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Can you elaborate more as to why?

I would say it's obvious enough. That crap is wrong regardless of the justifications. Doesn't matter who is doing it. It's just wrong.

Peppa Cig

It was war.

Civil war.

Civil war 100 years ago.

Snitches get stitches. Everyone knows these rules in a civil war.

End of.

Move on and bitch about something in recent decades.

happyoutscan

This is a stupid thread.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would say it's obvious enough. That crap is wrong regardless of the justifications. Doesn't matter who is doing it. It's just wrong.

"obvious enough" the same old rubbish nothing obvious at all apart from the bad side of the provos are shoved down our throats while the bad side of the old IRA are brushed under the carpet.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

"obvious enough" the same old rubbish nothing obvious at all apart from the bad side of the provos are shoved down our throats while the bad side of the old IRA are brushed under the carpet.

I have little interest in listing a wide range of reasons only for it to be dismissed... just as you have just done to my limited response.

Because that's what happens with those who support this nonsense. They hold true to their justifications, and discard anything that doesn't match their views. The other side was worse... and that excuses everything our side has done. That's it in a nutshell... and nothing I say will change your opinion.

paulaa

McGaggs wrote: »

She wasn't elderly, she was 60 years old.

Female life expectancy in the early1900s was 54.1years. This woman was elderly for that time

Donald Trump

skallywag wrote: »

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

Donald Trump

OP. You forgot to mention any call to the British government to issue apologies for executing 5 of the 8 Irish men captured.

Danzy

The so called old IRA killed an a lot more civilians than the IRA in the long war as a % of dead, no comparison.

The list of those who died from provisionsl actions is about 70% security or State.

That's exceptionally high for conflicts of any kind.

The IRA in the black and tan era didn't have the equipment, training, luxury of carefully selecting targets maybe.

guy2231

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

I see you trying to pull a sly one and instead compare the old IRA to the real IRA, there were only actually two IRAs that were actual guerilla armies.

You compare Alan Ryan to Tom Barry rather than compare him with someone like Francis Hughes who took part in dozens of attacks on the army and police, who also spent a life on the move sleeping rough for years.

He was caught by the SAS in a field, he shot it out with them killed one of them and wounded another, he escaped and was then captured later on when reinforcements were called they then found him seriously wounded hiding in a bush, he was then tortured then sent to prison where he died on hunger strike.

Or Brendan Hughes who in the early days of the troubles when the IRA had hardly any weapons would run riot around Belfast on his own with nothing but a handgun shooting out with elite army units.

So let me understand you would consider these men terrorist scum and consider Tom Barry a hero?

guy2231

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

Accidental post

guy2231

Danzy wrote: »

The so called old IRA killed an a lot more civilians than the IRA in the long war as a % of dead, no comparison.

The list of those who died from provisionsl actions is about 70% security or State.

That's exceptionally high for conflicts of any kind.

The IRA in the black and tan era didn't have the equipment, training, luxury of carefully selecting targets maybe.

People like to remain in their bubble and think back on the war of independence as some sort of superhero movie.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

People like to remain in their bubble and think back on the war of independence as some sort of superhero movie.

The war of independence, like all wars of independence against imperialism, had atrocities on both sides. The resistance against Nazi Germany in France has a lot of civilian casualties too, and reprisal killings, and killings of informers.

Clearly though there was one side in the right, and one in the wrong. And the wrong side committed most of the atrocities.

Donald Trump

guy2231 wrote: »

I see you trying to pull a sly one and instead compare the old IRA to the real IRA, there were only actually two IRAs that were actual guerilla armies.

You compare Alan Ryan to Tom Barry rather than compare him with someone like Francis Hughes who took part in dozens of attacks on the army and police, who also spent a life on the move sleeping rough for years.

He was caught by the SAS in a field, he shot it out with them killed one of them and wounded another, he escaped and was then captured later on when reinforcements were called they then found him seriously wounded hiding in a bush, he was then tortured then sent to prison where he died on hunger strike.

Or Brendan Hughes who in the early days of the troubles when the IRA had hardly any weapons would run riot around Belfast on his own with nothing but a handgun shooting out with elite army units.

So let me understand you would consider these men terrorist scum and consider Tom Barry a hero?

Based on your descriptions above, they don't fit the bill of terrorist. Attacking elite army units with a handgun is either fighting some sort of cause or is an original actual Facebook-Full-Time-Mad-Bastard.


Who were they terrorising? One of the best equipped, and largest, militaries in the world?

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Whataboutery again, anytime anyone brings up IRA atrocities there is always whataboutery.

I don’t think you understand the term. In fact you are engaging in Whataboutery yourself by ignoring the far greater atrocities of imperialism, the burning of cities, the sacking and looting of towns, the mass destruction of housing, the starvation blockades, by pointing out the considerably fewer atrocities of the old Ira. This is basically tribalism. Your side, the pro British side (of your transferred nationalism), can do no wrong.

Luckily the Eoghan Harris generation is dying out and this attitude with it.