Ahern does McCabe Killers U-Turn

Cork

cdebru wrote:

they will be released no matter who is in government even if it is FG (god help us)

The DUP and SF will not find agreement will not find agreement this side of a UK election.

These killers won't be released any time soon.

But - that is no solace to the family. Raiding a post office in Adare was not political. It was criminal.

I hope Bertie gets assurances from SF/IRA that all criminality has to be stopped.

Do IRA supporters see punishment beatings as a political act?

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

If these scumbags are released then every tom dick and harry in portlaoise prison will be entitled to release under this agreement.

No as their offences would have to be

A the equivalent of a scheduled offence

B Have committed the offence prior to the GFA

C Be a member of a recognised group maintaining a recognised ceasefire

cdebru

Cork wrote:

The DUP and SF will not find agreement will not find agreement this side of a UK election.?

agreed

Cork wrote:

These killers won't be released any time soon.?

agreed

Cork wrote:

But - that is no solace to the family. Raiding a post office in Adare was not political. It was criminal. ?

if you were stealing money to fund the armed campaign then it is political

Cork wrote:

I hope Bertie gets assurances from SF/IRA that all criminality has to be stopped.?

that would appear to be the deal

Cork wrote:

Do IRA supporters see punishment beatings as a political act?

yes they do in the absence of a legitimate police force
If Sinn Fein takes their place on the policing boards then that justification would no longer apply.

Sand

actually there are no scheduled offences in the 26 counties

No ****?!?!?!?!?!?

Hence my use of " " around the word scheduled offences when referring to the sort of trials the Special Crinimal Court deals with.

the equivalent would be people convicted in the special criminal court of offences similiar to scheduled offences in the North

Bollocks. Pure and utter bollocks - scheduled offences as defined under Northern Irish law are crimes committed by terrorists as part of their cause. To be "similar" the same criteria would also apply to crimes committed in the south. I.E. youd have to show how the Adare robbery was an IRA operation, not simply the "boys" helping themselves to a holiday in the sun. Seeing as the IRA denied knowing who the Adare scum were, and denied it was an IRA operation that would be pretty fecking hard to prove.

What youre arguing for is that any crime committed by an IRA man in the Republic prior to the GFA and tried in the Special Crinimal Court should be covered by the GFA, regardless of whether the crime was committed at the behest of the IRA or for some personal reason of the IRA mans!!!

If that is so then why to save any confusion was that one event not mentioned in the GFA as being specifically not covered by the GFA

Gilligans not mentioned in the GFA either. Neither is McKenna - the terms dont apply to them. The Adare killers didnt commit a scheduled offence. Theyre not covered. The GFA set the rules, not the fecking interpretations of each individual case that someone somewhere believed should be covered by the GFA.

ie they were charged with murder and attempted armed robbery and possesion of illegal firearms.(convicted of manslaughter)
all are scheduled offences in the 6 counties

Again, innacurate bollocks. Murders, armed robbery and possession of illegal firearms are not scheduled offences here or in the north by some sort of default. It is only a scheduled offence in the North if it is committed by terrorists as part of their terrorist campaign.

whether you think my opinion is rubbish or not I couldn't give a flying **** what you think

Ah gwan, ya do. Sure you cared enough to tell me you didnt care? And anyway, whether you care or not your position is still a load of bollocks.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Bollocks. Pure and utter bollocks - scheduled offences as defined under Northern Irish law are crimes committed by terrorists as part of their cause. To be "similar" the same criteria would also apply to crimes committed in the south. I.E. youd have to show how the Adare robbery was an IRA operation, not simply the "boys" helping themselves to a holiday in the sun. Seeing as the IRA denied knowing who the Adare scum were, and denied it was an IRA operation that would be pretty fecking hard to prove.

What youre arguing for is that any crime committed by an IRA man in the Republic prior to the GFA and tried in the Special Crinimal Court should be covered by the GFA, regardless of whether the crime was committed at the behest of the IRA or for some personal reason of the IRA mans!!!

The IRA leadership initially denied knowledge of the killing but issued a statement later to say that it was an IRA operation.

I am pretty positive that you would be screaming that it was an IRA operation if there was no GFA prisoner releases.

Gilligans not mentioned in the GFA either. Neither is McKenna - the terms dont apply to them.

Because they are not IRA operations

The Adare killers didnt commit a scheduled offence. Theyre not covered. The GFA set the rules, not the fecking interpretations of each individual case that someone somewhere believed should be covered by the GFA.

Again, innacurate bollocks. Murders, armed robbery and possession of illegal firearms are not scheduled offences here or in the north by some sort of default. It is only a scheduled offence in the North if it is committed by terrorists as part of their terrorist campaign.

Again, it was an IRA operation which was initially denied but later claimed when the leadership of the IRA found that the operation was sanctioned at local level

cdebru

Sand wrote:

No ****?!?!?!?!?!?




Bollocks. Pure and utter bollocks - scheduled offences as defined under Northern Irish law are crimes committed by terrorists as part of their cause. To be "similar" the same criteria would also apply to crimes committed in the south. I.E. youd have to show how the Adare robbery was an IRA operation, not simply the "boys" helping themselves to a holiday in the sun. Seeing as the IRA denied knowing who the Adare scum were, and denied it was an IRA operation that would be pretty fecking hard to prove.

What youre arguing for is that any crime committed by an IRA man in the Republic prior to the GFA and tried in the Special Crinimal Court should be covered by the GFA, regardless of whether the crime was committed at the behest of the IRA or for some personal reason of the IRA mans!!! .

no Iam not arguing that the IRA claim them as members
the men claim they were acting on behalf of the IRA
the IRA have confirmed this despite the original denial
were it not for the fact of early release you or anyone else would have no problem in accepting that these men were acting on behalf of the IRA
they say it the IRA say it and the IRA have made their release part of any final settlement what more bloody proof do you need what more bloody proof could there be.

Sand wrote:

Gilligans not mentioned in the GFA either. Neither is McKenna - the terms dont apply to them. The Adare killers didnt commit a scheduled offence. Theyre not covered. The GFA set the rules, not the fecking interpretations of each individual case that someone somewhere believed should be covered by the GFA..

gilligan nor mckenna were ever members of the IRA their offences are not in anyway connected to the political situation on this Island
And yes the GFA set the rules now go and read them and if you look in an unbiased way if that is possible you would come up with the same conclusion the high court and supreme court did

Sand wrote:

Again, innacurate bollocks. Murders, armed robbery and possession of illegal firearms are not scheduled offences here or in the north by some sort of default. It is only a scheduled offence in the North if it is committed by terrorists as part of their terrorist campaign..

actually thay are scheduled by default they become unscheduled when the dpp
gives a ruling that the individual offence was not "terrorist linked"

Sand wrote:

Ah gwan, ya do. Sure you cared enough to tell me you didnt care? And anyway, whether you care or not your position is still a load of bollocks.

no honestly I dont

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

and besides, The gardai are not surveying these TDs with the intent of doing them or their families any physical harm.

Why was Martin Ferris assaulted during the last general election then? To carry on that point, it is relevant to mention the Garda Heavy Gang who invented the happy knack of putting wet towels over people's faces during interrogation as a means of extorting information.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote:

What they are, FTA, is terrorists and criminals.

Political prisoners Oscar, and whether you like to say so or not doesn't bother me in the slightest because the fact is that Republican prisoners are there because of actions they committed as a result of their political affiliations and beliefs. The fact that both the Free State and the Brit government recognise their right to seperate status is an indicator of this, even though they dressed their defeat in a variety of terms such as "special category" or "special status" or whatever.

But even so Oscar, people were convicted for possesion of a poster (thus coming under the title of "advocation") as well as the word of policemen whose story included only reference to support expressed for the IRA on the part of the accused.

true

FTA69 wrote:

Political prisoners Oscar, and whether you like to say so or not doesn't bother me in the slightest because the fact is that Republican prisoners are there because of actions they committed as a result of their political affiliations and beliefs. QUOTE]


So if someone murders a Guard, or bombs someone commemorating the dead, or bombs a restaurant, or shoots a farmer because he used to be a policeman, or robs a post office , or maims someone, that is ok the if it was done because of their political affiliations and beliefs. By and large, the rest of the world has political affiliations and beliefs, but they do not go around killing and maiming.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

Why was Martin Ferris assaulted during the last general election then? To carry on that point, it is relevant to mention the Garda Heavy Gang who invented the happy knack of putting wet towels over people's faces during interrogation as a means of extorting information.

do you actually have evidence of this or are these more sinn fein wild alegations?

FTA69

Garda harrasment are part and parcel of being a Republican billy, you'd know that if you were one.

Google "Garda Heavy gang" "garda assault Martin Ferris" and you'll get some interesting results.

FTA69

true wrote:

So if someone murders a Guard, or bombs someone commemorating the dead, or bombs a restaurant, or shoots a farmer because he used to be a policeman, or robs a post office , or maims someone, that is ok the if it was done because of their political affiliations and beliefs. By and large, the rest of the world has political affiliations and beliefs, but they do not go around killing and maiming.

But the rest of the world rarely found themselves in a climate of military conflict do they? And when they are they respond in similar fashions eg IRA in the 20s, the Free French, Viet Cong etc.

The actions you outlined took part in the climate of a period of military hostilities and as such the participants in that conflict are distinct from those who commit deeds for personal gain ie criminals.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

But the rest of the world rarely found themselves in a climate of military conflict do they? And when they are they respond in similar fashions eg IRA in the 20s, the Free French, Viet Cong etc.

The actions you outlined took part in the climate of a period of military hostilities and as such the participants in that conflict are distinct from those who commit deeds for personal gain ie criminals.

ok lets look at these events that true highlighted and see how compatible they are with the rules of engagement.

if someone murders a Guard

Civilian target, also a member of the police force of an independent republic of ireland that the IRA wishes the six counties of Northern Ireland to be a member of.

bombs someone commemorating the dead

civilians at a funeral pose no threat to anyone, non combatents.

bombs a restaurant

civilian target.

shoots a farmer because he used to be a policeman,

despite the fact that he was a civilian police officer and not a military police officer, he was not a member of any police service at the time he was murdered. hence he was a civilian target.

or robs a post office

pilaging is in breach of the Geneva convention

I will add one to the list

beating teenagers up with baseball bats

and yet again the shinners have managed to drag another thread off topic

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

Political prisoners Oscar, and whether you like to say so or not doesn't bother me in the slightest because the fact is that Republican prisoners are there because of actions they committed as a result of their political affiliations and beliefs.

I refer you to the dictionary definition I posted. Political prisoners are those imprisoned simply by virtue of the beliefs they hold. Republican prisoners tend to have been imprisoned because of the crimes they committed - whatever the motivation. The commission of crimes makes them criminals.

FTA69 wrote:

The fact that both the Free State and the Brit government recognise their right to seperate status is an indicator of this, even though they dressed their defeat in a variety of terms such as "special category" or "special status" or whatever.

There hasn't been a Free State government for a very long time - you really ought to catch up. As for the "special category" status awarded to such criminals - do you have a source for this being the recognition of a right, as opposed to a convenience for all parties?

FTA69 wrote:

But even so Oscar, people were convicted for possesion of a poster (thus coming under the title of "advocation") as well as the word of policemen whose story included only reference to support expressed for the IRA on the part of the accused.

I'd like to see sources for these. I'm aware that it's possible to be convicted for membership of an illegal organisation on the word of a senior Garda officer, but that's not imprisonment for the holding of a political belief; rather it's imprisonment for membership of an avowedly treasonous organisation.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

the men claim they were acting on behalf of the IRA
the IRA have confirmed this despite the original denial

Do you even accept that the IRA *could * be claiming their robbery and killing after the fact because they are all friends like, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, we're all in the same club like?
Everything points to that.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd like to see sources for these. I'm aware that it's possible to be convicted for membership of an illegal organisation on the word of a senior Garda officer, but that's not imprisonment for the holding of a political belief; rather it's imprisonment for membership of an avowedly treasonous organisation.

A couple of convictions for possessing a political poster

More charges for poster

A leading member of the Release Don O'Leary Campaign in Cork has been charged with the same offence as O'Leary was - possession of an incriminating document - and will appear in court next month. Freddie O'Doherty's `crime' is having a copy of the popular Bás nó an bua poster. The poster, which depicts armed IRA Volunteers and is in full colour, has sold thousands of copies all over Ireland.

The garda decision to charge O'Doherty is seen by many as part of a well-organised campaign to smash Sinn Fein in the city. Last October Don O'Leary was charged with possession of a similar poster, found guilty, and convicted of IRA membership on the basis of having the `incriminating document'. He was sentenced to a total of five years as a result.

Although O'Doherty has not been charged with IRA membership, the Special Branch will be aware that, if he is found guilty on the poster charge, he would then be forced to try to prove his innocence on a membership charge. Under Section 24 of the Offences Against the State Act, if a person is found in possession of an `incriminating document' no further proof if needed for an IRA membership charge, ``unless the contrary is proved''.

oscarBravo

That's a quote, not a source. Under what act was O'Doherty charged?

A Dub in Glasgo

Offences Against the State Act Section 12

oscarBravo

Would you deny that possession of that poster represents an expression of support for an avowedly treasonous and seditious organisation?

You still haven't cited your source.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

ok lets look at these events that true highlighted and see how compatible they are with the rules of engagement.

Civilian target, also a member of the police force of an independent republic of ireland that the IRA wishes the six counties of Northern Ireland to be a member of.

civilians at a funeral pose no threat to anyone, non combatents.


civilian target.


despite the fact that he was a civilian police officer and not a military police officer, he was not a member of any police service at the time he was murdered. hence he was a civilian target.

pilaging is in breach of the Geneva convention

I will add one to the list

beating teenagers up with baseball bats

and yet again the shinners have managed to drag another thread off topic

True billy, the activities you outlined do breach the Geneva convention and as such you feel it appropriate to deny the guerilla status of Óglaigh na hÉireann. However, I could provide an equally long list of British breaches of the Geneva Convention, which in your eyes would not make the British Army an "army". You see, when one bogs down in semantics they become detached from the reality of the situation somewhat, all armies break the Convention in war times, it doesn't make the participants any less of an army or the situation any less of a war though.

Out of curiosity, and do be truthful in your answer, do you consider the IRA of the 1920s "terrorists" or "criminals" (they were an illegal organisation in the legal entity they operated in)? They also breached the Conventions (Geneva and Hague) continuously.

I see this as relevant because it was them who created the situation in which the state you pledge your absolute allegaince to came about.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote:

Would you deny that possession of that poster represents an expression of support for an avowedly treasonous and seditious organisation?

Aha, an "expression of support", ie the holding of an opinion thus making Don O'Leary a political prisoner in your eyes. The definition of a political prisoner differs, one who is imprisoned as a result of political actions is very much a political prisoner.

As for your labelling of political status as a "grant for conveniance", if the authorities were serious and adamant about criminal status they would implement a criminal regime in the prisons, however, they do not. The recognition of political status came about as a result of negotiations between IRA representatives and both the British and Free State authorities. The 5 Demands were put forward under the pretence of "political status" and were eventually accepted, what the authorities decided to label it after that is irrelevant.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

True billy, the activities you outlined do breach the Geneva convention and as such you feel it appropriate to deny the guerilla status of Óglaigh na hÉireann. However, I could provide an equally long list of British breaches of the Geneva Convention, which in your eyes would not make the British Army an "army".

hold up here. first off I have not commented much in this thread about the misbehaviour of the brittish army because that would be taking this thread off topic. secondly, you dont know me very well. I am well aware of autrocities carried out by brittish paratroopers not only in northern Ireland. and am well aware of the miscarriages of justice which saw members of the brittish army get off scott free from various incidents. the Lee Clegg debacle is the first that comes to mind as I type this.

The differences between the brittish army and the IRA are as follows.

The brittish army would gladly pull out of northern Ireland if they could believe that these thugs in the IRA would give up their weapons. If I recall correctly the catholic communities of northern ireland welcomed the brittish army iwith open arms when they entered the north. had the IRA not formed then the unionist movement would have eventually been dealt with and the brittish army would have gone home. Instead people decided to get together and attack the brittish aremy.

is it any wonder that individual members of the brittish army got pissed off when the people who they were sent to protect were trying to kill them.

Now what is the difference between the IRA and the brittish Army. The brittish army (apart from a small but well known minority) are not out to oppress people. The reason they have to raid various houses in both nationalist and unionist areas is because they don't know where the next bullet is going to come from. Members of the IRA UFF INLA RIRA CIRA and the terrorists formally known as the IRA fwill just blend in and out of the crowd when doing their killing, where as the brittish army are uniformed.

The Brittish army are accountable to the Government. If there are infringments of human rights underway in northern Ireland that are not being addressed then it would be a far more prudent measure to take it to the United Nations High Commision for Human Rights.

The IRA are accountable to no one, and the IRA, judging by the way they handled the McCabe Killers, don't seem to have much control over its members,

another difference is that you know where you stand with the brittish army. If you pose a threat to them they will take appropriate action, the IRA however will attack anyone whether they are a threat to them or not.

You see, when one bogs down in semantics they become detached from the reality of the situation somewhat, all armies break the Convention in war times, it doesn't make the participants any less of an army or the situation any less of a war though.

The armies of different countries such as the brittish strive to remain within the terms of the Geneva Convention. under stressful situations, desperate situations call for desperate measures, and even the brittish army breached the convention on occasion. however, the saville enquiry was set up to address one of these breaches which is to show that attempts are being made to make ammends for these breaches.

The IRA do not give a **** about the geneva convention.

Out of curiosity, and do be truthful in your answer, do you consider the IRA of the 1920s "terrorists" or "criminals" (they were an illegal organisation in the legal entity they operated in)? They also breached the Conventions (Geneva and Hague) continuously.

The IRA of the 1920 also strove to stay within the rules of engagement attacking members of the black and tans and people who posed a threat to their operations. The IRA of the 70s 80s and 90s attacked people who posed no threat to them. putting a bomb in a bin in warrington for example was not an act of war, it was an act of vandalism which ended in death. the children killed in warrington were too young to be members of the brittish army so the IRA cannot claim mistaken identity on that one.

I see this as relevant because it was them who created the situation in which the state you pledge your absolute allegaince to came about.

The state I pledge allegience came about when Eamon De Valera and his government worked the rules ov thbrittish e Commonwealth to suit themselves without a single bullet being fired. eventually resulting in an independent republic of Ireland being created in 1949.

The pro-IRA members of boards.ie like to call the Republic of Ireland the "free state" considering that saorstat Eireann died in 1949 and that they like to use inflamitory terms such as "political prisoners" that no one else uses except them, shows that they have no regard for the way that people living in the republic see them selves.

We see ourselves as citizens of a republic, a member of the EU and independent of the brittish Commonwealth. the term "free state" is a throwback to the time between 1920 and 1949 when Ireland was a member of the commonwealth, 56 years have passed since the Irish republic was formed

Blindly calling citezens of the republic of (or southern) Irlenaed "free staters" only serves to alienate people from your "cause".

billy the squid

One more thing I would like to point out to you FTA69

I would approve of people being arrested for being members of an illegal organisation for the following reason.

As it currently stands, the IRA and its actions pose a serious threat to the stability and sovereignty of our democrat country. It poses a danger to the likes of an innocent garda doing his job protecting the security company van carrying old age pensioners money to a post office in adare.

the IRA put people who were not involved or couldnt care less about their cause in unnecessary risk which the government could not allow to happen or to keep at a minimum.

true

Thre IRA are a terrorist army. ( Regular armies may be offended at calling the IRA an army, but we will let that pass ). They are terrorists because they do not wear uniforms, they are not elected by the population , they terrorise the population and they their identity is unknown. Unlike regular armies, they do not have a base or barracks. They have one thing in common with all other terrorist groups in the world : they are a thing of the past, and they will not get their way.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Thre IRA are a terrorist army. ( Regular armies may be offended at calling the IRA an army, but we will let that pass ). They are terrorists because they do not wear uniforms,

So you call the IRA of the 1900's, 1910's and the 1920's terrorist?

they are not elected by the population , they terrorise the population and they their identity is unknown. Unlike regular armies, they do not have a base or barracks.

So you call the IRA of the 1900's, 1910's and the 1920's terrorist?

They have one thing in common with all other terrorist groups in the world : they are a thing of the past, and they will not get their way.

So you call the IRA of the 1900's, 1910's and the 1920's terrorist?

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

The differences between the brittish army and the IRA are as follows.

The brittish army would gladly pull out of northern Ireland if they could believe that these thugs in the IRA would give up their weapons. If I recall correctly the catholic communities of northern ireland welcomed the brittish army iwith open arms when they entered the north. had the IRA not formed then the unionist movement would have eventually been dealt with and the brittish army would have gone home. Instead people decided to get together and attack the brittish aremy.


Now what is the difference between the IRA and the brittish Army. The brittish army (apart from a small but well known minority) are not out to oppress people. The reason they have to raid various houses in both nationalist and unionist areas is because they don't know where the next bullet is going to come from. Members of the IRA UFF INLA RIRA CIRA and the terrorists formally known as the IRA fwill just blend in and out of the crowd when doing their killing, where as the brittish army are uniformed.

The Brittish army are accountable to the Government. If there are infringments of human rights underway in northern Ireland that are not being addressed then it would be a far more prudent measure to take it to the United Nations High Commision for Human Rights.

The IRA are accountable to no one, and the IRA, judging by the way they handled the McCabe Killers, don't seem to have much control over its members,


The armies of different countries such as the brittish strive to remain within the terms of the Geneva Convention. under stressful situations, desperate situations call for desperate measures, and even the brittish army breached the convention on occasion. however, the saville enquiry was set up to address one of these breaches which is to show that attempts are being made to make ammends for these breaches.

The IRA do not give a **** about the geneva convention.



The IRA of the 1920 also strove to stay within the rules of engagement attacking members of the black and tans and people who posed a threat to their operations. The IRA of the 70s 80s and 90s attacked people who posed no threat to them. putting a bomb in a bin in warrington for example was not an act of war, it was an act of vandalism which ended in death. the children killed in warrington were too young to be members of the brittish army so the IRA cannot claim mistaken identity on that one.


The state I pledge allegience came about when Eamon De Valera and his government worked the rules ov thbrittish e Commonwealth to suit themselves without a single bullet being fired. eventually resulting in an independent republic of Ireland being created in 1949.

The pro-IRA members of boards.ie like to call the Republic of Ireland the "free state" considering that saorstat Eireann died in 1949 and that they like to use inflamitory terms such as "political prisoners" that no one else uses except them, shows that they have no regard for the way that people living in the republic see them selves.

We see ourselves as citizens of a republic, a member of the EU and independent of the brittish Commonwealth. the term "free state" is a throwback to the time between 1920 and 1949 when Ireland was a member of the commonwealth, 56 years have passed since the Irish republic was formed

Blindly calling citezens of the republic of (or southern) Irlenaed "free staters" only serves to alienate people from your "cause".

Your naievity regarding the prescence of the British Army astounds me, they are not simply dying to leave this country, they are part and parcel of a package of counter-revolution set up in this country by the brits. You are correct in stating that they were intitially welcomed into Nationalist areas but after about 2 months people saw them as the repressive force they were as opposed to some sort of liberating army. The brits did not attempt to "keep the peace", they were sent to subdue the most troublesome section of the population ie the Nationalists. People saw the British Army's true colours when they stood by and let Loyalist mobs run riot in Lenadoon, when the British Army killed 6 demonstrators (including a priest) in Ballymurphy people did not assume them to be welcome here. It was not the IRA who first attacked the Brits, it was locals themselves who defended their areas from maurauding soldiers (who were aiding Loyalist mobs) with hurleys and bricks. It was that oppression which created the climate for the IRA campaign, not the other way around.

You mention that the Brits raid houses as they are involved in combat with a few groups, but you falsely mention that they "raid unionist houses", they don't billy. Mainly because they colluded, and collude, with the likes of the UVF and UDA today. You will also never see a brit camp in East Belfast or North Antrim, (except in the Nationalist areas of course). All fortifications are concentrated in places such as South Armagh and West Belfast, ie nationalist areas, thus highlighting the fact the brits are here to keep nationalists in check as opposed to "keeping the peace".

As for British Army breaches of the Geneva Convention, these are not the preserve of one regiment who acted on Bloody Sunday. It was a concerted and directed policy, having plain clothes SAS soldiers gunning down unarmed IRA Volunteers is a flagrant breach of the Convention but yet Thatcher applauded it openly. This goes to disprove your assertion that breaches were somehow accidental or regretted. The Brits are also "accountable to no-one" judging by the fact a British soldier never served a sentence for murder. But yet by your logic, because of the above, the British Army is not actually an "army"!

As for the IRA of the 20s, they did indeed pay lipservice to the Convention but had no problem robbing trains (weren't you the one whinging about pillaging?) They also burnt down part of the Liverpool dockyards as well as smashing and burning residences in Manchester, they were not adverse to striking economic targets in England either. Again, to follow your logic, they were not an "army" but are "thugs" and "criminals". Your double standards amaze me.

Regards the foundation of the 26 County state, this did not spring out of thin air in 1949 as you alledged and that situation would not have come about if it wasn't for the IRA campaign in the 20s which resulted in the foundation of the Free State and subsequently the state which exists today.

billy the squid

Your naievity regarding the prescence of the British Army astounds me, they are not simply dying to leave this country, they are part and parcel of a package of counter-revolution set up in this country by the brits.

The brittish troops went into northern ireland to protect catholics from protestant agression yes or no.?

The provisional IRA formed around the same time and subsequently started attacking the brittish troops yes or no?

You speak of counter revoloution, when did the revoloution start. all that happened was that some protestants started a wave of hate crimes against catholics, and the IRA formed and started attacking both protestants and then the brittish army who came to the aid of the catholic community.

more like a criminal feud than a revoloution.

You mention that the Brits raid houses as they are involved in combat with a few groups, but you falsely mention that they "raid unionist houses", they don't billy. Mainly because they colluded, and collude, with the likes of the UVF and UDA today. You will also never see a brit camp in East Belfast or North Antrim, (except in the Nationalist areas of course). All fortifications are concentrated in places such as South Armagh and West Belfast, ie nationalist areas, thus highlighting the fact the brits are here to keep nationalists in check as opposed to "keeping the peace".

could it be the fact that the unionist groups are not deliberately targeting the british army and the nationalist community are.

as for your previous paragraph i did say that the brittish army committed some human rights abuses, but that does not give the IRA the right to come down south and kill members of the Gardai.

oh and i didn't once use the term "in combat with" if your going to refer to my posts then use the same phrases i do please. this is a common tactic of sinn fein supporters to twist what is written for them to make themselves look like they are answering a question when they are not.

I said that the brittish army acted against groups that POSED A THREAT TO THEM.

As for British Army breaches of the Geneva Convention, these are not the preserve of one regiment who acted on Bloody Sunday. It was a concerted and directed policy, having plain clothes SAS soldiers gunning down unarmed IRA Volunteers is a flagrant breach of the Convention but yet Thatcher applauded it openly

unarmed, but not retired like a previous poster pointed out to you

plain clothes SAS soldiers going after plain clothes terrorists. who was the first to go around in plain clothes killing people. the IRA and the unionist gangs.

This goes to disprove your assertion that breaches were somehow accidental or regretted. The Brits are also "accountable to no-one" judging by the fact a British soldier never served a sentence for murder. But yet by your logic, because of the above, the British Army is not actually an "army"!

The courts are there for people who feel agrieved by the actions of brittish army members who commit offences. there is also the European court of justice. it is a more civilised process than killing retired policemen and robbing a fanload of old age pension payments from adare.

As for the IRA of the 20s, they did indeed pay lipservice to the Convention but had no problem robbing trains (weren't you the one whinging about pillaging?) They also burnt down part of the Liverpool dockyards as well as smashing and burning residences in Manchester, they were not adverse to striking economic targets in England either. Again, to follow your logic, they were not an "army" but are "thugs" and "criminals". Your double standards amaze me.

Trains and docklands are infrastructural facilities. pubs are not.(birmingham) men who burn peoples homes are a threat (referring to black and tans here) four year old children are not (warrington)

I wonder, had the raid on adare been succesful, how many days would those old people have had to way for their pensions.

Regards the foundation of the 26 County state, this did not spring out of thin air in 1949 as you alledged and that situation would not have come about if it wasn't for the IRA campaign in the 20s which resulted in the foundation of the Free State and subsequently the state which exists today.

you misrepresent me yet again

I did not say it sprang out of thin air. all the IRA of the 1920s could acomplish was either a 26 county self-governing member of the brittish commonwealth or nothing at all. they put the idea of the former to the Dail and it was ratified.

between 1920 and 1949 southern ireland was an active member of the commonwealth council, and with the assistance of all the commonwealth members Canada austrailia etc, and britain, they acquired more and more liberties for all members of the british commonwealth. eventually countries were given the opportunity to cede their membership of the brittish commonwealth, which Ireland done in 1949, thus becomming the republic of Ireland.

now what has all this got to do with a bank robbery in adare?

true

billy the squid wrote:

now what has all this got to do with a bank robbery in adare?

The main culprits in both scenarios ,the people resposible for the mayhem, were the IRA. However,to be fair, many of them are changing attitudes, and we welcome them in to the democratic process.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

Aha, an "expression of support", ie the holding of an opinion thus making Don O'Leary a political prisoner in your eyes.

Um, no. Let me spell it out for you: the holding and advocating of differing political views is not an offence in this country. That's why political parties are allowed to campaign for elections. It's why Sinn Féin can campaign on the basis of (among other things) a 32-county republic.

The holding and advocating of treasonous and seditious views, on the other hand, is a serious offence. Displaying a poster advocating support for an armed group whose stated objective is to overthrow the legitimate government of Ireland (not the Free State, there's no such thing) is a crime.

FTA69 wrote:

The definition of a political prisoner differs, one who is imprisoned as a result of political actions is very much a political prisoner.

The source for my definition is a dictionary. What's the source for yours? As to the latter part of the sentence: I agree; where I disagree is in the definition of "political actions". My idea of political action is the formation of a political party, or the act of campaigning for an election. Killing and maiming civilians is a criminal act.

FTA69 wrote:

As for your labelling of political status as a "grant for conveniance", if the authorities were serious and adamant about criminal status they would implement a criminal regime in the prisons, however, they do not.

Yes, they do: they keep prisoners locked up. That is criminal status - the denial of personal freedom. Unless you have a legal definition of "criminal status" that I'm unaware of.

FTA69 wrote:

The recognition of political status came about as a result of negotiations between IRA representatives and both the British and Free State authorities.

There are no Free State authorities; we're called "Ireland" now. Catch up.

FTA69 wrote:

The 5 Demands were put forward under the pretence of "political status" and were eventually accepted, what the authorities decided to label it after that is irrelevant.

Interesting word, that - "pretence".

arcadegame2004

I disagree with those on this thread calling the IRA prisoners "political prisoners".

Nonetheless, our politicians are steeped knee-deep in hypocrisy in how they want the GFA to be implemented. This takes these forms:

A: Release the killers of RUC/PSNI men/women. But don't ask us to release killers of Gardai.

B:Unionists, enter government with SF. BTW we in the South will refuse to enter government with them until the IRA disbands.

Whatever Bertie said to Anne McCabe, I feel that the release of her husband killers, while a cruel blow, would be no more or less cruel than the hundreds of releases thus far for killings of RUC/PSNI men/women and indeed the release of certain killers of Gardai so far , e.g. Frank Hand and Seamus McQuaid. There was no storm over the latter 2 Gardai's release so are we saying that Det.McCabe's life is worth more than theirs? How insulting to their families.

Until we establish a situation whererby both North and South are implementing the GFA equally without demanding the other side does what we refuse to do ourselves, we will continue to be collaborators in helping the DUP draw up its list of obstruction-tactics.