Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
[Artical] 'Irish have taken the point': British envoy on Dublin bombs
Options
Comments
-
Sand wrote:Theres two cases here....
A) It was a war between two recognised parties in Northern Ireland...Then they can lock up people as long as the war is in effect -I.E. until the IRA admits the war is over and they lost.
It wasnt a war, but a terrorist campaign....then crinimal law applies so the geneva convention isnt called into account.
A doesnt count because the IRA etc etc didnt match the requirements of being a recognised participant in a war.
I don’t remember using the Geneva Convention in the same context of the IRA, another poster brought it up as a way of saying the British were all good and nice in general.
But a war is “armed fighting between two or more countries or groups” (- Cambridge). No matter what emotive name you what to call paramilitaries.Sand wrote:Ah, a similar logic to the end justifies the means.
I don’t believe the end justifies the means.Sand wrote:The end damns the means. Can you honestly believe that the IRA and the British followed the same standards? The IRA *routinely* murdered civillians. This did not breach any of their standards. It was their SOP.
republicans on the other hand kick up a stink over isolated incidents of British wrongdoing -
I’m not a republican, but not all republicans agree with the IRA, PIRA etc, not all of them agree with killing innocent people.Sand wrote:Ah right, retroactive condemnation of British adherence to the Geneva Convention in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years based on what? Some acts of their allies in a seperate conflict and theatre in 2004-5? Do we get to condemn the IRAs respect for human rights based on say Colonel Ghadaffis actions? Or can we talk about their involvement via Sean Russell, feted by the SF crowd for his plotting with the Nazis for a - (Nationalist Socialist Workers?) - United Ireland? Poor Sean's looking a bit shorter these days. Sure by your standards we can use the Nazi atrocities to condemn the IRA. I love these new rules.
Funny of you to bring up Northern Ireland over the past 40 years, I was talking about what they’re doing in the UK right now. They still like to lock people up with out trial, or reason. Something that is against their own laws – until they change them, that is.
“Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.”
…This, along with talking about their so-called “liberation” of Iraq, was brought up to show that they haven’t changed from the ways of past UK governments. I would even find it hard to blame the current UK government any passed action of past governments, but they haven’t changed much.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Dub in Glasgo wrote:Quite a few members of the IRA in the '70s got their training and expertise from the British and Irish Armies... are those armies to blame for the actions of their members when they left the army??
How many is " quite a few " - two or three? Can you name them ? Those armies are not to blame for the actions of perhaps 0.05 % of their members when they left the army, as (A) they are legitimate armies, backing up legitimate governments and ( they did not allow provide the ex members with semtex, intentionally or unintentionally. I remember when the IRA killed an Irish soldier without mercy when he stumbled accross their hide in Co. Leitrim, during one of the kidnap searches in the early eighties - any Irish soldier I ever met hate the IRA.
Quote Very nice of you to think that the people involved with the Civil Rights movement had no right to take it any further even though they were faced down with the full force of the state. If the NI was not such an un-democratic state and inherently sectarian, there would have been no need for the CRA or later on the IRA (which really only started because of the actions of the UK during the CRA campaign).
There was no need for violence, this only made things worse, even from those isolated IRA incidents in the forties onwards. Violence made both sides worse, and caused the deaths of thousands of people. I know many Catholics in the North in the sixties who had the same civil rights and liberties as if they were living in Dublin or Manchester or Glasgow or Paris. In fact, they were perfectly happy as as they had more opportunities and a better standard of living than many in the "free state ".
Quote There is a place about 15 miles from me that detains hundreds of people without trial including women and children
The UK does not lock people up without trial or reason.
I was answering the allegation that " The UK still likes to lock people up without trial or reason ". That is rubbish.
The UK are currently holding 'suspects' without trial or even charge
Perhaps you are referring to some Muslim terrorists ? There may be a handful of these still in custody, I do not know or care too much as I know some were caught plotting an outrage in London. I think they will and should be deported back to their original countries before too long, if they have other countries. If not, do you think they should be charged with treason ? That is a seperate matter : if the UK "liked" to lock up people, there would be a hell of a lot more locked up.0 -
true wrote:How many is " quite a few " - two or three? Can you name them ? Those armies are not to blame for the actions of perhaps 0.05 % of their members when they left the army, as (A) they are legitimate armies, backing up legitimate governments and ( they did not allow provide the ex members with semtex, intentionally or unintentionally.
More than those who are now in the RIRA or CIRA. The fact of the matter is you blame the IRA because those break-aways got their experience in the IRA therefore the IRA is responsible for all further actions of ex-members. I merely asked you to confirm the logic of your stance by asking if the British or Irish Armies are responsible for the actions of their ex-members when they joined the IRA. I assume you say No which I agree with. You are now using inconsistant logic by stating that the IRA is responsible for all the actions of ex-members because they trained them!!There was no need for violence, this only made things worse, even from those isolated IRA incidents in the forties onwards. Violence made both sides worse, and caused the deaths of thousands of people. I know many Catholics in the North in the sixties who had the same civil rights and liberties as if they were living in Dublin or Manchester or Glasgow or Paris. In fact, they were perfectly happy as as they had more opportunities and a better standard of living than many in the "free state ".
Your opinion was there was no need for violence yet you seem to ignore the fact that the state repressed people campaigning on a non-violent platform. I will leave it to the people who lived through the late '60s/early '70 to confirm in their own minds if there was no need for violence. I certainly do not know what I would have done if I was subjected to a terror campaign from the state!
You talk absolute rubbish when you try and state that the CRA had no basis for complaining about the discrimination and violence from the un--democratic state that is NI.The UK does not lock people up without trial or reason.
The key here is reason eh? Those women and children are locked up without trial or charge but the reason given is they might drift into the wider community to hide whilest their case is being reviewed by the UK Home Office. That is a good enough reason for you to lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge?
The facts are:The UK does lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge
You appear to have a difficulty accepting that.Perhaps you are referring to some Muslim terrorists ? There may be a handful of these still in custody, I do not know or care too much as I know some were caught plotting an outrage in London. I think they will and should be deported back to their original countries before too long, if they have other countries. If not, do you think they should be charged with treason ? That is a seperate matter : if the UK "liked" to lock up people, there would be a hell of a lot more locked up.
I am referring to the people the UK are currently imprisioning without trial or charge. They should be either charged or released. Not a difficult democratic concept to grasp
The facts are:The UK does lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge0
Advertisement