Sean Russell statue

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Re." shoot to kill policy ", if there had been one there would have been a lot more dead IRA men. The only people who shot to kill were the terrorists.

Open your eyes

true

Sorry, me auld Dub in Glasga, but the link you provide is literally a green white and gold coloured site, from the Falls Road, Belfast. Unlike you, I prefer to rely on better information , as well as my own experiences , than that.

The whole argument and debate, anyway, was about Jean McC. I suggest you do not try to divert attention away from the point. Did the IRA shoot to kill Jean McC ?
They admit now that they did. At the time ( like the Adare murder, etc etc) they did not. Thy told her large family of young children she had gone off with a British soldier.
The kids were left to fend for themselves for weeks, hungry and heartbroken.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Sorry, me auld Dub in Glasga, but the link you provide is literally a green white and gold coloured site, from the Falls Road, Belfast. Unlike you, I prefer to rely on better information , as well as my own experiences , than that.

Just because its stance is Green, White and Orange does not mean it is not true. You dispute a lot of what they say? You dismiss it as propaganda?

The whole argument and debate, anyway, was about Jean McC.

eh, no... the whole argument and debate was about the statue of Sean Russell that was vandalised.

I suggest you do not try to divert attention away from the point.

Quite

Did the IRA shoot to kill Jean McC ?

Yes

billy the squid

Did the IRA shoot to kill Jean McC ?

Jean McConville

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Just because its stance is Green, White and Orange does not mean it is not true. You dispute a lot of what they say? You dismiss it as propaganda?

I said its colours ( when you look at its home page ) was literally green, white and orange. Its stance is pro-IRA. There is a difference. For example, the Irish governments stance is green , white and gold, and nothing wrong with that. However, its stance is not pro-IRA, and thank God for that.


eh, no... the whole argument and debate was about the statue of Sean Russell that was vandalised.

I was replying to the previous poster comments about Jean MCConville, the alledged claim that she was an informer, British shoot to kill etc.

Me auld Dub in Glasga, you tell me to open my eyes by looking at your "Relatives for Justice " website, which I did. None of it was new to me. Under the shoot to kill policy, I knew there would be no mention of the Jean McConvilles - who was, as you say, a victim of shoot to kill - or any of the victims of nationalist / republican terrorism.

Neither side, I can tell you , had a monopoly on grieving. If someone decides to start a war, an eye for an eye, we all go blind.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

I said its colours ( when you look at its home page ) was literally green, white and orange. Its stance is pro-IRA. There is a difference. For example, the Irish governments stance is green , white and gold, and nothing wrong with that. However, its stance is not pro-IRA, and thank God for that.

Please provide examples of that site supporting the IRA. I can see none, i would say it is a pro-nationalist/republican site.

I was replying to the previous poster comments about Jean MCConville, the alledged claim that she was an informer, British shoot to kill etc.

Yes and you denied there was a shoot to kill policy. I think there was and showed you a link which provides some more information. You dismissed that link as pro-IRA propaganda

Me auld Dub in Glasga, you tell me to open my eyes by looking at your "Relatives for Justice " website, which I did. None of it was new to me.

If it was not new to you, how come you denied that there was a shoot to kill policy. You do not believe that people were killed on purpose rather than arresting them or injurying them? Most armies shoot to kill

Under the shoot to kill policy, I knew there would be no mention of the Jean McConvilles - who was, as you say, a victim of shoot to kill - or any of the victims of nationalist / republican terrorism.

I would not expect there to be considering the whole set up of that group is to highlight state violence where the perpertrators will have not likely face justice. Because it highlights this, you describe them as supporting the IRA

The Work of Relatives For Justice
Relatives for Justice is a Belfast based NGO support group working with and providing support to relatives of people bereaved, and injured, by the conflict across the North of Ireland including border regions in the 26 counties. We work primarily with those people affected by state and state sponsored violence.

We assist and support families coping with the effects of bereavement through violence and the resulting trauma. This is provided through our drop-in services and satellite befriending programmes. In 2000 - 2001 RFJ worked with over 1,100 people.

RFJ identifies and attempts to address the needs of those who have suffered loss and injury; this is achieved through one to one contacts, self-help, group support, outreach and befriending including satellite support services, counselling support and therapy work, welfare and legal advocacy.

As relatives and survivors we all need to have our experiences heard and valued. Above all else these experiences need to be addressed. In doing so this will address the disparity and inequality that exists. And in terms of conflict resolution this will also allow those most marginalised to realise the pivotal role and vital contribution that they bring to the creation of a new society based upon equality, respect and above all where human rights are secured.

This work highlights and attempts to address outstanding human rights abuses. Our primary objective in this area of work is to assist in the bringing about of a more human rights-based culture in order to safeguard and protect human rights for all.

Neither side, I can tell you , had a monopoly on grieving.

The most truthful sentence in your 149 posts on this site

If someone decides to start a war, an eye for an eye, we all go blind.

You do know that it works both ways?

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yes and you denied there was a shoot to kill policy. I think there was and showed you a link which provides some more information. You dismissed that link as pro-IRA propaganda

The main shhot to kill policy was carried out by the provisional IRA and INLA,
who blew up men , women and children from all walks of life.


If it was not new to you, how come you denied that there was a shoot to kill policy. You do not believe that people were killed on purpose rather than arresting them or injurying them?

Sometimes the deaths were accidental eg a kid killed by plastic bullet while rioting, or an mistaken identity by a jumpy part time cop or whatever ( it was not unknown for a plain clothes IRA man to creep up behind an off duty RUC man on a dark night and shoot him in the back, to to ambush a farmer etc ) , and in at least two cases the "civilians" were IRA men who failed to stop and put up their hands. There may have been one or two bad apples, but I believe there was not a general shoot to kill policy, or deaths would have been much higher.


Most armies shoot to kill :confused: perhaps that is your perspective from Dublin or Glasgow, but I can assure you the role of the army , both in N.I. and the Rep of Ireland, is peacekeeping.


I would not expect there to be considering the whole set up of that group is to highlight state violence where the perpertrators will have not likely face justice. Because it highlights this, you describe them as supporting the IRA

The site describes the security services in N. Ireland as being like that in some South American countries. Come on : is it really like Argentina ?
The site gives a very one sided view of the conflict, consistent with the view taken by the IRA.






( An eye for an eye ) You do know that it works both ways?[/QUOTE]

I sure do. Do you ? And if so, why not taken out and destroy the guns and explosives to prevent anyone else going eyeless....or at least help everyones trust by showing photos of them beinfg destroyed.

Putting up a statue to a man ( Russell )who symbolises the IRA "war" , and his friendship with Nazism ( the only statue dedicated to an ally of Nazism in Europe outside of Italy, I believe ) does not helh anyones confidence in Sinn Fein / IRA.

Stabshauptmann

True.
You have been given sources by award wining journalists from a paper never mirer by allegations of bias or "abloid reporting".
A secret history of the IRA is not a proparganda book, it doesnt slate the British for Bloody Sunday or deal with collusion, it is an (unfavourable) account of Adams republican career. But in order to expose Adams involvement in her disapearance (which he has always denied) Moloney tells the entire story. You'd actually like the book, it only deals with the IRA's mistakes.

oscarBravo
What Im saying, is of course her death was wrong but that responsibility for her death does not lie entirely with the IRA. I outlined the causality loop in brief for this incident. Anybody who rejects causality is inept at reasoning.
If I jumped in front of a train, I would be unfair and illogical to place total blame for my death with the train driver.

My personal opinion is that since Britain acknowledged a state of open warfare between the IRA and Britain, and it acted outside its own criminal law in dealing with the IRA, that Britain should then be held to the rules of war.

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

What Im saying, is of course her death was wrong

That's not what I asked you. It's a simple question, and it calls for a simple answer: was the murder of Jean McConville a crime?

Necromancer wrote:

but that responsibility for her death does not lie entirely with the IRA. I outlined the causality loop in brief for this incident. Anybody who rejects causality is inept at reasoning.

That's assuming you accept that all the events in your chain of causality are true (I'm not saying that they are not - I don't know - but they are certainly disputed), and also that each link in the chain inevitably caused the next. Even assuming that all those things happened, the IRA could have chosen not to kill her. They chose to kill her, which was a crime. They denied the crime and hid her body, which was a moral outrage over and above the original crime.

Necromancer wrote:

If I jumped in front of a train, I would be unfair and illogical to place total blame for my death with the train driver.

If you pushed someone in front of a train, I wouldn't blame the train driver at all.

Necromancer wrote:

My personal opinion is that since Britain acknowledged a state of open warfare between the IRA and Britain, and it acted outside its own criminal law in dealing with the IRA, that Britain should then be held to the rules of war.

When did Britain acknowledge such a state?

true

Necromancer said "You have been given sources by journalists from a paper never mirer by allegations of bias or "abloid reporting".

I asked was the claim in the article in which you refer to reported in other newspapers?
I do not think so. Yet you base your whole argument on the allegation. I said paper does not refuse ink. Do you think that everything any paper ever printed ,including the Sunday Tribune in which you hold such high esteem, could not have been incorrect ?


Necromancer wrote "A secret history of the IRA is not a proparganda book, it doesnt slate the British for Bloody Sunday or deal with collusion, it is an (unfavourable) account of Adams republican career."

I never said it was a propoganda book or mentioned an account of Adams republican career: that is not the point. Where is the actual proof that "the British Army no longer denies its role in her death" as you put it, which is another way of saying it had a role in her death.

You say "But in order to expose Adams involvement in her disapearance (which he has always denied) Moloney tells the entire story". Surely this is the side of the story the IRA wants everyone to know? And is it the entire story? Do you forget the IRA did not even know the whereabouts of her remains until coastal errosion exposed it. The phrase paper does not refuse ink again springs to mind.


Neocramancer wrote " You'd actually like the book, it only deals with the IRA's mistakes."

Wrong, I actually prefer books which deal with the whole true story. Most people know a lot about the IRAs mistakes already.

Redleslie2

Sleepy wrote:

But he also had the decency to say that he wouldn't become active against the British again until Hitler had been dealt with first. (unless that part of the Borstal Boy is bull$hit).

So because he got caught and said sorry then that's ok then. Hmmm. In any case, he got sentenced to fourteen years in 1942 for the attempted murder of two coppers, he helped an IRA man escape from jail in 1946 and even wrote a poem (The Dead March Past) commemerating IRA men who died between 1936 and 1946.

So the question still stands, why is it one rule for Russell's statue (and SF) and another for Behan's (and FF) and yet another for the catholic church and their support of the fascists in the spanish civil war?

Sleepy

Well, Redleslie2, there's plenty there that I didn't know. As I intimated in my initial post, all I know of Behan came from the movie The Borstal Boy. The difference as I saw it was that he had the sense to lay off Britain during the war because he knew that Hitler was the greater of two evils. Obviously I was wrong.

A statue of Behan could still be argued for on the basis of his literary talents. I don't think anyone here has yet been able to give a single reason why Russell should be honoured in such a fashion. Even the republicans here see him as short-sighted and naieve.

Quite frankly I don't see where the Catholic Church comes into this tbh. If it were up to me, their assets would have passed into the control of the state decades ago but that's an entirely different thread, and probably one better suited to the Humanities forum.

true

Sleepy wrote:

A statue of Behan could still be argued for on the basis of his literary talents. I don't think anyone here has yet been able to give a single reason why Russell should be honoured in such a fashion. Even the republicans here see him as short-sighted and naieve.

Quite frankly I don't see where the Catholic Church comes into this .

Thats right. The only thing Behan, Russell, Hitler and Mussolini had in common is that they were all Roman Catholics. But then again, so were a lot of good guys in WW2 as well.

Stabshauptmann

oscarBravo wrote:

That's not what I asked you. It's a simple question, and it calls for a simple answer: was the murder of Jean McConville a crime?

Its not as simple a question as you think.
Under republican law no, she committed treason and faced the same penalty most countries have for treason. That however in my opinion stinks of hypocrisy. When Tone, Pearse or any other republican was tried for Treason they declared that they never gave allegiance to Britain and that Britain had no right to expect it. Why should then Jean McConville be expected to give allegiance to the IRA who’s claim to sovereignty is just as dubious.
Under British law, assuming the IRA is a criminal organization and nothing else then its murder and a crime. However, that implies the British broke the law on many many occasions when they acted outside common law (but inside the rules of war) when dealing with the IRA (although there are times that was broken too).
Since Britain and the IRA were at war, by any definition, that both Britain and the IRA declared war, and both sides acted in a manner to indicate they were fighter a war, then IMO its the rules of war that should determine whether or not it was a crime.
Jean McConville was technically a member of the British Security forces. She was discovered unarmed and thus entitled to be treated as a POW. She was given a chance to resume her normal life, the closest the IRA could come to POW status. She refused this and was killed. To be killed while attempting escape I *think* is legal but I'm not sure. However it is my opinion that there were other alternatives. She could have been forced into exile in Britain or else where. Her handlers could have relocated her. She didn’t have to die and that’s why I say killing her was wrong, to say whether it is a crime is endemic of ones own personal bias about which side in the conflict had the moral high ground.

That's assuming you accept that all the events in your chain of causality are true (I'm not saying that they are not - I don't know - but they are certainly disputed)

Many truths were at first disputed but I cant claim to have an absolute certainty (just like anyone else).

and also that each link in the chain inevitably caused the next.

Becoming an informer-->getting caught--> getting killed.

Even assuming that all those things happened, the IRA could have chosen not to kill her.

Agreed, thus why I say it was wrong.

They chose to kill her, which was a crime.

Well, as I’ve said before, saying is wrong is actually IMO harsher than saying is a crime, the law in NI has never held that much of my respect.

They denied the crime and hid her body, which was a moral outrage over and above the original crime.

Which I said several posts back, and to be more precise, Adams was very much responsible but still denies it to this day even though his alibi has been disproved.
Its actually more than a moral outrage, it is a war crime to deny her death, about that there is no doubt.

If you pushed someone in front of a train, I wouldn't blame the train driver at all.

Exactly, thank you for seeing reason.
The person pushing = Her handlers
The person being pushed = Jean McConville
The Train driver = the IRA

When did Britain acknowledge such a state?

August 1971 with the introduction of internment without trial (a military technique) then then home secretary Reginald Maudling declared "a state of open war now exists....between the IRA and British forces".

true wrote:

I asked was the claim in the article in which you refer to reported in other newspapers. I do not think so. Yet you base your whole argument on the allegation. I said paper does not refuse ink. Do you think that everything any paper ever printed ,including the Sunday Tribune in which you hold such high esteem, could not have been incorrect ?

It might very well be incorrect, to deny even the possibility is sheer arrogance. I would however like to point out that bashing the IRA sells more papers than defending them.
I think though that this explanation is much better that the IRAs line that she ran off with a British soldier and was living in England.
The thing is we know which unit killed her, and that these guys weren’t used for little tit for tat jobs or killing randomers. The unknowns were under the direct control of Adams and had the sole duty of routing out informers. At the very lest, the IRA believed she was an informer. If she was killed out of anger because she comforted a dying soldier the local unit would have killed her; they would have been the ones who were angry.
Also nearly every other part of the book seems to hold true. I think that Moloney just has better sources than other journalists and isn’t interested in sensationalism. I’ve read his wok for a long time and I trust and believe him.

I never said it was a propaganda book or mentioned an account of Adams republican career: that is not the point.

You are disputing its credibility. Yes? You say that its just making stuff up to sell copies.

Where is the actual proof that "the British Army no longer denies its role in her death" as you put it, which is another way of saying it had a role in her death.

There was an informer as obvious from the level of British success and spoiler operations. That no legal action has been taken by the British against Moloney says something, in fact here hasn’t been so much as a denial.

You say "But in order to expose Adams involvement in her disappearance (which he has always denied) Moloney tells the entire story". Surely this is the side of the story the IRA wants everyone to know? And is it the entire story? Do you forget the IRA did not even know the whereabouts of her remains until coastal erosion exposed it. The phrase paper does not refuse ink again springs to mind.

That the IRA killed a widow mother of 10, you'd be surprised by how little they want ppl to know that. The nature of the way she was killed made it impossible to know where she was buried.

Wrong, I actually prefer books which deal with the whole true story. Most people know a lot about the IRAs mistakes already

But what if that "whole truth" doesn’t conform to what you know already?

Redleslie2

true wrote:

Thats right. The only thing Behan, Russell, Hitler and Mussolini had in common is that they were all Roman Catholics. But then again, so were a lot of good guys in WW2 as well.

You don't half talk a load of old useless rubbish.

jbkenn

Necromancer wrote:

Under republican law no, she committed treason and faced the same penalty most countries have for treason.

There is no such thing as "Republican Law" and she did not commit treason.
Only the warped mind of "Republicanism" could come to such a conclusion.
If she had opened fire on every "Republican" in Belfast with a GPMG from the roof of Divis Flats, she did not deserve the cowardly and callous treatment meted out to her. There can be no justification for this heinous crime, and, the brave heroes of "Republicanism" who carried out this barbarous murder, should hang their heads in shame

jbkenn

true

Necromancer wrote "Jean McConville was technically a member of the British Security forces."! Such bull****. She was a poor mother of ten, whose husband had just died, and out of humanity she went to comfort a dying British soldier on the side of the road. The IRA wanted to isolate and alienate the British army, as proven by the IRA's treatment of at least 14 other women from the same area who were beaten and / or tarred and feathered in the previous weeks. They wanted to make an example of Jean McConville. It is sick that people like Necromancer would make unstabanciated allegations that she was technically a member of the British Security Services. What an insult to everyones intelligence. Even if she was anything other than a plain simple poor woman, that was no reason to abduct, torture and kill her, and bury her in the way they did.

true

Redleslie2 wrote:

You don't half talk a load of old useless rubbish.

No need for a personal attack, Redleslie. I know what I write is true : if it is not true, you have the right to challenge or correct me on anything I say.
The fact you could not find anything incorrect, but instead make a personal attack on me, speaks volumes.

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

Necromancer wrote "Jean McConville was technically a member of the British Security forces."! Such bull****. She was a poor mother of ten, whose husband had just died, and out of humanity she went to comfort a dying British soldier on the side of the road. The IRA wanted to isolate and alienate the British army, as proven by the IRA's treatment of at least 14 other women from the same area who were beaten and / or tarred and feathered in the previous weeks. They wanted to make an example of Jean McConville. It is sick that people like Necromancer would make unstabanciated allegations that she was technically a member of the British Security Services. What an insult to everyones intelligence. Even if she was anything other than a plain simple poor woman, that was no reason to abduct, torture and kill her, and bury her in the way they did.

No need for a personal attack, true. I know what I write is true : if it is not true, you have the right to challenge or correct me on anything I say.
The fact you could not find anything incorrect, but instead make a personal attack on me, speaks volumes.

Stabshauptmann

Nobody can be 100% sure of anything, and I love the way I was misquoted. I am surprised that my most balanced post was followed by your most belligereant.

true

It is true that she was a mother of tem , whose husband had recently died. It is also true and widely accepted that she went to comfort a drying Britih soldier, somebodys son, outside near where she lived. It is also true, and widely reported at the time, how at least 14 other women from the same area were beaten / tarred and feathered by republicans / the IRA in the weeks before Jean McC's abduction.
I think the above is accepted even by Sinn Fein / IRA.

Now, show me proof she was a member of the British security services. Her membership card, her 00 number, her alledged radio - anything. I reakon if she had a radio then Sinn Fein / IRA would have been leaping over the media like grinning monkeys, showing it off. And even if she was loyal to her security services, it was her governments security services, what gave the right to the IRA to torture and kill her and leave her on a beach for decades until coastal errosion uncovered her ?

jbkenn

true wrote:

what gave the right to the IRA to torture and kill her and leave her on a beach for decades until coastal errosion uncovered her ?

"Republican Law", whatever that is.

jbkenn

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

she committed treason and faced the same penalty most countries have for treason.

I'd like to see a list of countries whose prescribed penalty for treason is a bullet in the head and an unmarked grave.

Necromancer wrote:

That however in my opinion stinks of hypocrisy. When Tone, Pearse or any other republican was tried for Treason they declared that they never gave allegiance to Britain and that Britain had no right to expect it. Why should then Jean McConville be expected to give allegiance to the IRA who’s claim to sovereignty is just as dubious.

The only part of that I'd disagree with is that the IRA's claim to sovereignty is orders of magnitude more dubious.

Necromancer wrote:

Under British law, assuming the IRA is a criminal organization and nothing else then its murder and a crime.

What exactly could the IRA be, under British law, that would relax the standards by which this shooting could be considered murder?

Necromancer wrote:

Jean McConville was technically a member of the British Security forces.

Prove it.

Necromancer wrote:

to say whether it is a crime is endemic of ones own personal bias about which side in the conflict had the moral high ground.

It's not a question of moral high ground, it's a question of criminal law.

Necromancer wrote:

Many truths were at first disputed but I cant claim to have an absolute certainty (just like anyone else).

Necromancer wrote:

I know what I write is true

The futility of consistency?

Necromancer wrote:

The person pushing = Her handlers
The person being pushed = Jean McConville
The Train driver = the IRA

Jesus wept. You're not seriously saying that whoever put a bullet in her head was as helpless to prevent her death as the hypothetical train driver?

Necromancer wrote:

August 1971 with the introduction of internment without trial (a military technique)

Tenuous.

Necromancer wrote:

then home secretary Reginald Maudling declared "a state of open war now exists....between the IRA and British forces".

...and America has a "war on drugs" - does that entitle narcotic smugglers to POW status?

Stabshauptmann

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a question of moral high ground, it's a question of criminal law.

You just ignored my points re why it isnt/ shouldnt. The law in NI was invalid and was disrespected by all sides. To use a faulty measuring stick shows nothing.

The futility of consistency?

You diliberatly misquoted me, and by doing so showed to all your inability to reason. That three of you are all now misquoting me says a lot for the prospect of an intelligent debate. I used trues own illogic against him, word for word (but with italics).

Jesus wept. You're not seriously saying that whoever put a bullet in her head was as helpless to prevent her death as the hypothetical train driver?

If she was an informer, yes. If the british could operate informers with impunity then the war would be lost for the IRA. Weather or not you believe this to be a good thing, the IRA had no choice.

Tenuous. ...and America has a "war on drugs" - does that entitle narcotic smugglers to POW status?

Americas war on drugs seems to give it authority to act out side its juristriction and use the army rather than civilian authorities.

The three ppl I wish to debate with have all shown their childishness by misquoting me. True showed billigerance but seems to have retracted this, so thats ok; everybody makes mistakes or has momentary weaknesses.

You ask me to prove Jean McConville was an informer, but you still argue that what the IRA did was wrong even in the event that she was an informer. Arguements I give that she is an informer are simply ignored so I ask A) Do you want it to be proved that she was and Would it make any difference to you?

jbkenn

Necromancer wrote:

You ask me to prove Jean McConville was an informer, but you still argue that what the IRA did was wrong even in the event that she was an informer. Arguements I give that she is an informer are simply ignored so I ask A) Do you want it to be proved that she was and Would it make any difference to you?

No matter what the nature of her alleged "crime", the IRA had no right, authority, mandate or legal entitlement, except their own warped, self appointed right, to do what they like, when they like, to whomsoever they choose.
In the eyes of civilised people the world over, nothing will ever excuse this barbaric act, nothing

jbkenn

Stabshauptmann

jbkenn wrote:

No matter what the nature of her alleged "crime", the IRA had no right, authority, mandate or legal entitlement, except their own warped, self appointed right, to do what they like, when they like, to whomsoever they choose.
In the eyes of civilised people the world over, nothing will ever excuse this barbaric act, nothing

jbkenn

Thank you, I do appreciate it when people give their honest opinions. (No sarcasm of anything else intended there).

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

You just ignored my points re why it isnt/ shouldnt. The law in NI was invalid and was disrespected by all sides. To use a faulty measuring stick shows nothing.

Sorry, but you don't get to shrug off the law just because it doesn't suit you.

Necromancer wrote:

You diliberatly misquoted me, and by doing so showed to all your inability to reason.

I most certainly did not; I quoted you verbatim.

Necromancer wrote:

That three of you are all now misquoting me says a lot for the prospect of an intelligent debate. I used trues own illogic against him, word for word (but with italics).

What does that mean: you posted something you believed to be untrue? If so, you should have made that clear.

Necromancer wrote:

If she was an informer, yes.

That's the kind of demented mindset that makes me despair of there ever being an end to violence on this island.

Pulling a trigger to shoot someone in the head at close range is a conscious act of volition. Describing it as some sort of inevitable conclusion to a tragic chain of events to which all parties - especially the murderer - were helpless observers is, frankly, disturbing and sick.

Necromancer wrote:

If the british could operate informers with impunity then the war would be lost for the IRA. Weather or not you believe this to be a good thing, the IRA had no choice.

They chose to believe that their objectives were more important than a human life. That's a choice, however you want to dress it up.

Necromancer wrote:

Americas war on drugs seems to give it authority to act out side its juristriction and use the army rather than civilian authorities.

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

Necromancer wrote:

You ask me to prove Jean McConville was an informer, but you still argue that what the IRA did was wrong even in the event that she was an informer. Arguements I give that she is an informer are simply ignored so I ask A) Do you want it to be proved that she was and Would it make any difference to you?

I'm with jbkenn on this: nothing will excuse her murder. That doesn't mean I'm happy to let apologists for her murderers toss around unproven allegations in an effort to somehow excuse the crime.