Have you all lost your marbles??

A Dub in Glasgo

ionapaul wrote:

Never underestimate the capacity of the voters to be hoodwinked, fooled, lied to and their happiness to go along with it. The voting publics happiness to blind themselves to harsh realities is even greater.....

Lincoln, as usual, was right: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time.'

Yep, just look at the support Lawlor, Haughey, Burke and Lowry had from the masses as well

ionapaul

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep, just look at the support Lawlor, Haughey, Burke and Lowry had from the masses as well

I agree 100%. The funny thing is hearing the same idiots laugh at Bush and the 'dumb' Americans...or march on Shannon in indignation.

BuffyBot

A British Army unit is ambushed by the IRA and a number of soldiers are killed some in cold blood. All the anti-republicans are quick to say murder and we must find them. If the IRA are caught, they will face prosecution.

Fair enough, they face prosecution under the law of the land they live in.

An IRA unit is ambushed by the British Army and a number of the IRA men are killed some in cold blood. All the anti-republicans cheer and say well done, we got some of them. The BA soldiers will be given honours and some will be promoted. They will not face prosecution.

Of course, if the IRA "soldiers" in the first example weren't caught would sit around in quiet comtemplation over the loss of life and the families they have destroyed. They
would not celebrate it, huh? They wouldn't be revered within the IRA then, or some elements of the Republican community at large? They would not be "promoted" within the ranks of the IRA.

I love this double standard stuff. It can be very amusing

A Dub in Glasgo

BuffyBot wrote:

Of course,

Is that 'Of course' referring to the fact that the BA would not face prosecution. If so, why not?

if the IRA "soldiers" in the first example weren't caught would sit around in quiet comtemplation over the loss of life and the families they have destroyed. They
would not celebrate it, huh? They wouldn't be revered within the IRA then, or some elements of the Republican community at large? They would not be "promoted" within the ranks of the IRA.

I have not suggested anything different. I have merely pointed out the hyprocisy of the 'lawful' killing in cold blood from one side and the 'unlawful' killing in cold blood from the other side. They should not be mixed and matched when the situation presents itself.

I love this double standard stuff. It can be very amusing

You love it so much that you are a willing exponent of double standards

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

She was seen as a traitor and dealt with accordingly....to me it was a horrific act but none the less war itself is horrific, tis the nature of the beast Im afraid.

Every member of the PIRA is, by definition, a traitor. FTA69's devotion to a mythical 32-county republic, and his refusal to recognise the legitimate government of Ireland and its civil and military authorities, is in effect treasonous.

Do you feel the Irish government would be justified in putting bullets in their heads without any semblance of due process? I don't.

AmenToThat wrote:

As horrible as it was it is a side issue and smells of desperation from the 'right/independent reading' of Irish politics to me.

On the contrary, it is a microcosm of everything that is vicious, cowardly and unpleasant about the Republican movement in this country.

People like FTA69 have made it clear that they consider the IRA the legitimate army of the Republic. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a Republic where the army is allowed to arbitrarily execute people it doesn't like.

AmenToThat wrote:

SF are not going to go away and the veiws in this poll suggest that a large number of the population of this country dont want them to.

I don't care whether they go away or not. I'd consider them a more legitimate political entity if they could figure out simple moral issues like murder being a crime.

AmenToThat wrote:

If that makes this section of the population 'stupid' then so be it I say.
It seems to me that the way the Irish people accepted unemployment, the abuses of the catholic church and the corruption of FF(especially in the 70s and 80s when this country really was struggling), shows that intelligence levels havnt just suddenly dropped overnight............thats assuming of course that you agree that a large section of the population is indeed stupid.

I'm totally puzzled as to your point here. There have been many wrongs, and indeed many crimes, committed by those in power in this country. Does that suddenly make it OK for other crimes to be committed? Does it make it OK for a political party that can't bring itself to describe a murder as a crime to seek respect?

AmenToThat wrote:

For the record every although I dont consider it a criminal act I, as well as just about every 'republican minded' member of this board who has posted has stated that they believe this act was gruesome and wrong...........isnt this a step forward?

I'm sorry if this is seen as a personal attack, but if you don't consider putting a bullet in a woman's head a criminal act, you must have a screw loose somewhere.

AmenToThat wrote:

I hope you can accept this as there is not a snowballs chance of the republican leadership deeming it to be a criminal act so you can either accept this and move on or just sit and become even more bitterly entrenched in your views................the very thing you scorn Republicans for btw.

If considering murder a crime is "bitterly entrenched" then excuse my while I sit here in my bitter trench, because I'd hate to think I'd ever feel differently.

Sleepy

As long as it stops them from killing people, I think the government can negotiate with Sinn Fein et al forever as far as I'm concerned.

cdebru

pogo&#324 wrote:

Just as point of fact Moloney was almost certainly wrong about McConville.

In his book it alleges that McConville was in possession of a radio transmitter, when in fact there is no record of the British army issuing radio transmitters to its agents.

If McConville had such a device this would have made her unique.

It is also worth noting that the family herself vehemently deny the allegations that she was an agent.

Her husband had recently died, and she was an ill and depressed woman struggling to bring up 10 children alone.

According to her children she simply wasn't in a fit state to do what she was alleged to have done.

Her crime was to have come to the aid of a dying British soldier, and the radio story one the Provos more transparent lies.

so if moloney is wrong about jean mcconville being an informer could he not equally be just as wrong in his allegation about gerry adams

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

A British Army unit is ambushed by the IRA and a number of soldiers are killed some in cold blood. All the anti-republicans are quick to say murder and we must find them. If the IRA are caught, they will face prosecution.

An IRA unit is ambushed by the British Army and a number of the IRA men are killed some in cold blood. All the anti-republicans cheer and say well done, we got some of them. The BA soldiers will be given honours and some will be promoted. They will not face prosecution.

I have no problems with both attacks as it is a conflict.

If I fall out with my neighbour and we come to blows, that's a conflict too. Should I be exempted from a murder charge if I kill him under those circumstances?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nobody should be charged with murder but that is not what happens which is the reason republicans are highlighting the hypocrisy of those who cheer killings on the one hand and on the other hand deplore and are sickened by killings. Hyprocisy.

You're basing your argument on the assumption that an illegal, treasonous and seditious armed organisation has the same legitimacy for its actions as the armed forces mandated by an elected government to defend the interests of the people. That's just ridiculous.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

As for killing civilians, all parties to any conflict who recklessly kills civilians in a conflict should be held accountable. A lot of people here seem to think only one side should be held accountable, that is the reason why the victims of the state do not feel they are getting justice.

Everyone should be held accountable, but it's only reasonable that the standards should be somewhat different for a legitimate army than for a seditious terrorist group.

cdebru

irish1 wrote:

I would just like to make it clear, that is the view of FTA69, and not the view of Sinn Fein, the killing of Jean McConville was WRONG, very wrong.

FTA69 I think your support for Sinn Fein is embarrassing, I want people to know that FTA69 is not a typical supporter

the killing of jean mcconville was a crime under UK law it would have been a crime under irish law
it is quite possible that the people who killed her believed they were killing an informer and since they did not accept british rule nor the 26 county government and were acting under the authority of what they believed to be the legitimate government of the republic the IRA army council they would not accept what they did was a crime
the best that republicans can say is it was wrong as to describe it as a crime leaves open the possibility of accepting that all IRA operations were crimes
which they were if you accept the right of the british government to make laws in ireland which at the time prvovisionals did not


if she was an informer then there maybe some justification for for her killing in the circumstances that existed then

however I don't accept that she was an informer even if the IRA convinced her to confess to it
I think that she was a protestant woman living in a nationalist area she did not fit in and probably did not hold the general views of her neighbours which made her stand out from the crowd.
there is also the story of her coming to th e aid of a british soldier it is more than likely that it is these reasons that led to her murder

I was told by a republican many years ago that she had died of a heart attack while being questioned by the IRA
this was a lie as we discovered when the womans body was discovered
but it was not the only lie that the IRA told about this woman

the IRA knew they had done a terrible wrong at the time as that is the obvious reason for hiding her body at the time if they could have stood over the allegation that she was an informer surely they would have treated her as other informers and dumped her body on the border a s a warning to other informers
not pretended she had run off and they knew nothing about it

true

cdebru wrote:

it is quite possible that the people who killed her believed they were killing an informer and since they did not accept british rule nor the 26 county government and were acting under the authority of what they believed to be the legitimate government of the republic the IRA army council they would not accept what they did was a crime
the best that republicans can say is it was wrong as to describe it as a crime leaves open the possibility of accepting that all IRA operations were crimes
which they were if you accept the right of the british government to make laws in ireland which at the time prvovisionals did not

if she was an informer then there maybe some justification for for her killing in the circumstances that existed then

Even if she was an "informer", who was she informing to? It would have been to the security services of the state , which was provided by the elected government. Who was the traitor, her or the IRA ? Who elected the IRA ? What right had the IRA to tar and feather the other dozen or so women in the Falls road around this time? It was to drive a wedge between the army and the locals. What right had the IRA to abduct and torture and kill Mrs McC. ?
And then tell her kids she ran off with a British soldier, and leave a large young family heartbroken and hungry and alone.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

If I fall out with my neighbour and we come to blows, that's a conflict too. Should I be exempted from a murder charge if I kill him under those circumstances?

A rather lazy analogy. Should your neighbour face charges if he kills you?

You're basing your argument on the assumption that an illegal, treasonous and seditious armed organisation has the same legitimacy for its actions as the armed forces mandated by an elected government to defend the interests of the people. That's just ridiculous. Everyone should be held accountable, but it's only reasonable that the standards should be somewhat different for a legitimate army than for a seditious terrorist group.

The standards should be far higher for the state. It is ridiculous that the the army and police of the state can commit murder and get away with it

As I said, a text book example of hypocrisy

treasonous and seditious - new buzzwords from the OATSA?

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

t
it is quite possible that the people who killed her believed they were killing an informer and since they did not accept british rule nor the 26 county government and were acting under the authority of what they believed to be the legitimate government of the republic the IRA army council they would not accept what they did was a crime

Many criminals don't accept what they do is a crime.
To present a scenario whereby its legitimate for anyone to self determine that they can usurp the laws of a democratic society just because they dont agree with the democratic majority is Cloud Cuckoo Esque.
Theres no legitimacy in that approach at all.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nothing democratic about how NI came into being or the situation that existed in NI when the IRA killed Jean McConville.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

A rather lazy analogy. Should your neighbour face charges if he kills you?

Yes, unless he kills you while you ambush him with an AK47. Then it is self defence.


The standards should be far higher for the state.

They are. The state security services are accountable for their actions, and generally wear clearly identifiable uniforms , have ID and identifiable vehicles. Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. They achieve this 99.9% of the time. In every body of thousands of people anywhere in the world, you will never get 100% perfection.
As a southener, I have always found them friendly, courteous and efficient.


It is ridiculous that the the army and police of the state can commit murder and get away with it

Nobody said the entire Northern security services had a 100% perfectly clean record since 1969. However, look how much effort and money is being put in to the last Bloody Sunday enquiry etc ( even though it has emerged that a provisional IRA man who said he shot from his weapon that day has retracted his statement). Nobody or no state is perfect.
Or do you mean Garda collusion, which resulted in the death of N.I. Justice Gibson and his wife, and several RUC men etc?

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nothing democratic about how NI came into being or the situation that existed in NI when the IRA killed Jean McConville.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Rep of Ireland was not perfect in early / mid 20th century either. But nobody went around torturing and killing mothers of ten, and then hiding their bodies until coastal erosion revealed them decades later.

monument

billy the squid wrote:

(for those that believe this is actually a war)

So, now there was no war*, there must have been peace in the North and the media must have made it all up - is that right?

This thread is another example of users here being more sickened of the thought of the republicans in power, then out murdering people. Which is sicking to me.

*war - armed fighting between two or more countries or groups URL=http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89016&dict=CALD]1[/URL

true

monument wrote:

So, now there was no war*, there must have been peace in the North and the media must have made it all up - is that right?

This thread is another example of users here being more sickened of the thought of the republicans in power, then out murdering people. Which is sicking to me.

*war - armed fighting between two or more countries or groups URL=http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89016&dict=CALD]1[/URL

There was no war : it was a terrorist campaign, waged by civilian clothed terrorists / freedom fighters - call them what you will. The IRA / INLA etc were not fighting on behalf of any government, democratically elected or otherwise.


Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are republicans. The IRA are terrorists. Until Sinn Fein distances itself from the provos, it will be tarnished by the same brush.

It seems Sinn Fein / IRA are not sickened at the thought of murder - it does not even consider that of Jean McConville a crime. If Sinn Fein cannot even recognise a crime, what hope have they / us if they were in power?

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Yes, unless he kills you while you ambush him with an AK47. Then it is self defence.

Here we go again.... and what if you went for a pre-emptive strike witrh your AK-47 before he gets a chance to kill you?

They are. The state security services are accountable for their actions, and generally wear clearly identifiable uniforms , have ID and identifiable vehicles. Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. They achieve this 99.9% of the time. In every body of thousands of people anywhere in the world, you will never get 100% perfection.
As a southener, I have always found them friendly, courteous and efficient.

Another % plucked from thin air from true. If the standards are really higher for the state, how come you can count the number of convictions on one hand? They (the state) committed murder and got away with it, yet you do not see it.You label groups who highlight the murder as pro-IRA propaganda. As a southener, I have sometimes found them friendly, courteous and efficient. Othertimes I have found them to be anything but. No 100%'s for me unlike true.

Nobody said the entire Northern security services had a 100% perfectly clean record since 1969.

How about looking at the facts then rather than patronise us with your 99.9% and dismissing anything that questions them or puts them into bad light as pro-IRA propaganda.

However, look how much effort and money is being put in to the last Bloody Sunday enquiry etc

Yes and look how we got the British to look into Bloody Sunday again. The original enquiry was a cover-up and whitewash. The soldiers that murdered the innocents were honoured and given promotions. Everybody in the British establishment were happy that they slapped the croppies down again and taught them a lesson.

The British government were shamed into looking into Bloody Sunday again and it is now costing their people a fortune.

Nobody or no state is perfect.

Correct, yet you continue to dismiss groups highlighting state murder as pro-IRA propaganda.

Or do you mean Garda collusion, which resulted in the death of N.I. Justice Gibson and his wife, and several RUC men etc?

If there was collusion, yes. There should be a public enquiry to look into it.

Interestingly, you dismiss allegations and evidence of British state collusion into the murders of people as pro-IRA proaganda yet you state that the killing of Gibson and other RUC men were as a result of Irish state collusion.

Why am I not surprised at that?

Sleepy

The IRA and all the other murdering scumbags in the north always left informers bodies to be found in public places. It's a age-old tactic used by bandits to "dissuade" (reaad intimidate) the law-abiding public from doing their civic duty. If, as the IRA would have us believe, Jean McConville was an informer, why did they break their own established practices and "disappear" her body?

/me awaits SF spin claiming that this was done with the welfare of her children in mind :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nothing democratic about how NI came into being or the situation that existed in NI when the IRA killed Jean McConville.

Well then lets put the IRA campaign to a vote and see whats said :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The standards should be far higher for the state.

That's convenient. I'd love to hear why terrorists should have a more relaxed standard for "murder" than the legitimate security forces of the state.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is ridiculous that the the army and police of the state can commit murder and get away with it

I can't believe you're so blind as to miss an obvious point here: we, the people, elect a government. The government train a small number of people in the use of weapons for the defence of the state. It's a given that legitimate armed forces will inevitably be called upon to use lethal force in defence of the state - hopefully not often.

With me so far? The existence of legitimate armed forces means that the government, and by extension the people, recognise that it may sometimes be necessary to use force in defence of our interests.

Nobody else is allowed to use lethal force, and to do so results in criminal prosecution. There are - of necessity - different standards for the defence forces acting in defence of the national interest.

Your suggestion that terrorists should somehow be given more leeway when it comes to the application of violence is, frankly, bizarre.

And, just so we're clear, I also believe that members of the armed forces who act outside of their remit should face the appropriate penalties, including murder charges.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

treasonous and seditious - new buzzwords from the OATSA?

I don't know what OATSA is, but would you deny that the IRA are a treasonous and seditious organisation?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

So, now there was no war*, there must have been peace in the North and the media must have made it all up - is that right?

*war - armed fighting between two or more countries or groups url="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89016&dict=CALD"]1[/url

If you're going to adopt a broader definition of "war", you're going to have to adopt the broader implications.

For example, your definition means that there are a number of families in Limerick at war. Should the Geneva Convention apply?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

That's convenient. I'd love to hear why terrorists should have a more relaxed standard for "murder" than the legitimate security forces of the state.

You think it is acceptable for the legitimate security forces of the state to carry out torture and murder as well!?!?

I can't believe you're so blind as to miss an obvious point here: we, the people, elect a government.

Are you talking about the British or Irish government? I have voted in British elections but the rulers have always been the ones where the majority of the people did not vote for them.

The government train a small number of people in the use of weapons for the defence of the state. It's a given that legitimate armed forces will inevitably be called upon to use lethal force in defence of the state - hopefully not often.

That includes torture and murder as well?

With me so far? The existence of legitimate armed forces means that the government, and by extension the people, recognise that it may sometimes be necessary to use force in defence of our interests.

That includes torture and murder as well?

Nobody else is allowed to use lethal force, and to do so results in criminal prosecution.

Do as I say, not as I do. You regard the men who fought in 1916 and the War of Independence criminals as well? what about Wolfe Tone and the Fenians?

There are - of necessity - different standards for the defence forces acting in defence of the national interest.

Including torture and murder as well?

Your suggestion that terrorists should somehow be given more leeway when it comes to the application of violence is, frankly, bizarre.

In a conflict situation, the opposing sides are either fighting a war or they are not. If they are fighting a war, the opposing sides should be classed as combatants and treated accordingly. If it is not classed as a war, the opposing sides should be subjected to the rule of the law. You want to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, treat the IRA as criminals for their killings and on the other hand treat the British Army as upholders of the law for their killings...... That is, quite frankly, bizarre.

And, just so we're clear, I also believe that members of the armed forces who act outside of their remit should face the appropriate penalties, including murder charges.

Pity the establishment does not think the same. I note you say remit and not law!!

I don't know what OATSA is

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2238662#post2238662

Ever since then you have been using those 'buzz'words

, but would you deny that the IRA are a treasonous and seditious organisation?

They always were and so were the groups involved with the 1916 Rising, War of Independence, Fenians, Young Irelanders, Wolfe Tone.

toiletduck

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

On the one hand, treat the IRA as criminals for their killings and on the other hand treat the British Army as upholders of the law for their killings...... That is, quite frankly, bizarre.

not really bizarre. the British Army are sworn to defend the U.K. and its citizens, therefore killing terrorists (who are committed to violence) is upholding the law.

A Dub in Glasgo

toiletduck wrote:

not really bizarre. the British Army are sworn to defend the U.K. and its citizens, therefore killing terrorists (who are committed to violence) is upholding the law.

What do you mean by 'terrorists'?

Do you mean unarmed IRA/INLA men?
Do you mean waiting in ambush to kill an IRA unit?
Do you mean civilians including children?

Not every person who the British Army have killed is an IRA man just about to shoot or injure people. I suppose they moved in a threatening manner

toiletduck

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do you mean unarmed IRA/INLA men?

Yes.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do you mean waiting in ambush to kill an IRA unit?

Yes, if they were about to carry out an attack of even just "patrolling."

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do you mean civilians including children?

Terrorists are civilians, but i assume you mean ordinary, decent people.No, of course not.

true

I wrote "As a southener, I have always found them friendly, courteous and efficient." Dub in Glasgo wrote " Othertimes I have found them to be anything but. No 100%'s for me unlike true".

I said the police uphold the law 99.9% of the time , not 100% of the time. There is a big difference. No police force anywhere in the world has , or could have, a 100% perfect record over the decades.

Given Dubs in Glasgos attitude, not to mention his possible activities or associates, I am not surprised he has found the police there sometimes anything but courtious and friendly. While the police are not perfect, they have had to put up with an amazing amount of provocation , harassment and intimidation over the years, and all the while not knowing is there a bomb under their car next time they go to leave their house, or who is around the corner. I always have respect for police wherever I go in the world, and I find they have respect for me. Unlike someone from my locality ( south of the border ) who I know , I would not go up to a policeman man in N.I. and tell him he had no right to be in my country etc. The policeman was polite and restrained in his response. Would the same have happened in many foreign countries?

billy the squid

monument wrote:

So, now there was no war*, there must have been peace in the North and the media must have made it all up - is that right?

no it was a crime spree. which later became a little money spinner for these so called "soldiers of revoloution"

This thread is another example of users here being more sickened of the thought of the republicans in power,

no sickened by the thought of someone refusing to admit that leaving ten children without their mother was a crime getting into power .

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

If you're going to adopt a broader definition of "war", you're going to have to adopt the broader implications.

...

true wrote:

There was no war : it was a terrorist campaign, waged by civilian clothed terrorists / freedom fighters - call them what you will. The IRA / INLA etc were not fighting on behalf of any government, democratically elected or otherwise.

Now were going into the morality of war, and “it’s ok to kill someone because we’re the army of a state”.

I see it as you restricting the meaning, as if all wars by states are just. As if a murder by one group, was any different then a murder by another.

billy the squid wrote:

no it was a crime spree. which later became a little money spinner for these so called "soldiers of revoloution"

They were breaking the law just because they were members of the IRA, so any thing they did as members of the IRA could be seen as a crime spree.

oscarBravo wrote:

For example, your definition means that there are a number of families in Limerick at war. Should the Geneva Convention apply?

I can’t see it being applied in any current war… oh, no, there are no wars, only liberations, and free elections. Sorry.

But seriously, if you want to talk about agreements which were suppose to protect people’s rights lets go back to rights of the civil-rights activists, or even why they became activists.

true

monument wrote:

...
Now were going into the morality of war, and “it’s ok to kill someone because we’re the army of a state”.


I see it as you restricting the meaning, as if all wars by states are just. As if a murder by one group, was any different then a murder by another.

Thats what the army of a state is for : to uphold the peace and kill where necessary eg in self defence.The role of the security services in N. Ireland was / is to keep the peace.
They are answerable to a democratically elected government.
The IRA ( which is an illegial terrorist group ) tried , often sucessfully , to murder and bomb people, inc the security services.

You cannot justify the actions of the IRA, by comparing them to the actions of the N. I. security services. You cannot seriously justify a group like the provos, who dressed in civilian clothes, and strapped fathers in to trucks full of explosives to get them to drive in to checkpoints. Who comitted atrocities like the LeMons bomb ,Enniskillen and many more.