[Article] IRA still recruiting and targeting

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

And the IRA haven't literally got away with murder, they have in fact gotten away with murder, and the major issue they can't remember where they buried the bodies.

And who said otherwise... a case of whataboutry?

Yes the british government have commited horrifying acts and while we've gotten a tribunial into bloody sunday the IRA, for example haven't produced the evidence that proves Jean Mc Conville is a dirty tout, or examined the reasoning and actions of their volunteers for oh so many regretable actions.

So you agree with my reply to Sand then?

Shirt ripping "are we not wronged" while theres an impressive collection of IRA victims buried in unmarked graves, is more than a tad hyprocritcal.

You now do not agree with my reply to Sand then?

If you believe that the British government needs to investigate the actions of it's own forces, stop with the calls for the Mc Cabe killers to be released under the good friday agreement. And instead ask for the IRA to publish it's findings of it's own "internal investigation". I do so love these demands for openess and justice, when the IRA refuse to co-operate with the Mc Cartney killers, but offer to shoot those responsible, without giving their reasoning or justification for this horrific offer.

Talk about a severe dose of 'the innocent people that the British killed can have their justice but only on my terms'. Justice should be universal and come with no strings attached. You would rather involve a myriad of other side cases as some sort of quid pro quo arrangement.

And please spare us the military and army jargon. The victims of a crime are not, by any (even militarial level of justice) allowed to decide on a punishment.

Mighty_Mouse

I think it justifies every inhuman act in the history of mankind, every act of terrorism and murder. Sure, if Nelson Mandela did it, it cant be as bad as they say?*

Your politics remind me of a coca cola add from the 1970's sand.

I suppose its the difference between a realist and an idealist. For me, you can only judge actions within the context of the reality at the time.

According to Mandela, Blacks in South Africa tried the peaceful route as far as possible but eventually deciding that the white government forces were more than happy to use brute force to oppose it forever. (without any intervention from the world politic).

Wasn't there a peaceful protest in Derry in 1972? As I remember it; wasnt the british government 'just about' to throw the door open and allow representation, social equality etc to catholics........... Just to make it clear, everyone remembers the northern (south africa) situation differently. The point is, enough catholics/nationalists/republicans felt they had no other choice but to resort to voilence. The IRA was supported by the communities in the north which bore them.

Running Bing

Very well said mighty mouse. We can't forget why the provisional IRA came into existence in 1969. They arose to protect the nationalist communities from the persecution they were undergoing. You must ask yourself if your family was being tormented by armed forces who had no right to be in your country would you lie down and take it? If you would I find that very very sad.

Cork

Babybing wrote:

Very well said mighty mouse. We can't forget why the provisional IRA came into existence in 1969. They arose to protect the nationalist communities from the persecution they were undergoing. You must ask yourself if your family was being tormented by armed forces who had no right to be in your country would you lie down and take it? If you would I find that very very sad.

Sinn Fein and the IRA were under renewed pressure tonight following threats to burn down the homes of the family of murdered Belfast father-of-two Robert McCartney.

Theatning this family is yet another low even by NI standards.

Getting back to the vote,two Sinn Fein MEPs, Bairbre de Brun and Mary Lou McDonald, refused to back the EU resolution.The resolution, which was backed by 555-4 with 48 abstentions, will be now considered by the European Commission..

Will Babs or Mary Lou be making representations to the European Commission?

Is there any chance that this thread could go remotely back on topic?

Temporarally closing it so I can sift through it and move the off topic stuff to a more relevant thread.

This will take an hour or two.


*edit-Done*

Now please keep it on topic folks thanks.

Sand

Are you telling me that all injustices done to both catholic and protestent people in Northern Ireland by armed forces such as the UDR and B-specials are the subject of inquiries? I do not believe this for a second.

Would those be the B-Specials that were investigated and disbanded by the British? The bigoted Stormont parliment that was investigated and closed down by the British? The civil rights issues that were investigated and rectified by the British?

The British are not whiter than white but they have a far more developed self analysis and correction of their wrongs than SF/IRA. Can you name a single incident where SF/IRA investigated and punished an atrocity carried out by its members that was not a publicity stunt? I gave you a list of atrocities carried out by SF/IRA and planned by them, crimes which they stand over. Who was punished for those attacks? No one. You demand that the British punish *all* actions you view as atrocities, and yet you do not demand that SF/IRA investigate *any* action they carry out. SF/IRA endorses kidnapping families and forcing innocent men to drive remote detonated bombs to checkpoints. Its wholly in line with their (lack of) morals.

I believe if war is ever justified it is justified when a nation plunders, occupies and oppresses a neighbouring nation

War yes, terrorism no. SF/IRA are not an army, and they never fought a war.

even more than the UDR/Loyalist paramilitary groups and B-specials/loyalist paramilitary groups? I think not ,innocent people both catholic and protestent murdered by "official" British weapons and documents.

You know, I said before I couldnt understand why any republican could support SF/IRA. Perhaps I should have been kinder and said any informed republican. FYI, SF/IRA did kill even more Catholics than the British Army or any Loyalist faction. Check it out here yourself. Use organisation and religion summary as the variables. SF/IRA "defended" 340 catholics, 2nd was the UVF with 278, 3rd was the British Army with 254.

Do us a favour and pass the link on to your provo buddies, it's alarming how few provos realise their "defenders" are the most profilic killers of Catholics during the Troubles. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Would you prefer if there wasn't voting in northern ireland, SF have won most of the nationilist/republican (catholic) vote in the north do you want them to be disinfranchised.

I dont want terrorists in government and I dont really care who the feck votes for them, I still dont want terrorists in government. Goats have been elected mayors, would you argue that the goat has a mandate and should be running Belfast if people voted for a goat? Or would you agree that regardless of "mandate" there has to be democratic standards?

I suppose its the difference between a realist and an idealist. For me, you can only judge actions within the context of the reality at the time.

If youre a realist, I cannot understand how you argue there was ever grounds for SF/IRAs terrorism, given the civil rights reform that was working throughout the late 60s and early 70s until SF/IRA drowed the political proccess in blood. The most I can allow was required was pure defence of Catholic estates from loyalist mobs that were attacking Catholic areas. There was never any grounds for SF/IRA other than that, and especially from the late 70s on.

You must ask yourself if your family was being tormented by armed forces who had no right to be in your country would you lie down and take it? If you would I find that very very sad.

What you must ask yourself is what does attacking a memorial service achieve? How does it protect Catholics to kill people mourning their dead? How does it help to leave a no warning bomb in a shopping street of an english town? All it does is encourage retaliation. No victory is won, no cities taken, no armies defeated. There is no end. There is just a cycle of violence, again and again and again for 30 years and more.

And the sad thing is provos still dont get it. Theyre *still* employing terrorism.

[EDIT] Forgot to insert link to crosstabulation of deaths [/EDIT]

hawkmoon269

Sand wrote:

If youre a realist, I cannot understand how you argue there was ever grounds for SF/IRAs terrorism, given the civil rights reform that was working throughout the late 60s and early 70s until SF/IRA drowed the political proccess in blood. The most I can allow was required was pure defence of Catholic estates from loyalist mobs that were attacking Catholic areas. There was never any grounds for SF/IRA other than that, and especially from the late 70s on.

Without wishing to get into a "what-aboutery" type of debate, it was actually the loyalists who escalated the conflict initially, not the Provos.

And if the civil rights reform was working so successfully why was it necessary for the British to send in troops in the first place?

What about the private armies the loyalists were forming at the start of the troubles?

I think you should read up a bit more about the conflict, I feel some of your analysis is a bit naive.

That said, like yourself I doubt if I would ever vote SF. It just wouldn't sit well with me.

Sand

And if the civil rights reform was working so successfully why was it necessary for the British to send in troops in the first place?

Ironically they were sent in to protect Catholic areas from loyalist mobs, precisely because the British government didnt feel the Stormont Parliment or its security forces could be trusted to do the job (That said, the first RUC man to die in the troubles was killed by Loyalists whose attempt to get into a Catholic area was being blocked by the RUC). The soldiers were welcomed on their patrols by the Catholic community at the time. The Unionists on the other hand had mixed feelings, as they viewed the deployment as more inteference in their affairs by the London government.

Unfortunately, it was a poor decision given the British Armys tendency to put trust in Unionism, which whilst a mistake was understandable given the other faction, the provos were not happy to see the British Army deployed as moves to protect the Catholic areas obviously threatened their support base for overthrowing Stormont by force, and they were desperately trying to provoke the British Army and score a propaganda coup. Which of course they eventually did.

And Im not referring to just Bloody Sunday, the mood had already been soured by several killings in Catholic areas by the British Army during the summer of 1970 - though the British Army had also killed several protestants the year before, and indeed an English visitor. So those killings would be more indicative of what happens when front line combat troops are deployed in a policing role than part of some sinister scheme.

What about the private armies the loyalists were forming at the start of the troubles?

Hardly helped by forming your own private army and leaving bombs to kill innocent people in shopping streets. All you do is help radicalise support in Loyalist areas for those private armies.

Its so obvious that I simply dont believe that SF/IRAs strategy wasnt to try and destroy any attempt to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland peacefully by using atrocities against civillians to prevent moves to peace.

I think you should read up a bit more about the conflict, I feel some of your analysis is a bit naive.

I have, I think you should look beyond the SF/IRA version of history. Its too sanitised for me to put much trust in it.

saltar

Cork wrote:

Maybe other groups looking for election should follow this example.

The IRA is on the way out. No government will tolerate any more from them.

I'm gathering from this post that you did'nt grow up in the troubles cork?
since when has any government tolerated the IRA?
The IRA if you dont already know was always and still is an illegal organisation, to both the Irish and British gov's. IRA members have been imprisoned for membership,beaten, shot and murdered by the security forces of both governments.So there's nothing new there.

mycroft

saltar wrote:

I'm gathering from this post that you did'nt grow up in the troubles cork?
since when has any government tolerated the IRA?
The IRA if you dont already know was always and still is an illegal organisation, to both the Irish and British gov's.

The activities of the IRA have been tolerated and ignored for the sake of the peace process for nigh on a decade. The NI bank robbery for example was only one of several high profile robberys commited by the IRA this year. IRA members were convicted this year of roaming around with a collection of weapons gardai uniforms and a list of TDs. 3 IRA men were roaming around colombia (either monitoring the peace process or bird watching I forget which is the excuse de jur) with false passports. IRA punishment squads still carry out ex judicary beatings and shootings. 3 IRA men murdered a Garda in cold blood in a "unsanctioned" IRA robbery. These have all been tolerated for the greater good of the peace process.

IRA members have been imprisoned for membership,beaten, shot and murdered by the security forces of both governments.So there's nothing new there.

And the IRA have beaten shot and murdered plenty of people. the nerve of someone bleating about civil rights for a group who, while on ceasefire, invented the "padre peo" punishment shooting (shot through the palm of your hands.) is more than a tad rich.

saltar

mycroft wrote:

The activities of the IRA have been tolerated and ignored for the sake of the peace process for nigh on a decade. The NI bank robbery for example was only one of several high profile robberys commited by the IRA this year. IRA members were convicted this year of roaming around with a collection of weapons gardai uniforms and a list of TDs. 3 IRA men were roaming around colombia (either monitoring the peace process or bird watching I forget which is the excuse de jur) with false passports. IRA punishment squads still carry out ex judicary beatings and shootings. 3 IRA men murdered a Garda in cold blood in a "unsanctioned" IRA robbery. These have all been tolerated for the greater good of the peace process.

your post makes absoloutely no sense whatsoever mycroft, you begin by saying that the IRA and these percieved actions have been tolerated by both goverments and yet in each case you listed you could'nt be further from the truth.

1. NI bank robbery - nobody from either the IRA or anyone else has been convicted. And yet both Gov's insist on blaming them. Tolerance? mmmm...

2. IRA men roaming around Columbia- were actually found innocent until the Right-wing Columbian Army suppoted by MI5 and CIA decided to hold their own military court sepperate from any judicial system (Kangaroo court) to find them guilty. Tolerance? mmm....

3. IRA men in Garda uniforms- are serving a 6yr sentence in prison for doing nothing at all. Just for being members of the IRA on Garda intelligence Tolerance? mmm....

4. Ira killing of Garda- 5 men are serving lenghty prison sentences for this offence? Tolerance?

I think you will need to be a bit clearer and more factual when you begin your argument Croft and stop trying to con yourself into a corner.Maybe you have a specific definition of what tolerance is? I'd love to know it.

mycroft wrote:

And the IRA have beaten shot and murdered plenty of people. the nerve of someone bleating about civil rights for a group who, while on ceasefire, invented the "padre peo" punishment shooting (shot through the palm of your hands.) is more than a tad rich.

And where Am I bleating about these Civil Rights that you so eloquently put MyCroft? :eek:
you seem to make stuff up as if people here will fall for such crap.
so expalin yourself!

mycroft

saltar wrote:

your post makes absoloutely no sense whatsoever mycroft, you begin by saying that the IRA and these percieved actions have been tolerated by both goverments and yet in each case you listed you could'nt be further from the truth.

1. NI bank robbery - nobody from either the IRA or anyone else has been convicted. And yet both Gov's insist on blaming them. Tolerance? mmmm...

No one else stands accused and yet the crime's timing and size and it's relevance to the peace process forced ministers to speak. No one has yet been convicted. As it stands the police seeem to be putting in place a
more complex charge about the sophisciated money laundering operation in place. An investigation that takes an immense amount of time.

2. IRA men roaming around Columbia- were actually found innocent until the Right-wing Columbian Army suppoted by MI5 and CIA decided to hold their own military court sepperate from any judicial system (Kangaroo court) to find them guilty. Tolerance? mmm....

And again, why were members of a paramilitary organisation traveling to another country, under false passports to observe a peace process/birdwatch.

3. IRA men in Garda uniforms- are serving a 6yr sentence in prison for doing nothing at all. Just for being members of the IRA on Garda intelligence Tolerance? mmm....

Doing nothing at all, before they were arrested. Who knows what they could have done. And as pointed by you being a ira member is a crime.

4. Ira killing of Garda- 5 men are serving lenghty prison sentences for this offence? Tolerance?

So basically what you are saying is how dare government(s) enforce the law? and isn't the enforcement of said laws an example of intolerance.

Yes, these are individual examples of IRA members breaking the law, and yes these are examples that the IRA members involved were punished (aside from the columbian three and one wonders about how current IRA activities have curtailed their triumphant return) but the point you refuse to see, is that the peace process has continued despite these obnoxious and sickeningly blatant examples of continued IRA activity, which suggests they're playing lip service to the overall aims of the peace process , and continuing extra curicular activities, while governments tolerant these actions for the greater good of the peace process.

I think you will need to be a bit clearer and more factual when you begin your argument Croft and stop trying to con yourself into a corner.Maybe you have a specific definition of what tolerance is? I'd love to know it.

See above. I gave specific examples of activities of the IRA while on ceasefire which should give question to the IRA's commitment to the peace process, but a blind eye has been turned for the greater good.

And where Am I bleating about these Civil Rights that you so eloquently put MyCroft? :eek:
you seem to make stuff up as if people here will fall for such crap.
so expalin yourself!

Look seriously

IRA members have been imprisoned for membership,beaten, shot and murdered by the security forces of both government

Being outraged by behaviour aganist an organisation that has commited the same outrages aganist innocent civilians is a tad hyprocritical, I mean, did Jean Mc Conville deserve to be beaten and shot and dumped in an unmarked grave? Being furious about the actions that have occured aganist IRA members, while the IRA have commited the exact same acts, while, clearly stating you're outraged aganist these abuses aganist IRA men, while ignoring the actions of the same group.

saltar

mycroft wrote:

So basically what you are saying is how dare government(s) enforce the law? and isn't the enforcement of said laws an example of intolerance..

No I'm not. I'll say it again if its not clear enough. where have both gov's been tolerant of the IRA in each of those examples???
and as you like to put words in other peoples mouths, where did I say "how dare Gov's enforce the law".
Where EXACTLY MYCROFT?????????????????

mycroft wrote:

See above. I gave specific examples of activities of the IRA while on ceasefire which should give question to the IRA's commitment to the peace process, but a blind eye has been turned for the greater good.

What Blind eye and where?
The Assembly has been suspended on numerous occasions.....

mycroft wrote:

Look seriously
Being outraged by behaviour aganist an organisation that has commited the same outrages aganist innocent civilians is a tad hyprocritical, I mean, did Jean Mc Conville deserve to be beaten and shot and dumped in an unmarked grave? Being furious about the actions that have occured aganist IRA members, while the IRA have commited the exact same acts, while, clearly stating you're outraged aganist these abuses aganist IRA men, while ignoring the actions of the same group.

Who is outraged and where exactly?

I am making very specific points and asking very specific questions on this issue. However your effort to deal with those points has been nothing but lies and claims that I somehow have said something different. Now either you need to grow up and learn how to debate properly or don't bother at all.

mycroft

saltar wrote:

No I'm not. I'll say it again if its not clear enough. where have both gov's been tolerant of the IRA in each of those examples???
and as you like to put words in other peoples mouths, where did I say "how dare Gov's enforce the law".
Where EXACTLY MYCROFT?????????????????

You stated these were examples of governments intolerance of IRA members I've merely pointed out while the individual members have been punished to a degree, the organisation has not and the peace process has continued in spite of IRA activity.

What Blind eye and where?
The Assembly has been suspended on numerous occasions.....

Yes suspended and put on hold, but not stopped, please spare us the faux outrage.

Who is outraged and where exactly?

saltar wrote:

IRA members have been imprisoned for membership,beaten, shot and murdered by the security forces of both government

The implication of this post is that IRA men have been murdered and beaten for membership of the IRA, why did you raise it if you didn't find it objectionable?

I am making very specific points and asking very specific questions on this issue. However your effort to deal with those points has been nothing but lies and claims that I somehow have said something different. Now either you need to grow up and learn how to debate properly or don't bother at all.

Really lets look at your contribution to this thread shall we?

saltar wrote:

I'm gathering from this post that you did'nt grow up in the troubles cork?
since when has any government tolerated the IRA?
The IRA if you dont already know was always and still is an illegal organisation, to both the Irish and British gov's. IRA members have been imprisoned for membership,beaten, shot and murdered by the security forces of both governments.So there's nothing new there.

Which would suggest you're outraged by the security forces treatment of IRA men, a claim you now deny. Also a snide "i know more about the troubles dig at cork"

saltar wrote:

your post makes absoloutely no sense whatsoever mycroft, you begin by saying that the IRA and these percieved actions have been tolerated by both goverments and yet in each case you listed you could'nt be further from the truth.

1. NI bank robbery - nobody from either the IRA or anyone else has been convicted. And yet both Gov's insist on blaming them. Tolerance? mmmm...

2. IRA men roaming around Columbia- were actually found innocent until the Right-wing Columbian Army suppoted by MI5 and CIA decided to hold their own military court sepperate from any judicial system (Kangaroo court) to find them guilty. Tolerance? mmm....

3. IRA men in Garda uniforms- are serving a 6yr sentence in prison for doing nothing at all. Just for being members of the IRA on Garda intelligence Tolerance? mmm....

4. Ira killing of Garda- 5 men are serving lenghty prison sentences for this offence? Tolerance?

I think you will need to be a bit clearer and more factual when you begin your argument Croft and stop trying to con yourself into a corner.Maybe you have a specific definition of what tolerance is? I'd love to know it.

And this is entirely rebuttal.

So what specific points about what specific instances have you raised? You've merely come on this thread ranted about security forces treatment of IRA men, and then denied being outraged by it. So what the hell are you talking about?

jman0

mycroft wrote:

I've merely pointed out while the individual members have been punished to a degree, the organisation has not and the peace process has continued in spite of IRA activity.

I'm going to interject here. I interpreted his post that he was pointing out that none of these activities you brought up have or are tolerated.
Now apparently you've qualified 'tolerated'... so your saying individual offenders are punished but not the entire organisation or the peace process as a whole.
And to this i'd just have to wonder how exactly you propose to punish the IRA being the case that they are already a proscribed organisation. Are you proposing extra legislation or something?
I'm suspecting you mean to punish SF, but then i'd have to remind you that you would really be punishing the majority of nationalists in NI, and i'm not sure you actually want to do that.
Maybe you feel the peace process shouldn't go on because of the actions being attributed to the IRA but well, that is nonsense.
By the way, that CAIN website has some interesting stuff.
Check out what was going on in 2002
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch02.htm
Would you argue that the Peace Process should have terminated because of all the Loyalist violence?

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I'm going to interject here. I interpreted his post that he was pointing out that none of these activities you brought up have or are tolerated.
Now apparently you've qualified 'tolerated'... so your saying individual offenders are punished but not the entire organisation or the peace process as a whole.
And to this i'd just have to wonder how exactly you propose to punish the IRA being the case that they are already a proscribed organisation. Are you proposing extra legislation or something?
I'm suspecting you mean to punish SF, but then i'd have to remind you that you would really be punishing the majority of nationalists in NI, and i'm not sure you actually want to do that.
Maybe you feel the peace process shouldn't go on because of the actions being attributed to the IRA but well, that is nonsense.
By the way, that CAIN website has some interesting stuff.
Check out what was going on in 2002
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch02.htm
Would you argue that the Peace Process should have terminated because of all the Loyalist violence?

I'm merely pointing out that governments have been tolerating ex circuluar activities by the IRA over the last 7 years for the sake of the peace process. Thats an example of government tolerance of the IRA.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

I'm merely pointing out that governments have been tolerating ex circuluar activities by the IRA over the last 7 years for the sake of the peace process. Thats an example of government tolerance of the IRA.

I guess i have to disagree here.
How exactly have the governments "tolerated" this?
Are they refusing for instance, to press charges.
Not making arrests?
In my own opinion they are not tolerating anything; but now that there is no bombing campaign the more minor things like punishment beatings are getting more scrutiny by a partisan media, and political parties.
Case in point: the differences in attention given to republican activities vs loyalist activities. Follow my above link for example.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I guess i have to disagree here.
How exactly have the governments "tolerated" this?
Are they refusing for instance, to press charges.
Not making arrests?
In my own opinion they are not tolerating anything; but now that there is no bombing campaign the more minor things like punishment beatings are getting more scrutiny by a partisan media, and political parties.
Case in point: the differences in attention given to republican activities vs loyalist activities. Follow my above link for example.

yes tut tut how dare people be horrified by puinishment beatings.

They are tolerating because they are continuing to try to press forward with the GFA agreement inspite of IRA activity during their "ceasefire"

jman0

mycroft wrote:

yes tut tut how dare people be horrified by puinishment beatings.

Indeed.
Danny Morrison wrote an article along those lines recently.
http://www.dannymorrison.ie/articles/myths.php

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Indeed.
Danny Morrison wrote an article along those lines recently.
http://www.dannymorrison.ie/articles/myths.php

Danny unoffical cheerleader of SF Morrison

I like this bit

The IRA viewed community policing as a major distraction from its chief purpose and suspected that the RUC indulged criminals in order to tie down IRA resources and demoralise the nationalist community which might, just might, out of desperation, look favourably to the return of a ‘reformed RUC’ as a possible solution.

Brillant. The RUC unabe to enter certain areas of belfast without a massive show of force because of sustained republican riots "indugled" criminals?

And viewed? As in past tense? Community policing units have been quiet the last few months, but the IRA haven't stopped puinishment beatings.

What dribbling piece of quasi logic is this? Maddening piece of conspiracy theory jibberish n all, this is, what relavance does it have to this thread?

saltar

mycroft wrote:

You stated these were examples of governments intolerance of IRA members I've merely pointed out while the individual members have been punished to a degree, the organisation has not and the peace process has continued in spite of IRA activity.

Do you realise how stupid that statement is?

mycroft wrote:

Yes suspended and put on hold, but not stopped, please spare us the faux outrage.

Ha Ha. What exactly is the difference? when you suspend something it is stopped indefinitely.Your interpretation of the English language baffles me. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

The implication of this post is that IRA men have been murdered and beaten for membership of the IRA, why did you raise it if you didn't find it objectionable?

No, A Chara, thats's your interpretation. I have outlined mine quite clearly.

mycroft wrote:

Which would suggest you're outraged by the security forces treatment of IRA men, a claim you deny now deny.

I never suggested any outrage about anything. You'll need to go back to exactly what I said,then quote my wording and explain yourself to this thread. I suggest you read the english dictionary and get the proper meaning of those words and it might make sense to you then.

The only person your fooling here is yourself MyCroft. Your a blatant liar and the people of this thread have seen through you.

mycroft

saltar wrote:

Do you realise how stupid that statement is?

No it's perfectly valid. IRA members have been puinished the IRA as an organisation has been tolerated.

Ha Ha. What exactly is the difference? when you suspend something it is stopped indefinitely.Your interpretation of the English language baffles me. :rolleyes:

Suspended as in put on hold. Not given up on. Do. you. see. the. difference?

No, A Chara, thats's your interpretation. I have outlined mine quite clearly.

Really where? You brought it up, and disagreed with my interpretation, and then never clarified it, just said "thats not what I meant" and refused to say what you meant.

I never suggested any outrage about anything. You'll need to go back to exactly what I said,then quote my wording and explain yourself to this thread. I suggest you read the english dictionary and get the proper meaning of those words and it might make sense to you then.

And I suggest that you clarify what you raised the abuse of IRA men.

The only person your fooling here is yourself MyCroft. Your a blatant liar and the people of this thread have seen through you.

Thats your opinion, you haven't shown me as a liar. Oh and it's personal abuse. Enjoy the sin bin.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

Danny unoffical cheerleader of SF Morrison
What dribbling piece of quasi logic is this? Maddening piece of conspiracy theory jibberish n all, this is, what relavance does it have to this thread?

The relevance is fairly obvious i would think, check out the title of the thread.
I understand that you don't like Danny Morrison but i'll wager he has a lot more experience and knowledge about republican/nationalist life in NI that you or any of those newspaper editorialists in the RoI do.
I notice you didn't take issue with Liam Kennedy's vote running "on a ticket to protest publicly against “the vicious beatings, shootings and intimidation meted out by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries to people in their own communities.”

saltar

mycroft wrote:

Thats your opinion, you haven't shown me as a liar. Oh and it's personal abuse. Enjoy the sin bin.

You know, you remind me of a two year old child who needs his mammy every time your criticised....

and by the way the only thing abusive in this thread is your Signature.. and I Quote "Oh and spacedog you're a twat"

sceptre

Week's holiday for saltar. For abuse oddly enough. It might be longer but I always have hope that new people miss the politeness requirement merely because they're new.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

The relevance is fairly obvious i would think, check out the title of the thread.
I understand that you don't like Danny Morrison but i'll wager he has a lot more experience and knowledge about republican/nationalist life in NI that you or any of those newspaper editorialists in the RoI do.
I notice you didn't take issue with Liam Kennedy's vote running "on a ticket to protest publicly against “the vicious beatings, shootings and intimidation meted out by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries to people in their own communities.”

The article makes extraordinary claims like the RUC want republican puinishment beatings and indulge criminals" without a shred of supporting evidence for an astonishing claim, the article is full of half truths, untruths and down right lies.

And spare me the "Danny Morrison" knows more about the conflict then I crap, Morrison is a bitter twisted PR nutjob for the IRA and SF.

And again, so what? 100,000 people marched aganist the Iraq war, Richard Boyd Barrett got 1/100th of that vote in the election. Kennedy's campaign was none existant, I can'g even find reference on the web.

Don't suggest that the well oiled and well funded SF campaign kicking the ass of a one horse candiate, who couldn't get a vote, as a ringing endorsement of Sinn Fein polices. As usual Morrison picks on an easy target to justify IRA thuggery and ignores a much more painful bloody nose SF got in this campaign, the election of Martin Cunnigham, a man who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Mc Cartney's. Selective picking of facts on Morrison's part as per usual, combined with a smattering of outright lies and untruths.

Lemming

saltar wrote:

your post makes absoloutely no sense whatsoever mycroft, you begin by saying that the IRA and these percieved actions have been tolerated by both goverments and yet in each case you listed you could'nt be further from the truth.

Further from the truth eh? Might I recommend a reality-check saltar? Or perhaps some deprogramming from all that IRA propoganda you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.

1. NI bank robbery - nobody from either the IRA or anyone else has been convicted. And yet both Gov's insist on blaming them. Tolerance? mmmm...

Ah, there's a difference between knowing and having enough evidence to secure a conviction with.

2. IRA men roaming around Columbia- were actually found innocent until the Right-wing Columbian Army suppoted by MI5 and CIA decided to hold their own military court sepperate from any judicial system (Kangaroo court) to find them guilty. Tolerance? mmm....

I believe I recall Harney stating that she was satisfied the trial was fair. Whilst I think that the three are up to their necks, I dislike the manner in which their original trial verdict was overruled with no new evidence at the behest of the Bush administration.

3. IRA men in Garda uniforms- are serving a 6yr sentence in prison for doing nothing at all. Just for being members of the IRA on Garda intelligence Tolerance? mmm....

Erm ... you DO know that impersonating a member of the Irish security forces is a prison offence right? On top of the liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle fact that the IRA is an illegal organisation too.

In any case, the question must be raised as to why the IRA have a "Garda Intelligence" unit..... I mean, given that their intended final goal would have them under the legal jurisdiction of the Gardai and all. Unless they intended to operate beyond achieving their "stated" objectives of a united Ireland of course.

4. Ira killing of Garda- 5 men are serving lenghty prison sentences for this offence? Tolerance?

ROFL. W.T.F. ...... is that? What the hell are you bleating on about tolerance for? They were convicted for murder. That is fairly self-explainatory!! I would suggest they are being shown tolerance in sentencing since the statute was (up until recent years) the death penalty for murdering a member of the state security forces in the line of duty.

I think you will need to be a bit clearer and more factual when you begin your argument Croft and stop trying to con yourself into a corner.Maybe you have a specific definition of what tolerance is? I'd love to know it.

I would suggest that you look in the mirror with that very quote saltar. It's obvious you are living on another planet inside your own mind.