IRA statement

cal29

it seems to me that what has happened is that the IRA and the british government are proceeding with the agreement they reached late last year without the DUP element

the IRA are going to decommision and effectively stand down the british will go ahead with the demilitarisation and i would expect that we will probably see some changes to the police to allow SF take their positions on the policing boards

then when the negotiations resume to bring back the assembly those issues will be out of the way an agreement will be reached and we will have assembly elections again at which the DUP will be able to sell its participation on the basis of how successsful it has been at dismantling the IRA unlike the UUP


after the elections stormont will be resumed and life will get pretty boring up the north for a while

meanwhile down here FF will be able to justify going into government with SF on the basis that the private army no longer exists
SF will feel like they have achieved some kind of defacto united Ireland as they will be in government north and south

But the real question is what will they do with whatever power they achieve time for some policies ?? or will they become as I suspect just like the rest bland and only interested in power for powers sake

marco murphy

But the real question is what will they do with whatever power they achieve time for some policies ??





Like what cal?

Cork

monument wrote:

And you're reply has nothing to do with what he just said. He said 'the IRA', then said 'their' constitution...

Point taken.

87% of respondents to the Sunday Independent telephone poll said they do not believe the IRA has ended criminal activity such as smuggling and diesel laundering.

SF must convince us that the illegal army that it has links to has gone away.

Confidence Building Measures are needed by them.

Stabshauptmann

Cork wrote:

All this violence achieved nothing.

The troubles though terrible brought a huge improvement to the status of the catholic minority in NI in areas of employment, housing, education and an equal vote - the basis of a democratic society. The PIRA actually protected a minority population that was suffering from intimidation, mob violence and police discrimination and brutality. They incidently also brought the most comfortable social welfare system in the world but I dont think that was intentional

Sand wrote:

Now its nice to have this to hand to taunt Provos that SFIRA have unconditionally surrendered after their total and complete defeat by the lawful governments of both countries....

SFIRA have delivered *nothing*, whilst Blair and Ahern have already appeased SFIRA .... immunity for SFIRA .... The British Army have taken down a watchtower. ... We didnt even get SFIRA extending an apology for the innocent victims

Sand, you're just resentful that for as terrible as the IRA were in your mind, they won. And you know it, by your own admission the PIRA get EVERYTHING SF ask for yet give nothing in return. You're bulling that once again they're getting concessions for giving nothing but promises. The IRA has won, and continues to win and its killing you

Sand wrote:

As I understand it the SFIRA constitution can only be changed by a General Convention vote? Has one taken place

A general army convention has recently taken place, yes.

Nope it didnt. Take a look at the reforms achieved by the NICRA up to the early 70s

And look at the horrific repression and brutality showed to the protesters and innocent catholics. Something was needed to defend the nationalist minority in NI. Looking to parrallels in south africa and the USA, when protesters are met with extreme repression there always emerges the shadow of a gun man.

And whatever about defending Catholic areas, killing 800 catholics, more than any other organisation wasnt a good way to set about it, nor can it be argued that attacks like Kingsmills were defending Catholic areas.

Sectarians always view they're enemies to be sectarian in nature as well. There is a load of evidence to show the non sectarian nature of the bulf of the PIRA in its early days. Adams (supposed) rise to power was on the back of ridding the PIRA from the sectarian element which was emerging. Two points for you sand:
A) The PIRA wanted to protect nationalists, those who would aid the security forces are hardly nationalists. While the loyalists deemed every catholic fair game that doesnt mean the IRA would deem every catholic worth protecting.

While we're on about proportions of victums isnt it interesting to note that those who you call terrorists killed, on proportion, fewer innocent civilians than most other armies killed in other wars in the 20th century including the USA and Britain.

Something to muse on when deciding that the RUC was rampaging along with the Loyalists and that there was no other options.

The best example of the PIRA protecting a community against loyalist mobs and indifferent police would be the siege of St Mathews.

Cork

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The troubles though terrible brought a huge improvement to the status of the catholic minority in NI in areas of employment, housing, education and an equal vote - the basis of a democratic society. The PIRA actually protected a minority population that was suffering from intimidation, mob violence and police discrimination and brutality.

Martin Luter King and the civil rights movement brought big improvements for black people in the US. The civil rights movement in NI would have achieved improvements without the need for 35 years of carnage.


Irish people and Catholics in particular are in far more danger from the IRA than from loyalist deathsquads. Of the 1800 or so people the IRA have murdered, 1400 were Irish. No organisation, including the UVF, the British Army or the UFF has killed more Catholics than the IRA.

http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

murphaph

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

once again [the IRA are] getting concessions for giving nothing but promises.

True. :mad:

marco murphy

Look at this :

supersheep

Cork wrote:

Martin Luter King and the civil rights movement brought big improvements for black people in the US. The civil rights movement in NI would have achieved improvements without the need for 35 years of carnage.


Irish people and Catholics in particular are in far more danger from the IRA than from loyalist deathsquads. Of the 1800 or so people the IRA have murdered, 1400 were Irish. No organisation, including the UVF, the British Army or the UFF has killed more Catholics than the IRA.

http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Proportionally, no organisation killed fewer civilians... Over 1000 of those killed by the IRA were members of British security, while about 500 were civilians.
Pobachtach, nice picture! I don't agree. I think now is the time for the violence to stop - it's the right tactical move, if nothing else.

Stabshauptmann

Cork wrote:

Martin Luter King and the civil rights movement brought big improvements for black people in the US. The civil rights movement in NI would have achieved improvements without the need for 35 years of carnage.


Irish people and Catholics in particular are in far more danger from the IRA than from loyalist deathsquads. Of the 1800 or so people the IRA have murdered, 1400 were Irish. No organisation, including the UVF, the British Army or the UFF has killed more Catholics than the IRA.

http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Too lazy to read my post? Because I did answer the point about the IRA killing more catholics than any other organisation, but in PROPORTIONS which is the key thing, the british army killed 7 times more catholics than protestants. Its actualy a testiment to the non sectarian nature of the PIRA that there isnt such radical leanings in favour of one religious denomination of the other.

The American Civil Rights Association had the shadow of the gunman for protection, it wouldnt have come so far without it. It wasnt organised like the IRA and it didnt move to the offensive. IMO the IRA should have stood down after Sunnigdale but I can undertand how they thought "getting this far was soo easy an we're so close to total victory, just a few more years". But then again I have the advantage of hindsight.

joe.

Quickly I read through the posts. My 2 cents is to embrace this crap and if it doesn't live up to your expectataions then you can start whinging. It's history and the ball is in the other court. They took their time but "SFIRA" did what was asked of them and if they are fecked about then I can't see them sitting back and taking it. In the statement that was made by Gerry Adams, in my opinion, that was made quite clear. Give it a while and see. There is a time for war, and there is a time to make a gesture. It's a pretty big gesture, in my opinion, on their part. Let it lie and lets see.

cal29

Poblachtach wrote:

But the real question is what will they do with whatever power they achieve time for some policies ??





Like what cal?

well not on post boxes
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/04/25/imperialist-post-boxes/

perhaps policies on things that really matter like housing transport local government and i dont mean a general we need more houses and lets have better transport I mean proper policies with a bit of how when where and how much

Sand

Sand, you're just resentful that for as terrible as the IRA were in your mind, they won. And you know it, by your own admission the PIRA get EVERYTHING SF ask for yet give nothing in return. You're bulling that once again they're getting concessions for giving nothing but promises. The IRA has won, and continues to win and its killing you

Why were Provos formed? Was it because they rejected the Officials for their increasing Marxist bent? For their willingess to contest elections? For the Officials rejection of the armed struggle as being justifiable?

Adams and the SFIRA have been utterly defeated on every single point. Theyre practically a Karl Marx appreciation society, they not only contest elections they take their seats (how long before they take their seats at Westminster?), and now they have been forced to surrender their violent "struggle". 30 years of murder, bloodshed, lies and deceit so they can admit they were wrong on every point. What a victory.....

And whilst I despair of the idiocy and cowardice of our democratic leadership, I think youll find that SFIRAs strategy to the peace proccess isnt killing me, its killing people like Robert McCartney. Thankfully people like the McCartneys and the McCabe family have been brave enough to force SFIRA yield. And lets face it, the thankfully it isnt Ahern or Blair that Adams will have to satisfy - its Paisley and the DUP who are being offered exactly the same deal Trimble was offered. Theyre hardly going to be stupid enough to make the same mistake he did. And no one will blame them.

A general army convention has recently taken place, yes.

Is there any source for this, because it seems to have escaped the attention of media everywhere?

And look at the horrific repression and brutality showed to the protesters and innocent catholics. Something was needed to defend the nationalist minority in NI. Looking to parrallels in south africa and the USA, when protesters are met with extreme repression there always emerges the shadow of a gun man.

Bollocks. This is one of the great lies of SFIRA. SFIRA have never been interested in Catholic rights. Do you think if Catholic rights were fully addressed that SFIRA wouldnt still have been trying to bomb its way to a United Ireland, or would they have been happy to live in the UK and swear loyalty to the Crown? If anything, SFIRA benefitted from Catholics having a bad deal. They certainly never did anything to improve those rights.

That was left to constitutional nationalists and democratic politicians to do so. Meanwhile, SFIRA was busy off "defending catholic areas" in Warrington, the Birmingham Pub bombings, Enniskillen, La Mon, the Balcombe Street gang and Kingsmills just of the top of my head. I never knew Catholic areas were so widespread.

And looking at the SFIRAs murders, they managed over the troubles to kill 11 UVF, 19 UDA mean, and 2 ex UDA men. 32 of these apparent "loyalist mobs". Thats about 1 a year. The LVF killed more LVF than SFIRA did. Youll forgive me, but that doesnt exactly sound like Zulu. In fact, SFIRA managed to kill about 15 times as many civillians as they did of the Loyalists they were supposedly defending Catholics from. Slow handclap.

A) The PIRA wanted to protect nationalists, those who would aid the security forces are hardly nationalists. While the loyalists deemed every catholic fair game that doesnt mean the IRA would deem every catholic worth protecting.

Odd that so many Catholics would aid the security forces if they were so oppressed by them though isnt it? I wouldnt go down that road though. Some objective analysis of Provo idealogy might bring the whole edifice down. As a matter of interest, how far in your mind does "aid" go? Would a woman comforting a dying british soldier be guilty of aiding the security forces?

While we're on about proportions of victums isnt it interesting to note that those who you call terrorists killed, on proportion, fewer innocent civilians than most other armies killed in other wars in the 20th century including the USA and Britain.

Id wonder how many of them drag 14 year old kids out of their houses and beat them with pipes as a matter of approved policy. Or how many plan operations where mens familys are taken hostage and the father/husband forced to act as a suicide bomber? Or how many plan abducting, torturing and murdering mothers of 10 for daring to show some humanity?

I always have to sigh when moral relevance rears its head. Its been at the heart of every evil idealogy since the early 20th century. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength, etc etc.

Too lazy to read my post? Because I did answer the point about the IRA killing more catholics than any other organisation, but in PROPORTIONS which is the key thing, the british army killed 7 times more catholics than protestants. Its actualy a testiment to the non sectarian nature of the PIRA that there isnt such radical leanings in favour of one religious denomination of the other.

The difference wouldnt have anytthing to do with the fact that SFIRA were doing their best to murder the British Army - hence they were always going to suffer more casualties. And as for the Loyalists, they were at worst neutral to the British Army, and SFIRA can hardly claim they were fighting off hordes of loyalists given the casualties they inflicted.

And its actually a testemant to the non sectarian nature of the security forces that SFIRA was able to murder with so little prejudice and yet slaugher so many Catholics?

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

Why were Provos formed? Was it because they rejected the Officials for their increasing Marxist bent? For their willingess to contest elections? For the Officials rejection of the armed struggle as being justifiable?

Because of the terrible pograms being commited against an innocent minority in NI who only wanted reform. They were formed becuase the OIRA was unable/unwilling to defend nationalist communities. There is no longer any significant threat to these communities.

Adams and the SFIRA have been utterly defeated on every single point. Theyre practically a Karl Marx appreciation society, they not only contest elections they take their seats (how long before they take their seats at Westminster?), and now they have been forced to surrender their violent "struggle". 30 years of murder, bloodshed, lies and deceit so they can admit they were wrong on every point. What a victory.....

Ah I like this logic, let me see if I grasp it, if I attach a goal to someone or something that they dont actually have, but then I can slag them if they dont get it :rolleyes:
Abstract Ideology was not the main reason the PIRA was formed and the rank and file didnt care less. You are refering to O Bradaigh and his crowd who would later form the CIRA, guess how many of them there was? 20!
The Republican movement has achieved equality in housing, education and universal suffrage. It brought an era of brutality, discrimination and state sponsored terrorism to an end. The GFA is the ultimate victory. And you've sour grapes.
But, but they are marxists, thats a defeat, and, and they contest elections, but but.
Republicans have gotten everything short of a UI and had to give nothing in return. Thats a victory. Your arguement is that in order to do so they went down the same road as the OIRA 30 years ago and thus the past 30 years was pointless. If they are going down the same road as the OIRA, how are they succeding where the OIRA have failed. Why does SF enjoy popular support and get succession after succession from the British Government?

And whilst I despair of the idiocy and cowardice of our democratic leadership, I think youll find that SFIRAs strategy to the peace proccess isnt killing me

But you're clutching at straws as to what minor compromise the IRA may have made, and distorting facts. Its tearing you apart inside seeing SFIRA get even more concessions on what you call empty promises. You call Blair and Ahern idiots for making more and more concessions.

[SFIRAs strategy to the peace proccess] is killing people like Robert McCartney.

Explain, there seems to be a gap in this logic. How did a republican stategy to the peace process kill Robert McCarthney. It wasnt a planned murder and IRA weapons werent used so I dont know how it fits in with IRA strategy and its the last thing SF would have wanted. How is the murder of Robert McCarthney part of the Sf-IRA strategy.

Thankfully people like the McCartneys and the McCabe family have been brave enough to force SFIRA yield. And lets face it, the thankfully it isnt Ahern or Blair that Adams will have to satisfy - its Paisley and the DUP who are being offered exactly the same deal Trimble was offered. Theyre hardly going to be stupid enough to make the same mistake he did. And no one will blame them.

Trimble got two acts of decomissioning. Paisley was offered the final installment but he talked of sack cloths and using the photograph to shame republicans. A lot of ppl blame the DUP.

Is there any source for this, because it seems to have escaped the attention of media everywhere?

Irish Indo and London Times so far. A convention took place, what motions were passed I dont know. Bith papers reported changes to the army council, that needs a convention.

Bollocks. This is one of the great lies of SFIRA. SFIRA have never been interested in Catholic rights. Do you think if Catholic rights were fully addressed that SFIRA wouldnt still have been trying to bomb its way to a United Ireland, or would they have been happy to live in the UK and swear loyalty to the Crown? If anything, SFIRA benefitted from Catholics having a bad deal. They certainly never did anything to improve those rights.

What some ideologists or republican dynasties wanted and what 90% rank and file signed up for may have differed. For most ppl within the IRA the reason they joined was to end the raw deal, if they couldnt get it within the UK then they'll seek a UI. The GFA and the negotiations and successions before it satisfied 90% of volunteers. Those it didnt have split.

That was left to constitutional nationalists and democratic politicians to do so. Meanwhile, SFIRA was busy off "defending catholic areas" in Warrington, the Birmingham Pub bombings, Enniskillen, La Mon, the Balcombe Street gang and Kingsmills just of the top of my head. I never knew Catholic areas were so widespread.

Tell you what, I was going to do this anyway but you might as well give me a hand; compile a list of what you deem atrocities and post it here or pm me. Thats not a list off the top of your head, its THE list, it doesnt go much longer.
While you can list atrocities like Enniskillen the facts still speak for themselves, the IRA killed a smaller proportion of civilians than the crown forces or loyalists. The IRAs victums werent picked for their religious backround and the IRAs aim wasnt to inflict maximum casualties - the IRA almost always gave warnings before detonating bombs.

And looking at the SFIRAs murders, they managed over the troubles to kill 11 UVF, 19 UDA mean, and 2 ex UDA men. 32 of these apparent "loyalist mobs". Thats about 1 a year. The LVF killed more LVF than SFIRA did. Youll forgive me, but that doesnt exactly sound like Zulu. In fact, SFIRA managed to kill about 15 times as many civillians as they did of the Loyalists they were supposedly defending Catholics from. Slow handclap.[/qoute]

Odd that so many Catholics would aid the security forces if they were so oppressed by them though isnt it? I wouldnt go down that road though. Some objective analysis of Provo idealogy might bring the whole edifice down. As a matter of interest, how far in your mind does "aid" go? Would a woman comforting a dying british soldier be guilty of aiding the security forces?

A woman acting as an informant would. But we've actually had a thread about this before and those who were anti SFIRA wouldnt admit that *IF* (even if she was and not saying she was) she was an informant that killing her would be justified. If the account in "A secret history of the IRA" is true and she was given a chance before, how could the IRA operate in an area with an informant, and if the informant wouldnt take a warning seriously what were they to do?

Id wonder how many of them drag 14 year old kids out of their houses and beat them with pipes as a matter of approved policy. Or how many plan operations where mens familys are taken hostage and the father/husband forced to act as a suicide bomber? Or how many plan abducting, torturing and murdering mothers of 10 for daring to show some humanity?

You seriously dont know any of the war crimes committed by the USA or Britain in the 20th century?
Agent Orange, Cluster Bombs, Mines, Gassing civilians, concentration camps, depleted uranium shells, sponsoring paramilitaries and terrorists. The crap the USA got up to in East Timor. Lets look at Iraq and Abu Graib, and Guitmo in Cuba. Lets not forget that the crown forces were found guilty of TORTURE and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY for some of the **** they did in NI during the troubles.
Apply the same standards to both sides and the IRA comes out looking the better - by far.

I always have to sigh when moral relevance rears its head. Its been at the heart of every evil idealogy since the early 20th century. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength, etc etc.

"Bollix." To quote you earlier. You've been shown to have an inconsistant arguement and you're gutted. Now normally I dont feel the need to rub it in Sand, but you can be the exception because of the way you keep trying to get one up on Irish1.
You stated, time and time again, how evil the IRA was, how many atrocities, how they were murderers/terrorists but the FACTS show a different story. How the IRA waged war in a more humane way than their enemy. That they killed on proportion fewer civilians. How it was their intention to minimise civilain deaths through warnings. Now you claim moralality to be irrelevant; sorry sand but thats inconsistant to you're previous arguements. You even call the IRA "evil" - a moral term - in your next sentence. You have been shown to be both wrong, inconsistant, and afraid to admit your mistakes. "Claps Slowly"

The difference wouldnt have anytthing to do with the fact that SFIRA were doing their best to murder the British Army - hence they were always going to suffer more casualties.

Ha, so you can finally admit the IRA was fighting the BA not murdering civilians.

And as for the Loyalists, they were at worst neutral to the British Army, and SFIRA can hardly claim they were fighting off hordes of loyalists given the casualties they inflicted.

The true measure to how successfully they defended nationalist communites would be changes in death rates and eviction rates within said comunities not casualties they inflicted in another. Yet another gap in your logic, not a good week Sand?

supersheep

The Provos were formed to protect Nationalist communities when the OIRA wouldn't. And they mainly targetted legitimate targets - British security and Loyalist paramilitaries - unlike every other paramilitary group. And it may be moral relativism to say that, but the thing is, the world is grey, not black and white. Targetting civilians is wrong. But almost exclusively targetting civilians is more wrong.

Sand wrote:

Or how many plan abducting, torturing and murdering mothers of 10 for daring to show some humanity?

That's the first time I've ever heard the phrase "showing some humanity" as a euphemism for informing.

Sand wrote:

The difference wouldnt have anytthing to do with the fact that SFIRA were doing their best to murder the British Army - hence they were always going to suffer more casualties. And as for the Loyalists, they were at worst neutral to the British Army, and SFIRA can hardly claim they were fighting off hordes of loyalists given the casualties they inflicted.

Exactly! That's the point. The IRA were trying their hardest to attack the British army - their enemies, and people who had signed up for a job that they kew could mean their deaths. The loyalists were trying their hardest to murder civilians - usually people just trying to live their lives. Which is more wrong?
EDIT: Damnit! Kaptain Redeye beat me too it, and unsurprisingly, did it better too... Grrr! Damn you for your knowledge!

Stabshauptmann

And its actually a testemant to the non sectarian nature of the security forces that SFIRA was able to murder with so little prejudice and yet slaugher so many Catholics?

Too late Sand you've already said, and I quote, "the fact that SFIRA were doing their best to murder the British Army". The IRA was at war with Britain, accordint to both Britain and the IRA (our opinions are irrelevent).

The IRA killed 1706 people. 1011 british forces, 516 civilians, 7 irish forces, 32 loyalists and 140 rebublicans. Though noone should mistake the INLA or IPLO for republicans. Compare that to the british forces who killed 192 civilaisn 14 loyalists, 12 friendlies and 145 republicans. ANd then the loyalists who killed 1020 people: 14 Security forces, 873 civilians, 91 other loyalist and 42 republicans.

So to summary "because theres a lot of reading and hope you had time to skim through it" The IRA was responsible for less than 1/3 of the civilian casualties, nearly 2/3 its victums were british security forces.
British security killed more civilians than republicans or loyalists. The former bearing the brunt even though the latter has a larger membership. And the loyalists killed 80% innocent civilians. Just the facts.

Cork

I personally don't give too hoots about the provisional movement or loyalist gangs. They both had scant regard for human life.

murphaph

Cork wrote:

I personally don't give too hoots about the provisional movement or loyalist gangs. They both had scant regard for human life.

Indeed Cork, as evidenced by the bastards selling drugs to kids. Bunch of drug dealing scum the lot of 'em, no different to the westies or any other scummy gang in Dublin. Sand, you're wasting your time-it's not debate that'll change their minds, maybe some form of de-programming could work though! I wonder how many of the vehement republicans on here watch british TV, or follow british football clubs. Quite a few I bet.

supersheep

Kaptain Redeye, you're wasting your time - it's not debate that'll change their minds, maybe some form of de-programming could work though! I wonder how many of the vehement anti-republicans on here watch Irish TV, or follow Irish football. Quite a few I bet.

I can do that too, you know... Maybe try arguing the facts, not attacking us for needing de-programming. Oh, and I'm no vehement Republican, and don't particularly like the IRA - they lost their way and became a criminal gang, and their choice of targets could be suspect at times, to say the least. But I'm definitely no loyalist.

Sand

Because of the terrible pograms being commited against an innocent minority in NI who only wanted reform. They were formed becuase the OIRA was unable/unwilling to defend nationalist communities. There is no longer any significant threat to these communities.

Ha, so you can finally admit the IRA was fighting the BA not murdering civilians.

Exactly! That's the point. The IRA were trying their hardest to attack the British army - their enemies

So which is it? Were the PIRA defending Catholic areas or were they simply trying to wage some sort of war against the British security forces and against British civillian targets? You were claiming justification for the "war" on the basis of protecting Catholics from Loyalist mobs, now suddenly its actual purpose was to fight the Army sent to end the attacks of those mobs. On either front SFIRA failed.

Ah I like this logic, let me see if I grasp it, if I attach a goal to someone or something that they dont actually have, but then I can slag them if they dont get it

They have come fuill circle back to the exact same idealogy they rejected 30 years ago, for what is basically the same agreement they rejected 30 years ago. They and their idealogy failed completely and it took thousands dead before they would recognise that maybe those who advocated constitutional politics might have had a point. Squirm all you like, but thats the facts.

Explain, there seems to be a gap in this logic. How did a republican stategy to the peace process kill Robert McCarthney. It wasnt a planned murder and IRA weapons werent used so I dont know how it fits in with IRA strategy and its the last thing SF would have wanted. How is the murder of Robert McCarthney part of the Sf-IRA strategy.

For the past 10 years or so there has been an arrangement between Blair and Adams - Adams stops bombs and killings in the UK, and in return Blair will serve up the unionists on a platter. Blairs entire strategy towards northern Ireland was summed up by the British civil servant who told an Irish colleague that they didnt care if the whole island of Ireland was swamped with terrorist mafioso so long as they werent killing people in the UK. As such, it was the unofficial policy that criminality and low intensity paramilitary murders and punishment beatings would be tolerated.

Ahern is a witless craven moron, who seems to hold getting a "deal", any deal, at any price or cost as more important than whats in the deal. As such hes gone along with the bargain wholeheartedly. RTE and most of the Irish media, like Vincent Browne are closet provos. They have played their part by never questioning SFIRA, or casting light on their activities. Even back when O Snodaighs SFIRAs "electoral workers" were unmasked as a SFIRA punishment gang, the media covered it up and never dared question. The popular wisdom on this board was also that it was the wisest course of action never to question SFIRA, for fear of something worse.

In such an enviroment, Blair, Ahern and the media gave SFIRA carte blanche to carry out jobs like the Northern Bank raid, to murder men like McCartney because it was allowed that they would do these things, so long as they didnt get out of hand. The *only* thing that briefly broke down this cosy arrangement was the bravery of the McCartneys and the McCabes who didt just lie down and take it like the others and shamed the media into briefly, ever so briefly asking Adams and co some questions and not literally performing fellatio upon them in each interview.

So you crow about how SFIRA promises a lot, but doesnt deliver on ending criminality, punishment beatings, intimidation, murder and abductions and then you have the cheek to ask how this led to McCartneys death? Pfft. Take off the green tinted glasses and beg, borrow, steal, some perspective.

If Blair and Ahern had some spine and demanded that SFIRA live up to its obligations, then McCartneys killers wouldnt have assumed they would be immune, wouldnt have received the assistance they got from SFIRA and most likely McCartneys family wouldnt be intimidated into leaving their homes.

Trimble got two acts of decomissioning. Paisley was offered the final installment but he talked of sack cloths and using the photograph to shame republicans. A lot of ppl blame the DUP.

Provos do. Most objective people look at Trimbles fate after he agreed to enter power with SFIRA on the understanding of rapid decommissioning. Or they look at SFIRAs refusal to give up criminality in the December deal. Or the Northern Bank raid and McCartney murder which totally vindicated those who claimed SFIRA were and are unreformed terrorist thugs who cannot be viewed as acceptable partners in any democratic government.

The IRAs victums werent picked for their religious backround

Again, an outright lie. At Kingsmills the victims were specifically chosen on the basis of their religion. Protestants were shot, Catholics were allowed go free despite doing the same work as the Protestants.

If the account in "A secret history of the IRA" is true and she was given a chance before, how could the IRA operate in an area with an informant, and if the informant wouldnt take a warning seriously what were they to do?

If that account was true, she would also be the *only* British informant in the history of the troubles to be given a field radio, in a land of telephones...

Honestly, practically every aspect of Provo theology is a lie, much like their lie that the British Army murdered that 14 year old girl in Derry 33 years ago. For 33 years people like you were pointing at her murder as proof the British Army was targetting Catholics. And now 33 years later, after they duped gullible goons for decades, they "remember" - actually it was SFIRA who killed her. Your whole theology is based on lies and deceit. Tell lies often enough and they become the truth it seems...

Apply the same standards to both sides and the IRA comes out looking the better - by far.

Its actually you funny that you point out convictions for crimes by the British Army as proof they were worse when SFIRA never convicts any of its members for any crime - other than perhaps not giving the boss his cut of the profits. I guess youre right, if SFIRA approved policy is attacks like Enniskillen, then theyre going to have less convictions. And seeing as they have less convitions - then they must be the good guys.

Wonderful logic Kaptain.

Now you claim moralality to be irrelevant; sorry sand but thats inconsistant to you're previous arguements.

Where did I claim morality to be irrelevant? I registered my dislike of moral relativism, where people regard the world as not being black or white, where its all greys, there are no such things as good or evil. That one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Which flees from making moral judgements because its not politically fashionable to call an evil act evil.

You trying to equate SFIRAs atrocities (which were policy) to an army which keeps to the Geneva Convention, and punishes members which breach it, is just an example of that attempt to blur lines between right and wrong, to try to legitimise a terrorist campaign. It was and is this sort of thinking that endorsed some of the worst inhumanities history has seen.

The true measure to how successfully they defended nationalist communites would be changes in death rates and eviction rates within said comunities not casualties they inflicted in another. Yet another gap in your logic, not a good week Sand?

It wouldnt have anything to do with the reform of the Northern Ireland security forces, including the introduction of direct rule brought about by constitutional nationalisms campaigns for justice? Or even - whisper it - the introduction of the British army to patrol the so called peace lines?

No, Im sure it was SFIRAs killing of roughly 1 loyalist a year, and atrocities against protestants which has only heightened tensions between communities.

So to summary "because theres a lot of reading and hope you had time to skim through it" The IRA was responsible for less than 1/3 of the civilian casualties, nearly 2/3 its victums were british security forces.
British security killed more civilians than republicans or loyalists. The former bearing the brunt even though the latter has a larger membership. And the loyalists killed 80% innocent civilians. Just the facts.

About 1850 civillians were killed in the troubles. SFIRA killed 516 of them. The British Army killed 152. SFIRA killed over 3 times as many civillians as the British Army did. They killed only 32 loyalists, hence implying that they managed to kill 17 civillians for every loyalist, their supposed enemy they claimed to be fighting.

The only thing that saves them in your statistical analysis is the British Army was far less bloody thirsty and murderous than SFIRA - SFIRA was killing roughly 6 times as many people as the British Army despite your claim of warnings so that their civillian victims form a slightly smaller proportion of their tally. I dont see championing that SFIRA managed to kill more of everything - including civillian political activists interestingly - as all that wonderful.

Now normally I dont feel the need to rub it in Sand, but you can be the exception because of the way you keep trying to get one up on Irish1.

Aww, thats so sweet.

Sand

Sand, you're wasting your time-it's not debate that'll change their minds, maybe some form of de-programming could work though! I wonder how many of the vehement republicans on here watch british TV, or follow british football clubs. Quite a few I bet.

True, but I think its important to challenge outright lies when theyre spouted. triumph or evil, good men and all that. Lets face, way back in the mists of time someone spouted similar crap to the Provo fanboys here and no one challenged it. Now theyre so wrapped up in the mysticism that they accept its lies and its contradictions on a religious level.

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

So which is it? Were the PIRA defending Catholic areas or were they simply trying to wage some sort of war against the British security forces and against British civillian targets? You were claiming justification for the "war" on the basis of protecting Catholics from Loyalist mobs, now suddenly its actual purpose was to fight the Army sent to end the attacks of those mobs. On either front SFIRA failed.

The PIRA were formed to defend nationalist communities. The pograms of the late 60s were being carried out were sanctioned and even encouraged by the state. Thought the introducvtion of the BA was supposed to be to restore peace and protect the nationalist communities the actions of the security forces led them to be tarred with the same brush as the UDR, RUC and B Specials.
Origionally nationalists, if they had to be part of the UK, just wanted to be treated as equal citizens of the UK. With the defeat of the civil rights association many believed their only hope for happiness would be within a united ireland. The IRA moved from protectors to a "liberation force".

They have come fuill circle back to the exact same idealogy they rejected 30 years ago, for what is basically the same agreement they rejected 30 years ago. They and their idealogy failed completely and it took thousands dead before they would recognise that maybe those who advocated constitutional politics might have had a point. Squirm all you like, but thats the facts.

Those are the facts distorted to meet your purposes. You have implyed that the PIRA split with the OIRA because of the latters acceptance of Sunnigdale, a piece of total fancy. The PIRA-OIRA split occured liong before Sunnigdale.
While the majority of nationalists saw Sunnigdale as the answer they were looking for. It was the unionists and not the IRA that killed Sunnigdale. The UUP leader was forced to resign and the state was brought to a halt by unionist strikes. THe unionist population rejected out of hand the Sunigdale agreement and it took 30 years of violence for them to accept that they would never regain their positions of privilage and give peace a go.

For the past 10 years or so there has been an arrangement between Blair and Adams - Adams stops bombs and killings in the UK, and in return Blair will serve up the unionists on a platter. Blairs entire strategy towards northern Ireland was summed up by the British civil servant who told an Irish colleague that they didnt care if the whole island of Ireland was swamped with terrorist mafioso so long as they werent killing people in the UK. As such, it was the unofficial policy that criminality and low intensity paramilitary murders and punishment beatings would be tolerated.

Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. Now everyone say it with me, Sand was wrong. You said the SF-IRA peace strategy was what got McCarthney killed. What you should have said but wanted to bend the truth to advance your own goals was that Blairs strategy of appeasement is the cause of republican criminality, punnishment beatings and Robert McCarthneys death.
But you decided to bend the truth so much (enough IMO to be called a lie) so you could bash SF and the IRA. I wish there was a smug grin smilie.



If you are wondering why Im being such an arrogant prick every time you make a mistake its because of your general attitude which stifles debate on this board. You make some posters feel stupid and insist on rubbing it in to others who admit their mistakes. But the main reason was your statement about "embarassing the IRA over this surrender". It was exactly the same as Paisleys remarks about sack cloths, and attidue like that are whats keeping the hatred going. Maybe you should think about that. In the mean time Im going to make a big deal out of every mistake you make.

Ahern is a witless craven moron, who seems to hold getting a "deal", any deal, at any price or cost as more important than whats in the deal. As such hes gone along with the bargain wholeheartedly.

Funny, I thought he was commended as one of the great politicians in the EU. But of course you know soo much more than the experts. :rolleyes:

RTE and most of the Irish media, like Vincent Browne are closet provos. They have played their part by never questioning SFIRA, or casting light on their activities. Even back when O Snodaighs SFIRAs "electoral workers" were unmasked as a SFIRA punishment gang, the media covered it up and never dared question. The popular wisdom on this board was also that it was the wisest course of action never to question SFIRA, for fear of something worse.

Thats the anti SF line, the pro SF line is that the irish media, particularly the "british" tabloids and the Indo are nothing more than west brit SF bashers. The truth, is something in the middle.

In such an enviroment, Blair, Ahern and the media gave SFIRA carte blanche to carry out jobs like the Northern Bank raid, to murder men like McCartney because it was allowed that they would do these things, so long as they didnt get out of hand. The *only* thing that briefly broke down this cosy arrangement was the bravery of the McCartneys and the McCabes who didt just lie down and take it like the others and shamed the media into briefly, ever so briefly asking Adams and co some questions and not literally performing fellatio upon them in each interview.

The above is just to clarify your mistake - you meant the Blair -Ahern startegy of appeasement not SF-IRA peacr startegy.

So you crow about how SFIRA promises a lot, but doesnt deliver on ending criminality, punishment beatings, intimidation, murder and abductions and then you have the cheek to ask how this led to McCartneys death? Pfft. Take off the green tinted glasses and beg, borrow, steal, some perspective.

Nah na na na, na na na na, way hhey ho...
Getting all hot and bothered their Sand. You once agin made the HUGE leap in your logic. Blair - Ahern appeasement, is a Blair - Ahern strategy. Twist, turn and squirm but you cant change it. You were wrong, you said something untrue, blinded by hatred, and Im laughing at you for it.

If Blair and Ahern had some spine and demanded that SFIRA live up to its obligations, then McCartneys killers wouldnt have assumed they would be immune, wouldnt have received the assistance they got from SFIRA and most likely McCartneys family wouldnt be intimidated into leaving their homes.

Exactly what Im saying, and inconsistant with what you said when you said it was a Sf-IRA strategy. And this is what it all boils down to, Blair and Adams are appeasing more and making more concession for this statement and you feel that The Blair-Ahern strategy of appeasement is costing lives and progress.

Provos do. Most objective people look at Trimbles fate after he agreed to enter power with SFIRA on the understanding of rapid decommissioning. Or they look at SFIRAs refusal to give up criminality in the December deal. Or the Northern Bank raid and McCartney murder which totally vindicated those who claimed SFIRA were and are unreformed terrorist thugs who cannot be viewed as acceptable partners in any democratic government.

FF is the largest party in the RoI and on the island as a whole. It feels and hence the majority of voters feel, that SF are suitable for government, North and South, according to their most recent statements. You cannot say what most ppl think, all we can go on is who they vote for, not opinion polls, but the polls that matter.

Again, an outright lie. At Kingsmills the victims were specifically chosen on the basis of their religion. Protestants were shot, Catholics were allowed go free despite doing the same work as the Protestants.

And again an out and out attempt to distort the facts. on bloody sunday the british army shot only unarmed peaceful protestors, hence the british army only kills unarmed peaceful protestors :rolleyes:
Thats specious reasoning, drawing a general conclusion from an isolated case. I know there were others like it and I was honest and sincere when I asked for your list - its for a seperate project Im working on. [n]But the truth is in the cool hard facts, the statistics dont show a radical tendancy for the IRA over the course of the troubles to target protestants.[/b]
Try all you want but those statistics cant be changed by any ammount of lies or insults.

If that account was true, she would also be the *only* British informant in the history of the troubles to be given a field radio, in a land of telephones...

Again everybody join hands and repeat, Sand is changing the subject, he wont answer the question, because hes afraid and being deceitful. The question was IF, not was or wasnt she, IF.

Honestly, practically every aspect of Provo theology is a lie, much like their lie that the British Army murdered that 14 year old girl in Derry 33 years ago. For 33 years people like you were pointing at her murder as proof the British Army was targetting Catholics. And now 33 years later, after they duped gullible goons for decades, they "remember" - actually it was SFIRA who killed her. Your whole theology is based on lies and deceit. Tell lies often enough and they become the truth it seems...

Thats why Im fighting you, becuase as Ive shown dozens of times in the last few days, you bend and distort the truth to suit yourself. If ppl like you are left to "embarrass and shame" and to write your version of history, built on isolated incidences not statistical FACTS, then the future is bleak indeed. Im a moderate, but moderate are no match for extremeists, so Im giving you your own medicine, and I can see it burns.

Stabshauptmann

Its actually you funny that you point out convictions for crimes by the British Army as proof they were worse when SFIRA never convicts any of its members for any crime other than perhaps not giving the boss his cut of the profits.

Liar. Ive even asked you for a list of IRA atrocities. Im very interesting in persuing justice. But right now, I just want to show you up for the liar you are, a person who distorts truth and hides from questions. Who "forgets" points made by others.

I guess youre right

Great, Ill put it in my sig.

I guess youre right if SFIRA approved policy is attacks like Enniskillen, then theyre going to have less convictions. And seeing as they have less convitions - then they must be the good guys.

Wonderful logic Kaptain.

Your sentence doesnt make complete sense, is that because its you usual mix of sarcasm and smarmy gibes? You implied that the troubles was a war between the evil IRA and the snow white BA. I gave a list of the **** the BA (and US - it was relevent to the context at the time) were up to and now you retort - [smary]well I suppose the IRA were saints[/smarmy].
I know the IRA commited war crimes, Im doing a project on it atm, but compared to the other wars and armies of the 20th century, they dont even come close.

Where did I claim morality to be irrelevant?

"I always have to sigh when moral relevance rears"

I registered my dislike of moral relativism

There you did it again

I registered my dislike of moral relativism, where people regard the world as not being black or white, where its all greys, there are no such things as good or evil. That one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Which flees from making moral judgements because its not politically fashionable to call an evil act evil.

OMG, you actually belive people to be evil or noble, black or white - no inbetween?? Such an arguement is totally ilogical. Because what do you call an organisation made up of both evil and noble men. Take WW2 for example, the allies commited horrible war crimes, were they then wrong to attack Nazi Germany?

You trying to equate SFIRAs atrocities (which were policy) to an army which keeps to the Geneva Convention, and punishes members which breach it, is just an example of that attempt to blur lines between right and wrong, to try to legitimise a terrorist campaign. It was and is this sort of thinking that endorsed some of the worst inhumanities history has seen.

A)The lines between good and evil are blurred. There is a colour called grey between black and white.
B)Only a tiny fraction of british or american war criminals have been brought to justice
C)Guitmo is on going.
D)Statistics dont back upi your unqualified opinion that it was policy.

Ill once again laugh arragantly at you inept logic.

It wouldnt have anything to do with the reform of the Northern Ireland security forces, including the introduction of direct rule brought about by constitutional nationalisms campaigns for justice? Or even - whisper it - the introduction of the British army to patrol the so called peace lines?

No, Im sure it was SFIRAs killing of roughly 1 loyalist a year, and atrocities against protestants which has only heightened tensions between communities.

And that debunks my logic how? To recap for any spectators:
Sand- The IRA killed few loyalists, how can it then claim to have protected nationalists
Me- Wouldnt the rates of attacks on nationalist communities, not rates of attacks by republicans on loyalist communities be a bette judge of how well the IRA acted as defenders
Sand- Something vague about security forces reform and community tensions

ONce again sing it with me, Sand, you have once again been shown to be wrong/illogical. You said somethig illogical, I countered and now all you can do is try and change the subject. I soo need a smug grin smily. Whats next, attacking my spelling!


I love the next bit: I knew you'd have to use the summary

About 1850 civillians were killed in the troubles. SFIRA killed 516 of them.

Less than a third, and considering there were 3 parties, thats pretty good.And less than a third of the overall victums of IRA activity.

The British Army killed 152.

The british security forces, RUC, UDR, B Specials etc killed 192. Try to keep up. Why would we pick the BA and not the other security forces as well?

SFIRA killed over 3 times as many civillians as the British Army did. They killed only 32 loyalists, hence implying that they managed to kill 17 civillians for every loyalist, their supposed enemy they claimed to be fighting.

Civilians werent the main casualties of IRA activity, they were the main casualties of British Forces security action. What does that say about the British's supposed enemy.
When did the IRA say the Crown Forces werent their enemy? The IRA killed twice as many of them as they did civilians, pitty the BA cant say the same

The only thing that saves them in your statistical analysis is the British Army was far less bloody thirsty and murderous than SFIRA - SFIRA was killing roughly 6 times as many people as the British Army despite your claim of warnings so that their civillian victims form a slightly smaller proportion of their tally.

Ever think what the death tolls from the troubles would have been like if the IRA didnt issue warnings before bombs. At one stage there were 100 bombings a month. The truth is for a long time the IRA was running rings around the british army.

I dont see championing that SFIRA managed to kill more of everything - including civillian political activists interestingly - as all that wonderful.

Aww, thats so sweet.

Be as sarcastic as you like, but the IRA had the capability to kill far far more than it did, but choose not to.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Thats why Im fighting you, becuase as Ive shown dozens of times in the last few days, you bend and distort the truth to suit yourself. If ppl like you are left to "embarrass and shame" and to write your version of history, built on isolated incidences not statistical FACTS, then the future is bleak indeed. Im a moderate, but moderate are no match for extremeists, so Im giving you your own medicine, and I can see it burns.

I thought he made a fair point regarding the the lie that the British Army murdered that 14 year old girl in Derry 33 years ago when it was actually the Provos. Why did you ignore this very relevant point?

Stabshauptmann

I didnt think I did, but then Im not sure now, Ive spent the last half hour typping (Im slow and laptops are awkward )

To start with, how does the fact that provos bend the truth and spout proparganda take away from what Sand is doing?

If you need to hear me say it, Yes the provos and SF are untrustworthy. As it happens Mr Nice Guy Ive lambasted Irish1 and some far more extreme republicans in other threads. Im not out to prove that the IRa have won or that they were right, Im just sick of Sand bending the truth and abusing other posters so Im giving him so of his own medicine.

Stabshauptmann

Im also trying to get this whole style of one up manship forbidden in the charter by taking it to a new extreme. Ive complained before, I didnt post here for a while, but I learned that the best way, is to be a total prick until a mod decides to make a certain etiquette compulsory.

Stabshauptmann

Mr Nice Guy:
I dont care whos at it, rewriting history with ones own perverted slant is something that needs to be stepped on.
But theres nobody in this thread mentioning the BA killing some little girl. I didnt, and Sand brought it up simply to attach the lie to me. Hes already losing so badly thats hes moved onto character assasination. Reread his post looking for instances of him attaching other people opinions / statements to me.
I didnt counter it because it simply slipped by me, if you hadnt mentioned it I wouldnt have realised he was tryinf character assasination already (this means hes on the ropes, it wont be long till he stops replying).

Heres another example: "Your whole theology is based on lies and deceit. Tell lies often enough and they become the truth it seems.."
I just read that as "Republicans whole theo..." but no, Sand is trying to put words in my mouth. He is attributing things to me I never said. Thats the ultimate act of cowardice for a debater. Its worse than lying.

Oh and BTW, no I dont edit, it makes it look like Ive deleted something

Mr.Nice Guy

So then you do think the IRA were wrong in killing the girl and claiming it was the British Army and, if I'm not mistaken, going out and killing another British soldier 'in retaliation' for a murder they themselves had actually committed?

I just think it was a disgraceful thing to do, full of cowardice and which merits attention.

Stabshauptmann

Yes, I think it was rotten, tbh, when Sand said I said it, was the first time Id heard of it. Sand is slinging mud at me, dont be fooled.

Sand

I thought he made a fair point regarding the the lie that the British Army murdered that 14 year old girl in Derry 33 years ago when it was actually the Provos. Why did you ignore this very relevant point?

Id put it down to his having his buttons pushed and thus heading off into the wild wild lands of ranting provoism. Personally I think hes close to actually recognising Provo idealogy for the ****e it is, hence the irrational attempt at defending of it.

Origionally nationalists, if they had to be part of the UK, just wanted to be treated as equal citizens of the UK. With the defeat of the civil rights association many believed their only hope for happiness would be within a united ireland. The IRA moved from protectors to a "liberation force".

Oh thats convenient. First they were one, then they were the other. Of course you cant exactly point out where anyone went around asking the population what they though SFIRA should do, and indeed they rejected Sunningdale when you admit the majority of nationalists supported it. SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?

Those are the facts distorted to meet your purposes. You have implyed that the PIRA split with the OIRA because of the latters acceptance of Sunnigdale, a piece of total fancy. The PIRA-OIRA split occured liong before Sunnigdale.

Ive changed no facts. On every single point with which the Provos disagreed with the Officials theyve lost, right down to surrendering the "armed struggle". Thousands of people died for nothing. Rant all you like, but thats reality.

If you are wondering why Im being such an arrogant prick every time you make a mistake its because of your general attitude which stifles debate on this board. You make some posters feel stupid and insist on rubbing it in to others who admit their mistakes. But the main reason was your statement about "embarassing the IRA over this surrender". It was exactly the same as Paisleys remarks about sack cloths, and attidue like that are whats keeping the hatred going. Maybe you should think about that. In the mean time Im going to make a big deal out of every mistake you make.

Did I hurt your feelings at some point in the past? Im sorry, but cheers for the info on what pushes your buttons. Like I said, its handy having this surrender document around to show the Provo fanboys everytime they venerate a gang of murderers.

Nah na na na, na na na na, way hhey ho...
Getting all hot and bothered their Sand. You once agin made the HUGE leap in your logic. Blair - Ahern appeasement, is a Blair - Ahern strategy. Twist, turn and squirm but you cant change it. You were wrong, you said something untrue, blinded by hatred, and Im laughing at you for it.

Well, whilst its somewhat gratifying to know youve lost your temper so badly youre that obsessed with me, Id argue that it has always been SFIRAs strategy - which you celebrate - where SFIRA says it will abide by the law but on the other hand murders and beats people, which you seem to wholly support and cheer about. If having one foot in government and one foot in crime doesnt lead to the sense of immunity from prosecution that meant SFIRA basically butchered a man, and then covered up afterwards and felt they could get away with it, then what else can? The entire agreement has been sold to SFIRAs members as being trick and a confidence game, in which they can have their cake and eat it. In fact SFIRA feel we should be grateful that theyre only killing the odd one now and then. You share that view feeling we should respect that SFIRA could have killed more but *chose* not to. If Blair and Ahern are to blame its because theyve tolerated it.

FF is the largest party in the RoI and on the island as a whole. It feels and hence the majority of voters feel, that SF are suitable for government, North and South, according to their most recent statements. You cannot say what most ppl think, all we can go on is who they vote for, not opinion polls, but the polls that matter.

My view of what makes a party suitable for government isnt based on populism but on the simple, easily adhered to standard of not having a paramilitary crinimal group in government. Im aware this poses problems for Provos but it is for them to change, not democratic norms.

Thats specious reasoning, drawing a general conclusion from an isolated case. I know there were others like it

Didnt you just contradict yourself there? Claiming Kingsmills was isolated, and then just as quickly admitting there were others like it? I know youre ranting, but try to review what you type.

Thats why Im fighting you

Because you want to continue the lies the the British Army killed that girl? More convenient than accepting that SFIRA killed her, SFIRA used her death to try and demonise the British Army, and when SFIRA were finished with her - then, finally then they admitted it was them.

Yeah, its a brave and heroic cause youve taken up. I salute you.

You said

Lets not forget that the crown forces were found guilty of TORTURE and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY for some of the **** they did in NI during the troubles.

I said

Its actually you funny that you point out convictions for crimes by the British Army as proof they were worse

You said

Liar.

What exactly was I lying about? Did you or did you not point out convictions against the crown forces (which I hope youll allow is interchange with BA) as evidence that SFIRA were far better behaved in the Troubles?

Great, Ill put it in my sig.

Again, its touching to imagine you crying hot salty tears of rage over your keyboard.

Your sentence doesnt make complete sense, is that because its you usual mix of sarcasm and smarmy gibes?

Well Id say its more because Im summarising your position, which doesnt make sense.

You implied that the troubles was a war between the evil IRA and the snow white BA.

I know the IRA commited war crimes, Im doing a project on it atm, but compared to the other wars and armies of the 20th century, they dont even come close.

Well, I wouldnt claim the British Army are anything other than human, and thus imperfect, but they adhere to the GC, and are responsible for their actions to a democratic parliment and the rule of law. Yes, breaches occur. But breaches are punished as you note when you noted convictions.

On the other hand, SFIRA does not maintain any of these checks on their actions - least of all the GC. For your project, research the GC and see how many rules SFIRA broke when they murdered her[McConville]. I did it once in a post here, think I counted at least 6 probably more. It is then of course no surprise that the most depraved acts in the Troubles, such as the use of forced suicide bombers, were employed by SFIRA.

There you did it again

Typo on my part. There is hardly any mistaking what I meant when you look at the context, especially the Orwell quotes.

OMG, you actually belive people to be evil or noble, black or white - no inbetween??

I believe there are evil acts and good acts. Dragging kids out and beating them I wouldnt see as a good act even if Ghandi was doing it. Nor would I view Kingsmills as a good act even if Martin Luther King was at it. If an act is evil, its evil regardless of whose doing it.

Im never surprised that its the defenders of evil idealogies that try their best to sell "world of greys" ****e. If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh.

Sand- The IRA killed few loyalists, how can it then claim to have protected nationalists
Me- Wouldnt the rates of attacks on nationalist communities, not rates of attacks by republicans on loyalist communities be a bette judge of how well the IRA acted as defenders
Sand- Something vague about security forces reform and community tensions

As I said Provo idealogy doesnt survive contact with objective analysis.

What you described was what happened - a falling rate of attacks. You said nothing about how this happened, or why, which I had already pointed out was hardly anything to do with a SFIRA campaign that only provoked further attack through stuff like Kingsmills. You merely assumed that killing roughly 1 loyalist a year did the trick.

And you quickly rush on past the objective explanation - reform of the police forces, and deployment of the British Army. No wonder Provos hate reality and need to construct a world of lies to sustain their beliefs.

ONce again sing it with me, Sand, you have once again been shown to be wrong/illogical. You said somethig illogical, I countered and now all you can do is try and change the subject. I soo need a smug grin smily. Whats next, attacking my spelling!

Id say you're ripping up your teddy bears over there.

Civilians werent the main casualties of IRA activity, they were the main casualties of British Forces security action. What does that say about the British's supposed enemy.

That they killed 3 times as many civillians as the British Army, and killed far more Catholics? That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that.

Ever think what the death tolls from the troubles would have been like if the IRA didnt issue warnings before bombs.

Be as sarcastic as you like, but the IRA had the capability to kill far far more than it did, but choose not to.

Oh what heroes. Sure, theyre trying to murder us, but at least theyve give us a few minutes warning.

Sand

Im just sick of Sand bending the truth and abusing other posters so Im giving him so of his own medicine.

Youve entered on the whole wrong footing, trying to flame me rather than argue your points. Calm down, breathe and youll do better.

But theres nobody in this thread mentioning the BA killing some little girl. I didnt, and Sand brought it up simply to attach the lie to me.

A cited example of what your beliefs are based upon. For 33 years, her murder was proof that the British Army was targeting Catholics. Now its shown that SFIRA lied. And I didnt say you said it, I said people like you were duping people with examples like the murder of that girl by the hated British army as a basis for justifying SFIRAs atrocities. Whats that about putting words in peoples mouths and character assassination?

That lie is much like your own lie that SFIRA was non-sectarian, and thus morally superiour, when it committed acts like Kingsmills, which you admit werent isolated. Past provo fanboys had the exscuse of not knowing better. You have no exscuse not to question what lies SFIRA theology is based upon.

Heres another example: "Your whole theology is based on lies and deceit. Tell lies often enough and they become the truth it seems.."

I mean, *think*, - why would the British give McConville a field radio - There were/are telephones in Northern Ireland. It doesnt make sense that they would give her one, when they never issued one to any other informant ever. Do you not see the lie?

Yes, I think it was rotten, tbh, when Sand said I said it, was the first time Id heard of it.

Im not surprised youve not heard about it. It would be hard for anyone to support SFIRA when they see them responsible for that sort of deed. Which is why we have your world of grey. Surely this is a grey act, sure they murdered her, and lied about it, but who are we to criticise? It was probably all in a good cause. Were we there? Can we judge what we would have done? No.

Im also trying to get this whole style of one up manship forbidden in the charter by taking it to a new extreme. Ive complained before, I didnt post here for a while, but I learned that the best way, is to be a total prick until a mod decides to make a certain etiquette compulsory.

Well if youre going to try act that way and are trumpeting it, Id advise you not to. Youll get banned faster than the charter will get changed, and Id miss your input.