Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Options
1…2122242627…37

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    FUNKY LOVER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭FUNKY LOVER


    realies wrote: »
    I don't hate anybody and your one line statement seems typical of a poster who does not want to know what was happening up there and is not interested in finding out why that conflict happened in the first place, If only the world was such a peaceful and friendly place where wars/conflicts did not happen and no hurt or oppression or other foreign governments policy was enforced on any one people, Alas it was never that way and it never will be imo.
    Em that reply was to keith!

    why have you 2 usernames?


  • Options
    #693
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    There is an uncomfortable caveat in relation to innocent people who happened to frequent a valid target at the time (e.g. a civilian visiting a military base)

    Liam, if in this scenario you are saying the the deaths of civilans isn't murder, why then in post #613 do you say that in relation to Ocampo's comments that:
    He has his opinion, I have mine.

    when he says that:
    International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

    ?


  • Options
    #694
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    The Westerner wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    There is an uncomfortable caveat in relation to innocent people who happened to frequent a valid target at the time (e.g. a civilian visiting a military base)

    Liam, if in this scenario you are saying the the deaths of civilans isn't murder, why then in post #613 do you say that in relation to Ocampo's comments that:
    He has his opinion, I have mine.

    when he says that:
    International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

    ?

    "Known that.....will occur"

    Definites. Not indicating "a small chance if we've overlooked sonething" or even the careless "may occur"......explicitly stating "will occur" makes it known in advance making it murder.


  • Options
    #695
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    Em that reply was to keith!

    why have you 2 usernames?


    I don't have 2 usernames :confused: you quoted what i wrote.and someone must be using autocheck which shortened my name, no harm done none of us are perfect.


  • Options
    #696
    FUNKY LOVER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭FUNKY LOVER


    realies wrote: »
    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    Em that reply was to keith!

    why have you 2 usernames?


    I don't have 2 usernames :confused: you quoted what i wrote.and someone must be using autocheck which shortened my name, no harm done none of us are perfect.
    No bother anyway I was agreeing with you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    explicitly stating "will occur" makes it known in advance making it murder.

    No. Your wrong.

    He states in the preceding sentence that:
    Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime.

    In its entirety his comments state that:
    Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.


  • Options
    #698
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    The Westerner wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    explicitly stating "will occur" makes it known in advance making it murder.

    No. Your wrong.

    He states in the preceding sentence that:
    Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime.

    In its entirety his comments state that:
    Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

    Which is why I said I disagree with him....what's your point?


  • Options
    #699
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Which is why I said I disagree with him

    No problem there.
    ....what's your point?

    I agree with him and think your wrong. Your opinion as stated has no legal factual basis under the Rome Statutes which he interprets.


  • Options
    #700
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    You're seriously losing any vestige of credibility you might have had before you started denying reality.

    You're really doing your partisan view of the conflict no good. Indeed you're only reinforcing that there was no talking to people like you.

    You keep trying to convince yourself that your crowd were just being fine up-standing people and any aberration is excused away by the 'no true Scotsman' logical fallacy.

    Laughable. Your report from a British Army Brigadier does nothing but suggest Loyalists STOLE weapons - or might have, as he doesn't actually seem to know. This is a long way from realies claim that the security forces 'armed loyalist paramilitaries'.

    Do you not see the irony in you quoting a report by a British Army Brigadier regarding Loyalist infiltration of The UDR, whilst at the same time claiming the security forces were involved in widespread collusion with Loyalists? What was he doing? Bragging?


  • Options
    #701
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    In January 1988 Loyalist paramilitaries received a huge haul of South African weapons. This consisted of 200 AK47 assault rifles, 90 Browning pistols, 500 fragmentation grenades, 30,000 rounds of ammunition and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers.The weapons were divided between the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance, the organisation set up by Ian Paisley, Peter Robinson and Alan Wright.Brian Nelson, the agent of the British army intelligence and the UDAs chief intelligence officer, was a key personality in this arms transaction The deal was completed and final arrangements were made in December 1987. Nelson informed military intelligence of developments at every stage of the proceedings; he passed on all the details including the method to be used to smuggle in the weapons. No action was taken.

    In a jail journal, written by Nelson and obtained by the BBC's Panorama team in 1992 he states:

    In 1987 I was discussing with my handler Ronnie the South African operation when he told me that because of the deep suspicion the seizure would have aroused, to protect me it had been decided to let the first shipment into the country untouched.

    In the six yeas before the arrival of the weapons, from January 1982 to December 1987, loyalist paramilitaries killed 71 people of whom 49 were sectarian/political in nature. In the 6 years following, from January 1988 to 1 September 1994, loyalists killed 229 people of whom 207 were sectarian/political in nature.

    This was all done under the watchful eye and control of British intelligence services,

    TV there have been a number of posts on this thread already pointing out the facts that you so blindly ignore, But keep on posting your views as it sure beats reading stormfront ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    realies wrote: »
    In January 1988 Loyalist paramilitaries received a huge haul of South African weapons. This consisted of 200 AK47 assault rifles, 90 Browning pistols, 500 fragmentation grenades, 30,000 rounds of ammunition and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers.The weapons were divided between the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance, the organisation set up by Ian Paisley, Peter Robinson and Alan Wright.Brian Nelson, the agent of the British army intelligence and the UDAs chief intelligence officer, was a key personality in this arms transaction The deal was completed and final arrangements were made in December 1987. Nelson informed military intelligence of developments at every stage of the proceedings; he passed on all the details including the method to be used to smuggle in the weapons. No action was taken.

    In a jail journal, written by Nelson and obtained by the BBC's Panorama team in 1992 he states:

    In 1987 I was discussing with my handler Ronnie the South African operation when he told me that because of the deep suspicion the seizure would have aroused, to protect me it had been decided to let the first shipment into the country untouched.

    In the six yeas before the arrival of the weapons, from January 1982 to December 1987, loyalist paramilitaries killed 71 people of whom 49 were sectarian/political in nature. In the 6 years following, from January 1988 to 1 September 1994, loyalists killed 229 people of whom 207 were sectarian/political in nature.

    This was all done under the watchful eye and control of British intelligence services,

    TV there have been a number of posts on this thread already pointing out the facts that you so blindly ignore, But keep on posting your views as it sure beats reading stormfront ;)

    Once again, you fail to provide any credible links.

    The weapons got through, but you have not proved that they were let through by the security forces. Perhaps the huge haul of PIRA weapons were also deliberately let through?

    In fact, most of them were seized by The RUC within a very short time period. Why the hell did they do that?

    I have just fallen around the floor laughing at your comments about me ignoring posts on this thread. I have hammered away at nearly every post made regarding collusion and in fact it is The Republicans on this thread who have ignored vast swathes of the comments and questions I've made.

    You and your Republican friends live in a fairy tale world - you're just not used to having your fantasies challenged on this forum.

    And to be honest realies, it's been easy...


  • Options
    #703
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    trendy vicar wrote: »
    Once again, you fail to provide any credible links.

    The weapons got through, but you have not proved that they were let through by the security forces. Perhaps the huge haul of PIRA weapons were also deliberately let through?

    In fact, most of them were seized by The RUC within a very short time period. Why the hell did they do that?

    I have just fallen around the floor laughing at your comments about me ignoring posts on this thread. I have hammered away at nearly every post made regarding collusion and in fact it is The Republicans on this thread who have ignored vast swathes of the comments and questions I've made.

    You and your Republican friends live in a fairy tale world - you're just not used to having your fantasies challenged on this forum.

    And to be honest realise, it's been easy...


    Your not challenging anything you are ignoring everything put to you by very credible links already posted,re the South african arms Many of the weapons were later seized by British authorities, the largest single cache being taken from Davy Payne, the British ex-paratrooper and UDA Brigadier on 8 January 1988. Between a half and a third of the weapons however still remain in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries.

    And to be honest tv most people couldn't be bothered to keep answering your strawman comments and thats easy to do.


  • Options
    #704
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    realies wrote: »
    Your not challenging anything you are ignoring everything put to you by very credible links already posted,re the South african arms Many of the weapons were later seized by British authorities, the largest single cache being taken from Davy Payne, the British ex-paratrooper and UDA Brigadier on 8 January 1988. Between a half and a third of the weapons however still remain in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries.

    And to be honest tv most people couldn't be bothered to keep answering your strawman comments and thats easy to do.

    You and your comrades on here have been thrashed by me. But the reality is realies, the whole 'collusion is no illusion' campaign isn't aimed at people like me is it? It is aimed at those who are already pre-disposed to believe a 'narrative' that presents The UK State and it's security forces as capable of just about anything in Northern Ireland. This group includes The Nationalist population of Northern Ireland who've been conditioned by 'the troubles' and before to distrust anyone in a uniform, the people in The ROI who have grown up with an even older anti-British narrative and gullible fools in places like America. These types have no interest in doing any analysis on the collusion issue and if they use the internet, it's only to confirm their pre-existing prejudices. I doubt there's anything I can say that will disillusion those types.

    For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...


  • Options
    #705
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    trendyvicar wrote: »

    For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

    The mask hasn't just slipped, it's actually fallen off.


  • Options
    #706
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

    I'm always amused by these idiotic notions of alternate realities which is the reason that I never initiate them but seeing as the game has started I'll put my boots on and get stuck in.

    If there had been greater collusion between the anti-Catholic state sanctioned militias and the anti-Catholic murder squads there would have been more innocent Catholics killed.

    That would probably have led to greater enrollment in Republican groups, greater support from the US and UK diaspora for Republican groups, more destruction in the UK and more retaliatory attacks on innocent Protestants. The conflict would have escalated and the British would probably have gotten sick of subsidizing the failed state of NI and threatened to withdraw support for the the Unionist militias.

    See? I can play that stupid game too.


  • Options
    #707
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I'm always amused by these idiotic notions of alternate realities which is the reason that I never initiate them but seeing as the game has started I'll put my boots on and get stuck in.

    If there had been greater collusion between the anti-Catholic state sanctioned militias and the anti-Catholic murder squads there would have been more innocent Catholics killed.

    That would probably have led to greater enrollment in Republican groups, greater support from the US and UK diaspora for Republican groups, more destruction in the UK and more retaliatory attacks on innocent Protestants. The conflict would have escalated and the British would probably have gotten sick of subsidizing the failed state of NI and threatened to withdraw support for the the Unionist militias.

    See? I can play that stupid game too.

    You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

    What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter.

    Say now can you see...


  • Options
    #708
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

    What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter.

    Say now can you see...

    I find your views to be deeply vile and terrifying, not to mention contradictory. One one hand you berate, rightly so those who would excuse Republican terror but, on the other hand you have no problem with what amounts to state sponsored sectarian death squads that would seek to oppress a very large minority of it's population. You sir are the epitome of a fascist.

    Also, I'm intrigued with the reference to the USA, that's the second posting where you have made that reference. I'm scratching my head in bewilderment as to what that has to do with the conversation at hand.


  • Options
    #709
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    karma_ wrote: »
    I find your views to be deeply vile and terrifying, not to mention contradictory. One one hand you berate, rightly so those who would excuse Republican terror but, on the other hand you have no problem with what amounts to state sponsored sectarian death squads that would seek to oppress a very large minority of it's population. You sir are the epitome of a fascist.

    Also, I'm intrigued with the reference to the USA, that's the second posting where you have made that reference. I'm scratching my head in bewilderment as to what that has to do with the conversation at hand.

    What are you on about? I merely said it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread, as it would have finished the troubles earlier.

    As for being a fascist - you amuse me. Anyone who wanted to smash The IRA and maintain The Union was a fascist in the eyes of Irish Nationalists - moderate or militant. Your labels don't worry me...


  • Options
    #710
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    The Westerner wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Which is why I said I disagree with him

    No problem there.
    ....what's your point?

    I agree with him and think your wrong. Your opinion as stated has no legal factual basis under the Rome Statutes which he interprets.

    I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

    Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based on bullcrap "interpretations"....

    Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.


  • Options
    #711
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    You got the word STUPID right, but nothing else.

    It's your stupid game. Don't start crying when you get tackled. Man up.
    What you describe didn't happen in South America or elsewhere for that matter..

    I understand that when it comes to S. America you have some perverse admiration for the US backed dictators and their death squads (sounds vaguely familiar) but South America =/= NI.

    There was nothing in NI worth keeping from a British strategic POV - a point they conceded as a precursor to the IRA ceasefire.

    Indeed the failed state of NI has been nothing but a burden for the English tax-payer and I'd imagine the average English person would be more than happy to cut it loose given the economic facts and an opportunity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

    Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based in "interpretations"....

    Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.

    Fair enough.

    However such arguments I believe, while well intentioned and noble in intent eventually have their limits, the outcome of WWII being an example here. You can't disconnect from the consequences of reality.


  • Options
    #713
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    Let all that hatred out,and justify the murder of innocents.
    I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.


  • Options
    #714
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.


    Ignoring your little as always digs, Things have moved on, Sure aren't you all now taking your directions from MMG & co now ;) Ask some of your older friends/relatives did they think they would have ever see the day when the PUL would be sharing power with SF, that the queen would visit croke park and our garden of remembrance, That you be actually debating arguing sharing opinions on a republican thread based in the republic. Never thought I would see the day myself but there you go keithAFC things are carrying on & changing,it might be slow but its happening.


  • Options
    #715
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    The Westerner wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I have no issue with you disagreeing. You asked how there was a difference and I answered.

    Legally Ivor Callely was entitled to his "expenses" too, based in "interpretations"....

    Still doesn't mean it's morally right or that I have to accept a disagreeable interpretation and lower my own ethics to comply.

    Fair enough.

    However such arguments I believe, while well intentioned and noble in intent eventually have their limits, the outcome of WWII being an example here. You can't disconnect from the consequences of reality.

    Consequences, eh ?

    Guess that's as good a term as any for the fact that right-minded people hate those who murder innocents.


  • Options
    #716
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    realies wrote: »
    Ignoring your little as always digs, Things have moved on, Sure aren't you all now taking your directions from MMG & co now ;) Ask some of your older friends/relatives did they think they would have ever see the day when the PUL would be sharing power with SF, that the queen would visit croke park and our garden of remembrance, That you be actually debating arguing sharing opinions on a republican thread based in the republic. Never thought I would see the day myself but there you go keithAFC things are carrying on & changing,it might be slow but its happening.
    One key point you are missing. Martin Mcguinness is working for the good of Northern Ireland. Not the Irish Republic. Martin Mcguinness is working for a country in the UK. Martin Mcguinness is contributing in getting jobs to Northern Ireland. So in that respect, he can keep on doing his job.

    A lot of Republicans make this point a lot. Martin Mcguinness is just working for a British pay cheque.


  • Options
    #717
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I think it is Republicans who need to just accept that they weren't going to be allowed to just bomb the PUL people into a United Ireland. Perhaps when they accept that and accept the PIRA surrendered, then things will move on. So far, the Republican movement has not accepted that, so things will carry on like they have.

    They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #718
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It's your stupid game. Don't start crying when you get tackled. Man up.



    I understand that when it comes to S. America you have some perverse admiration for the US backed dictators and their death squads (sounds vaguely familiar) but South America =/= NI.

    There was nothing in NI worth keeping from a British strategic POV - a point they conceded as a precursor to the IRA ceasefire.

    Indeed the failed state of NI has been nothing but a burden for the English tax-payer and I'd imagine the average English person would be more than happy to cut it loose given the economic facts and an opportunity.

    You believe everything a politician says do you?


  • Options
    #719
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    K-9 wrote: »
    They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.
    But it was a defeat. That is exactly what it was. The whole goal was to get a United Ireland and bomb the country into Smithereens. The fact that after 30+ years of fighting for them, the best they could do was having to work at Stormont for a country in the UK is actually rather pathetic. Hunger strikers, blanketmen and so on and that is the best they can do.


  • Options
    #720
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    K-9 wrote: »
    They hardly surrendered, SF/IRA are now in Government so hardly surrender, hardly a defeat now Keith.

    It wasn't an unconditional surrender, but surrender it most certainly was. If The PUP were sat in The Dail in an independent United Ireland there would be no discussion over whether The UVF had surrendered or not. This would apply whatever perks The PUP had secured.

    The illusion of the 'score draw' is an Irish Nationalist fiction continuously fertilised by SF, because to do otherwise might well have meant a bullet in the head for certain SF/IRA leaders from their erstwhile PIRA comrades.

    By the way, The UK State actually wanted SF in Stormont (providing PIRA surrendered) - that way they were roped into the system, instead of causing problems outside the system. This had been UK State policy from as early as 1972. The idea of ex-terrorists (freshly castrated) in a subordinate UK assembly does not worry the UK State establishment at all - at the end of the day, it wasn't generally their kith and kin who were slaughtered by The IRA.

    Of course, the 'score draw' fiction isn't generally meant to be addressed at The UK State is it? No, it's meant to include The RC and Protestant communities in NI. Unfortunately, this would suggest a tribal conflict had taken place in NI with 'The Brits' saving the day. Not exactly Republican theology eh? :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Consequences, eh ?

    Guess that's as good a term as any for the fact that right-minded people hate those who murder innocents.

    Nice demonstration of that continuing disconnect Liam.

    In Post #451 you said that:
    Where did I even suggest that I objected to "taking on" or "fighting back" ?

    The problem with trying to match this statement with your opinion is that unless you could fight the "planned perfect war" (i.e. little or no civilans killed waging it) you'd end up doing nothing if you couldn't fight such a war.

    As a probable consequence, taking WWII as an example again, the Nazi gas chambers would have ended up finishing their dirty work. More innocent civilians would have probably ended up dying than actually happened. When applied to enough historical examples in reality, isolationist opinions such as yours can end up leading to worse outcomes than desired.


Advertisement