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

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Options
1…2223252728…40

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I don't have a problem answering you once you answer the clarifying question I asked.
    Are you defining all killings in NI as murder?

    Written comprehension isn't a strong point here, is it?


  • Options
    #723
    Jackson Valley.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Jackson Valley.


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Irrelevant. First, few if any countries / states at that time, or since, were endorsed by a popular plebiscite. But even if there had been a vote, a majority of UK citizens would probably have voted to retain the union of the two islands. The Irish would have largely voted against but would have been outnumbered by the much larger population in Britain.

    Similarly, if a 32 county state had been granted 100 years ago then the unionists, had there been a vote, would have voted against but would have been outnumbered by nationalists.

    You of course would object to the first but see no issue with the second.

    Surely it beholds anyone in any discussion to be consistent in their reasoning? And when inconsistencies are pointed out they must reconcile them, something you haven’t done so far.
    Things like that happen, Northern Ireland was formed because the Protestants in Ulster didn't want to join the Irish Free state and formed a different state.


  • Options
    #724
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Jackson Valley. wrote: »
    Things like that happen, Northern Ireland was formed because the Protestants in Ulster didn't want to join the Irish Free state and formed a different state.

    Yes it does happen. Just as the Irish did not want to be part of the UK and formed their own state.

    But republicans see the former as some kind of anomaly or aberration but the latter as a perfectly valid quest by a people who desired self-determination.

    There is a failure by those addressing this question to even see this contradiction, much less reconcile it.


  • Options
    #725
    Jackson Valley.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Jackson Valley.


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Yes it does happen. Just as the Irish did not want to be part of the UK and formed their own state.

    But republicans see the former as some kind of anomaly or aberration but the latter as a perfectly valid quest by a people who desired self-determination.

    There is a failure by those addressing this question to even see this contradiction, much less reconcile it.
    That is because they seem obsessed with "the cause" and think the views of the Protestants in Northern Ireland don't matter.


  • Options
    #726
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Irrelevant. First, few if any countries / states at that time, or since, were endorsed by a popular plebiscite.

    And this is a reason why it shouldn't have happened in the early part of the last century? You think the British had the right to deny the Irish a vote on independence by threat of terrorism because that's the way it always was?
    But even if there had been a vote, a majority of UK citizens would probably have voted to retain the union of the two islands.

    This is nothing but your own opinion and you know what they say about opinions, don't you?
    Surely it beholds anyone in any discussion to be consistent in their reasoning? And when inconsistencies are pointed out they must reconcile them, something you haven’t done so far.

    The problem is that you want to discuss your opinions on possibilities of this, that, and the other, versus what actually happened and how we've arrived here. I'd rather work with the reality we have than the ones you like to make believe about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    I have answered it. It would be absurd to define all killings in NI as murder because the courts have found that in some cases they were manslaughter. See the response again below.

    Apologies, our posts must have crossed, I didn't see that reply. I notice the ever perfect Alastair did see it though. :rolleyes:


    So once again, if you respect the courts, you need to go through the killings one by one. What are you afraid of?

    Has anyone been convicted of 'murder' in the case of Jean McConville?


  • Options
    #728
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Godge wrote: »
    You might as well stop there...

    I won't.
    As a matter of fact, the Act of Union was passed by a democratic parliament. It may not have been a universally elected democratic parliament, but by the standards of the day, it was the most democratic parliament in the Western World.

    Who cares? The game was rigged.
    The reality of the situation is that the people of Ireland voted as part of the Good Friday Agreement referenda to maintain the partition of Ireland.

    And the reality remains that the north was partitioned by the threat of a campaign of mass terrorism by Unionists against the people of this island if they didn't get their way.
    The people down South could have rejected the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 in order to maintain the territorial claim but they chose to give up that claim and turn it into an aspiration.

    Just as the British declared they'd no selfish interest in the north and Unionists accepted they'd no veto over a UI if the majority favoured that.
    Achieving future unity is like reaching the horizon. We will always journey towards it but we will never get there.

    Would you mind telling me what the scores will be for the football this weekend while you're looking into your crystal ball? Good man.
    As I keep asking, who are the people obsessed with history and the past around here?

    This is like taking a 20 chapter history book, ripping out the first 15 chapters and demanding that we only discuss chapters 15 to 20.

    What you're attempting (and failing) to do here is shut down debate about British and Unionist terrorism that created the north in the early part of the 20th Century and created the troubles in the latter half. You're deliberately trying to downplay and ignore the effect British/Unionist violence has had on this island and magnify the violence that was a reaction to it.
    British imperialist expansion is history.

    The British are still committed to playing the imperial game albeit in a reduced capacity the heel of the Americans.


  • Options
    #729
    Jackson Valley.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Jackson Valley.


    Achieving future unity is like reaching the horizon. We will always journey towards it but we will never get there.
    Yes. Its like an obsession but its not going to happen. The Irish Republic could not afford to take on the 6 counties of Northern Ireland without serious problems financially, never mind socially.


  • Options
    #730
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    What you're attempting (and failing) to do here is shut down debate about British and Unionist terrorism that created the north in the early part of the 20th Century .
    Just as Republican terrorism created both the North, and the Free State. Partition was a two-way street, and was prompted by entirely Irish (of one shade or another) demands, not by any British strategy.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    and created the troubles in the latter half. You're deliberately trying to downplay and ignore the effect British/Unionist violence has had on this island and magnify the violence that was a reaction to it.
    Well - there's one group more culpable than any other, measured by those they murdered, and who, in the final analysis, offered nothing more than constitutional politics could/would have brought. What a waste. Kind of hard to downplay those realities.


  • Options
    #731
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Has anyone been convicted of 'murder' in the case of Jean McConville?

    Has anyone been convicted of the 'murder' of Nicole Brown Simpson? I guess she wasn't 'murdered' then, eh? :rolleyes:

    Ivor Bell is charged with aiding and abetting a murder; the murder of Jean McConville.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    Just as Republican terrorism created both the North, and the Free State.

    The glaring difference being that that was reactionary against the British and in latter years Unionists.
    Partition was a two-way street, and was prompted by entirely Irish (of one shade or another) demands,

    You're aware that Unionists see themselves as British, right?
    not by any British strategy.

    Too funny. The poor British had nothing to do with it and only wanted what was best for everyone. Comedy gold.
    Well - there's one group more culpable than any other, measured by those they murdered,

    In your head perhaps but then that's not indicative of reality in any way. For the record it was so-called Loyalists who murdered the most people i.e. civilians going about their business. CAIN has all the statistics on this.
    and who, in the final analysis, offered nothing more than constitutional politics could/would have brought.

    Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If the mad dogs of Union/loyalism hadn't started the bombing and shooting and had they respected the democratic wishes of the minority it was very likely the PIRA would not have gained impetus. History will show who was responsible for the troubles and it will be at odds with your fairy tales.
    Kind of hard to downplay those realities.

    Your opinions, alternate realities, shoulds-woulda-coulda conjecture is no more grounded in reality than the Harry Potter novels.


  • Options
    #733
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Has anyone been convicted of the 'murder' of Nicole Brown Simpson? I guess she wasn't 'murdered' then, eh? :rolleyes:

    Ivor Bell is charged with aiding and abetting a murder; the murder of Jean McConville.

    Like I said before I will have to hear the evidence. If Jean McConville was an informer then she knew what she was doing and what the sanction was, as any active service army member knows.
    Because of the threat an informer poses they have always been summarily dealt with.

    I hate it and abhor it, but there was a war on, and war is a nasty thing.
    479 people died in 1972, just to give an idea of the chaos and tragedy.
    The really sad thing is this one is only still in the public conciousness because of who is connected to it.
    Which says a lot about that public.

    I don't condone her death, but I understand why it happened.

    If she was killed just for kicks (which can happen within any army, like Aidan McAnespie or any number of army killings) then the killer deserves to go to jail for a very long time, no matter what side he/she was on.


  • Options
    #734
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    The glaring difference being that that was reactionary against the British and in latter years Unionists.
    So what? You believe that the British or Unionist stance wasn't reactionary too?
    Karl Stein wrote: »
    You're aware that Unionists see themselves as British, right?
    Again, so what? The British saw Ulstermen as being Irish.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Too funny. The poor British had nothing to do with it and only wanted what was best for everyone. Comedy gold.
    Where did the demand for Independence come from? Where did the demand for partition come from? (clue; It wasn't Britain).


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    In your head perhaps but then that's not indicative of reality in any way.
    It's a fact - check your CAIN records if you have difficulty with the messenger

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    For the record it was so-called Loyalists who murdered the most people i.e. civilians going about their business. CAIN has all the statistics on this.
    Oh, you want to join various groups together to clock up bigger numbers of dead compared to the single group with most responsibility? That seems to rather miss the point, wouldn't you say? Again - review your CAIN a little more impartially.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If the mad dogs of Union/loyalism hadn't started the bombing and shooting and had they respected the democratic wishes of the minority it was very likely the PIRA would not have gained impetus. History will show who was responsible for the troubles and it will be at odds with your fairy tales.
    Fairy tales seems appropriate for that particularly pointless stream of cant. "Mad dogs" eh? They like this kind of guff in N Korea - but it doesn't really impress in this part of the world.


  • Options
    #735
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Like I said before I will have to hear the evidence.

    And there's that hypocrisy. Like I said:
    You're an armchair enabler for the mindset that whitewashes murder - see your equivocation over Jean mcConville's murder for just one exemplar. As I said - trying to defend the indefensible.
    Disgusting.


  • Options
    #736
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The really sad thing is this one is only still in the public conciousness because of who is connected to it.

    I'd be pretty confident that a street survey posing the question 'Can you name someone killed in the troubles'? would return the names of people killed by Republicans almost exclusively.


  • Options
    #737
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    I'd be pretty confident that a street survey posing the question 'Can you name someone killed in the troubles'? would return the names of people killed by Republicans almost exclusively.

    That's probably part and parcel of being the number one murder group in the conflict.


  • Options
    #738
    Jackson Valley.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Jackson Valley.


    alastair wrote: »
    That's probably part and parcel of being the number one murder group in the conflict.
    In the end they did surrender and recognised Northern Ireland. So I don't see why people still argue about this. They lost and its now over.


  • Options
    #739
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    And there's that hypocrisy. Like I said:

    Disgusting.

    If it is a case of an informer being dealt with, then it is 'defensible', in my opinion.
    Your opinion of it, is your own and I care little how disgusting you find it. Your selective high moral ground outrage wasn't much addition in 1972 either.


  • Options
    #740
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If it is a case of an informer being dealt with, then it is 'defensible', in my opinion.

    Oh, don't worry - that registered a good while back:
    You're an armchair enabler for the mindset that whitewashes murder - see your equivocation over Jean mcConville's murder for just one exemplar. As I said - trying to defend the indefensible.

    No moral high ground needed on my part - the vast majority - now and then, had no problem in condemning that sort of barbarism. Which is exactly why those you would 'defend' couldn't bring themselves to admit, let alone defend, what they did to their own community.


  • Options
    #741
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh, don't worry - that registered a good while back:



    No moral high ground needed on my part - the vast majority - now and then, had no problem in condemning that sort of barbarism. Which is exactly why those you would 'defend' couldn't bring themselves to admit what they did to their own community.

    That seemed to be a problem on both sides. One famous case, I heard about, it took 40 years for a government to own up!! Imagine that...a sovereign elected government?
    Some people think they are the good guys too!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    You believe that the British or Unionist stance wasn't reactionary too?

    Reactionary to the seeking of freedom, the right to self determination, equal civil and political rights? Outside your head the reaction to these things is known as totalitarianism, terrorism and oppression.
    Again, so what? The British saw Ulstermen as being Irish.

    Did they now? You better not tell that to the 40% of people in the north who see themselves as British and British only.
    Where did the demand for Independence come from? Where did the demand for partition come from? (clue; It wasn't Britain).

    Britain was in control of the island until they were forced out of the majority of it. Do you think they were just there to paint the lines on the roads and keep the ditches tidy? Honestly, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
    Oh, you want to join various groups together to clock up bigger numbers of dead compared to the single group with most responsibility?

    You're aware of the CLMC aren't you? Even if you completely ignore that loyalists were uniformly in the business of killing catholic civilians compare all Republican killing with all loyalist killing and Loyalists still have murdered more people in total*. Their 85% civilian kill ratio (only 4% Republicans) speaks for itself.

    When are you going to get tired of the facts tearing down your proto-Union/loyalist dogma?


    *That's leaving aside the killings of those who supplied weapons intelligence, training and operatives to loyalist murder gangs i.e. the BA/RUC.


  • Options
    #743
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If it is a case of an informer being dealt with, then it is 'defensible', in my opinion.
    I wonder if the British army shot someone in the head on a deserted beach because they believed them to be giving information to the IRA, would you consider that defensible?


  • Options
    #744
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I wonder if the British army shot someone in the head on a deserted beach because they believed them to be giving information to the IRA, would you consider that defensible?

    Well they do similar all the time along with the Americans so I'm sure they could defend it. Whether I would agree is another matter.


  • Options
    #745
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Whether I would agree is another matter.
    Indeed.


  • Options
    #746
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Indeed.

    Did you have a point?


  • Options
    #747
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Did you have a point?

    It would be interesting to hear it alright.


  • Options
    #748
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Reactionary to the seeking of freedom, the right to self determination, equal civil and political rights? Outside your head the reaction to these things is known as totalitarianism, terrorism and oppression.
    The unionists saw themselves as seeking freedom from a republic they had no interest or stake in, and chose self-determination as well. Your rather confused 'mad dog' perspective on those who didn't subscribe to a republican narrative is getting in the way of a clear understanding of who was reacting to what.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Did they now? You better not tell that to the 40% of people in the north who see themselves as British and British only.
    So what? The point is that the British saw/see them as Irish.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Britain was in control of the island until they were forced out of the majority of it. Do you think they were just there to paint the lines on the roads and keep the ditches tidy? Honestly, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
    I note you're not answering the questions: Where did the demand for independence come from? Where did the demand for partition come from? (Clue: it wasn't the British).


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    You're aware of the CLMC aren't you? Even if you completely ignore that loyalists were uniformly in the business of killing catholic civilians compare all Republican killing with all loyalist killing and Loyalists still have murdered more people in total*. Their 85% civilian kill ratio (only 4% Republicans) speaks for itself.
    I'm aware that you're conflating a number of organisations together to try and disguise the reality that the Provos were, by far, responsible for the greatest number of murders in the conflict. The 4% tally of civilians killed by republicans is complete and utter nonsense. You just look like a clown shilling that kind of guff. 621 civilians died at the hands of the IRA (644 if you believe David McKitrick's tally)
    Karl Stein wrote: »
    When are you going to get tired of the facts tearing down your proto-Union/loyalist dogma?
    When you actually provide some facts, rather than patently erroneous nonsense?


  • Options
    #749
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    You think the British had the right to deny the Irish a vote on independence …
    And once again you betray in your post that you do not see the question, much less have an answer.

    So once again: why is it the “Irish” (i.e. the people of Ireland, a region defined by geography) that should have been offered a vote and not a region defined by political aspirations?


  • Options
    #750
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That seemed to be a problem on both sides. One famous case, I heard about, it took 40 years for a government to own up!! Imagine that...a sovereign elected government?
    Some people think they are the good guys too!

    Ah - whataboutery. When any defence of the subject in hand is unavailable.
    How unsurprising.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Ah - whataboutery. When any defence of the subject in hand is unavailable.
    How unsurprising.

    Well maybe if you had been brave enough to to define what you see as 'murder' then there would have been no need to point out your hypocrisy here.

    I have clearly given my views and feeling on the death of Jean McConville. The reasons for that death are not clear, unless you wish to preempt a trial and, as usual, jump to hysterical, agenda laden conclusions.

    You called my attitude to her death 'disgusting', the way this woman and her family is being used to get at somebody else is what is 'disgusting'.


Advertisement