The Dissappeared: The Other Side of the Story

Chicken Ryan · 07-10-2013 7:46pm #1

I was reading an article in the Irish Times yesterday about one of the trouble's disappeared, Kevin McKee who was a member of the Provisional IRA when he was murdered. The dissappeared are victims of the IRA who were abducted and murdered by the organisation during the troubles and secretly buried.
However, one of the things which annoys me about the so called disappeared is that these people are painted as so called victims. Many of those who were actually murdered were in some way involved in the conflict and this is one of the factors which seems most overlooked.

Take for instance Kevin McKee who was abducted and murder by the IRA. Kevin who was himself a member of the IRA and was murdered because he was an informer who allegedly passed on information to the British Army. If that is the case then why should I have sympathy for a terrorist thug who met his death with the same organisation he signed up to murder with?

And what about the British Armies role in the murder of Jean McConville? According to Brendan Hughes biography, McConville was`recruited by British intelligence and was subsequently caught passing on information to the British Army and initially given a warning before she was murdered. The army deliberately exploited her economic circumstances and placed her in a position where she ultimately lost her life.
So why it is the disappeared are made out to be victims when the evidence shows that some of them were involved in terrorist organisations?

Is it not the case that those who live by the sword die by the sword?

Sand · 07-10-2013 8:00pm

So why it is the disappeared are made out to be victims when the evidence shows that some of them were involved in terrorist organisations?

TLDR

- They're made out to be victims because they were murdered.
- There is an unusual level of sympathy because human beings on some level empathise with families that are not able to bury their dead.
- The quality of the evidence can be demonstrated by the killers fear of openly acknowledging the killing or its reasons.
- Even if they were "informers" that's only a crime to terrorists - terrorists had no right to murder them.

And for one post, shouldn't you be posting something about what a United Ireland would look like or some similar nonsense? Or did even you guys get bored of that and decide to branch out in the Provo's own enforcement of Nacht und Nebel?

Chicken Ryan · 07-10-2013 8:03pm

Fair enough their families deserve closure but are they not just as bad as the killers they were involved with?

Sand · 07-10-2013 8:06pm

Seeing as they were the victims of a murder rather than the perpetrators of it I think your question answers itself.

jellyboy · 07-10-2013 8:11pm

Your post says more about your mentality and lack of empathy or understanding of the issues in the north of Ireland

Whatever the circumstance of the dead ,doesn't mean that they deserve to die under a judge and jury of misguided fanatical self appointed judges

Their family's want closure and deserve to have a "Body" To mourn over
As they played no part in their demise

Theirs something about the DNA in Irish people that is interlinked into death and mourning

Theirs also something lacking in posts like yours
It's called compassion

Sand · 07-10-2013 8:12pm

The only thing lacking in his post is credibility.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 8:16pm

A victim is a victim. if somebody has died as a result of the conflict, regardless of the role they did or didnt play, then they are by definition a victim

LordSutch · 07-10-2013 8:43pm

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

...However, one of the things which annoys me about the so called disappeared is that these people are painted as so called victims. Many of those who were actually murdered were in some way involved in the conflict and this is one of the factors which seems most overlooked.

You were doing fine until this point^ then you started to aportion blame onto the (disappeared) victims themselves!

nacho libre · 07-10-2013 8:52pm

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Fair enough their families deserve closure but are they not just as bad as the killers they were involved with?

I'd be inclined to agree in some cases.

The head of the IRA nutting squad was the likely perpetrator, or at the very least, planner, of several murders. If he had been killed he would be technically seen as a victim, but personally i would not have much sympathy for him, seeing as he oversaw the torture and murder of several innocent people to cover his own tracks as it were. I would have sympathy for his family, though.

Godge · 08-10-2013 12:26am

This is a ridiculous thread. There is no other side of the story.

These people were kidnapped, tortured and killed by the IRA. There was no justice here, no fair trial in public, just a summary execution and burial.

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

Their kidnap, torture and murder showed that the IRA were not just interested in terrorising the "other side" but that they needed and wanted to terrorise nationalists to keep them in their place.

Nodin · 08-10-2013 3:54am

Godge wrote: »

This is a ridiculous thread. There is no other side of the story.

These people were kidnapped, tortured and killed by the IRA. There was no justice here, no fair trial in public, just a summary execution and burial.

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

.

....a simplistic black and white narrative which ignores the sectarian and brutal nature of the "proper authorities".

Banjo String · 08-10-2013 6:59am

Godge wrote: »

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

I'm willing to wager my entire months salary that you don't/never have lived in the north, especially not during the troubles.

The 'proper authorities' were a force representative of one side in the conflict. To the other side they were a sectarian murderous force, who took delight in beating young Catholic men, dragging them from their cars at the dead of night in remote checkpoints, and given half the chance would gun you down in the street, then claim they where threatened/justified afterwards.

Your profile location says Dublin 15. I bet your experience with security forces, the unnamed gards, and the Irish Amy, differs greatly from a Catholic man in Belfast or Derry, with a sectarian police force and a murderous occupying army roaming the streets.

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

What I found hilarious is the amount of posters who sympathise with the rebels in the spring risings of late, who the British arm and support.

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 8:17am

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.

Conor Cruise O'Brien tried to use Section 31 to censor coverage of the troubles in Northern Ireland, which could have been seen as pro-nationalist, in papers such as The Irish Press; the editor, Tim Pat Coogan, published editorials attacking the Bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#The_Troubles

The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

.jacksparrow. · 08-10-2013 8:48am

Charlie Rock wrote: »

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.

The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

And the propaganda machine is as strong as ever against republicans today.

In the eyes of the public every republican is a drug dealing scumbag, with absolutely no evidence provided.

The best weapon against republicans has always been the state controlled media.

FTA69 · 08-10-2013 11:49am

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 11:52am

FTA69 wrote: »

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

In Voices From Beyond the Grave Brendan Hughes says a number of informers were 'disappeared' to save their republican families the shame of having to admit there was a tout in the family.
But yeah, I totally agree with you.

FTA69 · 08-10-2013 3:16pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

In Voices From Beyond the Grave Brendan Hughes says a number of informers were 'disappeared' to save their republican families the shame of having to admit there was a tout in the family.
But yeah, I totally agree with you.

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 4:13pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

I dont know about that, it probably wouldnt have been that strange for people to go on the run and not be heard of for extended periods, but I completely agree with you, i only threw it out there because it popped into my head when I read your post.

Tramps Like Us · 08-10-2013 5:03pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

Perhaps there was a morale aspect to it, where these people were quietly dealt with as the IRA didn't want to demoralize or scare IRA volunteers, or prospective ones?

I agree that disappearing people was wrong but I am sure there was some logic behind it as touts had always been executed and their bodies dumped publicly and most IRA volunteers would have thought this was the best way to do things. Perhaps in McConvilles case it was because she was a woman - but men were disappeared too. But other touts turned up dumped on laneways like during the Tan war. It really is incomprehensible to me why they felt the need to hide the bodies.

No doubt they handled McConville wrong.

The McConville case is an excellent case study of state propaganda though, for many years it was repeatedly said she was killed for giving a British soldier a cup of tea/comforting a dying one when this was a lie. It was also never mentioned that her son was an IRA volunteer who was in jail... he later joined the INLA. Many point to it as something the "old IRA" would never do in their attempts not to be hypocrits, yet they did just that in the case of Mary Lindsay, yet you never hear that mentioned or that the OC involved went on to be senior in the Free State army and FF.

I think the British army must bare some of the blame for her death, they knew she was compromised, knew she was under close observation by the IRA knew what the consequences would be yet exploited her once again. Native agents have always been readily expendable assets for the BA/MI5

Manassas61 · 08-10-2013 5:18pm

FTA69 wrote: »

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

If they had any honor but there is a problem, they never had any honor. Cold blooded murderers who didn't give a sh*t who they murdered.

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 5:22pm

Manassas61 wrote: »

If they had any honor but there is a problem, they never had any honor. Cold blooded murderers who didn't give a sh*t who they murdered.

As ever, great contribution to the discussion Manassas61, plenty of food for thought there. Now off and do your homework.

Manassas61 · 08-10-2013 5:23pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As ever, great contribution to the discussion Manassas61, plenty of food for thought there. Now off and do your homework.

You can't seem to stand the truth for some bizarre reason. As if you like the PIRA or something? I don't get what is controversial about saying the PIRA murdered many innocent people and had no honor.

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 7:30pm

The reality is Manassas61 that a massive amount of posters on boards.ie/politics openly support the PIRA and their past exploits, so much so infact that if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

Painted Pony · 08-10-2013 7:39pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

The problem is not that Southerner’s do not understand Northerner’s, it is that (some) Northerner’s don’t understand what the IRA were about, or pretend not to. See below.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.

Exactly. Which goes to prove that most in the South did care about the plight of Northern Catholics. In addition to what you mention the FF government under Lynch fractured, precisely because of concern for them. The South was sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed in the North. They were not sympathetic to those who were subversives seeking to overthrow both states on this island, neither of which they recognised. In effect, they were enemies of the state. Oddly enough, some of us have a bit of trouble being warm and fuzzy to our enemies.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

Absolutely disgraceful! Imagine not allowing the avowed enemies of the state to use the apparatus of the state to help them subvert it. Sure didn’t Saddam make sure that Fox news could be received in every corner of Iraq. And I’m pretty sure Lord Haw-Haw got a Knighthood? :rolleyes:

(No doubt someone will be along to completely miss the point and remind us just how bad things were in the North!)

Banjo String · 08-10-2013 7:41pm

LordSutch wrote: »

The reality is Manassas61 that a massive amount of posters on boards.ie/politics openly support the PIRA and their past exploits,

I believe I've seen you post in support of the British army in a few threads L.S.

What's the problem?

LordSutch wrote: »

so much so infact that if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

You should start a new thread with a poll, put that theory to the test.

It's a David/Goliath thing. Or perhaps some posters genuinely believe the Provos would never have existed, had the Brits not created them.

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 7:43pm

LordSutch wrote: »

if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

Probably because people are all too aware that the security services were players in the conflict and the lines between Loyalist murder gangs and the so-called security forces were rather blurred.

More here:

The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman has identified police, CID and Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists under 31 separate headings, in her report on the murder of Raymond McCord and other matters.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0122/84836-mccordr/

Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm

The Glenanne gang was a loose alliance of Northern Irish loyalist who carried out sectarian attacks in the 1970s against the Irish Catholic and Irish nationalist [...] The gang included soldiers of the British Army, its Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the Mid-Ulster Brigade of the illegal paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and some Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members. Former members have alleged it was commanded by British Military Intelligence and/or RUC Special Branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 8:02pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I believe I've seen you post in support of the British army in a few threads L.S.

Correct Mr Banjo, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

The British army were a blunt tool against the Provo's, and thank God that they were effective most of the time, otherwise the Provo's would have murdered a lot more people. When I think of all the IRA bombs that were defused by the Royal engineers . . . . . .

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 8:15pm

LordSutch wrote: »

I have always supported the security forces...

Did you support their collusion with loyalist murder gangs with their 85% civilian kill made up primarily of hundreds of innocent unarmed Catholics?

Let me guess.. those in the BA/UDR/RUC who colluded weren't true Ulster Scotsmen?

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 8:35pm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Did you support their collusion with loyalist murder gangs with their 85% civilian kill made up primarily of hundreds of innocent unarmed Catholics?

Let me guess.. those in the BA/UDR/RUC who colluded weren't true Ulster
Scotsmen?

As I said, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

My full answer is already in post#27.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 08-10-2013 8:47pm

Sand wrote: »

TLDR

- They're made out to be victims because they were murdered.
- There is an unusual level of sympathy because human beings on some level empathise with families that are not able to bury their dead.
- The quality of the evidence can be demonstrated by the killers fear of openly acknowledging the killing or its reasons.
- Even if they were "informers" that's only a crime to terrorists - terrorists had no right to murder them.

And for one post, shouldn't you be posting something about what a United Ireland would look like or some similar nonsense? Or did even you guys get bored of that and decide to branch out in the Provo's own enforcement of Nacht und Nebel?

Sand wrote: »

Seeing as they were the victims of a murder rather than the perpetrators of it I think your question answers itself.

I actually feel physically sick after reading those two posts, filled as they are withy spurious claims that blacken the name of a child, murdered in cold blood, who cannot defend his name now, and seeking as they do to defend the child killers involved.

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 8:56pm

LordSutch wrote: »

As I said, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 9:08pm

Manassas61 wrote: »

You can't seem to stand the truth for some bizarre reason. As if you like the PIRA or something? I don't get what is controversial about saying the PIRA murdered many innocent people and had no honor.

*sigh* Unsurprisingly you missed the point completely. I wasn't commenting on the sentiment of your post (simplistic and stupid as I think it is), rather I was criticising the content of it. Everyone here is discussing a particular issue, offering opinions on it and backing up their views with evidence. Then you come bumbling in with the same banal, unionist rhetoric you blurt out in every thread.
Right, you hate republicans, I get it, it's all you ever talk about, but must you copy and past the same empty tripe in every thread, even when you have nothing to add.

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 9:43pm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

The sole purpose of the PIRA was to destabilise Northern Ireland and to kill as many people in the process, same goes for the INLA. This threat to the state was countered by the security forces, and for their efforts to combat the Provo's/INLA/UFF etc we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Any mass murder (dissappeared inc) was comitted by the variouus terrorist groups. PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF etc, come to mind.

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 9:44pm

LordSutch wrote: »

This threat to the state was countered by the security forces,

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 9:46pm

Please tell me more about the mass murder of the dissappeared you speak of.

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 9:47pm

LordSutch wrote: »

The sole purpose of the PIRA was to destabilise Northern Ireland and to kill as many people in the process, same goes for the INLA. This threat to the state was countered by the security forces, and for their efforts to combat the Provo's/INLA/UFF etc we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Any mass murder (dissappeared inc) was comitted by the variouus terrorist groups. PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF etc, come to mind.

See, this type of ill informed/willfully ignorant waffle overshadows any genuine points you may have to make and detracts from the credibility of your other statements

SoulandForm · 08-10-2013 9:50pm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

Another question would be at the time did he object to John Hume officially meeting Gerry Adams?

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 9:54pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

See, this type of ill informed/willfully ignorant waffle overshadows any genuine points you may have to make and detracts from the credibility of your other statements

What part of my post#33 is "ill informed/willfully ignorant waffle" ?

WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THE PIRA/INLA ?

Karl Stein · 08-10-2013 9:57pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Please tell me more about the mass murder of the dissappeared you speak of.

The greatest source of weapons and training for loyalist paramilitaries was the UDR regiment of the BA. There was widespread collusion between your beloved security forces and degenerate Loyalist death squads. Loyalist informers were allowed murder innocent, mostly Catholic, civilians in full knowledge of their security force handlers (google 'Mark Haddock').

Check out my post above to see well known examples of collusion between security forces and loyalist murder gangs and what's known is only the tip of the ice berg. Loyalists killed over 1000 people the vast majority of which were innocent unarmed Catholics - that's mass murder.

Now stop pretending you don't know all this because you can't bring yourself to accept that the situation in the north at the time was not the 'Cowboys and Indians'-esque movie you have in your head.

I'll ask you again, for the third time, do you condemn security force collusion with loyalist murder gangs?

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 11:09pm

LordSutch wrote: »

What part of my post#33 is "ill informed/willfully ignorant waffle" ?

WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THE PIRA/INLA ?

Firstly, Im not defending the IRA or INLA. I have no interest in defending the INLA and the IRA don't need me to defend them.
I'm questioning your simplistic view of the conflict and pointing out that your inability to see what happened outside your own narrow view affects the legitimacy of any claims you're trying to make about the conflict. You may very well have some astute points to make on the IRA but they are going to be overlooked because you bookend all your claims with foaming at the mout ranting about the IRA, all the while ignoring the violence of the state.

But let's take a look at post 33

LordSutch wrote: »

The sole purpose of the PIRA was to destabilise Northern Ireland and to kill as many people in the process, same goes for the INLA.

This is just patent nonsense. Even a cursory glance at the history of the IRA over the most recent phase of the conflict would show you this. The IRA killed some 1800 people over 30 years, 2/3 of whom were enemy combatants. If the plan was to kill as many people as possible why bother targeting difficult to kill state forces? Why give warning for bombs? Why such a low body count for an army that had three decades and an almost endless supply of weaponry to slaughter as many people as possible?
The IRA have some serious questions to answer on certain actions but statements such as yours, painting them all as psychotic murderers, are firstly, blatantly wrong, and secondly, kind of let them off the hook.

LordSutch wrote: »

This threat to the state was countered by the security forces, and for their efforts to combat the Provo's/INLA/UFF etc we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

The state forces were as much a player in the war as the IRA. More so given that, without wanting to get into playground politics, the state actually started the conflict. This peacekeeping myth has long been busted, only the truly self-deluding still cling to it. Charlie Rock has also provided you with ample evidence proving the state was in alliance with a number of paramilitaries, and what he posted just scratches the surface.

LordSutch wrote: »

Any mass murder (dissappeared inc) was comitted by the variouus terrorist groups. PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF etc, come to mind.

Yup, no mass murder from the state. Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Loughall, Dublin and Monaghan, collusion, shoot-to-kill, that was all the IRA.

Now, I've gone to great length to answer your questions, could you please show Charlie Rock the same courtesy. He's asked three times now.

Manassas61 · 08-10-2013 11:37pm

Why give warning for bombs?

Propaganda purposes. It obviously didn't work because they still weren't liked and they still murdered a lot of innocent people.

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 11:46pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have no interest in defending the INLA and the IRA don't need me to defend them. I'm questioning your simplistic view of the conflict and pointing out that your inability to see what happened outside your own narrow view affects the legitimacy of any claims you're trying to make about the conflict.

This thread is about the dissappeared

The Provisional IRA made people dissappear . . . .

They acted as judge, Jury and executioner > they then buried their victims in unmarked graves in the mountains, or the bogs, and without a word to anyone as to the fate of their loved ones, who then waited decades to know of their whereabouts! And worst of all, the PIRA denied it right up until recently. What a bunch of heroes (not) :mad:

THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT, and you can take your theories about the security forces and "mass murder" off to another thread which deals which such theories.

Crooked Jack · 08-10-2013 11:55pm

LordSutch wrote: »

This thread is about the dissappeared

The Provisional IRA made people dissappear . . . .

They acted as judge, Jury and executioner > they then buried their victims in unmarked graves in the mountains, or the bogs, and without a word to anyone as to the fate of their loved ones, who then waited decades to know of their whereabouts! And worst of all, the PIRA denied it right up until recently. What a bunch of heroes (not) :mad:

THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT, and you can take your theories about the security forces and "mass murder" off to another thread which deals which such theories.

you raised thise issues and then when someone called you on your bullsh1t you got your panties in a twist. calm down. nobody is defending the disappeared, youd know this if you bothered actually reading other people's posts, not to mention answering the questions youre asked.

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 11:59pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

nobody is defending the disappeared, youd know this if you bothered actually reading other people's posts, not to mention answering the questions youre asked.

Exactly, that's why I am. I mean they can't speak, seeing as they have dissappeared . . .

courtesy of the PIRA.

SoulandForm · 09-10-2013 12:02am

LordSutch wrote: »

Exactly, that's why I am. I mean they can't speak, seeing as they have dissappeared . . .

courtesy of the PIRA.

Can you accept that people like you help fuel the PIRA's campaign?

Do you have any ideas about how we can prevent the troubles coming back?

Karl Stein · 09-10-2013 12:07am

Let's just recap how we've arrived a this point where LordSutch has lost all credibility.

You said:

LordSutch wrote: »

As I said, I have always supported the security forces

I asked:

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

You ignore the question and engage in whataboutery:

LordSutch wrote: »

The sole purpose of the PIRA was to destabilise Northern Ireland and to kill as many people in the process, same goes for the INLA. This threat to the state was countered by the security forces, and for their efforts to combat the Provo's/INLA/UFF etc we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Any mass murder (dissappeared inc) was comitted by the variouus terrorist groups. PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF etc, come to mind.

I ask again:

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?

You ignore the question again.

LordSutch wrote: »

Please tell me more about the mass murder of the dissappeared you speak of.

I wasn't speaking of the mass murder of the disappeared - I was asking if you condemned security force collusion seeing as you 'have always supported the security forces'.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

*Collusion evidence* I'll ask you again, for the third time, do you condemn security force collusion with loyalist murder gangs?

Yet again you ignore the question in favour of engaging in

LordSutch wrote: »

whataboutery, whataboutery, whataboutery,

Then you back seat mod.

and you can take your theories about the security forces and "mass murder" off to another thread which deals which such theories.

Now you can take as much time as you like, confer with your mates by PM if you want, but let this conversation show that, as of yet, you have refused to condemn security force collusion with loyalist murder gangs.

I'll try again.

Do you condemn security force collusion with loyalist murder gangs?

Simple question.

LordSutch · 09-10-2013 12:22am

SoulandForm wrote: »

Can you accept that people like you help fuel the PIRA's campaign?

Now that's just silly, so because I bang on about the PIRA and the dissappeared you say this^

You and Crooked Jack may have many of you own questions for people like myself, who despise terrorism perpetrated by the likes of the PIRA, INLA, UFF and the UVF, but I will not deviate from defence of the dissappeared and my condemnation of the PIRA in particular, who made many of their victims dissappear.

Goodnight, I aint biting the bait.

SoulandForm · 09-10-2013 12:26am

LordSutch wrote: »

Now that's just silly, so because I bang on about the PIRA and the dissappeared you say this^

You and Crooked Jack may have many of you own questions for people like myself, who despise terrorism (from the likes of the PIRA, INLA, UFF, UVF) but I will not deviate from defence of the dissappeared and my condemnation of the PIRA in particular who made them dissappear.

Goodnight, I aint biting the bait.

Actually I loathe violence and militarism of any sort. I have clearly stated before that I think that most of the PIRA's campaign was wrong- however I understand the context that created it and kept it going and I dont believe that all PIRA Volunteers were demons into killing people for fun.

Manassas61 · 09-10-2013 12:41am

SoulandForm wrote: »

Can you accept that people like you help fuel the PIRA's campaign?

Do you have any ideas about how we can prevent the troubles coming back?

The fighting is not coming back. Majority are happy with remaining in the Union and we have a mandatory coalition at Stormont set up (even if it is useless).

Scofflaw · 09-10-2013 12:49am

Manassas61 wrote: »

The fighting is not coming back. Majority are happy with remaining in the Union and we have a mandatory coalition at Stormont set up (even if it is useless).

[MOD]You know, I think that's a good end note for this unhappy thread.

moderately,
Scofflaw[/MOD]

The Dissappeared: The Other Side of the Story

Comments