IRA insists Jean McConville was a tout

mike65

As you may know The NI Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan has been conducting an investigation into claims the late McConville was an imformant for the British Army prior to her abduction and murder in 1972, the conclusion was that she was'nt.

That however is'nt good enough for the Provos who have stated again that she was a tout.

Christ you'd think by now they'd have the wit to let sleeping victims lie. I can't possibly see what they think they can gain by this statement, except perhapes they reckon it somehow makes her murder seem like reasonable action at the time. If they really think that they are still as dulded as ever.

But then I don't vote SF.

Mike.

gandalf

Mike I believe that statement is with the elections down here in mind. It won't do SF any favours (ie lose them votes) if their military wing capped an innocent (bar helping a dying British soldier) young mother, so they are using the old Bush mantra of "if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe its the truth".

Jackie laughlin

It is important that SF/IRA hold the line that nothing they have ever done has been criminal. Once an IRA act is accepted as criminal, the roof falls in because we begin to examine each act and question it. This why Mrs. McConville's name must be blackened (Though I would consider her a hero if she informed on the IRA.) and the murder of Garda McCabe canot be deemed a crime. Our democracy is less secure than many people think. The worst thing that Britain ever did on us was to promote SF/IRA to their present position. We have to endure the election of a convicted gunrunner to the Dail, while poor estates are turned over to para-military justice.

Cork

The IRA have no word.

Their reckless campaign of murder, torture and criminality has put back the unity of this country.

Ignore their mad rantings.

the murder of a mother of 10 was criminal.

Their continued justification of this is sick.

I disagree

The killing of a mother of ten is wrong regardless of whether she was an informer or not. However, the PSNI ombudsman seems to be relying on 'evidence' attained from old RUC and other crown forces files and they are not always regarded as unbiased in some people’s eyes and they may see it as new way of discrediting Sinn Féin. My feeling is that she was innocent and if not still shouldn't have been dealt with in the way she was.

NADA

Most people don't listen to the IRA

Philistine

NADA wrote:

Most people don't listen to the IRA

Maybe they don't listen but they are still increasingly voting for SF/IRA

Jackie laughlin

Tony blair, Bertie Ahearn and the bulk of the Irish Media have a lot to answer for. They have made SF/IRA acceptable by ignoring or whitewashing their crimes. A SF politician is allowed to speak on any political issue as if he or she were a normal person with no attachment to or even record of violent crime or connection to a private army of thugs.

Chakar

We don't know for definite if the trend of Sinn Fein support will continue for all we know it could have just been a one-off.

Sand

Nothing surprising there. SFIRA are on record as saying they have the right to murder her and anyone else who they dont like. Its not a crime afterall. Its standard operating procedure for SFIRA to blacken the names of their victims - they become drug dealers or "anti social elements". Id almost think they feel they have to continue lying about McConville to protect their vote, but lets be honest - anyone who would vote for them is hardly concerned SFIRA murdering people.

Tony blair, Bertie Ahearn and the bulk of the Irish Media have a lot to answer for. They have made SF/IRA acceptable by ignoring or whitewashing their crimes. A SF politician is allowed to speak on any political issue as if he or she were a normal person with no attachment to or even record of violent crime or connection to a private army of thugs.

Tony Blair and the British do not give two craps about what happens in Ireland so long as SFIRA arent causing them trouble. I understand one British civil servant working on the peace process put it that they couldnt give a damn if the whole island was swamped in gansterism and criminality so long as bombs werent going off in London.

As for Bertie? Well, the mans a complete moron and a spineless coward. And thats the positive assessment of a man who was ready to spring garda killers from jail to appease SFIRA, before a practical revolt forced him to do a U turn, similar to his embarrassment at SFIRA revealing their NI reps had been promised speaking rights at the Dail as a secret deal. His entire strategy for the peace process was to give SFIRA absolutely everything up front. Then, later on ask them if they wouldnt mind doing him a small favour here and there - like tell him where all those murdered people were buried, and to stop robbing banks...

yomchi

I disagree wrote:

The killing of a mother of ten is wrong regardless of whether she was an informer or not. However, the PSNI ombudsman seems to be relying on 'evidence' attained from old RUC and other crown forces files and they are not always regarded as unbiased in some people’s eyes and they may see it as new way of discrediting Sinn Féin. My feeling is that she was innocent and if not still shouldn't have been dealt with in the way she was.

Its worth noting among all the ranting that the McConville family asked the IRA to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of her death. It wouldn't have arisen again if they hadn't of asked. It is also known in the area where she comes from that there was a British Army radio transmitter in her house. Horrible things happen in war and this was probably one of the most horrible, but the IRA had to protect their interests at the time.
I do not think killing her was the right course of action however.

Jackie laughlin

Jon,
You've parted company with any sense of morality or decency. There was no war. The IRA should not have existed. Anyone who was ever a member or who supported them should not be entertained in civilised company.

justfortherecor

The reason SF is gaining popularity and seats in the Dail is due to the fact that a large number of people are actually taken in by their political rhetoric. Does anyone actually believe they have a functioning political mandate that would be economically possible? What they do have is a group of pretty talented orators who are happy to slate the current government all the time in an effort to appeal to disillusioned citizens.

What would happen if these charlatans actually gained serious political power is almost too scary to envisage.

yomchi

Be aware of the risen people!!

They are coming for your farm my friend lol

oscarBravo

Jon: engage constructively in the debate or stay out of it, thanks.

my_house

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Jon,
You've parted company with any sense of morality or decency. There was no war. The IRA should not have existed. Anyone who was ever a member or who supported them should not be entertained in civilised company.

Must be pretty cold on top of that high horse there. How anyone can say there was no war is beyond me. Is it wise to pretend that things arent happening in your own country? or .. maybe the 6 counties arent in ireland?

oscarBravo

OK, blanket warning before this goes too much further: no getting personal. Debate the points others are raising without snide digs. Thanks.

my_house

my_house wrote:

Must be pretty cold on top of that high horse there. How anyone can say there was no war is beyond me. Is it wise to pretend that things arent happening in your own country? or .. maybe the 6 counties arent in ireland?

I think he may have meant a war in the sense of one sanctioned by the people of Ireland.
The IRA's "war" never was,just like all other crime isnt.

At the height of the troubles most people would have wanted the IRA locked up.

(oh and obey the Oscars warning -no abuse please)

Meh

Jon wrote:

It is also known in the area where she comes from that there was a British Army radio transmitter in her house.

1. Known to who?
2. Why would the British give her a radio transmitter to be an informer, didn't they have telephones in 1972?

my_house

Earthman wrote:

I think he may have meant a war in the sense of one sanctioned by the people of Ireland.
The IRA's "war" never was,just like all other crime isnt.

At the height of the troubles most people would have wanted the IRA locked up.

(oh and obey the Oscars warning -no abuse please)

I will stay out of this as the topic seems to be for SF bashers only, but NO war is ever santioned. To pretend a war is only a war when a government or a people says it is, is pretty pedantic. Iraq, Vietnam and millions of other wars werent santioned by that countrys (whereever the war is) people

and the killing of jean mcconville was wrong as all killings are wrong. It was a long time ago and since none of us know exactly what went on and exactly what the circumstances were, then it cant be argued for or against. these things happen in a war. I sometimes wonder what the point of threads like these are in the first place.

Sand

It is also known in the area where she comes from that there was a British Army radio transmitter in her house.

That radio has never been produced. British intelligence in NI never issued radios to their assets. Why should they in small, urban areas where they could easily ring or meet their contacts face to face?

Its a lie produced by SFIRA, eagerly accepted by their fanboys and indeed by a community that has a shared interest in denying that they were party to the murder of an innocent mother of ten and the destruction of her family.

maybe the 6 counties arent in ireland?

Theyre in the UK according to my version of the map.

To pretend a war is only a war when a government or a people says it is, is pretty pedantic. Iraq, Vietnam and millions of other wars werent santioned by that countrys (whereever the war is) people

Wars are fought by organisations/armies that adhere to the GC in the planning and execution of their operations. SFIRA never adhered to the GC. They never fought a war. They were simply criminals and terrorists who deliberately murdered people for their own ends. Thats all.

and the killing of jean mcconville was wrong as all killings are wrong. It was a long time ago and since none of us know exactly what went on and exactly what the circumstances were, then it cant be argued for or against. these things happen in a war. I sometimes wonder what the point of threads like these are in the first place.

So youre over Bloody Sunday then? Sure whose to say if it was right or wrong, these things happen...:rolleyes:

my_house

i'm sorry to deflect this thread, but pardon? when have i ever mentioned bloody sunday??

Wars are fought by organisations/armies that adhere to the GC in the planning and execution of their operations.

eehhh ... no sir. wars are fought by people fighting. there are no rules (in the real world that is). That quoted statement above ranks as one of the most hilarious Ive ever read anywhere. Monty Python are sure to have done a sketch on it

They were simply criminals and terrorists who deliberately murdered people for their own ends. Thats all.

ah, but you cant, i say CANT, simplify things to that degree as that is being very reckless and unrealistic and undeniably untrue. theres a lot of ye's round here with them high horses.

Theyre in the UK according to my version of the map.

ah - plain to see where you sit on the debate then. I'd change that map as its obviously not based on geography.

my_house

Sand wrote:

British intelligence in NI never issued radios to their assets.

Im sorry but how can you say that? You have absolutely no way of knowing if they did or not so shouldnt you retract that or give some kind of proof? (though bob knows nothing the british government says about its actions in the north can be trusted).

Rock Climber

my_house wrote:

I will stay out of this as the topic seems to be for SF bashers only,

Wrong.
It's for you aswell,if you want.

but NO war is ever santioned. To pretend a war is only a war when a government or a people says it is, is pretty pedantic.

Wrong again.Wars and armies are government things.Other than that you have wannabe "armies"-but without the support of the people of Ireland [in this case] they are not armies, they are a band of terrorists.

Iraq, Vietnam and millions of other wars werent santioned by that countrys (whereever the war is) people

Wrong again.Those wars were sanctioned by the govt's that started them and by the govt's of the opposing side.
No such sanction was ever sought by the IRA for their crime/murdering spree.

Mind you I'd be hard set to find a justifiable war.There may have been a few.

and the killing of jean mcconville was wrong as all killings are wrong. It was a long time ago

It was in modern times and it was only last year that senior SF people embarrassed themselves on questions and answers by not condemning the murder and criminal hiding of the body of a mother of ten.

and since none of us know exactly what went on and exactly what the circumstances were, then it cant be argued for or against.

Wrong again.No one in a law abiding society has the right to take up arms/murder a mother of ten for the sake of some lesson that they want to give.

these things happen in a war.

what war,there was no war just a 30 year crime and murdering spree.

I sometimes wonder what the point of threads like these are in the first place.

Well its in the news thanks to an IRA statement.
Secondly,this is a discussion.If it hurts your morals that people would like to express disgust at the IRA and point out the reality of what they were in most peoples eyes then I feel sorry for you to be honest,thats the kind of blinkered approach to politics that delayed the unity of this small nation by 40 years or more.

Rock Climber

my_house wrote:

eehhh ... no sir. wars are fought by people fighting. there are no rules (in the real world that is). That quoted statement above ranks as one of the most hilarious Ive ever read anywhere. Monty Python are sure to have done a sketch on it

ah, but you cant, i say CANT, simplify things to that degree as that is being very reckless and unrealistic and undeniably untrue. theres a lot of ye's round here with them high horses.

We can tell you what the law of the land is.
As for justifying what the IRA did, you havent a leg to stand on there unless you can show me ,the mandate from the living people of Ireland for their 30 years of murder and mahem.
While I'm on the subject of the law of the land,I'll remind you of the law of the politics forum,go read up on it and dont be attacking posters rather attack their post.

my_house

hmm .. interesting level of debate you have going there. wars arent government things - please be real here. maybe in your world thats the way it works, but it doesnt work like that. wars are people based.

Iraq/vietnam - dont kid yourself, they werent a peoples war, which is what the poster I had originally replied to had been referring to when they stated the IRA had no war as it wasnt a people sanctioned war

your SF modern years reply - so what? whats that got to do with what we're discussing? Am i in the IRA now or something?

what war? - aye alright, stick your head in the sand then if you want. it doesnt do your debate any good though. as mentioned already, there was a war going on. ask anyone who lived through it.

your last point - im not disgusted - where'd you get that from? I wonder what is the point in making threads when all opeople in it do is say how terrible something that they have completely no understanding of, is. its only going to get people like me questioning some of the points that get raised

my_house

Rock Climber wrote:

We can tell you what the law of the land is.
As for justifying what the IRA did, you havent a leg to stand on there unless you can show me ,the mandate from the living people of Ireland for their 30 years of murder and mahem.
While I'm on the subject of the law of the land,I'll remind you of the law of the politics forum,go read up on it and dont be attacking posters rather attack their post.

excuse me again. I have attacked no poster. please point out where i have, as you seem to be attacking me by implication. unless of course saying someone cant state a reckless fact as its reckless - maybe thats attacking someone, I dont know.

Im not defending the IRA. You or anyone else saying there was no war, doesnt take away from the fact that there was. You'll just have to live with it.

Sand

i'm sorry to deflect this thread, but pardon? when have i ever mentioned bloody sunday??

I know you didnt. Thats my point. Provo sympathisers are happy to "move on" when it comes to their murders and atrocities, but they cant seem to "move on" when it comes to murders and atrocties carried out by any other party.

there are no rules (in the real world that is).

So then, you dont see what the fuss is about over Bloody Sunday? There afterall, no rules according to you. If the British wanted to torture Provo suspects, well, why not? Theres no rules.

ah - plain to see where you sit on the debate then. I'd change that map as its obviously not based on geography.

I salute your brave struggle against reality, an inspiration to us all.

Im sorry but how can you say that? You have absolutely no way of knowing if they did or not so shouldnt you retract that or give some kind of proof? (though bob knows nothing the british government says about its actions in the north can be trusted).

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Im not making any accusations about Mrs McConville. SFIRA and their fanboys are claiming shes a dirty British tout who got what was coming to her. Its up to *them* to prove their case. They have never been able to and their claim stinks of selfserving bullsh1t.

Afterall, can *you* prove youre *not* a British spy?

Rock Climber

my_house wrote:

excuse me again. I have attacked no poster. please point out where i have, as you seem to be attacking me by implication.

You have asked in response to Sand for posters here to get off their high horses.Thats not dealing with the post it's dealing with the poster.Read the charter and familiarise yourself with it because as per the charter I'm not allowing a discussion on modding here.
Outlining the law of the land and letting you know that the IRA had beggar all support in Ireland isnt being on a high horse either,it's stating fact.

Im not defending the IRA. You or anyone else saying there was no war, doesnt take away from the fact that there was. You'll just have to live with it.

It was textbook terrorism

You'll just have to live with it.

I've no problem living with your delusional post,but I'll let the law deal with extremely unpopular criminality ,murder and mayhem(which is what 30 years of IRA activity amounted to) should it ever happen again

I disagree

justfortherecor wrote wrote:

The reason SF is gaining popularity and seats in the Dail is due to the fact that a large number of people are actually taken in by their political rhetoric. Does anyone actually believe they have a functioning political mandate that would be economically possible? What they do have is a group of pretty talented orators who are happy to slate the current government all the time in an effort to appeal to disillusioned citizens.

What would happen if these charlatans actually gained serious political power is almost too scary to envisage.

Sinn Féin challenges the motions proposed and carried out by the current government.:eek: Enda and Pat would never slate the present-day government, would they? Although I don’t vote for any Sinn Féin candidate, I must admit that I am fond of Fianna Fáil/PD policies being questioned.

jon wrote wrote:

It is also known in the area where she comes from that there was a British Army radio transmitter in her house.

I heard about the transceiver being discovered in her house but why have we not seen photographs of it or the actual device itself. I would class such a find as a propaganda victory and would plaster pictures of it in every Republican newsletter as proof of her guilt. Ok, some could say the IRA planted it in her house as a way to condone her killing but if the device existed then surely it wasn’t just thrown onto the rubbish heap. What happened to it? Was it verified as being equipment used by the BA. She should have been told to pack her stuff and get out of the area by the end of the week.

Jackie Laughlin wrote wrote:

There was no war. The IRA should not have existed. Anyone who was ever a member or who supported them should not be entertained in civilised company.

The reasons for the IRA to exist should not have been present in recent times but they were. I won’t go off on a tangent on this thread. How many alleged informers were killed during the Tan War by those who went on to establish FG and FF?

sand wrote:

British intelligence in NI never issued radios to their assets. Why should they in small, urban areas where they could easily ring or meet their contacts face to face?

How do you know that they never issued radios to informers? Just because many arranged meetings don’t mean that over the decades no tout was issued with a radio set. Telephones can be easily bugged and if suspicion fell upon this woman as it did then her every move will be monitored. Don’t bother saying that it cannot be done since the IRA managed to bug british army headquarters in 1974.

Wars are fought by organisations/armies that adhere to the GC in the planning and execution of their operations.

War didn’t exist before the Geneva Convention???? I didn’t know they held the copyright.
Who are these SFIRA? Sinn Féin was a political party which took no part in the war in the six counties.

RedPlanet

I disagree wrote:

How do you know that they never issued radios to informers? Just because many arranged meetings don’t mean that over the decades no tout was issued with a radio set. Telephones can be easily bugged and if suspicion fell upon this woman as it did then her every move will be monitored. Don’t bother saying that it cannot be done since the IRA managed to bug british army headquarters in 1974.

Actually due to the emergence of "no-go" areas for British troops back then, it would be in their interests to have someone on the inside with a simple radio.

Wheely

Sand wrote:

Wars are fought by organisations/armies that adhere to the GC in the planning and execution of their operations. SFIRA never adhered to the GC. They never fought a war. They were simply criminals and terrorists who deliberately murdered people for their own ends. Thats all.



So youre over Bloody Sunday then? Sure whose to say if it was right or wrong, these things happen...:rolleyes:

Your arguments about why SF/IRA are simply criminals and terrorists ie lack of adherence to GC, never fought a "war" as you put it, their deliberate murder of people for their own ends could just as easily be applied to Michael Collins and indeed any of the 1916 fighters or anyone who fought in the War of Indepndence. Do you agree?

Wheely

Rock Climber wrote:

We can tell you what the law of the land is.
As for justifying what the IRA did, you havent a leg to stand on there unless you can show me ,the mandate from the living people of Ireland for their 30 years of murder and mahem.
While I'm on the subject of the law of the land,I'll remind you of the law of the politics forum,go read up on it and dont be attacking posters rather attack their post.

Same point really- the law of the land in 1919 was that were a British colony under the rule of the British Empire. The 1916 rebels certainly had no mandate, indeed they were spat on by the citizens of Dublin as they left the GPO. I can tell you what the law of the land was in Germany in the 1930's, they were called Nuremberg laws.........just illustrating that pointing something out as the law of the land does not automaticcally affirm its virtue, morality nor its infallibility

LordSutch

Maybe she did help a dying soldier? & maybe she did inform on the IRAs next atrocity? which means (if she did) that she was a decent, good law abiding citizen doing her duty.

God rest her soul I say, and God help her family in these tough times in which the IRA deny doing anything wrong at all.................

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

Same point really- the law of the land in 1919 was that were a British colony under the rule of the British Empire. The 1916 rebels certainly had no mandate, indeed they were spat on by the citizens of Dublin as they left the GPO. I can tell you what the law of the land was in Germany in the 1930's, they were called Nuremberg laws.........just illustrating that pointing something out as the law of the land does not automaticcally affirm its virtue, morality nor its infallibility

Thats all fine and dandy except this is 2006,Omagh and Warrington were in the 90's.
Nobody bar a few fanaticists are going to accept you raking up what happened a 100 years ago and saying it was ok then so its ok now.
In the 1980's and 90's we had a fully functioning modern democracy in this country.

Everytime I see people harping back a 100 years to justify what happened in the 80's and 90's I always ask what else from that era would they like to harp back to?

Under the thumb of the church..anyone? anyone ? No divorce,condoms anyone? any one?
There was even a nice little rule whereby you could not drink in a pub in the same parish you live in anyone?anyone?

Basically going back to a different era to justify what is wrong today doesnt wash.

As for the 1916 rebels,they did what they did.
However...
PIRA did what they did but PIRA continued on doing what they did with the vast majority of the country against them and that is a fact like it or lump it,hardly garnering the tiniest fraction of support of their fellow Irish people that the 1916 rebels did,yet still eh,they knew best...carry on the mayhem.

Going on your logic we should of course be tollerant of all the IRA splinter groups aswell because you know maybe,maybe,the Irish people might see the error of their ways eventually and conclude that the Omagh bombing was a great thing and there should be plenty more of it.

Patent nonsense.

Jackie laughlin

The term "War" was and is used by SF/IRA in order to try to gain some respectability for their actions.

The reason why we must return to these issues is that the IRA still exists. Their political wing enjoys the support of 10% of the people. They have TDs (one of whom is a convicted gun runner) in our Dail. The media allow them to pretend that they are just another party.

We shouldn't be fooled by the presentation of an out-dated form of socialism. They say the opposite in the US and would embrace Zen if it might deliver a bit of support somewhere. These are fascists who literally rule swathes of working class estates north and south.

There is a political entity called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is now - after all their killings - recognised by SF/IRA. Northern Ireland is also a part of Ireland.

Wheely

Earthman wrote:

Thats all fine and dandy except this is 2006,Omagh and Warrington were in the 90's.
Nobody bar a few fanaticists are going to accept you raking up what happened a 100 years ago and saying it was ok then so its ok now.
In the 1980's and 90's we had a fully functioning modern democracy in this country.

And Guantanamo Bay is still open today, 2006 and i think we can all admit there'e a fully functioning "modern democracy" in the United States, its certainly the law of the land, it doesnt make it just or infallible...that was the only point i was trying to make. Before you jump the gun Im not suggesting that and armed militia group are the right way to deal with that problem nor am I suggesting that the blowing up of civilians or the killing of anyone infromantsa or otherwise is a suitable course of action. And i nevver said it was ok then so its ok now.

Earthman wrote:

Everytime I see people harping back a 100 years to justify what happened in the 80's and 90's I always ask what else from that era would they like to harp back to?Basically going back to a different era to justify what is wrong today doesnt wash.

I am not an apologist for the IRA, and certainly not a SF voter, but i didnt feel the need to make that clear since i was merely pointing out flaws in anothers argument NOT justifying rhe IRAs actions. Point out to me one place where it could even be construed that I was jsutifying anything, or where i even made any reference to Jean Mconville, the only refernce i made to SF/IRA was in relation to Sands ARGUMENTS.

Earthman wrote:

Going on your logic we should of course be tollerant of all the IRA splinter groups aswell because you know maybe,maybe,the Irish people might see the error of their ways eventually and conclude that the Omagh bombing was a great thing and there should be plenty more of it.

Patent nonsense.

Thats nothing other than a "patent" misinterpretation of what I said....if thats honestly what you took from my post, your being misled by something...but you definitely didnt read it objectively

Earthman wrote:

As for the 1916 rebels,they did what they did.

Arguments like this are never ok....they're not arguments, merely because i point out their weakness does not mean that i disagree with the actions of the 1916 rebels no more than it means i support them. It just means i dont like weak or simplistic arguments. Incidently would my "patented nonsense" have been treated with less hostility had you not assumed i was a Celtic supporting, Wolfe Tones fan?

Wheely

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a political entity called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is now - after all their killings - recognised by SF/IRA. Northern Ireland is also a part of Ireland.

Im sorry but....what does this mean exactly???

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

And Guantanamo Bay is still open today, 2006 and i think we can all admit there'e a fully functioning "modern democracy" in the United States, its certainly the law of the land, it doesnt make it just or infallible...that was the only point i was trying to make. Before you jump the gun Im not suggesting that and armed militia group are the right way to deal with that problem nor am I suggesting that the blowing up of civilians or the killing of anyone infromantsa or otherwise is a suitable course of action. And i nevver said it was ok then so its ok now.

Good and there was a sort of Guantanamo in NI called internment as you know,but it didnt last very long thankfully.

I am not an apologist for the IRA, and certainly not a SF voter, but i didnt feel the need to make that clear since i was merely pointing out flaws in anothers argument NOT justifying rhe IRAs actions. Point out to me one place where it could even be construed that I was jsutifying anything, or where i even made any reference to Jean Mconville, the only refernce i made to SF/IRA was in relation to Sands ARGUMENTS.

And I merely pointed out the flaw in yours.

Thats nothing other than a "patent" misinterpretation of what I said....if thats honestly what you took from my post, your being misled by something...but you definitely didnt read it objectively

Thank you for the clarification of your thoughts.
Point stands though regarding the harping back to what was ok in 1916 must be ok now.

Arguments like this are never ok....they're not arguments, merely because i point out their weakness does not mean that i disagree with the actions of the 1916 rebels no more than it means i support them. It just means i dont like weak or simplistic arguments. Incidently would my "patented nonsense" have been treated with less hostility had you not assumed i was a Celtic supporting, Wolfe Tones fan?

I havent assumed anything about you.I merely did what you did and pointed out the flaw in the logic.
You pointed out that the 1916 rebels had no mandate ergo if we are to take that as a statement meaning "dont criticise the current IRA on the basis that they are breaking the law" which is the only way it could be read to be honest...then its only fair of me to point out the patent nonsense of the logic...ie that it implies that we should wait a while and the completely unsupported Omagh bombing could be supported by the masses today with plea's of more of this please.

Do you see that flaw?

Basically what I am saying to you is that, a statement of "oh it was ok then" or "their ancestors did it too" completely flies in the face of the precedent of people moving on and deciding what is a better society (minus the violence) today.
It ignores the evolution of a modern peacefull society and the very different concept of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

RedPlanet

ScottishDanny wrote:

..examples of attacking the poster rather than the post. Rockclimber are you going to ban yourself?

You will doubtless notice that the posters that get banned on this board are the ones sounding "Republican". Around here Republican=bad and you can't mention 1916.

But back on topic.
Jean McConville would make a fairly decent informer really.
Once the barricades go up and the BA are kept out, information gleaned from behind the barricades would be invalueable, so a radio would be ideal.
For one, who would suspect a mother of ten?
Two: if Jean McConville gets outed she's a deniable asset (who in their right mind would think the BA would stoop so low as to recruit and endanger a mother of ten?)
Three: if she gets outed what would the IRA do? Afterall, she's a mother of ten.
If they kill her, the republicans suffer a propaganda blow.
If they don't, the BA have exposed some weakness.

Wheely

Earthman wrote:

And I merely pointed out the flaw in yours..

I didnt make an argument, I made 2 statements of fact,1. lack fo adherence to the GC has dual applicability, to the IRA and to Michael Colins, also to the British and American army at times. 2.the 1916 rebels had no mandate and were in breach of the "law of the land".

Earthman wrote:

Point stands though regarding the harping back to what was ok in 1916 must be ok now..

Never did this. I made a statement, you gauged my opinion accirding to it. That was your deduction.

Earthman wrote:

You pointed out that the 1916 rebels had no mandate ergo if we are to take that as a statement meaning "dont criticise the current IRA on the basis that they are breaking the law" which is the only way it could be read to be honest...then its only fair of me to point out the patent nonsense of the logic...ie that it implies that we should wait a while and the completely unsupported Omagh bombing could be supported by the masses today with plea's of more of this please.

Do you see that flaw?.

I certainly made the underlined statement in an effort to show Sand the dual applicability of his reasoning on why the IRA were criminals and terrorists and to show rockclimber that simply stating something as the law of the land doesnt make it right. Lots of lands have bad laws! The bold illustrates YOUR deductions and what YOU saw as implied from my statement. To answer your question, do I see that flaw in the logic. Yes, I do. But its your logic....

Earthman wrote:

Basically what I am saying to you is that, a statement of "oh it was ok then" or "their ancestors did it too" completely flies in the face of the precedent of people moving on and deciding what is a better society (minus the violence) today.
It ignores the evolution of a modern peacefull society and the very different concept of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

This I agree with...;)

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

2.the 1916 rebels had no mandate and were in breach of the "law of the land".

You made that statement in retort to the statement that PIRA were in breach of the law of the land.

Why did you say that other than to say it was ok then so its ok now ?

I certainly made the underlined statement in an effort to show Sand the dual applicability of his reasoning on why the IRA were criminals and terrorists and to show rockclimber that simply stating something as the law of the land doesnt make it right.

Thats moot, if you agree with what Rock climber and Sand were clearly talking about-the laws against murder and mahem.

ScottishDanny

ScottishDanny wrote:

Sand

RockClimber

Earthman

Hi, seems to me that these are examples of attacking the poster rather than the post. Rockclimber are you going to ban yourself? Am I banned now? :rolleyes:

Nope but you will be if you dont stick to discussing politics rather than that shoite.

If people are going to use the politics forum surely they should expect to read alternative opinions - thats part of the fun!

Funnily enough the only people here on this thread unwilling to discuss things are those who have a one track mind with regard to how rightfull the PIRA's activities were.

To say that the 'conflict' is just a crime spree is to cheapen the loss of 3,500 lives IMO.

Thats rich.Were the people of Ireland ever asked permission for the carry on of the likes of the IRA,UDA,UVF or any of them?
Answer no.
Why?
Because permission would have been denied.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

You will doubtless notice that the posters that get banned on this board are the ones sounding "Republican". Around here Republican=bad and you can't mention 1916.

Factually wrong...
But then that doesnt surprise me, as saying untruths so as to enhance beliefs that something is true is a common propaganda tactic.
FYI (1) there are some long threads here on 1916 and (2)Sand was banned recently here for 3 weeks iirc, as were many regardless of their persuasions.

But back on topic.

Yes please,because the next person to discuss modding on this thread Will get a 1 month ban.

Jean McConville would make a fairly decent informer really.
Once the barricades go up and the BA are kept out, information gleaned from behind the barricades would be invalueable, so a radio would be ideal.
For one, who would suspect a mother of ten?

I know I've suspected Mary McAleese of being involved in British espionage for ages-she has a perfect cover :rolleyes:

Wheely

Earthman,
We seem to be going around in circles here. Its not moot, of course I agree with Sand and Rockclimber, and yourself on the IRA's criminality in general, Iwas attacking the form of their argument not its thrust. Sinn Fein and the IRA are easy targets, thats why on all these threads the Republicans always come off worse...they're wrong. That's no excuse for those opposing them, Sand, Rockclimber, you and indeed me to get lazy. Statements like "as for the 1916 rebels, they did what they did" or "we can tell you the law of the land" are too easily refuted not to be criticised; i can agree with what your saying and criticise how you say it- the first part of that sentence diesn't make the second part "moot" as you put it. Admit, you thought I was another uneducated, angry, bitter Rebuplican unconcerned with criminality, and certainly unconcerned with the 30 year old death of Jean McConville, and thats why you so readily disregarded what I had to say as "patented nonsense". Its ok to admit this, Its a mistake Iv also made on occasion. But they're not all stupid....

Wheely

Wheely wrote:

Earthman,
i can agree with what your saying and criticise how you say it-

Ok lets start here.I'm actually doing that now with regard to what you said.
See,I can see no other reason for pointing out that the old IRA broke the law in 1916 other than it equates to the same thing PIRA did in the modern era.

Admit, you thought I was another uneducated, angry, bitter Rebuplican unconcerned with criminality, and certainly unconcerned with the 30 year old death of Jean McConville, and thats why you so readily disregarded what I had to say as "patented nonsense".

Well you've certainly clarified your position.As for the patent nonsense, thats a valid view point to hold on the continuation of the logic regarding they did it in 1916 so they can do it today scenario.

Its ok to admit this, Its a mistake Iv also made on occasion. But they're not all stupid....

Language is awkward isnt it? You probably posted up what you did perfectly happy in the knowledge that you made the point that you wanted to make.
The only point I could see in your reference to the law breakers of 1916 was the comparison.


*mod edit*

Thread tidied somewhat,with completely off topic posts removed to the recycle bin.

1 poster banned for a month as per the warning above.
Further posts like that one will get the same ban.

Thread re opened

RedPlanet

Is there any point digging up these old murders like Jean McConville, or Bloody Sunday?
Does it serve any useful purpose today?
We all know that it will come to naught.
Bar the propaganda exercise i mean.

I suppose that's the whole point of it really, to damn SF.
One has to wonder is the effort actually worth the results.

Wheely

Earthman,
Glad to have made you think, make no mistake though, as regards issues like these we are most definitely on the same side of the political fence;)

RedPlanet
I would 've thought that the point of history is that we learn from our mistakes...Im sure the point of history is not just to damn SF, because whether you like it or not, the murder of Jean McConville, Bloody Sunday are significant historical events, so are you suggesting that we immediately forget/cover-up/disregard everything that has gone before as we stumble blindly into the future re-making all the same mistakes time and time again for ever and ever, or just the nasty stuff, the bad stuff, just bury that so that all our memories are happy.....it reminds me of a line from Orwells 1984

"People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word." Is this how we should treat people like Jean McConville? Is this the the world in which you want to live??

RedPlanet

Wheely wrote:

I would 've thought that the point of history is that we learn from our mistakes...Im sure the point of history is not just to damn SF, because whether you like it or not, the murder of Jean McConville, Bloody Sunday are significant historical events, so are you suggesting that we immediately forget/cover-up/disregard everything that has gone before as we stumble blindly into the future re-making all the same mistakes time and time again for ever and ever, or just the nasty stuff, the bad stuff, just bury that so that all our memories are happy.....it reminds me of a line from Orwells 1984

"People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word." Is this how we should treat people like Jean McConville? Is this the the world in which you want to live??

Yes, although less dramtic.
When the GFA was signed i thought we were drawing a line between the present and the past. That we were starting at year zero.
That things gone on in the past stay in the past.
That prisoners would be released.
That "on-the-runs" would be in the clear.
I was weary that others would haul their baggage into mix.
That some folks who believe they hold a monoply on suffering would drag us down.

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Is there any point digging up these old murders like Jean McConville, or Bloody Sunday?
Does it serve any useful purpose today?
We all know that it will come to naught.
Bar the propaganda exercise i mean.

I suppose that's the whole point of it really, to damn SF.
One has to wonder is the effort actually worth the results.

Hmmm it matters to me because;

My elected representive, my MEP, will not call her murder a crime, which is something I consider appalling. But it is a clear demostration that the veil between SF and IRA is quite thin in reality

It matters a great deal to the families of those murdered in both Blood Sunday and the family of Jean Mc Conville. Neither of whom, despite all this airy talk of peace and reconcilation haven't recieved an apology. And in the case of the Mc Conville's don't know where their mother was murdered or how, or even where she is buried. Which is just an awful thing for a family to endure, simply because the IRA won't tell them, or offer proof to support their claim that she was a "tout".

Finally it matters because twenty years later the IRA cannot come forward and say "we made a mistake" or "this was wrong", never mind offer evidence to support their claim, it was wrong to murder her, whether she was a "tout" or not. It shows the IRA haven't really let go and beggars the question, what else have they not let go off?

my_house

Rock Climber wrote:

You have asked in response to Sand for posters here to get off their high horses.Thats not dealing with the post it's dealing with the poster.Read the charter and familiarise yourself with it because as per the charter I'm not allowing a discussion on modding here.
Outlining the law of the land and letting you know that the IRA had beggar all support in Ireland isnt being on a high horse either,it's stating fact.
It was textbook terrorism I've no problem living with your delusional post,but I'll let the law deal with extremely unpopular criminality ,murder and mayhem(which is what 30 years of IRA activity amounted to) should it ever happen again

so I cant put forward an argument that in looking back over irish history and deciding what is right and wrong isnt taking the moral high road (read high horse) yet you can call me delusional??

You were attacking the post there were you? so was the post delusional or indeed, where you attacking the poster, ie me?

Dont delete this post like others have been, lets get this onesidedness cleared up once and for all.