Question for Republicans

notbrazil

Hi all,

Not a regular poster here but here goes; I have a quick question for anyone who would describe themselves as Republican - specifically those who would be inclined to vote SF.

There is a lot of noise being made at the moment with people calling for an inquiry into 'shoot to kill' policies that were allegedly used by the RUC and Army during the Troubles, specifically the SAS. Republicans often point to the Loughgall ambush as evidence for this.

My question is, how can those supporting the PIRA complain about any shoot to kill policy when they themselves took no prisoners. Let's say the SAS were told to 'shoot to kill' at Loughgall, the IRA men were heavily armed and were planning on killing any police officer in their sights, as they had done previously at Cloughmills a few weeks earlier. To the best of my knowledge, the IRA's policy was always 'shoot to kill', so why should the RUC/Army play by different rules?

I'm not trying to start an argument here now, just trying to understand those on the other side of the political spectrum a little more.

OhNoYouDidn't

Its an interesting question, but I don't think the 'shoot to kill' referred to armed volunteers out on manouvers, more unarmed folk shot with no warning like Giibralter.

That and the RUC/Brits were supposed to be the impartial forces of law and order, despite fighting a very, very dirty war.

Bottle_of_Smoke

notbrazil wrote: »

Hi all,

Not a regular poster here but here goes; I have a quick question for anyone who would describe themselves as Republican - specifically those who would be inclined to vote SF.

There is a lot of noise being made at the moment with people calling for an inquiry into 'shoot to kill' policies that were allegedly used by the RUC and Army during the Troubles, specifically the SAS. Republicans often point to the Loughgall ambush as evidence for this.

My question is, how can those supporting the PIRA complain about any shoot to kill policy when they themselves took no prisoners. Let's say the SAS were told to 'shoot to kill' at Loughgall, the IRA men were heavily armed and were planning on killing any police officer in their sights, as they had done previously at Cloughmills a few weeks earlier. To the best of my knowledge, the IRA's policy was always 'shoot to kill', so why should the RUC/Army play by different rules?

I'm not trying to start an argument here now, just trying to understand those on the other side of the political spectrum a little more.

Is there? I heard a lot about an enquiry into Ballymurphy killings but they were innocent civillians killed by the notorious parachute regiment.

I think most republicans would(and should) accept Loughall was an acceptable act of war. It was clearly done to send a message to a better armed IRA trying to create ''liberated zones'' by destroying RUC stations.

There is objection of course, that the men obviously could have been arrested. So whilst I think it was a sneaky and arguably unnecessary act it isn't something republicans should be looking for an enquiry into.

notbrazil

See your point; but even in the case of Gibralter, the three who were killed were still combatants. Just as unarmed RUC officers getting into their cars in the morning were shot for being combatants. I just don't see that the argument against 'shoot to kill' stands up, Sinn Féin like to describe the Troubles as a war, so surely the rules of warfare applied to the IRA as well as the Army. Just a thought...

Notorious97

Regarding why the PIRA didn’t take prisoners, sure where would they have locked them up in all honesty? Gibraltar for instance, its accepted they were members yes, but being unarmed, should a sovereign nations forces not arrest people instead of just gunning them down? They could have easily arrested them if they really wanted to. They did just want to kill them to get one over on the IRA, and use it as something to promote in their war against them.

I don’t think an inquiry is needed into every fight between both sides, there was some shocking things on both sides though.

OhNoYouDidn't

notbrazil wrote: »

See your point; but even in the case of Gibralter, the three who were killed were still combatants.

Killed by soldiers out of uniform (in direct violation of the Geneva conventions) who made no effort to arrest them...

We can play whataboutery all day, the SAS broke multiple laws that day

Joey the lips

notbrazil wrote: »

Hi all,

Not a regular poster here but here goes; I have a quick question for anyone who would describe themselves as Republican - specifically those who would be inclined to vote SF.

There is a lot of noise being made at the moment with people calling for an inquiry into 'shoot to kill' policies that were allegedly used by the RUC and Army during the Troubles, specifically the SAS. Republicans often point to the Loughgall ambush as evidence for this.

My question is, how can those supporting the PIRA complain about any shoot to kill policy when they themselves took no prisoners. Let's say the SAS were told to 'shoot to kill' at Loughgall, the IRA men were heavily armed and were planning on killing any police officer in their sights, as they had done previously at Cloughmills a few weeks earlier. To the best of my knowledge, the IRA's policy was always 'shoot to kill', so why should the RUC/Army play by different rules?

I'm not trying to start an argument here now, just trying to understand those on the other side of the political spectrum a little more.

The IRA see the brits as occupiers where as the brits see ireland as there's

Who do you agree with....


Its all politics.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!

KeithAFC

Shoot to kill was perfectly fine. The PIRA deserved no mercy.

Joey the lips

KeithAFC wrote: »

Shoot to kill was perfectly fine. The PIRA deserved no mercy.

and they got none...

Neither did the bloody sunday cival rights marchers it would seem....


This is what happens...Its hard to distinguish...

KeithAFC

Joey the lips wrote: »

and they got none...

Neither did the bloody sunday cival rights marchers it would seem....


This is what happens...Its hard to distinguish...

I do find it odd when people question the shoot to kill policy of the PIRA when you look at some of the things they done. The SAS and the PIRA were at war at the time.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

I do find it odd when people question the shoot to kill policy of the PIRA when you look at some of the things they done. The SAS and the PIRA were at war at the time.

Did anyone tell Thatcher, because British government policy at the time was that the IRA were criminals. Are the SAS often deployed to shoot unarmed criminals with no warning?

Joey the lips

KeithAFC wrote: »

I do find it odd when people question the shoot to kill policy of the PIRA when you look at some of the things they done. The SAS and the PIRA were at war at the time.

I find it odd that the presence of an occuping force has become so normal that its just acceptable.

I guess we all see odd things in life...

However i find it even more odd that my own govt...The irish govt cannot bring to the courts for conviction those that carried out the dublin monaghan bombings even though those suspected and later know were being watched at the time...


So many odd things... Thank god for the good friday agreement.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Did anyone tell Thatcher, because British government policy at the time was that the IRA were criminals. Are the SAS often deployed to shoot unarmed criminals with no warning?

A PIRA member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is a member of the PIRA. That is the way the SAS and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

I find it odd that the presence of an occuping force has become so normal that its just acceptable.

The PIRA failed to remove it. Unlucky to them. Still here.;)

Joey the lips

KeithAFC wrote: »

The PIRA failed to remove it. Unlucky to them. Still here.;)

and the truth shall set him free....


You never wanted to understand anything. You are simply trolling which is what i suspected...

Goodbye.


op its very hard top generate discussion here. It usually turns into ****e... I would advise you to ask specifics that can be ananysised and maybe you might get propper answers.

Big Mouth

KeithAFC wrote: »

A PIRA member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is a member of the PIRA. That is the way the SAS and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

The PIRA failed to remove it. Unlucky to them. Still here.;)

PIRA didn't really fail though did they, I mean they had no Political presence in the 60's, 70's and 80's and after their campaigns their Political arm Sinn Fein are sharing power with the Unionists now!!

New Government, New Police Force etc I'd say they won more than anyone else sunshine

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

A PIRA member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is a member of the PIRA. That is the way the SAS and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

You make it sound like the ra had physic powers:pac:
Could not the same be said of a member of a criminal gang?

Should they be gunned down on sight, wether armed or not?

KeithAFC

Big Mouth wrote: »

PIRA didn't really fail though did they, I mean they had no Political presence in the 60's, 70's and 80's and after their campaigns their Political arm Sinn Fein are sharing power with the Unionists now!!

New Government, New Police Force etc I'd say they won more than anyone else sunshine

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Says it all.

Im not trolling but when you see the comment of occupied country, its not.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

A PIRA member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is a member of the PIRA. That is the way the SAS and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

Will you get up the yard!!

Leaving aside the hyperbole, surely then the same rules applied to the RUC and Brits.... Just as deadly etc

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Will you get up the yard!!

Leaving aside the hyperbole, surely then the same rules applied to the RUC and Brits.... Just as deadly etc

The SAS, without a doubt.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Big Mouth wrote: »

PIRA didn't really fail though did they, I mean they had no Political presence in the 60's, 70's and 80's and after their campaigns their Political arm Sinn Fein are sharing power with the Unionists now!!

The GFA is no different from Sunningdale which Sinn Fein/IRA rejected at the time. They never had any plan to share power with unionists whilst the NI remained in the UK. They even rejected a federalised Ireland based on the historical provinces as a ''sop to unionism''.

wikipedia wrote:

Éire Nua envisaged an all-Ireland Republic that would be created when the British withdrew from Northern Ireland. It also involved the dissolution of the existing Republic of Ireland, which republicans of that era considered an illegitimate entity imposed by the British in 1922. Under Éire Nua, Ireland would become a federal state, with parliaments for each of its four provinces as well as a central parliament based in Athlone.[2]

The purpose of the federal structure was twofold. Firstly, it was intended to show unionists in Northern Ireland that they would have some kind of self-government in a united Ireland. This would be achieved by the provision of a parliament, Dáil Uladh, for Ulster. However, by including all of historic Ulster - nine counties instead of the six in Northern Ireland - it was intended that the unionist majority would be slim enough to prevent abuses against the Catholic nationalist population in the province. [3]

Secondly, the federal parliaments were intended to redress the perceived economic imbalance between the eastern and western parts of Ireland and was hoped to increase economic prosperity in the poorer west of the country.

Éire Nua was objected to by many members of the party mainly Northern-based members of the Republican movement on the grounds that it would perpetuate the dominance of Protestant unionists in the north of the country. It was also dismissed as unworkable. When Northern Republicans grouped around Gerry Adams gained control of the IRA and Sinn Féin in the late 1970s, they attacked the policy. In 1982, the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis voted to drop the policy, and the following year all reference to it in the Sinn Féin Constitution and rules was removed, and it was removed as the policy of the Republican movement in favour of the creation of a unitary Irish Republic. [4]

So given the northern leadership rejected this how could sitting at Stormont sharing power with unionists be represent anything other than failure?

New Government, New Police Force etc I'd say they won more than anyone else sunshine

It could be argued the unionists getting the Irish Government to drop articles 2 &3 of the constitution was a bigger prize.

I think the differences between the RUC and the PSNI are overstated. The RUC were under much bigger pressure than the PSNI too.

The only tangible thing I can see the GFA achieved was allowing everyone on the island get an Irish passport.

Jaap

Big Mouth wrote: »

PIRA didn't really fail though did they, I mean they had no Political presence in the 60's, 70's and 80's and after their campaigns their Political arm Sinn Fein are sharing power with the Unionists now!!

New Government, New Police Force etc I'd say they won more than anyone else sunshine

I would not have thought the IRA would've wanted the new government to be called the 'Northern Ireland' Assembly...or the police force to be called The Police Service of 'Northern Ireland'.
Many a volunteer for the IRA died in order to achieve a United Ireland...where is it?
Democracy has prevailed...not violence...so the IRA and it's shooting and bombing policy has really failed. Which sends out the clear message on behalf of the majority in Northern Ireland...we want peace...and we want decisions made through the ballot box!

Wolfe Tone

notbrazil wrote: »

Hi all,

Not a regular poster here but here goes; I have a quick question for anyone who would describe themselves as Republican - specifically those who would be inclined to vote SF.

There is a lot of noise being made at the moment with people calling for an inquiry into 'shoot to kill' policies that were allegedly used by the RUC and Army during the Troubles, specifically the SAS. Republicans often point to the Loughgall ambush as evidence for this.

My question is, how can those supporting the PIRA complain about any shoot to kill policy when they themselves took no prisoners. Let's say the SAS were told to 'shoot to kill' at Loughgall, the IRA men were heavily armed and were planning on killing any police officer in their sights, as they had done previously at Cloughmills a few weeks earlier. To the best of my knowledge, the IRA's policy was always 'shoot to kill', so why should the RUC/Army play by different rules?

I'm not trying to start an argument here now, just trying to understand those on the other side of the political spectrum a little more.

The furore about Loughgall was mainly to cover up the fact that the IRA made a mess of it. However, if the men were indeed executed after surrendering.....

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The furore about Loughgall was mainly to cover up the fact that the IRA made a mess of it. However, if the men were indeed executed after surrendering.....

The SAS always shoot their enemy regardless. Many examples of this. One of the PIRA members was on the ground when he got shot.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

The SAS always shoot their enemy regardless. Many examples of this. One of the PIRA members was on the ground when he got shot.

So then they probably aren't the best people to deal with criminals....

Unless you are saying British policy in the troubles was hypocritcal?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So then they probably aren't the best people to deal with criminals....

Unless you are saying British policy in the troubles was hypocritcal?

The SAS are. The PIRA lost their human rights that day when they went to plant that bomb to kill people.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

The SAS always shoot their enemy regardless. Many examples of this. One of the PIRA members was on the ground when he got shot.

So if they did surrender, and were lying on the ground, you are ok with the Brits executing them?

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

The SAS are. The PIRA lost their human rights that day when they went to plant that bomb to kill people.

So you say. My point is that stated British policy was that the IRA were criminals. What other criminals are executed by special forces out of uniform?

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So if they did surrender, and were lying on the ground, you are ok with the Brits executing them?

Yes.

OhNoYouDidn't, if you look at some SAS programmes when they served in N.I. The SAS paid no attention to these rules.

northernpower

Just a quick point lads, the Loughall operation was targetting an unoccupied police station, KeithAFC they did not set out to kill people, they set out to blow up a symbol of the british establishment. The SAS knew this.

KeithAFC

northernpower wrote: »

Just a quick point lads, the Loughall operation was targetting an unoccupied police station, KeithAFC they did not set out to kill people, they set out to blow up a symbol of the british establishment. The SAS knew this.

Didn't the SAS clear people from it and waited for days for them?

northernpower

No it was a part-time police station, 9-5 or whatever, never occupied at night