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

KeithAFC

northernpower wrote: »

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

3+ security officers got injured during the ambush. The SAS waited for them for days.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

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

By 'these rules' you mean the rules of war. Which means you are accusing the SAS of war crimes.

Interesting.

Bottle_of_Smoke

KeithAFC wrote: »

3+ security officers got injured during the ambush. The SAS waited for them for days.

You're right they waited for days but are you sure security forces were injured?

There were 2 innocent civillians shot to ribbons driving past do you mean them? To ensure the IRA were ambushed no warning was given to the ordinary people using the road. SAS either thought they was part of the gang or didn't want witnesses to the events.

R P McMurphy

I thought that the bomb detonated and that there were people waiting inside and they were injured but not badly. What the incident highlighted was that the IRA unit that were carrying out these attacks were set up to be ambushed. They were not interested in the usual IRA protocol and wished to remain somewhat separate in order to aviod informers but that obviously did not work. They were styling themselves as a flying column

maccored

personally speaking, I know the provos always said they were at war. They have always been classed as the 'terrorist' as well due to their tactics.

if the british army had admitted they were at war, and that their tactics were as terrorist as the provos, then I dont think you'd find anyone complaining.

As it happens though, the brits went around shooting people, such as old women in their homes in tyrone, and then claiming someone else did it. The british government claimed the british army were different from the provos as the british army had principles. they lied.

At least republicans will admit a spade is a spade and not try to make it look like a silver spoon. The british government on the other hand, lied through its teeth in pretending its army was squeeky clean.

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.

maccored

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You're right they waited for days but are you sure security forces were injured?

There were 2 innocent civillians shot to ribbons driving past do you mean them? To ensure the IRA were ambushed no warning was given to the ordinary people using the road. SAS either thought they was part of the gang or didn't want witnesses to the events.

the place was meant to be empty. the provos had no intention of hurting people - though i think there were a few cops in the building.

the SAS on the other hand had no problem mowing down the provos (doesnt the law say you're meant to go to court first?) and then polishing off a few people driving by for good measure. What heroes.

All that did was strengthen the resolve of people in tyrone and armagh against the brits.

maccored

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The GFA is no different from Sunningdale which Sinn Fein/IRA rejected at the time.

?? wasnt it the unionist strike in May that year that caused the downfall? It was the unionists who didnt want to share power. Am I missing something here, or is this revising history?

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

==Collapse of the Agreement==

Main article: Ulster Workers Council Strike

Following the defeat of a motion condemning power-sharing in the Northern Ireland Assembly, a loyalist organization called the Ulster Workers' Council called a general strike for 15 May. After two weeks of barricades, shortages, rioting and intimidation, Brian Faulkner resigned as Chief Executive and the Sunningdale Agreement collapsed on 28 May 1974.

The strike succeeded because the British were reluctant to use force at an early stage and later the use of force was vetoed by the unionists in the Executive.

The most crippling aspect of the strike was its effect on electricity supply — the Ballylumford power station controlled Belfast's electricity and that of most of Northern Ireland. The workforce was overwhelmingly Protestant and effective control was firmly in the hands of UWC. John Hume's plan to cut the Northern Ireland electricity grid in two and rely on the power generated by Coolkeeragh Power Station (where many Catholics worked) to keep Derry and environs in business while undermining the unionist strikers in the east was rejected by the British Secretary of State Merlyn Rees.

In later strikes the security forces were prepared to use force immediately and so intimidatory barricades — essential to the success of the UWC strike — were suppressed from the outset.

ISAW

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.

Thiat is a very dangerous precidence in jurisprudence. You do realise it is fairly much a definition of "thoughtcrime" as depected in Orwell's "1984"? It just isn't for forces of so called civilised governments to adopt the behaviour of terrorists.

Fratton Fred

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I thought that the bomb detonated and that there were people waiting inside and they were injured but not badly. What the incident highlighted was that the IRA unit that were carrying out these attacks were set up to be ambushed. They were not interested in the usual IRA protocol and wished to remain somewhat separate in order to aviod informers but that obviously did not work. They were styling themselves as a flying column

I heard that the IRA army council, or people high up in the IRA had set them up. The story i was told was that they were out of control and threatening to break away from the IRA which, at that time, was looking to end the war.

This was a nice handy way of getting rid of them, hence why they all had to die.

danbohan

ISAW wrote: »

Thiat is a very dangerous precidence in jurisprudence. You do realise it is fairly much a definition of "thoughtcrime" as depected in Orwell's "1984"? It just isn't for forces of so called civilised governments to adopt the behaviour of terrorists.

keith is trying to be rational and diplomatic , what he really wants to say is

A nationalist /fenian / catholic member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is nationalist/fenian / catholic . That is the way the unionists / loyalists / keith afc and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I heard that the IRA army council, or people high up in the IRA had set them up. The story i was told was that they were out of control and threatening to break away from the IRA which, at that time, was looking to end the war.

This was a nice handy way of getting rid of them, hence why they all had to die.

of course as always your sources and agenda would be pretty suspect , fred

Bottle_of_Smoke

maccored wrote: »

the place was meant to be empty. the provos had no intention of hurting people - though i think there were a few cops in the building.

the SAS on the other hand had no problem mowing down the provos (doesnt the law say you're meant to go to court first?) and then polishing off a few people driving by for good measure. What heroes.

All that did was strengthen the resolve of people in tyrone and armagh against the brits.

I was talking about the SAS in that post. There's a good documentary on youtube called Provos: Sinn Fein and the IRA that goes through it.

?? wasnt it the unionist strike in May that year that caused the downfall? It was the unionists who didnt want to share power. Am I missing something here, or is this revising history?

It was brought down by unionists but as that article you quote says, it was rejected by Sinn Fein and the IRA. Therefore how could the GFA be seen as Sinn Fein winning anything when the rejected Sunningdale?

The Northern Ireland Assembly Bill resulting from the White paper became law on 3 May 1973, and elections for the new assembly were held on 28 June. The agreement was supported by the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the unionist UUP and the moderate unionist and cross-community Alliance Party. The pro-agreement parties won a clear majority of seats (52 to 26), but a substantial minority inside the Ulster Unionist Party opposed the agreement.
Republicans boycotted the elections, and the IRA continued its campaign of opposition throughout the outcome.

So no it certainly is not revising history to say Sinn Fein rejected Sunningdale

Also two rather apt quotes regarding the provisional movement:

Seamus Mallon of the SDLP famously declared that the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was "Sunningdale for slow learners"[3].[4] Marian Price of the 32CSM stated that the Good Friday Agreement was "Sunningdale for retards" in reference to Mallon's quote

padmcb1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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.

I would actually disagree that republicans would and should accept that loughgall was an acceptable act of war. I think its important to remember that loughgall was an abandoned barracks. The PIRA acted on information that the barracks was unoccupied and they could destroy it without any conflict. Also I would point to the fact that the British army had very detailed information as to the brigades movements and plan of action. They could have intercepted them and arrested them earlier. Also the IRA men attempted to surrender and were murdered anyway. Not only where they murdered but their bodies were completely mutilated by bullet fire. My point would be that as the so called upholders of justice in Northern Ireland at the time the British armed forces should have been bound by certain rules of war and they should have behaved accordingly.
Loughgall is just one example of the maliciousness of the british armed forces in Northern Ireland, other examples include Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre. This maliciousness and lack of conscience actually drove the troubles in Northern Ireland. The British Army were by far the most effective recruiters for the IRA. Its important to remember that when first they arrive in the North we the people welcomed them with open arms as our saviours and the protectors of our community, unfortunately are hopes were unfounded.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Another hole in the victory for Sinn Fein theory is this:

In March 1974, pro-agreement unionists withdrew their support for the agreement, calling for the Republic of Ireland to remove the Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution first (these Articles would not be revised until the Good Friday Agreement of 1998

Bottle_of_Smoke

padmcb1 wrote: »

I would actually disagree that republicans would and should accept that loughgall was an acceptable act of war. I think its important to remember that loughgall was an abandoned barracks. The PIRA acted on information that the barracks was unoccupied and they could destroy it without any conflict. Also I would point to the fact that the British army had very detailed information as to the brigades movements and plan of action. They could have intercepted them and arrested them earlier. Also the IRA men attempted to surrender and were murdered anyway. Not only where they murdered but their bodies were completely mutilated by bullet fire. My point would be that as the so called upholders of justice in Northern Ireland at the time the British armed forces should have been bound by certain rules of war and they should have behaved accordingly.
Loughgall is just one example of the maliciousness of the british armed forces in Northern Ireland, other examples include Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre. This maliciousness and lack of conscience actually drove the troubles in Northern Ireland. The British Army were by far the most effective recruiters for the IRA. Its important to remember that when first they arrive in the North we the people welcomed them with open arms as our saviours and the protectors of our community, unfortunately are hopes were unfounded.

Agree somewhat but totally reject the notion it was comparable with Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

keith is trying to be rational and diplomatic , what he really wants to say is

A nationalist /fenian / catholic member is deadly. Regardless of not being armed. His mind is deadly in that he is nationalist/fenian / catholic . That is the way the unionists / loyalists / keith afc and British forces looked at it. Might not have a gun one minute but could next time.

You seem to have a bigot mind. Mentioning fenian for? :rolleyes:

padmcb1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Agree somewhat but totally reject the notion it was comparable with Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy

Out of curiosity i'm wondering in what ways you reject the comparisons? I see them all as being similar as they were massacres and atrocities which acted as a recruitment drive for the PIRA and there drove on the troubles.

Bottle_of_Smoke

padmcb1 wrote: »

Out of curiosity i'm wondering in what ways you reject the comparisons? I see them all as being similar as they were massacres and atrocities which acted as a recruitment drive for the PIRA and there drove on the troubles.

Those killed at bloody sunday were civil rights protestors. Those killed at loughall were armed republicans about to blow up a police station. One of the guns found at the scene was stolen from a recent RUC station attack.

How on earth could those scenarios be comparable?

That doesn't justify the slaughter at loughall but it certainly was very different to bloody sunday.

FTA69

No Republican who joined the IRA was under any illusions about what an armed struggle entailed, upon entering active service you were told that by far and away the most likely outcome would be your death or your imprisonment. One of the first things you would be told is that if you go out to shoot Brits they are more than capable of shooting back. It was a war situation, and all sides were aware of how that would play out.

The difference is though, is that although the Brits knew full well themselves that they were fighting a war they tried to portray the conflict here as some sort of criminal conspiracy, simply a policing problem dealing with people who were akin to handbag snatchers, rapists and the unemployable. In other words, the same propagandist nonsense the Brits have employed since they described the IRA during the Tan War as "corner boys" and the "murder gang".

Of course it is fair to then ask that if there was no political conflict in Ireland, only crime, why was the British government deploying tens of thousands of soldiers to occupy areas in which they weren't wanted? Why were their elite military units engaging in border incursions to unlawfully kill people? Why were they arming Loyalists to kill their own citizens?

To sum up, Republicans mainly had a problem with shoot-to-kill due to the sheer bloody hypocrisy of it; they'll send the SAS to riddle you outside your house while you're unarmed and then declare you a common criminal.

FTA69

padmcb1 wrote: »

I would actually disagree that republicans would and should accept that loughgall was an acceptable act of war. I think its important to remember that loughgall was an abandoned barracks. The PIRA acted on information that the barracks was unoccupied and they could destroy it without any conflict.

To be honest I doubt Jim Lynagh or Declan Arthurs would give a sh*t about how many cops were in the station, if they could have killed ten soldiers in that attack they would have.