UN refusal to intervene in "The Troubles"

Going Forward

Has anything official ever been published outlining the reasons for the UN's refusal to intervene in "The Troubles" in the late 60s/early 70s?

Dirk Gently

I would have thought the British having a veto on the UN security council meant it was a mute point.

Cork24

The UN saw it maybe as an Internal Problem and that England where action as peace Keepers.. That was True until the late 70's

The Peoples Own MP

The Brits had a veto.

Cork24, are you saying that the Brits acted as peace keepers in the north until the late seventies?

Cork24

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Cork24 wrote: »

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

The Peoples Own MP

Cork24 wrote: »

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

I suggest you go back to your history books, the "honeymoon" period did not last until the late 70s, it lasted only a very short time.

It's true that the Brits were initially welcomed by nationalists but that rapidly changed. Actions such as the Falls road curfew, beatings, blatant murdering, by the Brits soon soured relations.

Control of the British army remained with the Unionist govt of the day. The hope was that they would be peace-keepers, but their blatant failure to act in that manner (standing by and letting loyalists sack Bombay street etc) meant that they never acted as peace-keepers, but simply another, better equipped, more violent, arm of that sectarian statelet.

The Waltzing Consumer

Cork24 wrote: »

The UN saw it maybe as an Internal Problem and that England where action as peace Keepers.. That was True until the late 70's

True?

No it is not at all. This is history, we have the sources and information from all sides involved, so there is no need to make stuff up anymore. All sides have documented the "honeymoon" period initially after the battle of the bogside but this did not last very long at all and saying it lasted till the late 70s is 100% false.

secondopinion

deccurley wrote: »

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

There's video evidence of rioting Catholics in Londonderry demanding The British Army be brought in.

The Waltzing Consumer

deccurley wrote: »

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

No, it would be a yes.

Seriously, this is documented and in our history. The Irish, Northern Irish and British have all this documented, there is no need for making stuff up.

secondopinion

The Peoples Own MP wrote: »

I suggest you go back to your history books, the "honeymoon" period did not last until the late 70s, it lasted only a very short time.

It's true that the Brits were initially welcomed by nationalists but that rapidly changed. Actions such as the Falls road curfew, beatings, blatant murdering, by the Brits soon soured relations.

Control of the British army remained with the Unionist govt of the day. The hope was that they would be peace-keepers, but their blatant failure to act in that manner (standing by and letting loyalists sack Bombay street etc) meant that they never acted as peace-keepers, but simply another, better equipped, more violent, arm of that sectarian statelet.

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

secondopinion wrote: »

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

Are you denying they engaged in the murder of civilians? Because many people in Derry and Ballymurphy may disagree with you on that.

The Waltzing Consumer

secondopinion wrote: »

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

Your first paragraph is more of an aim rather then a reality in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.

The best way to look at stats on victims is to look at the stats. CAIN is an excellent resource for this.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

Whilst Irish Republicans were responsible for the most deaths overall, the group most responsible for "blatant murdering" (I am guessing you are referring to Civilians) is Loyalist paramilitaries. Either way, this is all documented, and it is not a competition. It is history, the only thing to do is try to find the most accurate history and learn from it.

So if you are giving a few stats:
Irish Republican paramilitaries killed 1896 people between 1969-1994, with 37% of these being civilians
Loyalist paramiliaties killed 935 people in this time period, with 87.5% of these being civilians
British army killed 316 people in this time period, with 52.5% of these being civilians.

Each side believed they had legitimate aims and the support of their relevant communities at the time so the statistics on civilian killings tells us a lot about blatant murdering.

dahamsta

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I would have thought the British having a veto on the UN security council meant it was a mute point.

Moot. And that's not what it means. Sorry, one of those words that grates on me, like "rediculous".

http://www.google.ie/search?q=moot+mute

Jesus Shaves

secondopinion wrote: »

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

What a highly uneducated post, well done to you sir.

secondopinion

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Are you denying they engaged in the murder of civilians? Because many people in Derry and Ballymurphy may disagree with you on that.

'Murder' is a very loaded term and has a specific legal application. On occasion, The UK Armed Forces might well have broken the law by carrying out 'unlawful killings'. This would be understandable given the chaotic environment in which they operated.

The views of Irish Nationalists on deaths caused by The UK Armed Forces in places such as Londonderry and Ballymurphy are understandably clouded by their location and political views.

walshb

secondopinion wrote: »

'Murder' is a very loaded term and has a specific legal application. On occasion, The UK Armed Forces might well have broken the law by carrying out 'unlawful killings'. .

I would think that the term murder is not the same for the two sides. Irish republicans who kill, murder; British soldiers who kill, defenders/peace keepers.

secondopinion

The Waltzing Consumer said:

Your first paragraph is more of an aim rather then a reality in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.

I would disagree with this. The fact that The UK Armed Forces killed relatively few Republicans compared with the casualties they suffered at said Republicans hands would tend to support my position.

The best way to look at stats on victims is to look at the stats. CAIN is an excellent resource for this.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

Whilst Irish Republicans were responsible for the most deaths overall, the group most responsible for "blatant murdering" (I am guessing you are referring to Civilians) is Loyalist paramilitaries. Either way, this is all documented, and it is not a competition. It is history, the only thing to do is try to find the most accurate history and learn from it.

So if you are giving a few stats:
Irish Republican paramilitaries killed 1896 people between 1969-1994, with 37% of these being civilians
Loyalist paramiliaties killed 935 people in this time period, with 87.5% of these being civilians
British army killed 316 people in this time period, with 52.5% of these being civilians.

Each side believed they had legitimate aims and the support of their relevant communities at the time so the statistics on civilian killings tells us a lot about blatant murdering.

CAIN is an excellent site and one I'm well familiar with.

There are a number of problems with your analysis:

(i) Only soldiers are entitled to kill soldiers under international law. Non-military personnel killing soldiers is simply murder. Militant Republicans such as PIRA did not wear uniforms, openly display their weapons, or follow any of the rules of war (internationally recognised) and as such the soldiers they killed were in fact murdered.

(ii) CAIN identifies police officers as non-civilian. Again under international law this is incorrect. Police officers killed by militant Republicans were 'legally' murdered.

(iii) Even if we assume all those killed by The Security Forces and designated as civilians by CAIN were actually completely innocent of all paramilitary involvement (a big if), one has to analyse the circumstances of their deaths. A good example would be those killed whilst The Security Forces returned PIRA fire, accidental hitting a civilian. In any case The Security Forces could have improved their 'percentages' by shooting every Republican prisoner they took.

(iv) As regards Loyalist killings, it's hard to see how they could have improved their 'percentages' given the fact that they had no uniformed opponents to target. Hunting down militant insurrectionists who refuse to wear uniforms is problematic for a professional army/police and almost impossible for ad-hoc militias. In any case, at least some of those designated as civilians by CAIN have since been claimed by PIRA as their members. Further to that, PIRA had the active assistance of many in The Nationalist community who were not PIRA members - perhaps some of them ended up listed as civilians by CAIN?

Finally, Loyalist paramilitaries claimed to be reacting to Republican violence and when Republicans ceased their activities Loyalists did likewise. It could be claimed that Republicans brought Loyalist killings on The Nationalist community and bore a moral responsibility for them.

secondopinion

walshb wrote: »

I would think that the term murder is not the same for the two sides. Irish republicans who kill, murder; British soldiers who kill, defenders/peace keepers.

It would depend on the context of each individual death.

The Waltzing Consumer

secondopinion wrote: »

I would disagree with this. The fact that The UK Armed Forces killed relatively few Republicans compared with the casualties they suffered at said Republicans hands would tend to support my position.

Not really, you stated an aim. But what happened in reality is different. It is nothing to with opinion really.

secondopinion wrote: »

CAIN is an excellent site and one I'm well familiar with.

There are a number of problems with your analysis:

(i) Only soldiers are entitled to kill soldiers under international law. Non-military personnel killing soldiers is simply murder. Militant Republicans such as PIRA did not wear uniforms, openly display their weapons, or follow any of the rules of war (internationally recognised) and as such the soldiers they killed were in fact murdered.

There is certainly a number of problems with that. Look at Syria for example. Are you saying that the soldiers there can kill any civilian and civilians are breaking international law if they defend themselves and kill a soldier because they are not official soldiers?

secondopinion wrote: »

(ii) CAIN identifies police officers as non-civilian. Again under international law this is incorrect. Police officers killed by militant Republicans were 'legally' murdered.

Looking at B-Specials which were organised like a military unit, the lines become blurred. I don't think it is very accurate looking at The Troubles in terms of International Law as it becomes very grey.

secondopinion wrote: »

(iii) Even if we assume all those killed by The Security Forces and designated as civilians by CAIN were actually completely innocent of all paramilitary involvement (a big if), one has to analyse the circumstances of their deaths. A good example would be those killed whilst The Security Forces returned PIRA fire, accidental hitting a civilian. In any case The Security Forces could have improved their 'percentages' by shooting every Republican prisoner they took.

Yes but any paramilitary side or army could take this stance, it is not reasonable grounds and I am sure they is not in rules of engagment for any legitimate army. Plus it is not good if you throw in phrases such as "accidental hitting a civilian". We are trying to look at the facts, not throw in any opinion.

secondopinion wrote: »

(iv) As regards Loyalist killings, it's hard to see how they could have improved their 'percentages' given the fact that they had no uniformed opponents to target. Hunting down militant insurrectionists who refuse to wear uniforms is problematic for a professional army/police and almost impossible for ad-hoc militias. In any case, at least some of those designated as civilians by CAIN have since been claimed by PIRA as their members. Further to that, PIRA had the active assistance of many in The Nationalist community who were not PIRA members - perhaps some of them ended up listed as civilians by CAIN?

You could say the exact same for any side of a conflict, this is just trying to defend killing here. Facts, not opinions, is all we need.

secondopinion wrote: »

Finally, Loyalist paramilitaries claimed to be reacting to Republican violence and when Republicans ceased their activities Loyalists did likewise. It could be claimed that Republicans brought Loyalist killings on The Nationalist community and bore a moral responsibility for them.

What? This is more defending of killing. You are pretty much trying to put the blame of all civilian deaths from Loyalists on Republicans. I liked your first couple of points but this is invalid and very bad debate if you are twisting things like this.

The Peoples Own MP

A perfect example of just how messed up things were in the north is that so many sectarian bigots could attempt to take the moral high ground by championing the "forces of law and order" ie. the RUC and the British Army.

Of course in the eyes of most people their actions were wholly unacceptable. They weren't the "forces of law and order" but merely unionist militias. Not to mention the fact that they colluded with loyalist paramilitaries.

secondopinion

The Waltzing Consumer said:

Not really, you stated an aim. But what happened in reality is different. It is nothing to with opinion really.

I'm afraid that the policy of The UK State was to contain paramilitary violence and to develop a political solution. The activities of the security forces clearly followed this agenda with few exceptions. If they had another agenda they could have filled the grave yards with dead Republicans, including all Republican leaders.

There is certainly a number of problems with that. Look at Syria for example. Are you saying that the soldiers there can kill any civilian and civilians are breaking international law if they defend themselves and kill a soldier because they are not official soldiers?

Not at all. But UK Armed Forces didn't slaughter Irish Nationalists indiscriminately did they? In fact they didn't even slaughter IRA members indiscriminately. As for those fighting in Syria, it is up to both sides to obey the recognised rules of war, which include the wearing of uniforms (or at least clear 'markers') and the open display of weaponry.

Looking at B-Specials which were organised like a military unit, the lines become blurred. I don't think it is very accurate looking at The Troubles in terms of International Law as it becomes very grey.

I think The Irish have a real problem looking at 'the troubles' in any sort of objective way because of their history and their social education.

Yes but any paramilitary side or army could take this stance, it is not reasonable grounds and I am sure they is not in rules of engagment for any legitimate army. Plus it is not good if you throw in phrases such as "accidental hitting a civilian". We are trying to look at the facts, not throw in any opinion.

You use the phrase 'rules of engagement'. The Security Forces operated under UK civil law (the 'yellow card' etc). PIRA killed anybody they liked, any way they liked and whenever they liked. The two groups couldn't have been further apart morally or legally.

secondopinion

The Peoples Own MP wrote: »

A perfect example of just how messed up things were in the north is that so many sectarian bigots could attempt to take the moral high ground by championing the "forces of law and order" ie. the RUC and the British Army.

Of course in the eyes of most people their actions were wholly unacceptable. They weren't the "forces of law and order" but merely unionist militias. Not to mention the fact that they colluded with loyalist paramilitaries.

Bigotry is a terrible thing - whether religious or political. I think it's quite ludicrous to describe The Security Forces as 'unionist militias'. If they were of that nature Northern Ireland's Catholics would have suffered the same fate as Bosnia's Muslims.

Collusion did occur on occasion, but I've seen nothing to suggest it was widespread or sanctioned at a high level. In any case, Catholic civilian workers within The State employ were of assistance to PIRA on occasion.

Nodin

secondopinion wrote: »

Not at all. But UK Armed Forces didn't slaughter Irish Nationalists indiscriminately did they? .......

On occassion, they rather famously did. And of course thats not counting the casual brutality at the checkpoints, by patrols etc.

secondopinion wrote: »

Collusion did occur on occasion, but I've seen nothing to suggest it was widespread or sanctioned at a high level........

Others have, however.

Nodin

secondopinion wrote: »

Bigotry is a terrible thing - whether religious or political. I think it's quite ludicrous to describe The Security Forces as 'unionist militias'.

Just to be clear - you're saying that the RUC and the B-specials were an ordinary, representative police force?

Chuck Stone

Lads. Secondopinion is previously banned poster with an overt agenda, who generalises about Irish people (against the charter I believe) and who came out with statements such as the below...

trendyvicar wrote: »

You suffer from some sort of mental illness in my opinion.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Oh poor little Irishman has slipped in his own bullsh*t.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

trendyvicar wrote: »

For the record, it wouldn't have bothered me if collusion had been widespread - it would have meant a much quicker end to the troubles and possibly less lives lost. That's life...

trendyvicar wrote: »

I see you've worked out how to use the post search facility - you're obviously not Irish. LOL

(about me ^^)

trendyvicar wrote: »

You're not very good at this are you 'chuck' (LOL).

You suffer from what I call IRISHI/TIS - an assumption that any answer to a question will do.

Still - the audience for the imbecilic thoughts of Irish Nationalists is THE IRISH, so I guess it doesn't matter.

LOL
LOL
LOL

trendyvicar wrote: »

Ahhhhhhhhh. Poor little Irish murderers. You'd have thought building would have been their forte. LOL.

Couldn't afford uniforms either from what I gather - hence the need for Loyalists to kill members of the broader Nationalist community instead.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Saying something doesn't make it true. Saying something repeatedly (as all Irish Nationalists repeatedly do) still doesn't make it true.

trendyvicar wrote: »

what are you going to day if Loyalists turn the tables in any United Ireland? Especially with Ireland's sh*t army and traffic warden police force?

:eek:

trendyvicar wrote: »

Ye, they'd have sent thousands of blow up leprechauns across.

LOL

trendyvicar wrote: »

You know all this crap guys like you talk on line - is it the same material that Sinn Fein feed to the urban underclass and rural illiterates in The Irish Republic to get their votes?

trendyvicar wrote: »

It's easy for outsiders to preach equality in situations such as NI - after all, it isn't their sons who stand to lose their jobs in order to see equality reached.

trendyvicar wrote: »

The Irish will arrive in the modern world at some point - it just takes time and a decent educational system not based upon spinning romantic fantasies about how bad your neighbours are/were! A bit like Ali G. LOL

trendyvicar wrote: »

Sounds very like The Irish used to be manipulated regarding Northern Ireland. Must be a Catholic thing.

I recognise its 'style' (or lack thereof) and inability to carry out simple forum tasks like quoting properly.

secondopinion

Nodin wrote: »

On occassion, they rather famously did. And of course thats not counting the casual brutality at the checkpoints, by patrols etc.



Others have, however.

Who are these 'others' you speak of Nodin? Irish Nationalists and their fellow travellers? Do they ever present compelling evidence of widespread collusion or high level complicity in said collusion? I've certainly never seen evidence of either - very much the opposite in fact.

You do agree there's no comparison between the morality of PIRA and The Security Forces I presume?

Chuck Stone

secondopinion wrote: »

Do they ever present compelling evidence of widespread collusion or high level complicity in said collusion?

Loads of it. Some of which was presented to you in a previous thread.

The first attempt at having something resembling a cross community security force rather than a glorified Unionist militia was the UDR and anyone who cares to look will see that the UDR was full of former 'loyalist' thugs and loads of weapons were 'lost' and ended up in the hands of the loyalist death squads.

Joint membership of the UDA (which had objectives incompatible with those of HMG) and the UDR, became widespread, and at the same time the rate of UDR weapons losses greatly increased. Subsequently a number of UDR members with traces in other subversive organisations have come to note.

Some members of the UDR, who also belong to subversive groups, undoubtedly lead 'double lives', and even with the aid of intelligence it is occasionally difficult to persuade a CO that one of his men is a risk. Indicative, but not typical, is the case of a member of 1 UDR, apparently a good citizen (the Deputy Chairman of a District Council) who had the following traces:
a. Subject was OC of Ballymena UDA
b. Subject had obtained ammunition for the UDA
c. Subject was suspected of illegal arms dealings, and of acquiring an SLR and an SMG in Scotland, and of selling them to the UDA.

He was however described by his CO as 'a model soldier'.

Source: Subversion in the UDR (PDF)

The Waltzing Consumer

secondopinion wrote: »

I'm afraid that the policy of The UK State was to contain paramilitary violence and to develop a political solution. The activities of the security forces clearly followed this agenda with few exceptions. If they had another agenda they could have filled the grave yards with dead Republicans, including all Republican leaders.

It is a good point but you acknowledge that there were exceptions.

secondopinion wrote: »

Not at all. But UK Armed Forces didn't slaughter Irish Nationalists indiscriminately did they? In fact they didn't even slaughter IRA members indiscriminately. As for those fighting in Syria, it is up to both sides to obey the recognised rules of war, which include the wearing of uniforms (or at least clear 'markers') and the open display of weaponry.

Well they did in some cases secondopinion, Bloody Sunday being the primary example along with internment and torture of civilians. But you have hit a key point though, it is up to both sides to obey the rules of war. In Northern Ireland during the Troubles, you had more then two sides and the "legitimate" army did not always follow the rules of law themselves so you can see why it putting the Troubles in context of International law is not the best way to discuss this.

secondopinion wrote: »

I think The Irish have a real problem looking at 'the troubles' in any sort of objective way because of their history and their social education.

I am not sure where this came from? I have tried to stick to facts and stats, you have thrown in opinion in some of your points so I am not sure how you think you are objective. And is also just sounds like some slur by lumping all Irish people together in that statement without any attempt to differentiate. That's a pity, I thought you had some good views, seems like you may be a bigot.

secondopinion wrote: »

You use the phrase 'rules of engagement'. The Security Forces operated under UK civil law (the 'yellow card' etc). PIRA killed anybody they liked, any way they liked and whenever they liked. The two groups couldn't have been further apart morally or legally.

Yes you would be right in most cases, I would agree, that is backed up by the facts.

As for the moral issue, that is not something we can really say with any certainty and it is best to leave morals outside. Again, this is the past, no need for emotive argument, we try to learn the truth and everything else should be left behind.

Nodin

secondopinion wrote: »

Who are these 'others' you speak of Nodin? Irish Nationalists and their fellow travellers? Do they ever present compelling evidence of widespread collusion or high level complicity in said collusion? I've certainly never seen evidence of either - very much the opposite in fact.

There's been a number of reports on the matter.

secondopinion wrote: »

You do agree there's no comparison between the morality of PIRA and The Security Forces I presume?

Given the behaviour of same? No, I don't agree.

I asked you earlier - are you saying that the RUC and the B-specials were an ordinary, representative police force?

secondopinion

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

It is a good point but you acknowledge that there were exceptions.


Well they did in some cases secondopinion, Bloody Sunday being the primary example along with internment and torture of civilians. But you have hit a key point though, it is up to both sides to obey the rules of war. In Northern Ireland during the Troubles, you had more then two sides and the "legitimate" army did not always follow the rules of law themselves so you can see why it putting the Troubles in context of International law is not the best way to discuss this.


I am not sure where this came from? I have tried to stick to facts and stats, you have thrown in opinion in some of your points so I am not sure how you think you are objective. And is also just sounds like some slur by lumping all Irish people together in that statement without any attempt to differentiate. That's a pity, I thought you had some good views, seems like you may be a bigot.


Yes you would be right in most cases, I would agree, that is backed up by the facts.

As for the moral issue, that is not something we can really say with any certainty and it is best to leave morals outside. Again, this is the past, no need for emotive argument, we try to learn the truth and everything else should be left behind.

That is my fear WC. There is a huge amount of conflict era propaganda still floating around and the vast majority of it emanates from The Nationalist side of the issue. Obviously, The UK State no longer cares as it sees the issue as solved and has moved on. Unionism has always seemed less interested in propaganda than Nationalism - perhaps reflecting different cultural environments. But within Nationalism there is a complete inability to accept factual realities and place them within a relevant context.

Let me give you some examples:

(i) The acceptance that PIRA was an army fighting a war - despite it's repudiation of the recognised rules of war regarding uniforms etc.

(ii) A consensus that murders of UDR/RUC were morally different to murders of 'civilians'.

(iii) Acceptance (or at least an implication) that collusion was rampant and sanctioned at a high level within The UK State regardless of real evidence.

(iv) Stereotyping of The UDR despite it's relatively low kill rate.

(v) Insistence that The Security Forces were just one more combatant force in 'the war' despite unassailable evidence to the contrary.

(vi) A sense that Unionist discrimination prior to 'The Troubles' was monolithic/severe and comparable with South Africa, Alabama, etc, whilst ignoring the context of that discrimination and it's equivalent in The Republic against pro-British elements there.

(vii) Above all else, an inability (or an unwilling less) to quantify and qualify events such as 'Bloody Sunday' or collusion and place them in any context.

Now, if this only applied to SF apologists desperate to sanitise PIRA's war and that of their leaders, I wouldn't be very concerned. But unfortunately, it would appear that many in The Republic (and many Nationalists in NI) sign up to some elements of this fake historical narrative - even those who claim to despise SF and The IRA. This is what worries me. Future generations of Irish people could buy into this false narrative and this could lead to further conflict.

mongoman

secondopinion wrote: »

I'm afraid that the policy of The UK State was to contain paramilitary violence and to develop a political solution.

Are you serious? Judging by that comment you are clearly not aware of how much the British directed and guided Loyalist paramilitary violence throughout the years. Ever hear of Brain Nelson? Amongst other things, as a British agent he went to South Africa to purchase and organise arms shipments for the UDA/UFF. Christ! if that was the British developing a political solution? I wouldn't like to see them running a dirty war, oh wait a sec...............

Nodin

secondopinion wrote: »

...........

(iv) Stereotyping of The UDR despite it's relatively low kill rate.

(..........

From 1975......

"since the beginning of the current campaign, the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for protestant extremist groups has been the UDR"
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.pdf

By 1992, 19 were convicted of murder, 150 or more other serious offences.

secondopinion

mongoman wrote: »

Are you serious? Judging by that comment you are clearly not aware of how much the British directed and guided Loyalist paramilitary violence throughout the years. Ever hear of Brain Nelson? Amongst other things, as a British agent he went to South Africa to purchase and organise arms shipments for the UDA/UFF. Christ! if that was the British developing a political solution? I wouldn't like to see them running a dirty war, oh wait a sec...............

See my point above regarding Nationalist half truths.

secondopinion

Nodin wrote: »

From 1975......

"since the beginning of the current campaign, the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for protestant extremist groups has been the UDR"
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.pdf

By 1992, 19 were convicted of murder, 150 or more other serious offences.

19 convicted of murder whilst almost 300 of their members were murdered during a ruthless terrorist campaign carried out over 30 years? I think you've proved my point. Thankyou.

The Waltzing Consumer

secondopinion wrote: »

That is my fear WC. There is a huge amount of conflict era propaganda still floating around and the vast majority of it emanates from The Nationalist side of the issue. Obviously, The UK State no longer cares as it sees the issue as solved and has moved on. Unionism has always seemed less interested in propaganda than Nationalism - perhaps reflecting different cultural environments. But within Nationalism there is a complete inability to accept factual realities and place them within a relevant context.
...
Now, if this only applied to SF apologists desperate to sanitise PIRA's war and that of their leaders, I wouldn't be very concerned. But unfortunately, it would appear that many in The Republic (and many Nationalists in NI) sign up to some elements of this fake historical narrative - even those who claim to despise SF and The IRA. This is what worries me. Future generations of Irish people could buy into this false narrative and this could lead to further conflict.

I don't think you need to worry too much, Ireland is getting more mature and better able to stare at its own history. Our relationship to Northern Ireland and Britain is stronger and I would certainly be of the opinion that history about the Troubles should be written by all involved and to remove any bias or misinformation.

With the visit of the British Queen last year and the tearing down of the "special" relationship between catholic church and Government, I would think that unionists would feel a little more at ease. The idea of reunification and whitewashing history to give a pro-ira stance is the last thing on most peoples minds to be fair.

The only people I saw being stuck in the past and protesting the British Queens visit was SF and a good few junkies.

john reilly

secondopinon. you really had no idea what was occuring in the north of ireland. the security forces where completely sectarian organisations who systematically tortured their irish nationalist neighbours. secondly the british army didnt kill all the republican leaders because even they werent stupid enough to think they could defeat republicans this way.

Nodin

secondopinion wrote: »

19 convicted of murder whilst almost 300 of their members were murdered during a ruthless terrorist campaign carried out over 30 years? I think you've proved my point. Thankyou.

Not really. There's also the passing of information to loyalist paramilitaries, the passing of weapons etc. All told, it's a rather telling picture. Rather inevitable, given the origins of the organisation, and all too preventable.

Besides, I thought you wanted to establish that there was " no comparison between the morality of PIRA and The Security Forces"?

You still haven't clarified whether or not you're saying that the RUC and the B-specials were an ordinary, representative police force?

john reilly

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I don't think you need to worry too much, Ireland is getting more mature and better able to stare at its own history. Our relationship to Northern Ireland and Britain is stronger and I would certainly be of the opinion that history about the Troubles should be written by all involved and to remove any bias or misinformation.

With the visit of the British Queen last year and the tearing down of the "special" relationship between catholic church and Government, I would think that unionists would feel a little more at ease. The idea of reunification and whitewashing history to give a pro-ira stance is the last thing on most peoples minds to be fair.

The only people I saw being stuck in the past and protesting the British Queens visit was SF and a good few junkies.

didnt see all the crowds lining the street to welcome her either. presumably most felt protesting some old hasbean shuffling around while f.g politicans kissed her hole just wasnt worth the effort

The Waltzing Consumer

john reilly wrote: »

didnt see all the crowds lining the street to welcome her either. presumably most felt protesting some old hasbean shuffling around while f.g politicans kissed her hole just wasnt worth the effort

They were in Cork :P

As for Dublin, no public event was planned and security was the main thing, hence why people did not gather.

But junkies will turn up for anything when they get paid, I wonder if anyone paid them???

john reilly

secondopinion wrote: »

Who are these 'others' you speak of Nodin? Irish Nationalists and their fellow travellers? Do they ever present compelling evidence of widespread collusion or high level complicity in said collusion? I've certainly never seen evidence of either - very much the opposite in fact.

You do agree there's no comparison between the morality of PIRA and The Security Forces I presume?

heres something we can agree on. The IRA were volunteer freedom fighters who used intelligence and bravery to fight one of the biggest richest armies in the world. the british army on the other hand was run by stuck up twats who knew are cared nothing about the irish people. on the ground the british army was made up of people too stupid to get a real job or dirtbags forced to join to stay out of jail. as for all the loyalist paramilataries such as uvf, uda, ruc, lvf, uff, e.t.c well these were simply
sectarian killing machines, who killed innocent catholics because they were afraid to engage the IRA

votecounts

Why is anyone responding to Secondopinion, he is anti irish and obviously trolling. A ban should have been put in place awhile back.

john reilly

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

They were in Cork :P

As for Dublin, no public event was planned and security was the main thing, hence why people did not gather.

But junkies will turn up for anything when they get paid, I wonder if anyone paid them???

most likely the brits to make her feel at home

Nodin

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

They were in Cork :P

As for Dublin, no public event was planned and security was the main thing, hence why people did not gather.

But junkies will turn up for anything when they get paid, I wonder if anyone paid them???

They were thrown out of the garden of remembrance. To bulk up the numbers some genius in Eirigi thought to give them flags etc

The Waltzing Consumer

john reilly wrote: »

[/B]

most likely the brits to make her feel at home

Heh, were the Brits paying SF too? They were right beside the junkies. :P

The Waltzing Consumer

votecounts wrote: »

Why is anyone responding to Secondopinion, he is anti irish and obviously trolling. A ban should have been put in place awhile back.

I don't see any trolling on this thread from the poster. He has a different view but nothing that I would consider trolling. He is also responding to posters backing up his view, so I don't see why you would ban him for this thread.

Victor

secondopinion wrote: »

(i) Only soldiers are entitled to kill soldiers under international law. Non-military personnel killing soldiers is simply murder. Militant Republicans such as PIRA did not wear uniforms, openly display their weapons, or follow any of the rules of war (internationally recognised) and as such the soldiers they killed were in fact murdered.

As what was essentially an internal conflict, some of those rules don't apply.

Dr Galen

Firstly, while we really appreciate the help from posters in identifying re-regs and trolls, it's really not acceptable that posts are made in threads making accusations of this nature. That is in fact a breach of the charter. Report the post, send us a PM if you think it is taking too long, but please don't bring it into the threads.

Secondly, I'm closing this thread as it is was really being driven by a certain poster who is now banned and tbh I can see train wreck on the horizon. As always, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise via PM if anyone feels strongly enough.

Cheers

DrG