Sinn Fein- Never forget

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The Provisional IRA took it upon themselves to wage a Terrorist campaign on anybody and everybody who got in their way, they were the enemy within this state, they were the enemy in the North, and they were the enemy in Britain. War was never declared by the Irish people against the British people, and neither did Ireland declare war on Britain (and/or England). The Provisional IRA was a prerscribed Terrorist organisation which caused terrible hurt to many people on these two islands, they were the scourge of this island and Britain, they gave Irish people a bad name, and they put back any chance of reconcilliation between the different traditions on this island by decades - ........

A rather bizzarre reading of the condition of the sectarian statelet of NI. Peaceful protest was beaten off the streets.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

The different between you and me in this, is that I condemn the Loyalist terror groups and the Republican terro groups for their sundry massacres and atrocities, whereas you seek only to absolve the IRA of their responsibility. Kingmill was rogue, Enniskillen was rogue, anything that should shame the IRA is rogue...how bloody convenient.

Funny how you left THE VERY NEXT LINE i wrote out, where i say I TOTALLY AND UNRESERVEDLY condemn Kingsmill.
If you want to debate then lets debate but dont twist my words or misrepresent what I say, particularly when its written a few inches above your own twisted pontificating.

Chuck Stone

I just want to make my position clear here in case there is any doubt.

Kingsmill was an indefensible, sectarian massacre of civilians.

The victims tried to hide a Catholic guy because they thought it was a loyalist ambush at first.

Awful.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

A rather bizzarre reading of the condition of the sectarian statelet of NI. Peaceful protest was beaten off the streets.

Oh dear Lord, not you (self proclaimed Provo supporter) again :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?

No idea. Probably the same number as the number of IRA men punished for murdering civilians.

what2do

Einhard wrote: »

And when people condemned the British army and, even 30 years later, demaned some accountability, were the likes of Dotsey and Crookedjack telling them to shut up and move on and stop living in the past as they are wont to do when it comes to IRA atrocities?

This I think it a very good point. Move on from some atrocities but not others?? How is it decided that those who were victims on SF should move on but anything attributable to the British Army should be investigated until answers are received?

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

In fact in the first chapter of Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, he says that one of the overriding factors of the IRA's whole campaign was a reluctance to "go for the jugular" (his term) and just kill as many people as possible. End result, the IRA did not target civilians and no amount of twisting my words will make it so they did.

Coogan's quote does not, in any way, shape, or form, state that the IRA didn't target civilians.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Funny how you left THE VERY NEXT LINE i wrote out, where i say I TOTALLY AND UNRESERVEDLY condemn Kingsmill.
If you want to debate then lets debate but dont twist my words or misrepresent what I say, particularly when its written a few inches above your own twisted pontificating.

LOL this is funny. I stated that you seek to absolve the IRA or responsibility for their actions...which you do. I never stated that you don't condemn such actions, merely that you seek to deflect the blame from the IRA. All true. Perhaps if you weren't so worked up about my twisted pontifications, you'd be able to read the words that i actually type...

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

The inherent risk of bombing economic targets is a loss of civilian life. You originally said they didn't target civilians, the problem is their choice of economic targets made it unavoidable there would be civilian targets.

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

I think it's quite obvious that they were happy to plant thousands of bombs, and if a civilian happened to get in the way of it, well...

Of course, the proxy-bomb campaign would surely count as a crime against humanity in any arena. I wonder were they all unauthorised too?

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Some 800 civilians were killed by the IRA. Every one of them wrong and a tragedy. During the course of the Troubles the IRA detonated some 10,000 bombs and carried out countless shootings. If the IRA were targeting civilians they were very bad at it. I think it's quite obvious they were not.

LOL. Brilliant. If the IRA were not targeting civilians, and yet managed to kill 800 of them, they were pretty spectacularly bad at not targting them. Jesus H Christ, you couldn't make it up. You state yourself that the IRA killed 800 civilians, but none of them were targeted....800 accidents eh? This is incredible. Absolutely incredible.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

The Provisional IRA took it upon themselves to wage a Terrorist campaign on anybody and everybody who got in their way, they were the enemy within this state, they were the enemy in the North, and they were the enemy in Britain. War was never declared by the Irish people against the British people, and neither did Ireland declare war on Britain (and/or England). The Provisional IRA was a prerscribed Terrorist organisation which caused terrible hurt to many people on these two islands, they were the scourge of this island and Britain, they gave Irish people a bad name, and they put back any chance of reconcilliation between the different traditions on this island by decades - Those two sentences of yours really are a disgrace, specially considering the loss of life, and I am not even sure if you should be allowed to openly say that?

What do you say K9.

Youre trying to get me banned because I have a different opinion from you? How very democratic (or at least its representative of the british form of democracy.)

The IRA were forced into existence by the actions of the old stormont regime, the british government and the free state governments unwillingness to protect its people.
Youre damn right they were the enemy of Britain and the enemy of the northern state and as discussed earlier, they were sadly a necessity for bringing about peace and equality in Ireland.

guinnessdrinker

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No idea. Probably the same number as the number of IRA men punished for murdering civilians.

I'm open to correction but afaik no troops were punished for the murdering of civilians in Derry that day.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

There was a war going on and bombs in England drew the attention of English people to what their government was doing in Ireland. Bombs or shootings in Ireland barely made the news over there, they caused the problem so they were going to have to deal with it.
I never said it was nice or pleasant but as a military tactic it made sense and as soon as larger bombs started wrecking england's financial centres the brits got their arses to the negotiating table fairly sharpish. Sad but true, it's the only way to deal with them.

So you must be very understanding of The UVF bombing of Dublin in 1974?

Monty Burnz

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I'm open to correction but afaik no troops were punished for the murdering of civilians in Derry that day.

Like I said, probably the same number of IRA terrorists who were punished by the IRA for killing 800 odd civilians.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

LOL. Brilliant. If the IRA were not targeting civilians, and yet managed to kill 800 of them, they were pretty spectacularly bad at not targting them. Jesus H Christ, you couldn't make it up. You state yourself that the IRA killed 800 civilians, but none of them were targeted....800 accidents eh? This is incredible. Absolutely incredible.

out of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of attacks over 30 years.
Once again your picking out pieces from my posts and taking them out of context.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Youre trying to get me banned because I have a different opinion from you? How very democratic (or at least its representative of the british form of democracy.)

Well if you are not capable of self censoring that kinda thing then maybe the Mod will take a look?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Youre damn right they were the enemy of Britain and the enemy of the northern state and as discussed earlier, they were sadly a necessity for bringing about peace and equality in Ireland.

They were the enemy of here too don't forget!

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

So you must be very understanding of The UVF bombing of Dublin in 1974?

no comparison with the british government's deliberate attempt to murder as many civilians as possible

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

The inherent risk of bombing economic targets is a loss of civilian life. You originally said they didn't target civilians, the problem is their choice of economic targets made it unavoidable there would be civilian targets.

In my estimation it was the Canary Wharf bomb and the bombing of the Manchester CBD that brought the troubles to a close - or at least put momentum into the PP.

As soon as the IRA started to focus on hurting the UK economy the game was up - the British had had enough and as much as told Unionists that they better sit down and talk or be side-lined (conjecture - granted. If you look at the timeline of the PP there does seem to be a correlation).

guinnessdrinker

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Like I said, probably the same number of IRA terrorists who were punished by the IRA for killing 800 odd civilians.

Fair enough, I was just asking because you stated in a previous post that real armies punish troops that murder civilians. Obviously this is not always the case.

Sound of Silence

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh dear Lord, not you (self proclaimed Provo supporter) again :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a collective sigh whenever you stumble into a thread. :rolleyes:

LordSutch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

As soon as the IRA started to focus on hurting the UK economy the game was up -

Not forgetting that the NI economy is part of the UK economy, which was in turn under constant threat nearly for thirty years. There must have been hundreds of businesses/jobe destroyed in NI alone during the 'Glory Days' of the IRAs reign.

Monty Burnz

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Fair enough, I was just asking because you stated in a previous post that real armies punish troops that murder civilians. Obviously this is not always the case.

No, not always. Look up the Mai Lai massacre if you really want your stomach turned (although certain posters here would reckon it's no big deal because it happened some years ago, it didn't directly affect our families, and any outrage you feel is just pretend outrage to score points against the US Army).

guinnessdrinker

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, not always. Look up the Mai Lai massacre if you really want your stomach turned (although certain posters here would reckon it's no big deal because it happened some years ago, it didn't directly affect our families, and any outrage you feel is just pretend outrage to score points against the US Army).

Of course and I'm familiar with the Mai Lai massacre but unfortunately we don't have to look as far away as Asia to know that troops that have murdered civilians have gone unpunished.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

no comparison with the british government's deliberate attempt to murder as many civilians as possible

Perhaps it was The Queen herself who carried out the attack? Perhaps she was just trying to bring home the message to the people of The Republic just how terrible your heroes The IRA were making people's lives in Northern Ireland - part of her realm?

Or perhaps there was a warning message, but The Guards ignored it, planning to blame the bombs on PIRA?

Who knows? Anything's possible.

gaffer91

@crookedjack, chuck stone et al
A few points that have been repeated several times over the course of the thread which ye keep bringing back up:

1. Just because we criticise SF does not mean we agreed with the activities of the British Army and the loyalists. We just do not mention them as they do not have any real impact on the Irish political system in 2012.
2. Because the loyalists committed atrocities as well does not in any way leave SF off the hook.
3. On top of 'retaliatory' killings, Kingsmill, No-warning bombs such as Enniskillen, proxy bombs, Birmingham bombings etc any bombs planted in a public place were de facto attacks on civilians as the IRA would have known that there would be civilian casualties a percentage of the time.To say otherwise is laughable
4. It is not just the killing of Jerry McCabe that outrages us- while the murder of a Garda truly chills the blood, what is more irking is SF's behaviour surrounding the whole incident and SF supporters deflections whenever the topic is mentioned.
5. Criticising SF does not make us "West Brits".
6. FF and FG may have come have murky pasts but it is much further removed than SF's and could imo justifiably be argued to be far less harmful than the IRA's campaign
7. SF's economics are bat-sh*t crazy.
8. Murders like McCabe, McCartney, Kingsmill were done in the name of the IRA like it or not- writing off every incident as being "unsanctioned" just isn't going to wash.

RMD

Crooked Jack wrote: »

no comparison with the british government's deliberate attempt to murder as many civilians as possible

I'm pretty sickened with the actions of the British on the island of Ireland but that statement is pure and utter shíte. If they were making deliberate attempts to kill as many Nationalists / Republicans as possible there'd have been a hell of a lot more deaths.

You do your argument no good with unreaslistic points.

Sound of Silence

whitelines wrote: »

Who knows? Anything's possible.

You've pretty much summed up what's wrong with this thread.

People embrace speculative theories and avoid context.

There's a wealth of primary sources out there for people to support their claims, but they're often ignored in favour of condescending and moralising posts.

Sound of Silence

gaffer91 wrote: »

writing off every incident as being "unsanctioned" just isn't going to wash.

Isn't that what happened with the Widgery Report?

Chuck Stone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Although Chuck Stone would reckon it's no big deal because it happened some years ago, it didn't directly affect our families, and any outrage you feel is just pretend outrage to score points against the US Army).

FYP. My views would be a little more sophisticated than your caricature of them tries to project.

First of all I don't think any killing is 'no big deal' - particularly the killing of civilians. I've consistently argued against the death penalty under any circumstances and have held this view for years because I think killing is a bad thing - all killing.

As for point-scoring against an army then you're way off there too. In a way I consider the BA soldiers who lost their lives up north as victims too - a little different from civilians because it goes with the territory but victims nonetheless. Certainly there were murdering scum in the ranks of the BA but I'd imagine most of them would rather have been at home watching the football.

As I said earlier in the thread I don't have a black and white, good versus evil view of the world.

gaffer91

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Isn't that what happened with the Widgery Report?

Read point 1 and 2 and don't try to deflect everything bad that the IRA did by pointing out something equally bad the loyalists or brits did. No one here is defending them.