Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Damn it I made a rookie mistake. I should have PIRA never authorized random shootings on peoples houses Others like The INLA, IPLO, SARAF & CRF did that and thats why popularity for these groups was non existence - except for the INLA from 78 - 82/83ish

Ah yes the great pira get out clause 'we didn't authorise it' ' rogue elements' etc etc should read the book I suggested, might open your eyes a bit

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Ah yes the great pira get out clause 'we didn't authorise it' ' rogue elements' etc etc should read the book I suggested, might open your eyes a bit

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

tdv123

Getting back on topic anyone remember the murder of Carol Ann Kelly who was just 12 when she was murdered by the British Army?

On 19 May 1981, while playing outside her home, she was asked by a neighbour to go to the shop for a pint of milk. As she returned, a number of British Army Land Rovers drove by. Two plastic bullets were fired, one hitting Kelly on the head

Kelly's older sister is interviewed in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKLk6s4KoMg

How sick in the head do you have to be to murder a small girl?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

It's a fact is it? Care to back that up

Sand

tdv123 wrote: »

How sick in the head do you have to be to murder a small girl?

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

moxin

Sand wrote: »

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

Thatcher who reigned in 1981 at the time of the killing of the child is dead. I'm sure most UK politicians in power at the time at either retired or dead. Your comment makes no sense.

tdv123

Sand wrote: »

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

So your a child murdering apologist now, that's to you.

tdv123

junder wrote: »

It's a fact is it? Care to back that up

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

gallag

tdv123 wrote: »

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

Does not compute. IRA killed about 650 civilians.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

You made the assertion not me, so if it's a fact as you say, let's here how it is a fact since the ira's list of murders would tend to prove you wrong

Fratton Fred

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

Really? How is Pat Doherty's brother Hugh these days?

Godge

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

If it is a fact, you will have an independent record to back this up.

Just saying the Army Council didn't authorise this or that means nothing. There are people going around saying Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness weren't ever on the Army Council and nobody believes it so why would anyone believe this?

maccored

quite often the truth and what people believe aren't the same.' common knowledge' may have been a better term to use than 'a fact' I think.

By the way - why do you believe adams was in the IRA? Do you have any 'independent record' to back that up?

I didn't think so.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

quite often the truth and what people believe aren't the same.' common knowledge' may have been a better term to use than 'a fact' I think.

By the way - why do you believe adams was in the IRA? Do you have any 'independent record' to back that up?

I didn't think so.

Why do you think it matters at this stage whether he was in the IRA or not ?

tdv123

junder wrote: »

You made the assertion not me, so if it's a fact as you say, let's here how it is a fact since the ira's list of murders would tend to prove you wrong

Everyone knows the IRA didn't get involved in sectarian killings. There was plenty of Protestant people in the liberation movement do you think the leadership would do something to alienate all of them & put the whole struggle at risk. They might have been murderers but they weren't idiots.

It's a pitty your outrage isn't felt for the victims of BA terror. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing. A a few scumbag republicans committee a brutal murder suddenly every republican is a evil murderer but a few scumbag British carry out brutal murders it's "ah sure it's just one or two wee scamps great bunch of lads really sorting those evil fenians out". It's sad how peoples outrage only flows one way.

Sad truth is some peoples blood is valued more than others.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IRA didn't get involved in sectarian killings. There was plenty of Protestant people in the liberation movement do you think the leadership would do something to alienate all of them & put the whole struggle at risk. They might have been murderers but they weren't idiots.

It's a pitty your outrage isn't felt for the victims of BA terror. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing. A a few scumbag republicans committee a brutal murder suddenly every republican is a evil murderer but a few scumbag British carry out brutal murders it's "ah sure it's just one or two wee scamps great bunch of lads really sorting those evil fenians out". It's sad how peoples outrage only flows one way.

Sad truth is some peoples blood is valued more than others.

The only person showing any outrage or making any justifications for terrorism is yourself so spare us the faux indignation and answer the question you where asked

tdv123

junder wrote: »

The only person showing any outrage or making any justifications for terrorism is yourself so spare us the faux indignation and answer the question you where asked

When did I justify or try to justify terrorism? I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people. I've already answered your question & I don't need to prove anything to yo mate.

Sand

tdv123 wrote: »

I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people.

So, you believe all the victims of the Provo's were guilty - that they deserved what was done to them?

Would you support the right of people to defend themselves against people who blow up innocent people?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

When did I justify or try to justify terrorism? I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people. I've already answered your question & I don't need to prove anything to yo mate.

You justify terrorism when you try to excuse thier actions

Frank Lee Midere

What have the Provos got to do with anything? If the US authorised undercover white army members to shoot black US citizens at checkpoints because there was a chance some might have been in the Black Panthers would people support it? In fact the SA army did that during apartheid. Probably white racists said " what about the ANC?"

tdv123

junder wrote: »

You justify terrorism when you try to excuse thier actions

What specific actions did I excuse?. I didn't excuse any actions where civilians were hurt & I condemn them now.

tdv123

Sand wrote: »

So, you believe all the victims of the Provo's were guilty - that they deserved what was done to them?

Would you support the right of people to defend themselves against people who blow up innocent people?

No I don't believe all their victims guilty. Just like not all the victims of the BA were guilty.

And the last point yes I do support people to defend themselves against people who blow up innocents. But there is a difference between the Loyalist death squads & the IRA guerrillas. The IRA felt terrible whenever civilians were hurt & usually issued an apology in statement. The UVF considered civilians a legit target & so did a lot of the Loyalist community.
For example after Sean Grahams bookmaker massacre in 1992 in which 5 civilians were killed the OO was marching past the community holding up 5 fingers as to say "we got 5 of you's".

If the IRA's strategy was to target innocent people I couldn't & wouldn't want to defend them. I believe their struggle was legit even if I didn't always agree with some of the tactics used.

Sand

If the IRA's strategy was to target innocent people I couldn't & wouldn't want to defend them.

But you do acknowledge that they did blow up innocent people (hundreds of them), and you certainly weigh in to defend the Provos pretty consistently. Would you acknowledge that, if the Provos were not deliberately targeting innocent people, the Provos seemed to be remarkably and persistently unlucky with their placing of bombs in homes, shops, main streets, hotels and other public spaces?

The IRA felt terrible whenever civilians were hurt & usually issued an apology in statement. The UVF considered civilians a legit target & so did a lot of the Loyalist community.

Did they feel terrible? Really? They certainly never seemed to feel badly enough about it to stop leaving more bombs in homes, shops, main streets, hotels and other public spaces. Both the Provos and Loyalist gangs operated with the support of at least a significant minority of "their" communities, and neither community demonstrated much willingness to withdraw support in reaction to any atrocity carried out by either group.

You might feel more sympathy for the cause of the Provos, but in methods they were as ruthless and inhuman as each other, and supported all the same for it. Imagining that one side shed noble tears of regret whilst the others dressed in black and cackled manically in glee is ... well its handy to rationalise support for one side.

George Orwell is quoted as saying "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Do you think that's a valid statement?

EDIT - Back on the OP; I'm aware the case is being reviewed by the PSNI but there's been no comment since then (not entirely surprising). Has there been any progress since? As the unit was already investigated back in the 1980s/90s, and the Panorama piece seemed to basically be a lot of paper thin claims spun by a guy with an active imagination and a book to sell it's unlikely that anything will come of the investigation but you do wonder if the closing of the case will be given equal priority for news media. Or if it will enter the mythology of the conflict that MRF claims were "proven" by Panorama?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

But you do acknowledge that they did blow up innocent people (hundreds of them), and you certainly weigh in to defend the Provos pretty consistently. Would you acknowledge that, if the Provos were not deliberately targeting innocent people, the Provos seemed to be remarkably and persistently unlucky with their placing of bombs in homes, shops, main streets, hotels and other public spaces??

The civilian casualty rate was consistent with that found in other wars.

Sand wrote: »

EDIT - Back on the OP; I'm aware the case is being reviewed by the PSNI but there's been no comment since then (not entirely surprising). Has there been any progress since? As the unit was already investigated back in the 1980s/90s, and the Panorama piece seemed to basically be a lot of paper thin claims spun by a guy with an active imagination and a book to sell it's unlikely that anything will come of the investigation but you do wonder if the closing of the case will be given equal priority for news media. Or if it will enter the mythology of the conflict that MRF claims were "proven" by Panorama?

Nothing happened in the North that didn't happen in Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden and the rest of the post 1945 colonial conflicts the British were involved with, frequently involving the same personnel. Why you keep denying the obvious is beyond me.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

EDIT - Back on the OP; I'm aware the case is being reviewed by the PSNI but there's been no comment since then (not entirely surprising).

The British still have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth. The first victims family is still waiting for closure.

http://www.derryjournal.com/news/devenny-files-will-stay-secret-until-2022-1-5869771

Secret files that could contain crucial information about the death of Derry man Sammy Devenny in 1969 have been reclassified and will remain under wraps until at least 2022.


Sammy Devenny, a 43-year-old father of nine from the Bogside, died three months after he and his family were assaulted by RUC officers at his home in William Street on April 19, 1969.
Mr Devenny is regarded by many as the first victim of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It’s now emerged that the Metropolitan Police in London have re-classified a number of files relating to Mr. Devenny’s death until the year 2022 - that’s more than half a century after his death.
It was in December 2012 that the Met decided not to release two files to the National Archives but to retain them for at least another ten years.

Human rights group the Pat Finucane Centre then issued a Freedom of Information request seeking access to the two files on behalf of the Devenny family. This was subsequently refused with an official on behalf of the Met saying: “After weighing up the competing interests, I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.”
The Met have confirmed that the closed files are not due for review until 2022, at which point they will again be assessed before any decision is taken about opening them.
It’s a move that has angered the Devenny family. Christine Robson, Sammy’s daughter, said: “We have had some closure with the Ombudsman Report in 2001 - however, the officers involved have never been charged and were protected by others. There is information in those files that we have a right to see.”
Mr. Devenny’s son, Jim, added: “Families like ours and thousands of others have a right to know what happened and we shouldn’t be depending on the whim of the Met, PSNI, Ministry of Defence or other official bodies to release documents. There is still a wall of silence.”
Sara Duddy, from the Pat Finucane Centre, said: “We can only assume these files contain information damaging to the RUC, possibly the details of the RUC officers involved in the brutal attack on Sammy Devenny and others within the Devenny household in April 1969. Why else would the Met feel the need to keep this information closed 45 years after the attack?”

Nodin

This rather handy infographic shows the continuous timeline.....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2014/feb/11/britain-100-years-of-conflict

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

This rather handy infographic shows the continuous timeline.....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2014/feb/11/britain-100-years-of-conflict

Really makes for fascinating reading .

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

This rather handy infographic shows the continuous timeline.....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2014/feb/11/britain-100-years-of-conflict

If they're not coming from fighting they're going to fight.

tdv123

Sand wrote: »

But you do acknowledge that they did blow up innocent people (hundreds of them), and you certainly weigh in to defend the Provos pretty consistently. Would you acknowledge that, if the Provos were not deliberately targeting innocent people, the Provos seemed to be remarkably and persistently unlucky with their placing of bombs in homes, shops, main streets, hotels and other public spaces?

I said I thought the armed struggle was legit I also said I didn't agree with many of the tactics used like the ones you've pointed here.

Did they feel terrible? Really? They certainly never seemed to feel badly enough about it to stop leaving more bombs in homes, shops, main streets, hotels and other public spaces. Both the Provos and Loyalist gangs operated with the support of at least a significant minority of "their" communities, and neither community demonstrated much willingness to withdraw support in reaction to any atrocity carried out by either group

.

Yes I think they did. Brendan Hughes said in he the voices from the grave documentary he felt very guilty about innocent people get hurt. Something like Bloody Friday (which was disgusting) was never tried again because of the civilian causality rate. They also kept working on their technique of planting incendiary bombs to try & avoid civilians deaths. Manchester 1996 bombing was the biggest bomb ever detonated on mainland Britain yet it caused no civilian deaths.

It is tragic that about 650 civilians were killed but compared to most other "terrorist" or guerrilla armies who waged a war for so long it's long it's a pretty low number And compared to the British & their Loyalist allies it's a good bit smaller.

You might feel more sympathy for the cause of the Provos, but in methods they were as ruthless and inhuman as each other, and supported all the same for it. Imagining that one side shed noble tears of regret whilst the others dressed in black and cackled manically in glee is ... well its handy to rationalise support for one side.

Well that's true but pretty much every successful army in history has been brutal in pursuit of their goals. The Americans slaughtered millions of civilians in their pursuit of stopping communism in Vietnam does that make them better or worse than the Provos? All war is ruthless that's the nature of it.

George Orwell is quoted as saying "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Do you think that's a valid statement?

It is a valid statement & I'm a big fan of Orwell's writings. But I think most people joined the IRA out of sheer anger to what was happening in their communities rather than out of any nationalist ideology. Eamon McCann said in a interview after the findings of the Saville report that he could remember people queuing up to join the provisionals after Bloody Sunday & been told to go away & come back later because they were full up & couldn't train the the people they had already & then going to the Officials wing & been told the same thing.

I also think the leadership was driven by Socialism & Republicanism ideology rather than just nationalism. I think the Loyalists were driven more by nationalism than the IRA, they didn't really seem to care what the political set-up was as long as they could remain British.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Really makes for fascinating reading .

Colonial disengagement. A nasty, nasty affair, which has led to documentation being destroyed at the time (as happened here), and worse - documentation today still being witheld. Being conducted in 'far off places' against non-Europeans gave it cover it could never achieve in NI. The notion that this couldn't have happened, or that it was a one off is rather laughable. Many of the senior personnel were veterans of not just one but a number of these conflicts as were the troops. This, bloody sunday, Ballymurphy etc and the relatively more severe years of the 70's were SOP as the 'colonies' had known them.

Of course the British aren't the only one's with "form" in this regard, but it's they who are the focus of the current discussion.