Stakeknife Arrested.

cycle4fun

Correct, because the government representing the people always wanted peace. All governments do.

markodaly

Fann Linn wrote: »

So the provos sued for peace and the UK govt even though they allegedly had them on the run said,'ok'.

That is a simple way of putting it but yes, the British and Irish government were looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict since Sunningdale.

Remember, the goal of the PIRA was a United Ireland by military means, i.e. get the British to leave Ireland by force.

The goal of the British and Loyalists was to stop that.
When the PIRA stopped, the loyalists stopped as well (bar maybe the LVF under Billy Wright but he was killed off so that was that.)
When the PIRA stopped, it was job done for the British and thus began the process of demilitarisation of the north.

The PIRA failed and it took them a few decades to realise that it was never going to happen militarily for them. They dressed up a defeat like a victory when the IRA when on a permanent cease fire. A well oiled piece of modern marketing it must be said.

riffmongous

If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course

markodaly

riffmongous wrote: »

If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course

Proves my point, thanks.

Fann Linn

markodaly wrote: »

That is a simple way of putting it but yes, the British and Irish government were looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict since Sunningdale.

Remember, the goal of the PIRA was a United Ireland by military means, i.e. get the British to leave Ireland by force.

The goal of the British and Loyalists was to stop that.
When the PIRA stopped, the loyalists stopped as well (bar maybe the LVF under Billy Wright but he was killed off so that was that.)
When the PIRA stopped, it was job done for the British and thus began the process of demilitarisation of the north.

The PIRA failed and it took them a few decades to realise that it was never going to happen militarily for them. They dressed up a defeat like a victory when the IRA when on a permanent cease fire. A well oiled piece of modern marketing it must be said.

So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

cycle4fun

riffmongous wrote: »

If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course

But most attacks were failing and they were running out of "volunteers".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-plot-foiled-as-two-ton-lorry-bomb-is-stopped-at-port-1413426.html

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

'e wuz a 'Bad apple'

markodaly

Fann Linn wrote: »

So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists' but they were glad to and even quietly dropped their demand that they decommission before talks.

Smacks of desperation to me.

cycle4fun

Fann Linn wrote: »

So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

Two points.
(A) It is well known and documented "In considering a situation he would assess the worst possible case and plan accordingly to produce the best."
(B) The IRA when he prepared his report (soon after taking over command in Northern Ireland in 1979) was a different IRA to the one in the 1990's.

Beechwoodspark

Who ultimately won? I would say that the British did. They wanted an end to the war at almost any cost and they got their way.

riffmongous

cycle4fun wrote: »

But most attacks were failing and they were running out of "volunteers".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-plot-foiled-as-two-ton-lorry-bomb-is-stopped-at-port-1413426.html

It only took one to do 700 million pounds of damage in Manchester.

You know you're link also mentions the downing of a helicopter through a mortar attack in South Armagh right? Belfast was certainly compromised alright, I think Gerry Bradley reckons around 90% of operations were called off or foiled, but South Armagh was still operational, '93 was the time of the SA sniper.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

The British wanted peace too. City of London financiers weren’t too happy their nice shiny glass buildings didn’t stand up too well to cheaply manufactured fertiliser based bombs of which the IRA could have kept making and sending over.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists' .

You remember wrong, they quietly invited Gerry Adams and his comrades over to London in the early seventies in order to ask them to give up their armed struggle for a U.I.

Fann Linn

markodaly wrote: »

They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

Thats all very well, but in 1989, Peter Brooke, Secretary of State for NI also said that he found it impossible to envision a Provo defeat. Hence the back channel contacts which began in the early 90s.

Hardly the actions of a govt or army who have the opposition on the run.

cycle4fun

riffmongous wrote: »

It only took one to do 700 million pounds of damage in Manchester.

It only took 2 planes to make both twin towers collapse in 9/11. Your point being?

riffmongous

cycle4fun wrote: »

It only took 2 planes to make both twin towers collapse in 9/11. Your point being?

That a high failure rate is acceptable when one success is so devasting

cycle4fun

Fann Linn wrote: »

Thats all very well, but in 1989, Peter Brooke, Secretary of State for NI also said that he found it impossible to envision a Provo defeat. Hence the back channel contacts which began in the early 90s.

Hardly the actions of a govt or army who have the opposition on the run.

I think most people in '89 thought there would always be the odd off duty policeman being killed or whatever, same as every week or two there seems to be a gangland murder in Dublin now. It is difficult for governments to prevent all illegal activity all of the time.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

It is amazing who the PIRA and Sinn Fein were so compromised at the end. No wonder they sued for peace.

.

If they were fatally compromised, why would there be a peace process? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

markodaly wrote: »

Proves my point, thanks.

You don't thus far have one.

cycle4fun

Odhinn wrote: »

If they were fatally compromised, why would there be a peace process?

Because both governments wanted peace, same as they always did. The peace process was a way of achieving that.

Odhinn

cycle4fun wrote: »

Because both governments wanted peace, same as they always did. The peace process was a way of achieving that.

You don't have a "process" if you win. The other shower take what mercy is available and are glad of it.

Fann Linn

cycle4fun wrote: »

I think most people in '89 thought there would always be the odd off duty policeman being killed or whatever, same as every week or two there seems to be a gangland murder in Dublin now. It is difficult for governments to prevent all illegal activity all of the time.

Peter Brooke didn't think so. Hence the back channel contacts. Furthermore in 1992 Gen Sir John Wilsley Gen Officer Commanding in a secret document stated..'the govt knows it is not up against psychpathic evil criminals, but a highly trained and professional political combat organisation'.

I think it was a bit more than the 'murder of the odd part time policeman.'

cycle4fun

Odhinn wrote: »

You don't have a "process" if you win.

If you get the terrorists arms and explosives put beyond use / decommissioned and the murders and bombings stopped, most politicians and people are happy enough with that.

cycle4fun

Fann Linn wrote: »

Peter Brooke didn't think so. Hence the back channel contacts. Furthermore in 1992 Gen Sir John Wilsley Gen Officer Commanding in a secret document stated..'the govt knows it is not up against psychpathic evil criminals, but a highly trained and professional political combat organisation'.

I think it was a bit more than the 'murder of the odd part time policeman.'

You took the point about the "murder of the odd part time policeman" out of context. That was the medium to long term "best case scenario" , not the reality at the time in 1989. Not unlike how long time drug feuds in Dublin keep on going.

Fann Linn

cycle4fun wrote: »

You took the point about the "murder of the odd part time policeman" out of context. That was the medium to long term "best case scenario" , not the reality at the time in 1989. Not unlike how long time drug feuds in Dublin keep on going.

Ok. However you don't dispute Gen Wilseys assertion of the provos in 92.

Odhinn

cycle4fun wrote: »

If you get the terrorists arms and explosives put beyond use / decommissioned and the murders and bombings stopped, most politicians and people are happy enough with that.

But you had that with total victory, so why have a process?

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

You remember wrong, they quietly invited Gerry Adams and his comrades over to London in the early seventies in order to ask them to give up their armed struggle for a U.I.

Maggie wrote:

We will not bargain, nor compromise, nor bend the knee to terrorists

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107352

But they did and for the first time in 800 years ALL Irish people had an international agreement where they were treated equally. Much to the chagrin of Unionists, as they cling to the last vestiges of their bigoted suprematist habit.

You must be one of the few people left defending implacably the British behaviour on this island.

Endlessly humourous.

cycle4fun

Fann Linn wrote: »

Ok. However you don't dispute Gen Wilseys assertion of the provos in 92.

What was that? we were talking about Gen Glovers assessement of the provos in '79 earlier?

cycle4fun

Odhinn wrote: »

But you had that with total victory

You would never have total victory if you still had the odd attack.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You must be one of the few people left defending implacably the British behaviour on this island.

Endlessly humourous.

Stockholm syndrome writ large..........

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107352

But they did ...

The early seventies when Adams and his comrades were invited to London for talks were long before Mrs Thatchers time. Nobody mentioned her so why do you bring her up? Go learn some history, you were caught out twice.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

The early seventies when Adams and his comrades were invited to London for talks were long before Mrs Thatchers time. Nobody mentioned her so why do you bring her up? Go learn some history, you were caught out twice.

So are you still deluding yourself that the British didn't maintain trenchantly that they would not negotiate with 'terrorists' but then did. With a spectacluar win for Irish people?

*That 70's meeting was also in secret and behind the Unionists backs as well.
They were playing the Unionists and trying to subvert the nationalists but you almost singularly think their motives were pure???

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So are you still deluding yourself that the British maintained trenchantly that they would not negotiate with 'terrorists' ?

They always talked to terrorists, them inviting Adams and comrades to London in the early seventies in order to try to get them to stop the violence / armed struggle is proof of that.

Yes their motives were pure, because they wanted peace. What purer motive could there be. They were proved correct in the end, same as they were in the cold war.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

They always talked to terrorists, them inviting Adams and comrades to London in the early seventies in order to try to get them to stop the violence / armed struggle is proof of that.

Yes their motives were pure, because they wanted peace. What purer motive could there be. They were proved correct in the end, same as they were in the cold war.

They could have had peace by delivering the GFA in 69 before the place went up in flames. Before the IRA even came to the fore, but they decided instead to try and shore up and protect the bigoted sectarian statlet they had created and turned a blind eye to for 60 years.

But over 3000 died and the war was brought to the 'motherland' before they were willing to deliver that.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists' but they were glad to and even quietly dropped their demand that they decommission before talks.

Smacks of desperation to me.

If you want yourself feel better. Governments will always talk tough in public but will always be open to back channels as well as a bit of double dealing if must be.

The basic objectives of one group was met, while the other was not met. Which one won, it wasn't the PIRA. In fact no one ever mentions that the PIRA won the war, even the most ardent Shinnerbot wont admit that. Instead they go about about silly stuff that doesn't matter as a way to bolster their own ego.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

The British wanted peace too. City of London financiers weren’t too happy their nice shiny glass buildings didn’t stand up too well to cheaply manufactured fertiliser based bombs of which the IRA could have kept making and sending over.

Exactly, the British wanted peace, the PIRA wanted a United Ireland. We got peace, not a UI.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

If they were fatally compromised, why would there be a peace process? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Did I say fatally, no. So perhaps read rather than project?


I did say they were compromised however, enough to be week and less effective thus easier to get a peace agreement. Job done!

It is funny seeing people so bum hurt about the truth that the PIRA was not this invincible force. What are they trying to defend?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

If you want yourself feel better. Governments will always talk tough in public but will always be open to back channels as well as a bit of double dealing if must be.

The basic objectives of one group was met, while the other was not met. Which one won, it wasn't the PIRA. In fact no one ever mentions that the PIRA won the war, even the most ardent Shinnerbot wont admit that. Instead they go about about silly stuff that doesn't matter as a way to bolster their own ego.

The Irish people won Mark. Look around you, they have equality, parity of esteem and the right to self determine without outside impediment enshrined in an internationally binding agreement which will see the British pull the plug when the Irish people say. And the British have no 'selfish or strategic interest' anymore in northern Ireland.

Who 'won' that for them? Well you can take your pick from the IRA, SF, the SDLP, FF FG Lab etc or Shergar. I don't really care because that is won, that is history..

What I do care about is sycophantic, hat doffing Irish people glorifying the British and their motives on this island.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could have had peace by delivering the GFA in 69

N.I. Catholics were not the MOPEs ( most oppressed people ever ). As pointed out elsewhere, they had the same voting rights as working class protestants, of which there were many. And the referendum ( in 1973 I think it was ) on a United Ireland was open to all people over the age of 18. The PIRA did not want peace, they wanted a United Ireland (and a socialist United Ireland)..Brits Out was their motto.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

You don't have a "process" if you win. The other shower take what mercy is available and are glad of it.

Ah the old binary ladybird notion of complete winners and complete losers, which is actually rare enough in war and civil conflicts.

In such a scenario there was never going to be unconditional surrender of either sides, there was always going to be a negotiation.

The PIRA didn't get what they set out for the British more or less did.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Did I say fatally, no. So perhaps read rather than project?


I did say they were compromised however, enough to be week and less effective thus easier to get a peace agreement. Job done!

It is funny seeing people so bum hurt about the truth that the PIRA was not this invincible force. What are they trying to defend?

The British were compromised at and after Dunkirk and had to be bailed out.
So what if there was some infiltration?
The IRA refused to decommission until and agreement was reached, and the demand that they must was quietly dropped by John Major because there would not have been an agreement otherwise.

Nobody goes into a war going for anything else but a victory.Your nonsense about not achieving a UI is just that, nonsense.
The IRA and SF delivered the GFA, that is enough, a UI was not sacrificed as it can still be achieved.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

N.I. Catholics were not the MOPEs ( most oppressed people ever ). As pointed out elsewhere, they had the same voting rights as working class protestants, of which there were many. And the referendum ( in 1973 I think it was ) on a United Ireland was open to all people over the age of 18. The PIRA did not want peace, they wanted a United Ireland (and a socialist United Ireland)..Brits Out was their motto.

Why if they 'wanted peace' did the British (who had the ultimate responsibility) not dismantle totally the bigoted sectarian statelet in 1969 when the nationalist people demanded it?

Why did they allow the IRA into the picture at all?

Stop avoiding.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Exactly, the British wanted peace, the PIRA wanted a United Ireland. We got peace, not a UI.

We got a peace process.

We got a peace process of which has only a one way street ending.

Yourself and copy and paste queen - Ruth Dudley Edwards' apprentice can enter every nationalist related thread you wish with your revisionist nonsense - but the fact will remain the same.

The peace process can only ever end with one scenario playing out.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish people won Mark.

That is debatable. Over 3,000 dead people most of them Irish certainly didn't win. Nor did the 50,000 people who were injured. Saying that there are clear winners is kinda crass.

My point is about objectives and who got most from the agreements.
I repeat, the aim of Sinn Fein and the PIRA was a Untied Ireland and to kick the British from Ireland. This.did.not.happen.
It is beyond dispute, all this talk about hat doffing is just showing up the butt hurt.

enfant terrible

Watched a documentary about Scappaticci last week if anyone is interested

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Exactly, the British wanted peace, the PIRA wanted a United Ireland. We got peace, not a UI.

We got an agreement, that led to peace. Not the same thing.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British were compromised at and after Dunkirk and had to be bailed out.
.

Oh christ, I weep for you Francie.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British were compromised at and after Dunkirk and had to be bailed out.

What has Dunkirk to do with it? They rescued themselves from the beaches there and put up a good fight in the battle of Britain after that. Stop diverting.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why if they 'wanted peace' did the British (who had the ultimate responsibility) not dismantle totally the bigoted sectarian statelet in 1969 when the nationalist people demanded it?

Change was coming and there were far more Catholics in the security forces prior to the IRA campaign in 1969 when they started killing them: the IRA campaign only made things worse.

The EU was coming and there was no need for the failed "armed struggle".

cycle4fun

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yourself and copy and paste queen - Ruth Dudley Edwards' apprentice .

Charming.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

What has Dunkirk to do with it? They rescued themselves from the beaches there and put up a good fight in the battle of Britain after that. Stop diverting.

The myth is the British were winners, when the fact is they had to be bailed out.
Mark is trying to invent the myth that the IRA and those they were fighting for were losers because they didn't force the British out. They weren't. All you have to do is review the facts, which you cannot change.

Change was coming and there were far more Catholics in the security forces prior to the IRA campaign in 1969 when they started killing them: the IRA campaign only made things worse.

The EU was coming and there was no need for the failed "armed struggle".

''The EU is coming lads and lassies, never mind the gerrymandering, the bad housing, the lack of educational opportunities, the sectarian parades taunting you, the EU lads, the EU will save yis!'... Ha ha ha BRILLIANT!