Stakeknife Arrested.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh christ, I weep for you Francie.

Well I am actually laughing at the discomfiture and clinging of you and cycle tbh.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The myth is the British were winners, when the fact is they had to be bailed out.

Re Dunkirk which you brought up, it is not a myth. They were on the allied side which won, yes, but nobody made up a myth that they were the only winners. They could not have defeated the might of Germany, Italy, Japan and much of Austria all by themselves. You are diverting the subject to Dunkirk.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Well, did they force the British out? Various IRA campaigns over the years in N.I. have only made divisions worse and the last troubles "achieved" 3500 dead. Did it achieve their stated aim of a united Ireland? The answer is no.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Re Dunkirk which you brought up, it is not a myth. They were on the allied side which won, yes, but nobody made up a myth that they were the only winners. They could not have defeated the might of Germany, Italy, Japan and much of Austria all by themselves. You are diverting the subject to Dunkirk.



Well, did they force the British out? Various IRA campaigns over the years in N.I. have only made divisions worse and the last troubles "achieved" 3500 dead. Did it achieve their stated aim of a united Ireland? The answer is no.

The divisions were always there, you and your ilk cheerfully ignored them and batted them away, just like you batted away the victims of the Stakeknife collusion and duplicity as being expendable for a 'peace' the British never wanted (or more chillingly, were indifferent to) but were forced to accept, at their expense.
Their 'reputation' is just beginning to pay that 'expense' now, however much they try to stop it. With your estimable help of course.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

for a 'peace' the British never wanted

All governments everywhere in the world want and wanted peace in their jurisdictions, not terrorist outrages or armed struggles or whatever you want to call it. History has proved that. They told Adams and his comrades in the early seventies when they invited them to London for talks they wanted peace but Adams and Co wanted the armed struggle for a United Ireland unless the British left. The British wanted peace, the PIRA wanted a United Ireland. What a waste of 3500 lives and tens of thousands injured.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish people won Mark.

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Correct and well said.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

for a 'peace' the British never wanted

Yes, never wanted peace even though they were back channels to the IRA as far back as the 70's and

They were party to Sunningdale in 74,
The Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985
The Downing Street Declaration of 1993,
the Good Friday agreement of 1998

but sure never wanted peace.... flat earther talk if I ever saw one.

This coming from someone who worships at the alter of a party who didn't even recognise the Republic of Ireland till 1986 and targeted Irish soldiers and Gardai during the troubles.

maccored

makes me laugh that people think theres peace

cycle4fun

maccored wrote: »

makes me laugh that people think theres peace

Compared to what there was, there is peace. Most of the people being killed in Ireland seem to be crime gang / drug related in Dublin etc.

Red_Wake

maccored wrote: »

makes me laugh that people think theres peace

In what sense is there no peace?

brainfreeze

What you guys are arguing over, a topic many do, Tony Blair thinks is a stupid question.

"Nobody won the war". - Tony Blair.

cycle4fun

Tony Blair would say that, because he knows the turning point in the war on terror came in 1987, when his party was only the opposition party in parliament. 1987 was the turning point because the IRA got 3 massive blows that it never recovered from (1) Loughgall (2) Enniskillen, a self inflicted blow which lost them overseas support and it made many Republicans question the need for armed struggle (3)the capture of the gun-running Eksund ship.
New technology in the 90's and so many agents inside the paramilitaries on both sides also played a part in stopping those paramilitaries.

They haven't gone away you know.....

maccored

cycle4fun wrote: »

All governments everywhere in the world want and wanted peace in their jurisdictions, not terrorist outrages or armed struggles or whatever you want to call it. History has proved that. They told Adams and his comrades in the early seventies when they invited them to London for talks they wanted peace but Adams and Co wanted the armed struggle for a United Ireland unless the British left. The British wanted peace, the PIRA wanted a United Ireland. What a waste of 3500 lives and tens of thousands injured.

the British made good money during the afghan and iraq invasions training the americans from the experience gained in the north. its naive to think they didnt gain from it

your version of history isnt exactly what happened either - but I suppose you read that in the indo or somewhere

maccored

Edz87 wrote: »

They haven't gone away you know.....

they have. why are you quoting something Adams said 23 years ago, before the GFA? Bit stupid to be saying that, no?

cycle4fun

Maccored, you say "the British made good money during the afghan and iraq invasions training the americans from the experience gained in the north. its naive to think they didnt gain from it"...well anything they got from the American for training was chickenfeed compared to the costs they incurred as a result of the bombing campaigns, the cost of security etc....not to mention the human cost of their own colleagues, (more than a few MPs were killed by the PIRA), employees and family members being targetted and killed or injured (like Norman Tebitts wife etc). So for you to insinuate the British gained financially from spending billions annually on N.I. is a bit foolish.

Odhinn

cycle4fun wrote: »

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

But if the PIRA were out of the way, thats what you'd have. That didn't happen.

markodaly wrote:

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

So now they were compromised rather than beaten? This would be easier if you took the wheels off of the goalposts.

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

So they were beaten but not really beaten? Your fludity with terms seems only to have emerged when you were challenged.

Fann Linn

cycle4fun wrote: »

Tony Blair would say that, because he knows the turning point in the war on terror came in 1987, when his party was only the opposition party in parliament. 1987 was the turning point because the IRA got 3 massive blows that it never recovered from (1) Loughgall (2) Enniskillen, a self inflicted blow which lost them overseas support and it made many Republicans question the need for armed struggle (3)the capture of the gun-running Eksund ship.
New technology in the 90's and so many agents inside the paramilitaries on both sides also played a part in stopping those paramilitaries.

11 Jan 1992- Gen Sir John Wilsley to UK Govt:

...'defeat of the IRA is not on the horizon while current security policies are maintained.

(it is) better equipped, better resourced, better led, bolder, and more secure against our penetration than at any time before. They are an absolutely formidable enemy. The essential attributes of their leaders are better. Some of their operations are brilliant. If we don't intern its a long haul.

The govt knows it is up against not a bunch of psychopathic, evil criminals, as its propaganda has tried to suggest, but a highly disciplined and politically motivated guerilla army.'

In fairness Cycle, your attempts at deflecting from the facts are lame. I've referenced 3 UK people at the heart of the conflict from 1978 to 1993 and all three ie Gen Sir James Glover, Peter Brooke MP and Gen SirJohn Wilsely all refute your's and Mark's version of events.
Who should we believe?

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

Tony Blair would say that, because he knows the turning point in the war on terror came in 1987, when his party was only the opposition party in parliament. 1987 was the turning point because the IRA got 3 massive blows that it never recovered from (1) Loughgall (2) Enniskillen, a self inflicted blow which lost them overseas support and it made many Republicans question the need for armed struggle (3)the capture of the gun-running Eksund ship.
New technology in the 90's and so many agents inside the paramilitaries on both sides also played a part in stopping those paramilitaries.

.

You'd have to question whoever made the decision of carrying on with a peace process with an entity that never recovered from something.

Me, I'd just have demanded their unconditional surrender.


Also, I'll just leave these here.


Both images are from the 90s.

Bishopsgate 1993



Canary wharf 1996.


1993 and 1996 were in the 90s I assume?

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

So now they were compromised rather than beaten? This would be easier if you took the wheels off of the goalposts.



So they were beaten but not really beaten? Your fludity with terms seems only to have emerged when you were challenged.

I see your time off from boards hasn't made you less obtuse. You loved splitting hairs then, you love splitting hairs now.

Also, you have not lost your love for putting words into peoples mouths. I did not use the word 'beaten', nor did I use the words 'fatally compromised'. Perhaps you should get some new glasses next time you decide to go off on a huff after closing your account.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, never wanted peace even though they were back channels to the IRA as far back as the 70's and

They were party to Sunningdale in 74,
The Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985
The Downing Street Declaration of 1993,
the Good Friday agreement of 1998

but sure never wanted peace.... flat earther talk if I ever saw one.

This coming from someone who worships at the alter of a party who didn't even recognise the Republic of Ireland till 1986 and targeted Irish soldiers and Gardai during the troubles.

Trying to get what they selfishly wanted is not the same as wanting 'peace'.
They didn't give a damn about 'peace'

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Trying to get what they selfishly wanted is not the same as wanting 'peace'.
They didn't give a damn about 'peace'

You are describing the PIRA campaign of murder and violence very nicely there Francie.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

.

You'd have to question whoever made the decision of carrying on with a peace process with an entity that never recovered from something.

Me, I'd just have demanded their unconditional surrender.


Also, I'll just leave these here.


Both images are from the 90s.

Bishopsgate 1993



Canary wharf 1996.


1993 and 1996 were in the 90s I assume?

Those attacks were strategically pivotal and focused the minds of the British.
As was the refusal to decommission.

Effectively the British were snookered. Refuse to an agreement and the war came to the 'mainland'. A different ballgame for those who wanted 'peace' when it hit their pockets and their backyard.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You are describing the PIRA campaign of murder and violence very nicely there Francie.

Was someone talking about glasses?.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those attacks were strategically pivotal and focused the minds of the British.
As was the refusal to decommission.

Effectively the British were snookered. Refuse to an agreement and the war came to the 'mainland'. A different ballgame for those who wanted 'peace' when it hit their pockets and their backyard.

Bombs had been going off in the mainland from the 1970's. The only thing it focused minds on was the utter disregard for human life the PIRA exhibited. The fact that you are here, advocating this strategy speaks volumes.

It was left to Omagh (which the PIRA were culpable for) to make even the PIRA leadership realise that the war is done.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Bombs had been going off in the mainland from the 1970's. The only thing it focused minds on was the utter disregard for human life the PIRA exhibited. The fact that you are here, advocating this strategy speaks volumes.

It was left to Omagh (which the PIRA were culpable for) to make even the PIRA leadership realise that the war is done.

I am not 'advocating' anything and you can cut out the scurrilous insinuations.

These bombs were specifically targeted to make a point and to clearly signpost where the IRA would focus next.

And as we know it worked.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not 'advocating' anything and you can cut out the scurrilous insinuations.

These bombs were specifically targeted to make a point and to clearly signpost where the IRA would focus next.

And as we know it worked.

Who is 'we'? You? Oh, OK so. We will take your word for it then.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Who is 'we'? You? Oh, OK so. We will take your word for it then.

If you are naive enough to believe that the British, believing they had 'the IRA defeated, compromised, tied in pink ribbon', signed a deal without the arms decommissioned, you shouldn't be on the internet on your own to be honest.

The IRA made pivotal strategic attacks to move the process. They had the bargaining chips and used them.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are naive enough to believe that the British, believing they had 'the IRA defeated, compromised, tied in pink ribbon', signed a deal without the arms decommissioned, you shouldn't be on the internet on your own to be honest.

The IRA made pivotal strategic attacks to move the process. They had the bargaining chips and used them.

Last sting of a dying wasp I think. They knew the game was up. They had more members in jail or acting as agents for the British than actually engaging in their little war.

Omagh ended it all and 9/11 sealed the deal if any of them wanted to resurrect the old ideas of the struggle.

To repeat, the PIRA did not get their prime objective, the British did. By those terms they lost. As Peter Taylor put it in 2014, the Union is secure and part of Britain and the IRA is no more. Therefore the Unionists won. He also left it open that a UI is a possibility as no one can see the future.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Bombs had been going off in the mainland from the 1970's.

There was a change of strategy in the 1990's, the Provos started going after the economy of Britain and it did cause a lot of concern.

After the Bishopsgate Bomb in London:

The huge payouts by insurance companies contributed to a crisis in the industry, including the near-collapse of the world's leading insurance market, Lloyd's of London.

bbc.co.uk

Quite simply the PIRA bombed the British to the table. The talks had stalled on decommissioning until February 9th 1996 when the Docklands bomb went off. On 28 February, John Major, John Bruton the Taoiseach announced that all-party talks would be resumed in June.

Major's decision of dropping the demand of a previous IRA decommissioning of weapons led to criticism from the press, which accused him of being "bombed to the table"

..and forced them to bring unionism to heel.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Last sting of a dying wasp I think. They knew the game was up. They had more members in jail or acting as agents for the British than actually engaging in their little war.

Omagh ended it all and 9/11 sealed the deal if any of them wanted to resurrect the old ideas of the struggle.

To repeat, the PIRA did not get their prime objective, the British did. By those terms they lost. As Peter Taylor put it in 2014, the Union is secure and part of Britain and the IRA is no more. Therefore the Unionists won. He also left it open that a UI is a possibility as no one can see the future.

You are naively deluded young man (I suspect the rashness of youth here)

Omagh was the dissidents attempt to wreck what the IRA had achieved.

The idea that the British did a deal with a still armed group that could wreck any of their cities at any time, because they thought they had 'defeated them' is just ill informed whimsy.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

The PIRA did not get their prime objective

That's largely true. As for the goal of Irish Republicans? It's too soon to say.

the British did.

Nope, the goal of the British was to defeat the IRA.

By those terms they lost. As Peter Taylor put it in 2014, the Union is secure and part of Britain and the IRA is no more.

Part of Britain? Don't be ridiculous. The north is currently under British jurisdiction subject to change in the GFA. The north is a contested region.

Therefore the Unionists won.

Won what exactly? A trophy?

As Denis Bradley said last night on The View [paraphrasing] 'I've never seen Nationalism so comfortable with itself and Unionism so unsettled'.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nope, the goal of the British was to defeat the IRA.

The IRA are no more, therefore technically they won that goal.

Part of Britain? Don't be ridiculous. The north is currently under British jurisdiction subject to change in the GFA. The north is a contested region.

Contested by whom exactly? Finland?

Mainland Britain would get rid of the place tomorrow if they could. Most Irish would baulk at the cost of a UI. We cant even get ourselves to pay for water, yet we are going to stump up Billions upon billions to carry the North. NI is like pass the parcel, no one really wants it.

Won what exactly? A trophy?

The war.

FrancieBrady

Is this an episode of Cycle's Apprentice?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

The IRA are no more, therefore technically they won that goal.

Will you guys make up your minds? What happened to the whole SF/IRA shtick?

Contested by whom exactly?

The people living there, the Irish political parties, and the goal of a United Ireland is codified in the constitution: 'It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland'.

Most Irish would baulk at the cost of a UI.

If we were to take it on with all its issues overnight and alone? Perhaps, but that's not how it will happen.

The war.

Nobody won the conflict. It was a terrible waste of life and cause of misery. This whole 'we won' thing is incredibly childish.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If we were to take it on with all its issues overnight and alone? Perhaps, but that's not how it will happen.

So how would it happen?

*Tumbleweed*

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

So how would it happen?

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight and it certainly wouldn't be the sole responsibility of Dublin.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So how would it happen?

*Tumbleweed*

I know Cycle would never answer this question and would deflect for Ireland, maybe you could.

We know all sides did some awful things, the state being the responsible party - probably did the worst, in terms of what their duty and responsibility was.

In light of that, why are you so desperate for the 'British to have 'won'?

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Last sting of a dying wasp I think. They knew the game was up. They had more members in jail or acting as agents for the British than actually engaging in their little war.

Omagh ended it all and 9/11 sealed the deal if any of them wanted to resurrect the old ideas of the struggle.

To repeat, the PIRA did not get their prime objective, the British did. By those terms they lost. As Peter Taylor put it in 2014, the Union is secure and part of Britain and the IRA is no more. Therefore the Unionists won. He also left it open that a UI is a possibility as no one can see the future.

Mark, I assume you took my advice and brushed up on your knowledge ref the conflict in the north, because the last last time I seen you partake in a troubles related thread, you were quite certain that the DUP "had no links to paramilitaries" - what a shattering that delusion suffered.

I'll give you a B for the effort , but D for what you learnt.

Junkyard Tom

Here another one for Marko and the readers of the thread:

The DUP's Peter Robinson refusing to condemn the UDA and UVF and in fact describing them as 'counter-terrorists' despite their record of murdering almost exclusively innocent Catholics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAWLo9OJXg

cycle4fun

Hi Francie, nobody is "desperate" for the 'British to have 'won', it is just a fact that the paramilitaries had to have their weapons and explosives put beyond use, and are no more. The PIRA wanted a United Ireland, is if no closer than the day in the early seventies when the government held a referendum in N. Ireland asking people did they wish to remain part of the UK or not. Everyone was entitled to vote: Catholic, Protestant, Agnostic, Jew, whoever. The Armed struggle failed in its objective of a "United Ireland." People who wanted peace, like the British and most Irish people, won. But many paid a huge price, thousands dead, economy destroyed by bombings etc and tens of thousands injured.

kingbhome

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always said they would probably go after Adams as soon as he retired. I'd imagine this is the first shots across the bow.
Just what is needed in northern Ireland now.

.

Do you think Adams wont expect this. He'll have a few lbs of semtex hide away ready for a wee scare if they do. That man aint daft and will have something to protect him.

kingbhome

markodaly wrote: »

The IRA are no more, therefore technically they won that goal.

That aint 100% true. The leadership hasnt disbanded. There is that possibilty that they can start all over again and dont believe that all them weapons where disbanded.

kingbhome

cycle4fun wrote: »

Hi Francie, nobody is "desperate" for the 'British to have 'won', it is just a fact that the paramilitaries had to have their weapons and explosives put beyond use, and are no more.

.

do you really believe this!

cycle4fun

The dissidents may have got their hands on a small amount, but if you remember, at the decommissioning it was reported "IRA members present at the decommissioning admitted that all their weapons had been put beyond use. "This time when we said to them, 'Is this everything?' they said: 'Yes.'"

A statement released by the IRA read: "The leadership of Oglaigh na h-Eireann announced on July 28 that we had authorised our representative to engage with the IICD to complete the process to verifiably put arms beyond use.

"The IRA leadership can now confirm that the process of putting our arms verifiably beyond use has been completed."

Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Féin chief negotiator, said earlier that the announcement would "bring the final chapter on the issue" of the IRA's weapons.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

The dissidents may have got their hands on a small amount, but if you remember, at the decommissioning it was reported "IRA members present at the decommissioning admitted that all their weapons had been put beyond use. "This time when we said to them, 'Is this everything?' they said: 'Yes.'"

A statement released by the IRA read: "The leadership of Oglaigh na h-Eireann announced on July 28 that we had authorised our representative to engage with the IICD to complete the process to verifiably put arms beyond use.

"The IRA leadership can now confirm that the process of putting our arms verifiably beyond use has been completed."

Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Féin chief negotiator, said earlier that the announcement would "bring the final chapter on the issue" of the IRA's weapons.

What is your point on this?

Decommissioning was just a sop. Like the secured border was just a sop to Unionists. Neither really meant that much.
The IRA achieved an agreement and honoured it.

kingbhome

cycle4fun wrote: »

The dissidents may have got their hands on a small amount, but if you remember, at the decommissioning it was reported "IRA members present at the decommissioning admitted that all their weapons had been put beyond use. "This time when we said to them, 'Is this everything?' they said: 'Yes.'"

A statement released by the IRA read: "The leadership of Oglaigh na h-Eireann announced on July 28 that we had authorised our representative to engage with the IICD to complete the process to verifiably put arms beyond use.

"The IRA leadership can now confirm that the process of putting our arms verifiably beyond use has been completed."

Martin McGuinness, the Sinn Féin chief negotiator, said earlier that the announcement would "bring the final chapter on the issue" of the IRA's weapons.

Do you really believe them thou lol. This is from people who committed murder and where one of the best guerrilla groups world wide. And from Gerry who was never a member of the IRA. Do you honestly believe that the IRA put ALL their weapons beyond use. Me, not a chance in hell they did. they where negotiating with the might of the british empire, they are corrupt as anyting that has ever walked this earth. I know us irish are daft, but we arent that daft to put them arms beyond use.

cycle4fun

kingbhome wrote: »

Do you really believe them thou.

Well, they said they did, and according to all sources, they did. It appears all the government sources, sources from within the movements and intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.

Even Francie says

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA achieved an agreement and honoured it.

There were John de Chastelain and other witnesses to the decommissioning / destroying / putting of arms and explosives beyond use.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Well, they said they did, and according to all sources, they did. It appears all the government sources, sources from within the movements and intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.

Even Francie says

There were John de Chastelain and other witnesses to the decommissioning / destroying / putting of arms and explosives beyond use.

And we still don't know what your point is. Have you decommissioned it?

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we still don't know what your point is.

I was answering kingbohme who asked "Do you really believe them"

maccored

Red_Wake wrote: »

In what sense is there no peace?

the simple fact that voters are now either one extreme or another. Plus when was the last time you went for a walk around a northern town at night? last time I was home the place was more dangerous that it was during the 80s. then you have the looming brexit, its hard border and the fact that the dissidents are better equipped and organised now than ever before. When it all kicks off again, I'll refer you to your post above.

cycle4fun

maccored wrote: »

the simple fact that voters are now either one extreme or another. Plus when was the last time you went for a walk around a northern town at night? last time I was home the place was more dangerous that it was during the 80s. then you have the looming brexit, its hard border and the fact that the dissidents are better equipped and organised now than ever before. When it all kicks off again, I'll refer you to your post above.

Definitely no United Ireland in our lifetime so, we would be mad to try to take on a place like that.