Stakeknife Arrested.

kingbhome

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.

I know they said they did but this is a bunch of people who wouldnt be classed as honourable when asked for the truth. Sure ask gery was he ever in the IRA should be enough to know they arent always telling the truth. I wouldnt blame them for holding onto some of them thou just as a wee warning here and there. Sure wasnt a small piece of semtex found in a car in andytown when adams was lifted for the mcconville murder. Not much was made of it at the time but to me, that was a wee warning, they semtex is still there so dont **** with us statement. There is also game of chess behind the scenes we dont know off getting played.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

........................ I did not use the word 'beaten', nor did I use the words 'fatally compromised'.................

So what is it you're saying exactly, just so we're clear?

cycle4fun

kingbhome wrote: »

I know they said they did but this is a bunch of people who wouldnt be classed as honourable when asked for the truth.

That is why we relied on the word of John de Chastelain and witnesses like the clergy from both sides. I would be extremely surprised if M15/MI6 did not keep an eye on things too. Plus the informers were another source.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

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

I have no doubt you would hate to see a UI for fear it might upset a Brit or two but are you just introducing these topics to convince yourself of something?

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no doubt you would hate to see a UI for fear it might upset a Brit or two

A "Brit or two" gets upset over something every second of the day, no skin off my nose, I could not care less. The point I made was because N.Ireland is so polarised, with extremists on both sides, as well as being such a basket case financially, our little country here with only a few million taxpayers would be mad to take it over.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

but are you just introducing these topics to convince yourself of something?

I did not introduce the topic, the OP did.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

A "Brit or two" gets upset over something every second of the day, no skin off my nose, I could not care less. The point I made was because N.Ireland is so polarised, with extremists on both sides, as well as being such a basket case financially, our little country here with only a few million taxpayers would be mad to take it over.



I did not introduce the topic, the OP did.

Nobody will be 'taking over' anywhere. The British did that and look what happened.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody will be 'taking over' anywhere. The British did that and look what happened.

And in the last referendum there, in the early seventies, and everyone was entitled to vote, 99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain. Even though turnout was the same approx as we get in elections and referendums here, there was a nationalist boycott. Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott of the vote to stop an escalation in violence...and where did the violence come from? Quote "The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings.[3] Two days before the referendum a British soldier, Guardsman Anton Brown of the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.[3]

In response to the referendum, the Provisional Irish Republican Army planted four car bombs in London that day, two of which went off, causing one death and injuring 200"

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

And in the last referendum there, in the early seventies, and everyone was entitled to vote, 99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain. Even though turnout was the same approx as we get in elections and referendums here, there was a nationalist boycott. Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott of the vote to stop an escalation in violence...and where did the violence come from? Quote "The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings.[3] Two days before the referendum a British soldier, Guardsman Anton Brown of the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.[3]

In response to the referendum, the Provisional Irish Republican Army planted four car bombs in London that day, two of which went off, causing one death and injuring 200"

The 'referendum' you, in a minority of one, think was significant. :rolleyes:

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'referendum' you, in a minority of one, think was significant. :rolleyes:

When the majority of the people in N.Ireland voted in it, and the vote was a slap in the face for your paramilitaries idols who were murdering people on an almost weekly basis ( not unlike the 7th of July 2005 bombing in London ), yes, it is significant you ignore it. Pity they did not embrace the ballot box then in 1973, as was open to them, instead of waiting a few decades and a lot of lives would have been saved.

markodaly

Shows how both the British Intelligence agencies and the leadership of the IRA/Sinn Fein are both complicit in this issue.

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

And in the last referendum there, in the early seventies, and everyone was entitled to vote, 99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain. Even though turnout was the same approx as we get in elections and referendums here, there was a nationalist boycott. Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott of the vote to stop an escalation in violence...and where did the violence come from? Quote "The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings.[3] Two days before the referendum a British soldier, Guardsman Anton Brown of the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.[3]

In response to the referendum, the Provisional Irish Republican Army planted four car bombs in London that day, two of which went off, causing one death and injuring 200"

Horse manure. I'm actually embarrassed for you (though not surprised) that you would actually type out such unadulterated crap and try to present it as fact .

But go on. I'll humour you and ask for a source.

McMurphy

Dear Marko

markodaly wrote: »

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

Make up your mind.

markodaly wrote: »

Shows how both the British Intelligence agencies and the leadership of the IRA/Sinn Fein are both complicit in this issue.

Regards Johnny Dogs.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

When the majority of the people in N.Ireland voted in it, and the vote was a slap in the face for your paramilitaries idols who were murdering people on an almost weekly basis ( not unlike the 7th of July 2005 bombing in London ), yes, it is significant you ignore it. Pity they did not embrace the ballot box then in 1973, as was open to them, instead of waiting a few decades and a lot of lives would have been saved.

About a year and a half ago a poster called Maryishere discovered that referendum (long since forgotten by anybody with a serious interest in Irish politics, including Unionists) when she was looking for anything at all to throw at the nationalist people in NI.

As Mary has seemingly left this parish you are in a minority of one continuing to state that this ref has any significance at all.

It was only when the IRA eventually forced the British to negotiate with them that an agreement that could hold (because it involved everyone) was thrashed out.

cycle4fun

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Horse manure. I'm actually embarrassed for you (though not surprised) that you would actually type out such unadulterated crap and try to present it as fact .

But go on. I'll humour you and ask for a source.

Not horse manure. There was a border poll in N. Ireland in 1973 in which everyone (of voting age) was eligible to vote. In your side of history you were not taught about it but it did happen, and the democratic route was there for those who wanted to avail of it.

Quote"The Northern Ireland border poll was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. "

Many nationalists however choose to boycott it, sometimes with intimidation and violence, even though they were fully entitled to vote.
"Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott of the vote to stop an escalation in violence.[2]

The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings.[3] Two days before the referendum a British soldier, Guardsman Anton Brown of the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.[3]

In response to the referendum, the Provisional Irish Republican Army planted four car bombs in London that day, two of which went off, causing one death and injuring 200."

Result: 98.9% of voters answered yes to "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

Only 1.1% of voters answered yes to "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"


The turnout was 58.7% of the electorate, and figure not very different from elections and referendums here, despite the so called nationalist boycott up north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_border_poll,_1973

A lot of people think it quite significant that Extremist Republicans ignore the efforts the British Government made in the seventies to stop the violence ( like inviting Gerry Adams and co to London for talks) and the border poll, but instead the republican movement continued with its "armed struggle" for another few decades. Most people during the troubles in N. Ireland wanted peace and were decent people.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Dear Marko

Make up your mind.


Regards Johnny Dogs.

As Tony Blair would say, Sinn Fein are the IRA, when he sat down and talked to them he was talking to the Republican leadership. The difference is that one is a terrorist organisation, the other is a political party.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

A lot of people think it quite significant that Extremist Republicans ignore the efforts the British Government made in the seventies to stop the violence ( like inviting Gerry Adams and co to London for talks) and the border poll, but instead the republican movement continued with its "armed struggle" for another few decades. Most people during the troubles in N. Ireland wanted peace and were decent people.

Good grief.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You do know that the upshot of that referendum was The Sunningdale agreement?

Which was shattered by militant Unionism with the aid of the British??

There was never going to be an Agreement acceptable to nationalists until the IRA and their political wing SF were calling the shots on behalf of those nationalists.
And they have been rewarding SF with power ever since the GFA was achieved.

It is time you and a few others got over it, 20 years after it happened.

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

Not horse manure. There was a border poll in N. Ireland in 1973 in which everyone (of voting age) was eligible to vote. In your side of history you were not taught about it but it did happen, and the democratic route was there for those who wanted to avail of it.

Quote"The Northern Ireland border poll was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. "

Many nationalists however choose to boycott it, sometimes with intimidation and violence, even though they were fully entitled to vote.
"Gerry Fitt, leader of the SDLP, said he had organised a boycott of the vote to stop an escalation in violence.[2]

The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings.[3] Two days before the referendum a British soldier, Guardsman Anton Brown of the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.[3]

In response to the referendum, the Provisional Irish Republican Army planted four car bombs in London that day, two of which went off, causing one death and injuring 200."

Result: 98.9% of voters answered yes to "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

Only 1.1% of voters answered yes to "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"


The turnout was 58.7% of the electorate, and figure not very different from elections and referendums here, despite the so called nationalist boycott up north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_border_poll,_1973

A lot of people think it quite significant that Extremist Republicans ignore the efforts the British Government made in the seventies to stop the violence ( like inviting Gerry Adams and co to London for talks) and the border poll, but instead the republican movement continued with its "armed struggle" for another few decades. Most people during the troubles in N. Ireland wanted peace and were decent people.

Like I said - horse manure.

This is what you posted right?

99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK

Jumpers for goalposts.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was never going to be an Agreement acceptable to nationalists until the IRA and their political wing SF were calling the shots on behalf of those nationalists.

And during the troubles most nationalists did not vote for Sinn Fein, the SDLP for example got more votes during the troubles. And the Unionists got a lot more still than the nationalists combined. Pity the extremist Republicans did not put away their guns and explosives in 1973, instead they continued their "Armed struggle" for a "united Ireland".

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Like I said - horse manure.

This is what you posted right?



Jumpers for goalposts.

I think Cycle genuinely believes he/she can pull the wool over peoples eyes with that.

Less than 1% of Catholics voted because they seen it for the sham it was and a pathetic attempt to solidify British rule. As this poster shows, they were on to them from the get go.

cycle4fun

cycle4fun wrote: »

There was a border poll in N. Ireland in 1973.............

Which nobody cares about but you it seems. It's an utterly inaccurate barometer of opinion at that time, and to attach any credibility to it some 45 yrs later reflects more on the silliness of your opinion here re this.

cycle4fun

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This is what you posted right?
Jumpers for goalposts.

I said "everyone was entitled to vote, 99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain" meaning 99% of the population who voted "wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain"

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Less than 1% of Catholics voted

Not true. One person thought only 1% of Catholics voted but he had no scientific survey or reasoning for that.

Then as now there is no reason to suggest support among Catholics for remaining in the UK is not well in the double digits.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

And during the troubles most nationalists did not vote for Sinn Fein, the SDLP for example got more votes during the troubles. And the Unionists got a lot more still than the nationalists combined. Pity the extremist Republicans did not put away their guns and explosives in 1973, instead they continued their "Armed struggle" for a "united Ireland".

And there are plenty of reasons why SF's electoral machine never got up to speed during those years. Not least the vilification campaign that is still going today.

'It's a pity' the British didn't come to the table with everyone in 1969 isn't it and waited 30 years until they were forced to?


2 can play the 'it's a pity' game.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Not true. One person thought only 1% of Catholics voted but he had no scientific survey or reasoning for that.

Then as now there is no reason to suggest support among Catholics for remaining in the UK is not well in the double digits.

The turn out was reported to be 59% of the 1,030,084 electorate, although less then 1% of Catholics voted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm

Read the whole article, your bull**** about the bombs in London being about the poll is undermined too by the British themselves.

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

I said "everyone was entitled to vote, 99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain" meaning 99% of the population who voted "wanted to stay part of the UK / united with Britain"

And I said unadulterated crap.

Once again and for clarity you posted this

99% of the population wanted to stay part of the UK

Now to anyone with an ounce of sense, that would indicate that 99% of everyone living in the north at that time voted to remain in the union. Wheras now you seem to be saying it was 99% of those that didn't boycott it.

I seem to recall a poster (maybe you, or another poster maryishere) that continually championed Lord Gerry Fitt, and reminded us in the thread how he and other nationalists called for a boycott of the poll.

So it'd be fair to assume that unionists polled voted to remain in the union.

Stop with the disingenuous posting. It only solidifies your twisted and bitter appearance on these kind of threads.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And there are plenty of reasons why SF's electoral machine never got up to speed during those years.

Because they had not enough support. SF never got any MP's elected during the troubles until the 80's, for example.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'It's a pity' the British didn't come to the table with everyone in 1969 isn't it and waited 30 years until they were forced to?

They were at the table in the early seventies when they invited Gerry and his comrades to London for talks but the Republican movement vowed to keep up the armed struggle until the "Brits got out".

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Because they had not enough support. SF never got any MP's elected during the troubles until the 80's, for example.


They were at the table in the early seventies when they invited Gerry and his comrades to London for talks but the Republican movement vowed to keep up the armed struggle until the "Brits got out".

Because whatever was on offer was not enough?

Both sides were rejecting 'peace'. The UNionists by destroying Sunningdale with the aid of the British and Nationalists also rejecting it.

Conflict/war will and has always continued in those circumstances.

Ask yourself who conceded ground for the GFA to come into effect.

I suggest you look towards those who objected most violently and vociferously to it and to this day, do not accept it.
They are your 'losers'.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because whatever was on offer was not enough?

Correct, Peace was on offer but it was not enough. Extremist Republicans wanted to continue the "Armed Struggle" until "Brits Out".

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Correct, Peace was on offer but it was not enough. Extremist Republicans wanted to continue the "Armed Struggle" until "Brits Out".

Nobody wanted 'peace'.

It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Peace came when one side conceded enough.

Now off you go to google and educate yourself on who conceded. It will be the side that kicked against the agreement the most, the same side that kicked against the Sunningdale Agreement.

And the people who achieved that will be the ones being rewarded with power since.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody wanted 'peace'.

Most people wanted peace. They did not want bombings and shootings. Educate yourself.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Most people wanted peace. They did not want bombings and shootings. Educate yourself.

Off course everyone wanted peace. They are normal people like me and you.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

nobody wanted peace.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Off course everyone wanted peace.

About as consistent as a Sinn Fein spokesperson.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

About as consistent as a Sinn Fein spokesperson.

We were talking about the 'people' not the players in the conflict which I was referring to earlier. Not a very mature response there Cycle and a complete capitulation to the point made.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We were talking about the 'people'

You were talking about "nobody wanted peace" and in the next sentence "everyone wanted peace" when I pulled you up on that. The majority of people, and the governments they elected, wanted peace. Most people and their governments did not like seeing people shot, shops and pubs and restaurants bombed etc. It is clear that your players did not want peace, as they vowed to pursue the "armed struggle" until "Brit out".

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

You were talking about "nobody wanted peace" and in the next sentence "everyone wanted peace" when I pulled you up on that. The majority of people, and the governments they elected, wanted peace. Most people and their governments did not like seeing people shot, shops and pubs and restaurants bombed etc. It is clear that your players did not want peace, as they vowed to pursue the "armed struggle" until "Brit out".

Yeh, right, Now you have passed into delusion. How could a government whose agencies were colluding and active in the conflict have wanted 'peace'.

Yes they wanted a victory, which is not the same thing. Ask any one of the victims of those who died as a result of collusion or direct action by the British.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, right, Now you have passed into delusion. How could a government whose agencies were colluding and active in the conflict have wanted 'peace'.

Our government did want peace. If you leave out the collusion you speak of (as confirmed in the Smithwick tribunal) and perhaps the Arms trial individuals, all other government figures did want peace. Do not forget Republic paramilitaries killed everyone from Gardai to a Fine Gael politician to an Irish army soldier.

The unrest in the troubles also cost the UK government dearly, more than a few MP's were murdered and family members injured. Not to mention the economic cost of thousands of explosions, have its employees and civilians targetted and killed etc. Businessmen were killed and kidnapped. Shops, pubs, hotels bombed. No government wants that in its jurisdiction.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Our government did want peace. If you leave out the collusion you speak of (as confirmed in the Smithwick tribunal) and perhaps the Arms trial individuals, all other government figures did want peace.
The unrest in the troubles cost the UK government dearly, more than a few MP's were murdered and family members injured. Not to mention the economic cost of thousands of explosions, have its employees and civilians targetted and killed etc. No government wants that in its jurisdiction.

They wanted their selfish interests to be met. That is not 'peace'.

Peace was only achieved when they conceded that people had all the rights enshrined in the GFA and when they conceded no selfish or strategic interest here anymore. And that they would withdraw when a majority decide.

That is why the Unionists in power never signed up to it and voiciferously and violently opposed the agreement.

The actual evidence for that is massively stacked against you.

BalcombeSt4

piplip87 wrote: »

Yes he would have information on what the British knew about IRA bombings before they happened but it does not excuse the scumbags who planted said bombs.

Will he out Adams as a fellow informer I wonder

I believe he was an informer along with Marty & Bell & co in the sense that by the midd 80's he was tired with the armed struggle and wanted to go a poltical path. But to do so he needed to clear the way of people who wanted to split from the Provos and form their own movement especially in Tyrone with the likes of Padraig McKearney, Jim Lynagh, Kevin Barry O'Donnell, Pete Ryan etc... so the leadership passed info on to British Int to have them executed so Gerry could swan the world as a peace maker by having his own so called comrades killed.
Brendan Hughes had a sort of similar story about Kevin Fulton (I think that was his name) who supplied houses to top IRA men in Belfast in the late 80's & when Hughes looked into Fultons background he found out all the houses supplied by Fulton were bugged. Hughes wanted to question Fulton but by the time he could get to him Fulton was already killed to protect agents, probably Stakeknife killed him himself.

FrancieBrady

This sounds like someone posting here:

"The reason she didn't want them to be heard was because they mostly concerned state killings; she thought there was too much attention being paid to state killings, she wanted more attention paid to victims of paramilitary killings.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dups-arlene-foster-unlawfully-blocked-legacy-funding-discussion-as-it-could-rewrite-the-past-court-hears-36542401.html

BalcombeSt4

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And I said unadulterated crap.

Once again and for clarity you posted this

Now to anyone with an ounce of sense, that would indicate that 99% of everyone living in the north at that time voted to remain in the union. Wheras now you seem to be saying it was 99% of those that didn't boycott it.

I seem to recall a poster (maybe you, or another poster maryishere) that continually championed Lord Gerry Fitt, and reminded us in the thread how he and other nationalists called for a boycott of the poll.

So it'd be fair to assume that unionists polled voted to remain in the union.

Stop with the disingenuous posting. It only solidifies your twisted and bitter appearance on these kind of threads.

He's another hypocrite who tried to wash his hands of blood. Along with Currie and Saint Hume.

In 1968 in a speech Fitt said

'If constitutional methods do not bring social justice; if they do not bring democracy to the North, then I am quite prepared to go outside constitutional methods.

When they sit up the Assembly & Council of Ireland in 73 these "men of the people" quickly changed their tune.

...and until things happened, the people witheld rent because of internment. And Mister Currie, Mister Austin Currie of the SDLP, he encouraged them. And he says now we can win something by withholding rent and rates and so on ... he told them to go ahead and spend it, not save it to pay it back. And people were gullible enough to go and spend their money, not pay any rent. And that went on for over a year ...then you had people being threanthed wwith eviction and Mister Curriewasn't to be seen. After telling people to go and spend the rent, then he told them to start paying it back. And that's the type of politicians we had at that stage."

The Assembly and the Council of Ireland crashed a month after Currie's announcement. And Mister Fitt could be found in Sticks drinking dens along with Mister Goulding & co..

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They wanted their selfish interests to be met.

The governments "selfish" interests was the pursuit of peace. Neither the Irish or British government wanted paramilitary groups engaged in criminal and terrorist activity: it cost both countries dearly. Peace was achieved when the paramilitaries had their weapons and explosives put beyond use / destroyed.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

The governments "selfish" interests was the pursuit of peace. Neither the Irish or British government wanted paramilitary groups engaged in criminal and terrorist activity: it cost both countries dearly. Peace was achieved when the paramilitaries had their weapons and explosives put beyond use / destroyed.

Then why didn't they deliver equality, parity of esteem, the right to self determination, (and everything else won in the GFA) in 1969 before the paramilitaries got involved?

Because the British were only interested in getting what they wanted. They didn't give a damn about 'peace' and had an acceptable level of violence threshold.

McMurphy

Cycle4fun, when called out on your BS, I admire your uncanny ability to refuse to acknowledge posting BS, and immediately go off on another tangent.

Have you ever heard the song tubthumping?

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Cycle4fun, when called out on your BS, I admire your uncanny ability to refuse to acknowledge posting BS, and immediately go off on another tangent.

Have you ever heard the song tubthumping?

The oddest interpretation of the facts of history, the most perverse allegiance to a foreign crown and an unflappable ability to ignore the point being made, to as you say, go off on another rant to denigrate the side she/he hates the most, his/her fellow Irish people.

I think I will let him/her at it. The fun has gone out of it.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The oddest interpretation of the facts of history, the most perverse allegiance to a foreign crown and an unflappable ability to ignore the point being made, to as you say, go off on another rant to denigrate the side she/he hates the most, his/her fellow Irish people.

I think I will let him/her at it. The fun has gone out of it.

Its like debating with an indo article penned by Ruth Dudley Edwards/Paul Williams all rolled into one.

BalcombeSt4

cycle4fun wrote: »

The governments "selfish" interests was the pursuit of peace. Neither the Irish or British government wanted paramilitary groups engaged in criminal and terrorist activity: it cost both countries dearly. Peace was achieved when the paramilitaries had their weapons and explosives put beyond use / destroyed.

Well that;s complete bollox because even people in the Major cabinet said weapons were not a big deal because the majority of the IRA's weapons were homemade & they could just cook them up if they got rid of them, like the bombs for the Docklands & Manchester.

nobody had weapons during the battle of the bogside or the pogroms that followed in Belfast (granted some Loyalists had shotguns in Belfast). Do you want to get rid of stones & petrol as well?

cycle4fun

Rubbish Balcombe st.

You claim "the majority of the IRA's weapons were homemade"...well how come the majority of the many victims of the PIRA were killed by AK47's, semtex etc.

And how many shipments of arms and explosives got in from Libya before the Eksund was caught? Of course the paramilitaries had a lot of arms and explosives. Remember those taunting "sniper at work" signs in south Armagh? Those sniper rifles were not pea-shooters either. And semtex was the preferred explosive for placing under family cars. Yes of course home made explosives were used. But the weapons the paramilitaries could not make (guns etc) were a vital piece of their arsenal.

Peace was achieved when the paramilitaries had their weapons and explosives put beyond use / destroyed. If arms dumps remained intact there was a risk dissidents or others could get their hands on them. The British (and most Irish people) got what they wanted, peace. No governments like seeing their MP's murdered (more than a few were), family members of politicians left seriously injured in wheelchair ( like Norman Tebbitts wife), and their employees and civilians killed. The British or most other people did not like seeing their pubs, restaurants, hotels and shops being bombed. Their industrialists killed. Here in this country we even had people kidnapped, Gardai and a soldier and a Fine Gael politician murdered etc. Of course governments wanted peace.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody wanted 'peace'.

What kind of revisionist flat earth none-sense is this?

The SDLP wanted peace for one, as did the majority of NI.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

What kind of revisionist flat earth none-sense is this?

The SDLP wanted peace for one, as did the majority of NI.

None of the players in the conflict/war, the British, Loyalists, or Republicans wanted peace at that time.

Were the SDLP involved in the conflict/war. I missed that bit, I have to admit and I was 12 in the early 70's.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

None of the players in the conflict/war, the British, Loyalists, or Republicans wanted peace at that time.

Were the SDLP involved in the conflict/war. I missed that bit, I have to admit and I was 12 in the early 70's.

The SDLP were the largest nationalist voice up to the 2000's so yes, they were 'players'.

Your tying yourself up in knots.