Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stakeknife Arrested.

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,785 ✭✭✭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.'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,785 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Odhinn wrote: »
    But you had that with total victory

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


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


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

    Endlessly humourous.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun



    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Watched a documentary about Scappaticci last week if anyone is interested



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,512 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


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

    Oh christ, I weep for you Francie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.
    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".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


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

    Charming.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,803 ✭✭✭✭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!


Advertisement