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
1234689

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.




    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    makes me laugh that people think theres peace


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    maccored wrote: »
    makes me laugh that people think theres peace
    In what sense is there no peace?


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭brainfreeze


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

    "Nobody won the war". - Tony Blair.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


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


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭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
    an-ira-bomb-destroyed-the-hong-kong-and-shanghai-bank-in-the-city-of-london-136397727249803901-150423170204.jpg


    Canary wharf 1996.
    2016-02-01_new_16526465_I1.JPG

    1993 and 1996 were in the 90s I assume?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭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'


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    .

    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
    an-ira-bomb-destroyed-the-hong-kong-and-shanghai-bank-in-the-city-of-london-136397727249803901-150423170204.jpg


    Canary wharf 1996.
    2016-02-01_new_16526465_I1.JPG

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    You are describing the PIRA campaign of murder and violence very nicely there Francie.

    Was someone talking about glasses?.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Who is 'we'? You? Oh, OK so. We will take your word for it then. :D

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,514 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭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.

    ireland-1.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,804 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭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'.


Advertisement