Stakeknife Arrested.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

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

Your tying yourself up in knots.

Silly me. I'd have thought that a party that was peaceful would not be a participant/player in a conflict/war.

Which is what I was talking about. You can vent away on your own about something you didn't understand.

cycle4fun

You are tying yourself up in knots there again Francie. The "constitutional" parties like the SDLP and the unionist parties did not have politicians who were also paramilitaries. Most people wanted peace. The people behind the "armed struggle" did not want peace, their aim was to kill people and destroy the economy ("economic targets") in order to try to get a "United Ireland". It was in the governments interests and most peoples interests to have peace, that is why they wanted it.

blanch152

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.

There is no evidence that the British didn't want peace, that is complete and utter nonsense. Not surprising and not unexpected, but nonsense all the same.

Of course the nutters and sociopaths on both sides of the divide were delighted to have an opportunity to commit violence in a "just" cause, but excuses for their violent nature was all it was.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Silly me. I'd have thought that a party that was peaceful would not be a participant/player in a conflict/war.

Which is what I was talking about. You can vent away on your own about something you didn't understand.

There wasn't a conflict or a war in the normal sense of the words. There was an illegal, violent, criminal, terrorist organisation, full of sociopaths and psychopaths engaged on a programme of committing sectarian violence, matched on the other side by similar organisations. That isn't a conflict, that is illegality.

There was no legitimacy to the IRA campaign, none at all.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There wasn't a conflict or a war in the normal sense of the words. There was an illegal, violent, criminal, terrorist organisation, full of sociopaths and psychopaths engaged on a programme of committing sectarian violence, matched on the other side by similar organisations. That isn't a conflict, that is illegality.

There was no legitimacy to the IRA campaign, none at all.

Have you told the HSE that the way to cure psychopaths and sociopaths is to sign internationally binding agreements?

No matter what you say/spin it the IRA endorsed the agreement when they were satisfied and the conflict/war stopped.
I admire that much about them.

cycle4fun

blanch152 wrote: »

There wasn't a conflict or a war in the normal sense of the words. There was an illegal, violent, criminal, terrorist organisation, full of sociopaths and psychopaths engaged on a programme of committing sectarian violence, matched on the other side by similar organisations. That isn't a conflict, that is illegality.

There was no legitimacy to the IRA campaign, none at all.

Correct. The PIRA killed hundreds of civilians and people in pubs, hotels, bars, restaurants, memorial services, shopping centres
etc, and the only difference between that and the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers is one of scale. After 9/11 people in the western world have had little time for terrorism.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No matter what you say/spin it the IRA endorsed the agreement when they were satisfied and the conflict/war stopped.
I admire that much about them.

No matter how you spin it, it was the paramilitaries who decided to carry out the "armed struggle" so when they decided to stop it and allow their weapons and explosives to be destroyed / put beyond use, then of course the "conflict/war" as you call it ( others would call it terrorism ) stopped.

I suppose if someone kept terrorising you, setting off explosions etc, and then they decided to stop terrorising you and they endorse an agreement to be law abiding in future, you would " admire that much about them."

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Correct. The PIRA killed hundreds of civilians and people in pubs, hotels, bars, restaurants, memorial services, shopping centres
etc, and the only difference between that and the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers is one of scale. After 9/11 people in the western world have had little time for terrorism.



No matter how you spin it, it was the paramilitaries who decided to carry out the "armed struggle" so when they decided to stop it and allow their weapons and explosives to be destroyed / put beyond use, then of course the "conflict/war" as you call it ( others would call it terrorism ) stopped.

I suppose if someone kept terrorising you, setting off explosions etc, and then they decided to stop terrorising you and they endorse an agreement to be law abiding in future, you would " admire that much about them."

Of course there was no state violence, suppression etc before the IRA came on the scene in 69 was there Cycle?

All started when Gerry decided to get mad...eh?

cycle4fun

There was always a bit of trouble. For example, during the Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a guerrilla warfare campaign (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the IRA against targets in Northern Ireland, the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. I suppose it was the fault of the state that the six RUC members died and 32 RUC members were wounded? Things like the Border Campaign further alienated the larger unionist population in Northern Ireland in the 60's. There were mistakes on both sides, and no justification for the armed struggle which cost thousands of lives and achieved nothing that would not have happened anyway.

FrancieBrady

a bit of trouble

Ah well sure. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


No more of the nonsense cycle.

Esel

"Bring back Mary!"

"She hasn't gone away, you know."

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah well sure. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


No more of the nonsense cycle.

You cannot deny there was wrongdoing and illegal activity from extremists on both sides.

Torcaill

Stakeknife no more!!

https://www.independent.ie/news/freddie-scappaticci-informer-and-ira-torturer-known-as-stakeknife-dies-42427966.html