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
12345679»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.


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


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


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


    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.


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


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


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


    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.


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


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


    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.


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,831 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,831 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.
    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."


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭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.


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


    a bit of trouble

    Ah well sure. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


    No more of the nonsense cycle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,262 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    "Bring back Mary!"

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

    Not your ornery onager



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    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.


Advertisement