How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is commendable Fionn but what is disturbing about the majority of republican posters (for me anyway)is they appear selective about what they consider heinous crimes.To put it bluntly,killing policemen or soldiers(legitimate representatives) does`nt attract the same reaction from them as it does from yourself and the vast majority of people across Ireland and the UK.

I've asked you already Rob, but I'll repeat it. Republicans aren't hive mind, if you want to address or criticise points I'm making, please don't try and use the, 'other Republicans' nonsense. I'm my own person, what other Republicans do or don't think has no bearing on my opinions and is in no way a reasonable criticism of my post.

Regarding the substance of your post, killing policemen, soldiers, Provos or Loyalist paramilitaries absolutely doesn't attract the same response from me as killing innocent civilians, nor should it. Now to be clear, I am not suggesting that it is morally acceptable to kill a soldier, but international law recognises the moral/ethical difference between killing a combatant and a non-combantant.....see the Geneva Convention for example. The vast majority of people across the UK and Ireland would find the killing of civilians worse, despite your protestations to the contrary.

As you've tried to make that part personal to me, can you point out anywhere that I have justified or in any way minimised the killing of anyone in my posts? Otherwise it seems like you're just creating a strawman position that I have never held and trying to argue against that.

Natterjack from Kerry

John explaining the sunny uplands of economic advantage within sight of NI. It will cement the reasonable middle ground to the UK for the long term. Both extremes with be relegated to fringes the majority have no further interest considering at all.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/north-needs-to-recognise-it-can-have-the-best-of-both-worlds-1.4488760

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) On a personal level, perhaps, from a legal and procedural level, absolutely.....from strangers for obviously political reasons? No.

We are pretty much agreed then except for last point. Which I can also accept provided you are consistent and believe strangers should not be pushing for prosecution for obviously political reasons either.

It’s nice to agree on something

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've asked you already Rob, but I'll repeat it. Republicans aren't hive mind, if you want to address or criticise points I'm making, please don't try and use the, 'other Republicans' nonsense. I'm my own person, what other Republicans do or don't think has no bearing on my opinions and is in no way a reasonable criticism of my post.

Regarding the substance of your post, killing policemen, soldiers, Provos or Loyalist paramilitaries absolutely doesn't attract the same response from me as killing innocent civilians, nor should it

Since you are rating murder

Do you see the killing of uninvolved civilians in no warning car bombs or sectarian shootings as even more obscene as killing protesters on an illegal street protest that has broken down into violence?

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've asked you already Rob, but I'll repeat it. Republicans aren't hive mind, if you want to address or criticise points I'm making, please don't try and use the, 'other Republicans' nonsense. I'm my own person, what other Republicans do or don't think has no bearing on my opinions and is in no way a reasonable criticism of my post.

Regarding the substance of your post, killing policemen, soldiers, Provos or Loyalist paramilitaries absolutely doesn't attract the same response from me as killing innocent civilians, nor should it

Since you are rating murder

Do you see the killing of uninvolved civilians in no warning car bombs or sectarian shootings as even more obscene as killing protesters on an illegal street protest that has broken down into violence?

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is commendable Fionn but what is disturbing about the majority of republican posters (for me anyway)is they appear selective about what they consider heinous crimes.To put it bluntly,killing policemen or soldiers(legitimate representatives) does`nt attract the same reaction from them as it does from yourself and the vast majority of people across Ireland and the UK.

Tell us again how you thought Bloody Sunday parts 1 and 2 were justifiable killings?

We're all ears.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Since you are rating murder

Do you see the killing of uninvolved civilians in no warning car bombs or sectarian shootings as even more obscene as killing protesters on an illegal street protest that has broken down into violence?

Putting aside your obvious bias regarding Bloody Sunday, I would rank the killing of non combatants on a par, Downcow. Both are atrocities that should never have happened.

If we wanted to go down the route of picking out differences, we could discuss expecting higher standards from state forces than from terrorists, or unintentional collateral damage versus taking aim at and shooting at a civilian, but I'm pretty happy to just take the line that killing civilians is always unjustifiably wrong and trying to argue about which is worse is splitting hairs.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Tell us again how you thought Bloody Sunday parts 1 and 2 were justifiable killings?

We're all ears.

Bonnie. I am still all ears about whether you apply the description of stone that you commended on here, to ira members?

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Putting aside your obvious bias regarding Bloody Sunday, I would rank the killing of non combatants on a par, Downcow. Both are atrocities that should never have happened.

If we wanted to go down the route of picking out differences, we could discuss expecting higher standards from state forces than from terrorists, or unintentional collateral damage versus taking aim at and shooting at a civilian, but I'm pretty happy to just take the line that killing civilians is always unjustifiably wrong and trying to argue about which is worse is splitting hairs.

Just to be very clear. Are you placing the killing of and off-duty or retired ruc/udr officer in the same category as a civilian?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Just to be very clear. Are you placing the killing of and off-duty or retired ruc/udr officer in the same category as a civilian?

Off duty, probably not. Retired, yes.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Off duty, probably not. Retired, yes.

Fionn. This difference you are making between the murder of ‘civilians’ and the murder of those working for the security services. I have a few simple questions to help me understand what is alien to my thinking.

Do you include those that support the security services ie those that supply equipment?
Do you include those who support them by passing on information?
Do you include those who provide refuge to stranded soldiers / police when detached from their unit in a dangerous area?

downcow

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

He is a good nothing. There is nothing about him but bad. Typical of many of the terrorists of NI, he is just a thug with a predilection for violence and inflicting harm on others. Being able to dress the violence up as motivated by a cause, or justified in some way, is the classic self deception of the fundamentally evil. A vile character.

Bonnie. I am still waiting to here if you attribute the above statement about michael stone, to the average IRA member. You confirmed that you agreed with it in rereference to Stone.
So please don’t duck the questions you don’t like

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn. This difference you are making between the murder of ‘civilians’ and the murder of those working for the security services. I have a few simple questions to help me understand what is alien to my thinking.

Do you include those that support the security services ie those that supply equipment?
Do you include those who support them by passing on information?
Do you include those who provide refuge to stranded soldiers / police when detached from their unit in a dangerous area?

Remember what I said about splitting hairs, Downcow? I'm not going to go through every single example that springs to mind for you. If you have a point to make, do so. This is getting tedious.

To try and get an idea of the point I'm making, consider the Allies during WWII, as I'm sure we can both agree that the Nazi/Axis forces were, 'the Baddies'.

Strategic bombing of Nazi barracks (even when the troops were off duty), munitions factories etc is much easier to morally justify than the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden for example.

If you can understand why people would think the civilian deaths in Dresden were in any way worse than the death of Nazi soldiers not on active duty in a barracks, then my thinking is in no way alien to you.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Remember what I said about splitting hairs, Downcow? I'm not going to go through every single example that springs to mind for you. If you have a point to make, do so. This is getting tedious.

To try and get an idea of the point I'm making, consider the Allies during WWII, as I'm sure we can both agree that the Nazi/Axis forces were, 'the Baddies'.

Strategic bombing of Nazi barracks (even when the troops were off duty), munitions factories etc is much easier to morally justify than the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden for example.

If you can understand why people would think the civilian deaths in Dresden were in any way worse than the death of Nazi soldiers not on active duty in a barracks, then my thinking is in no way alien to you.

My problem is when you suggest that the murder of my neighbour who has committed his life to serving the entire community as best he can as a police officer. He is taking his child to school and the ira (or anyone) shoots him in front of his child.
To try and make that somehow not quite as bad as indiscriminately shooting someone who has just got on with earning money and looking after themselves with not real interest in their fellowmans wellbeing, I find offensive and reprehensible.

It is dangerous territory that the ira used to good effect throughout the troubles.

I hate the term legitimate targets.

I almost felt more compassion for young british soldiers who were reared on the mainland, when they lost their lives here. It felt so unfair that they were not directly involved in the reasons for the conflict but gave their lives

Am I correct that ROI actually place the killing of one of their police officers as more reprehensible and more punishable than the killing of a civilian?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

My problem is when you suggest that the murder of my neighbour who has committed his life to serving the entire community as best he can in ruc or udr. He is taking his child to school and the ira (or anyone) shoots him in front of his child.
To try and make that somehow not quite as bad as indiscriminately shooting someone who has just got on with earning money and looking after themselves with not real interest in their fellowmans wellbeing, I find offensive and reprehensible.

It is dangerous territory that the ira used to good effect throughout the troubles.

I hate the term legitimate targets.

I almost felt more compassion for young british soldiers who were reared on the mainland, when they lost their lives here. It felt so unfair that they were not directly involved in the reasons for the conflict but gave their lives

I did not at any time use the term legitimate target, nor did I say that it was right or moral to shoot your neighbour.

Your choice of language is very telling. If your point stood on its own, you wouldn't need to bring in the obviously emotive language regarding being shot in front of his daughter, trying to paint the average RUC/UDR man as a pillar of society, selfishly sacrificing for the good of his fellow man (realistically most of them were doing in because it was a job, and for every one like your heroically altruistic imaginary neighbour, there was one that was all too happy to at least make things awkward for those pesky taigs getting uppity).

What really takes the biscuit in your insane story is your attempt to paint people not involved in the conflict in any way as selfishly looking after themselves with no interest in helping their fellow man. You're honestly going to go with that? A bloke who has come to NI as part of the armed forces, trained and willing to take a life and paid handsomely for doing so is almost MORE worthy of your compassion than a fourteen year old girl walking to the shops?!

If that's seriously your line of reasoning, I won't be engaging any further, and I suggest you read the Geneva Convention.

I offered a simple comparison, where we can both agree on which side was in the right, to avoid accusations of our own biases interfering; do you think the death of an off duty Nazi soldier killed by a strategic bombing of a barracks is more justified than the death of a civilian totally uninvolved with the war, sitting in their home and caught up in the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden?

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I did not at any time use the term legitimate target, nor did I say that it was right or moral to shoot your neighbour.

Your choice of language is very telling. If your point stood on its own, you wouldn't need to bring in the obviously emotive language regarding being shot in front of his daughter, trying to paint the average RUC/UDR man as a pillar of society, selfishly sacrificing for the good of his fellow man (realistically most of them were doing in because it was a job, and for every one like your heroically altruistic imaginary neighbour, there was one that was all too happy to at least make things awkward for those pesky taigs getting uppity).

What really takes the biscuit in your insane story is your attempt to paint people not involved in the conflict in any way as selfishly looking after themselves with no interest in helping their fellow man. You're honestly going to go with that? A bloke who has come to NI as part of the armed forces, trained and willing to take a life and paid handsomely for doing so is almost MORE worthy of your compassion than a fourteen year old girl walking to the shops?!

If that's seriously your line of reasoning, I won't be engaging any further, and I suggest you read the Geneva Convention.

I offered a simple comparison, where we can both agree on which side was in the right, to avoid accusations of our own biases interfering; do you think the death of an off duty Nazi soldier killed by a strategic bombing of a barracks is more justified than the death of a civilian totally uninvolved with the war, sitting in their home and caught up in the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden?

A tactic of the ira is to claim operatives were civilians,they even did this after the incident at Loughgall which was obviously not the case.
On another subject, as Downcow asked you,should everyone who had any contact with legitimate UK police or military be fair game for the terrorists?

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

A tactic of the ira is to claim operatives were civilians,they even did this after the incident at Loughgall which was obviously not the case.
On another subject, as Downcow asked you,should everyone who had any contact with legitimate UK police or military be fair game for the terrorists?

I'm not the IRA Rob. I've asked you repeatedly to not engage with this nonsense of saying some other person did something and then using it to try and argue against a point I'm making.

As I said before, I'm my own person, my opinions are my own. Unless you're accusing me of being a member of the IRA, their tactics have no bearing on my opinions and as such aren't relevant when discussing my opinions.

If you can't afford me the respect to at least engage honestly in conversation and desist with the strawman idiocy, I won't be discussing it any further with you.

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If that's seriously your line of reasoning, I won't be engaging any further, and I suggest you read the Geneva Convention.

I offered a simple comparison, where we can both agree on which side was in the right, to avoid accusations of our own biases interfering; do you think the death of an off duty Nazi soldier killed by a strategic bombing of a barracks is more justified than the death of a civilian totally uninvolved with the war, sitting in their home and caught up in the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden?

The Geneva convention relates to law in war.
The troubles in Northern Ireland were never officially a war.

Fionn1952

bubblypop wrote: »

The Geneva convention relates to law in war.
The troubles in Northern Ireland were never officially a war.

We're discussing the ethics of civilian versus combatant casualties. The specific conflict isn't important to discuss the ethics of a matter. The Geneva Convention was used as an example of how it is not unusual to think civilian casualties should be considered differently to the killing of combatants, the fact that they are differentiated in international law regarding warfare demonstrates that I am not alone in differentiating, so I think it is entirely reasonable to submit it as an example to support my point.

Differentiating between civilians and combatants makes sense during wartime.
It doesn't if there is no war.
The IRA consider(ed) members of AGS to be legitimate targets also.

( I think the troubles in the North could have been considered some type of war, but officially there were not )

Fionn1952

bubblypop wrote: »

Differentiating between civilians and combatants makes sense during wartime.
It doesn't if there is no war.
The IRA consider(ed) members of AGS to be legitimate targets also.

( I think the troubles in the North could have been considered some type of war, but officially there were not )

Differentiating between someone involved in something and someone who isn't involved always makes sense, from a scrap on the street to a warzone. If you and I are having a heated argument and I punch you in the jaw, while still wrong and illegal, it isn't the same as me randomly punching a granny who is just walking past me.

I don't know how who the IRA considered legitimate targets is relevant, as I've made it clear I'm not speaking on their behalf.

On your final point I'd agree, I'm aware it was not an officially designated war, but I would find it difficult to describe it as anything else.

I would suggest it is relevant, if you are trying to differentiate between civilian and combatants, then who they considered targets is definitely part of the discussion.

I don't believe there were any legitimate targets, personally.

Fionn1952

bubblypop wrote: »

I would suggest it is relevant, if you are trying to differentiate between civilian and combatants, then who they considered targets is definitely part of the discussion.

I don't believe there were any legitimate targets, personally.

Who the IRA considered targets would be a question you'd be better having with someone who was a member of the IRA. Thankfully, to use another distasteful quote that might upset Rob, I am not and have never been a member of the IRA.

Would you agree with my example? That if I punched you in the midst of a heated argument that while still illegal and wrong, it would be different to me punching a random granny walking down the street? If you were to read a newspaper article about a person being punched during a heated argument and someone punching an old woman just minding her own business going to pick up her newspaper, would you have the very same reaction? I don't think most people would.

maccored

RobMc59 wrote: »

A tactic of the ira is to claim operatives were civilians,they even did this after the incident at Loughgall which was obviously not the case.
On another subject, as Downcow asked you,should everyone who had any contact with legitimate UK police or military be fair game for the terrorists?

one civilian was killed and another injured by the SAS in Loughgall. Get your facts right

Natterjack from Kerry

RobMc59 wrote: »

A tactic of the ira is to claim operatives were civilians,they even did this after the incident at Loughgall which was obviously not the case.
On another subject, as Downcow asked you,should everyone who had any contact with legitimate UK police or military be fair game for the terrorists?

Nobody is 'fair game' (what an odious way to put the taking of another's life). Terrorists are outside the law. There is no justification for anything that they do. Debating who is or isnt OK to kill is a non-argument.

It isnt about who is killed - its about the authority of who is doing the killing. NI terrorist of both persuasions were illegal, taking the law into their own hands, and as such deserved all the might of the state, by force or otherwise against them. In the main, they were fundamentally low lifes anyway. Petty or not so petty criminals, with a tendency to violence, crime, and little regard for civilised society and the lives of other human beings.

The state doesnt always get it right - quelling violent aggression of what ever sort is always going to be messy. Soldier F and collegues, or the bombing of Dresden, are a different case altogether from the initiation of murder and terrorism, decided upon by individuals, outside the structure and control of the state. That is anarchy without any justification or authority. Anyone engaging, associated peripherally with it, or condoning it, such as members and voters for SF, deserves the condemnation of all civilised people.

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Who the IRA considered targets would be a question you'd be better having with someone who was a member of the IRA. Thankfully, to use another distasteful quote that might upset Rob, I am not and have never been a member of the IRA.

Would you agree with my example? That if I punched you in the midst of a heated argument that while still illegal and wrong, it would be different to me punching a random granny walking down the street? If you were to read a newspaper article about a person being punched during a heated argument and someone punching an old woman just minding her own business going to pick up her newspaper, would you have the very same reaction? I don't think most people would.

Two people having a row may well be looked at differently, if however during the row, one of them punched a member of the gardai, or a security guard, or bouncer, I don't think we would think that it was ok, or that they were in anyway a 'legitimate target '

Fionn1952

bubblypop wrote: »

Two people having a row may well be looked at differently, if however during the row, one of them punched a member of the gardai, or a security guard, or bouncer, I don't think we would think that it was ok, or that they were in anyway a 'legitimate target '

I've been VERY clear in stating that I am not saying that there are legitimate targets, nor am I saying that the murder of security forces were morally acceptable. I have repeatedly stated that, so why do you keep trying to build the strawman that I am defending or justifying the murder of security forces when my point has been that it was wrong, but I feel worse about the killing of innocent civilians? A point that you clearly agree with considering you've acknowledged as much when agreeing that you would consider the random attack on a civilian to be worse than an attack on someone involved in a heated argument.

Let me make it very clear; the murder of members of the British Army was wrong. The murder of innocent civilians, in particular children was worse (regardless of who the aggressor was). The IRA attacking members of the security forces was wrong, the bombing of a pub full of innocent civilians in Birmingham was worse.

Natterjack from Kerry

Fionn1952 wrote: »

but I feel worse about the killing of innocent civilians?

Is that not a loaded statement though - are security force personnel not equally entitled to you classification of 'innocent'. If anything, as serving the state, and willingly putting themselves in danger doing so, is their murder not even more heinous ?

Fionn1952

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Is that not a loaded statement though - are security force personnel not equally entitled to you classification of 'innocent'. If anything, as serving the state, and willingly putting themselves in danger doing so, is their murder not even more heinous ?

Some would certainly be entitled to the classification as innocents. Defining civilians as innocent doesn't imply that there aren't others who could be designated as innocent.

If you feel that the murder of someone directly involved in a conflict is worse than the murder of someone with no involvement whatsoever, that's your prerogative. I do not. I have highlighted why I think so with examples above.

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've been VERY clear in stating that I am not saying that there are legitimate targets, nor am I saying that the murder of security forces were morally acceptable. I have repeatedly stated that, so why do you keep trying to build the strawman that I am defending or justifying the murder of security forces when my point has been that it was wrong, but I feel worse about the killing of innocent civilians? A point that you clearly agree with considering you've acknowledged as much when agreeing that you would consider the random attack on a civilian to be worse than an attack on someone involved in a heated argument.

Let me make it very clear; the murder of members of the British Army was wrong. The murder of innocent civilians, in particular children was worse (regardless of who the aggressor was). The IRA attacking members of the security forces was wrong, the bombing of a pub full of innocent civilians in Birmingham was worse.

I actually didn't agree that a random attack on a person was worse, I said it could be seen as different.
I don't believe that one killing is worse then another.
I believe all killings to be wrong unless allowed for by law, and even then I would have issues with some of them eg capital punishment

Now, I can see how people living in northern Ireland during the troubles could see things differently and I understand that, however I don't see that killing security forces can be 'better' then killing civilians.