President condemns brutal old IRA execution of elderly woman

guy2231

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't know for sure if J McConville was an informer or not but this one was so yeah I have no propblem justifying it.

So now maybe you can answer my question you seem to have missed a few post up and give us your opinion on the Tans shooting innocent people dead in Croke Park.

All killing of innocent people is wrong, it was actually Irish police officers who commited these murders, that does not take away from all the good police officers and British soldiers who the vast majority of which served with honesty and dignity merely doing their job maintaining law and order.

Galwayguy35

guy2231 wrote: »

All killing of innocent people is wrong, it was actually Irish police officers who commited these murders, that does not take away from all the good police officers and British soldiers who the vast majority of which served with honesty and dignity merely doing their job maintaining law and order.

Seriously are you on a wind up or what?

The Tans which were soldiers who served in WW1 were cold blooded murderers and killed unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the war.

I'm up for debating this but if you're going to just dismiss and ignore the many atrocites the British committed then whats the point.

JupiterKid

This all happened over a century ago, FFS.

It was a war and sadly in wars, people get killed and hurt. Informers to the authorities in guerilla wars are usually subject to harsh recriminations including torture and murder. Of course that doesn’t make it right but it’s been a consistent pattern in the history of human conflict and warfare.

My grandfather served in the old IRA in the War of Independence and I’m rather proud of that fact.
The woman who was executed by the IRA was a British loyalist who was an enemy of the Irish and the struggle for freedom and independence. The President has no place making an apology in this instance.

The OP in my opinion is a unionist/loyalist troll who is simply looking to stir up sh*t on the thread and attack everything and anything Irish, as per usual...

guy2231

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Seriously are you on a wind up or what?

The Tans which were soldiers who served in WW1 were cold blooded murderers and killed unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the war.

I'm up for debating this but if you're going to just dismiss and ignore the many atrocites the British committed then whats the point.

And the IRA weren't cold blooded murderers who killed unarmed civilians sectarian attacks on protestants and disapperances of young protestant boys who had nothing to do witb the war the list goes on.

I acknowledge some individual soldiers took part in unjustified murders but as I said that does not take away from the vast majority of soldiers who acted with honour and dignity under a tough climate of terrorism.

guy2231

JupiterKid wrote: »

This all happened over a century ago, FFS.

It was a war and sadly in wars, people get killed and hurt. Informers to the authorities in guerilla wars are usually subject to harsh recriminations including torture and murder. Of course that doesn’t make it right but it’s been a consistent pattern in the history of human conflict and warfare.

My grandfather served in the old IRA in the War of Independence and I’m rather proud of that fact.
The woman who was executed by the IRA was a British loyalist who was an enemy of the Irish and the struggle for freedom and independence. The President has no place making an apology in this instance.

The OP in my opinion is a unionist/loyalist troll who is simply looking to stir up sh*t on the thread and attack everything and anything Irish, as per usual...

President Higgins done a great thing condemning this violence bringing us closer to finally realising the truth about these thugs like the IRA and the 1916 war criminals.

Although I do have to give props where props is due to parties like Fine Gael, during the 1916 commemoration and in particular the 1916 commemoration video for featuring decent people who have actually done a lot for this country such as Bob Geldof, David Cameron and the Queen who featured in the ‘Ireland 2016′ video – while keeping murderers like the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation out of the video completely, it was a real sign of progress taking the 100th anniversary of 1916 to reflect on how violence is wrong and how we have changed rather than taking the opportunity to glamorise violence.

Wise words from Bob Geldof at the time of the 1916 commemoration that the rising was nonsense and caused nothing but bloodshed on this island.

Munsterlad102

guy2231 wrote: »

1916 war criminals.

Now that's a completely baseless argument, the only war crimes that were committed during the Rising was the British executing civilians. Again you prove that you know little on this subject except for a few incidents. So I implore you to go and research this and all your arguments before making such ludicrous statements.

frosty123

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I always had a feeling Higgins was a little west Brit, guess this proves it.

We're all west brits when you think about it...supporting brit football clubs, reading brit newspapers, watching brit TV , shopping in brit shops.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

guy2231 wrote: »

Michael Martin or Varadkar, it does not matter which one, they are both heads of the parties who came from this IRA gang they have had many serving sectarian butchers in their party like Frank Aiken who was Minister for Finance in the Republic of Ireland despite ordering the Altnaveigh massacre of six innocent protestant civilians for no reason apart from their religion.

These are the kind of thugs who created these parties, when will we ever get justice for all the disappeared?

Is that you Joe Duffy?

Dyr

Lets be honest, If that superannuated spoofer we have above in the áras was around in 1920 he would have been hidden under his bed

A windbag of the first magnitude.

The J Stands for Jay

guy2231 wrote: »

She was not an informer, she was an elderly woman doing her national duty of reporting crime to the police.

She wasn't elderly, she was 60 years old.

wandererz

Perhaps while he's at it Varadkar should come out and apologise for the atrocity of the Indians forcing out the millions of Muslims into Pakistan,kicking them out of their homes etc.

Just saying OP...

is_that_so

McGaggs wrote: »

She wasn't elderly, she was 60 years old.

For 1920 she was, life expectancy was in the mid fifties for women.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

We will just ignore the fact that the information this woman passed onto the British occupation forces resulted in the deaths of five Irishmen?

Maybe she should have kept quiet?

Steyr 556

Steyr 556 wrote: »

We will just ignore the fact that the information this woman passed onto the British occupation forces resulted in the deaths of five Irishmen?

Maybe she should have kept quiet?

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

Any analysis of the war of independence would show the vast majority of atrocities committed by the anti Independence side. It’s not like cities were burned by the old IRA.

There’s a strange kind of Irish man, like the op, who is effectively a unionist tribalist, not unlike the bauld Eoghan Harris.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

There were loyalists in British America too, they weren’t fetishised 100 years later. I wonder if the US president should apologise for any atrocity committed by the pro independence side in the US war of independence. Or have they moved on.

Duckworth_Luas

It's almost as if maryishere has set up a new account, despite being the most banned rereg in After Hours history.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

There were loyalists in British America too, they weren’t fetishised 100 years later. I wonder if the US president should apologise for any atrocity from the pro independence side in the US war of independence. Or have they moved on.

I don't the US has moved on, at all, from their own Civil war, nor even their War of Independence. There's plenty of recognition for the abuses committed by both sides (of each war)..

However, I don't think there's the same romanticism about the North/South, the way there is with the IRA in Ireland. Oh, sure, there's some with the seeking to excuse slavery, but there's still plenty of acknowledgement for the excesses done in war. With the old IRB/IRA/Volunteers, though, people tend to dismiss what they did, instead seeking to focus on the British as if that excuses what happened.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't the US has moved on, at all, from their own Civil war, nor even their War of Independence. There's plenty of recognition for the abuses committed by both sides (of each war)..

I didn’t mention the civil war.

However, I don't think there's the same romanticism about the North/South, the way there is with the IRA in Ireland. Oh, sure, there's some with the seeking to excuse slavery, but there's still plenty of acknowledgement for the excesses done in war. With the old IRB/IRA/Volunteers, though, people tend to dismiss what they did, instead seeking to focus on the British as if that excuses what happened.

Why are you talking about the civil war? This seems like a clear attempt to move goalposts or to equate the Irish south with the American south.

Now do the American war of independence. Has any American president apologised for atrocities during the American war of independence by the pro independence side. There were some of course. Most, though, were committed by the British.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

Good for her, she chose to take a side in the war rather than stay on the sidelines and the other side shot her. The other side being the army of the democratically elected government returned in a landslide victory.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Deleted User wrote: »

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

They absolutely were occupation forces. Do you think the Manchester regiment were native to Ireland? The British establishment always garrisoned a military force in Ireland far in excess of the presence needed to ward off foreign invasion - because it was to prevent rebellion and revolution by an oppressed people.

Yeah British rule in Ireland was alright. Apart from the English conquest of Ireland, vicious reprisals by Cromwell, the plantations, penal laws and Catholic discrimination, the famine, partition.

And btw, Lindsay was taken hostage to swap with the IRA prisoners that the Manchesters captured. It was the British who refused the swap and decided to execute those 5 men. They didn't really give a **** if Lindsay was a loyalist in the end, did they?

skallywag

guy2231 wrote: »

The old IRA only managed to kill 250 British soldiers, the Provisional IRA managed to kill more than that amount just in the north of Ireland from 72-74

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

skallywag

skallywag wrote: »

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

The old IRA were, of course, a totally different force with a totally different background and justification to the pira.

giles lynchwood

Any respect i had for Micheal d is now gone he should stick to being a semi mute figurehead or rolling around drunk on flor de cana 20 year old rum fighting outside the Shannon bar in Managua while he was minster for art's.

skallywag

fvp4 wrote: »

The old IRA were, of course, a totally different force with a totally different background and justification to the pira.

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

guy2231

skallywag wrote: »

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

Obviously not it was 50 years earliers the British did not have access to the type of weapons their latter day counter parts had either.

The provisonal IRA seemed at least more brave than the old IRA, I remember watching a documentary of Brendan Hughes in the early days of the troubles (OC of the Belfast Brigade) where soldiers were saying of he was running around with a handgun on his own shooting it out with elite army units.

skallywag

guy2231 wrote: »

The provisonal IRA seemed at least more brave than the old IRA, I remember watching a documentary of Brendan Hughes in the early days of the troubles (OC of the Belfast Brigade) where soldiers were saying of he was running around with a handgun on his own shooting it out with elite army units.

Yes, that happened quite a lot, you are completely correct. The IRA would regularly send out one man hit brigades, armed with nothing but a handgun, to strike the fear of God into the Paras, the Scot's Guards and the SAS. In fact they were so terrified of these legendary Lone Ranger gun slingers that they hid in their barracks and would not venture out unless being ferried about via a Lynx or a Chinook.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

I didn’t mention the civil war.

There were loyalists present in all of America's early wars, from Independence, Civil war, the subsequent war with Britain, and the Mexican war.

Why are you talking about the civil war? This seems like a clear attempt to move goalposts or to equate the Irish south with the American south.

Actually, I was trying the understand the point you wanted to make. Perhaps I didn't.

Now do the American war of independence. Has any American president apologised for atrocities during the American war of independence by the pro independence side. There were some of course. Most, though, were committed by the British.

I have no idea if one has or hasn't. I don't pay that much attention to American politics.. do you really know that one hasn't?

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Good for her, she chose to take a side in the war rather than stay on the sidelines and the other side shot her. The other side being the army of the democratically elected government returned in a landslide victory.

Yup. They did.

Steyr 556 wrote: »

They absolutely were occupation forces.

I didn't say that they weren't occupation forces. I snipped the rest because you decided to go on a rant as opposed to dealing with what I wrote.

And btw, Lindsay was taken hostage to swap with the IRA prisoners that the Manchesters captured. It was the British who refused the swap and decided to execute those 5 men. They didn't really give a **** if Lindsay was a loyalist in the end, did they?

Nope, they didn't... but then I never claimed that they did. I said that she was a loyalist.

You seem to think i'm seeking to excuse the British. I'm not. Not even slightly. Nothing I've written even approaches such a thing. I have simply written about her, and the fact that for many Irish people they weren't enthusiastic about the IRA or independence from Britain.

skallywag

skallywag wrote: »

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

The old Ira was legitimised by the fact that they had the majority behind them.

The other side clearly committed the vast majority of atrocities. Burning cities to the ground, machine gunning down spectators at a match, the burning of homes, meeting halls and farms. From wiki:

Some buildings were also attacked with gunfire and grenades, and businesses were looted. Reprisals on property "were often accompanied by beatings and killings". Many villages suffered mass reprisals, including the Sack of Balbriggan (20 September), Kilkee (26 September), Trim (27 September), Tubbercurry (30 September) and Granard (31 October).[33][34] Following the Rineen ambush (22 September) in which six RIC men were killed, police burned many houses in the surrounding villages of Milltown Malbay, Lahinch and Ennistymon, and killed five civilians.[35] In early November, Black and Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town, let no food in for a week and shot dead three local civilians

All war crimes.

Concentrating on the atrocities of the old IRA is like concentrating on the atrocities of the French resistance or the American rebels. The other side were far worse.