Getting rid of ciminals in the IRA - sure fire plan. Decriminalise.

seedot

The Republican movement is at an impasse and needs to go on the attack. It needs to look at the place it has come to and take strength from it. I am not a Republican. I'm throwing in some advice fromt the sideline, the cyber hurler on the ditch. But there's things they need to say at the moment which would be important for all ofus.

There's no point in saying reject criminality to people you define as criminal. As long as membership of the IRA is a crime, any push on a decriminalisation policy will result in a split - and you can understand them. The violence of Irish Republicanism has always been political and each generation has fought for that on the path to gaining political power. The state is powerful because it was declared in 1916 - which cannot be an act of criminality.

Draw the line. Say that membership of the IRA should be removed from the statute book as a crime and only then can the IRA accept the state.

I heard Joe Reilly on radio from Meath - he seemed to have a better approach than the leadership of SF which is running scared: is there a changing of the guard?

Sleepy

Make it legal to be a terrorist. Now I've really heard it all :rolleyes:

Hobbes

An amnesty for membership might be a better solution.

jbkenn

Hobbes wrote:

An amnesty for membership might be a better solution.

There was an amnesty, its called the GFA.
The only people who can decriminalise the IRA, are the IRA, decommission, disband, disappear.

jbkenn

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Make it legal to be a terrorist. Now I've really heard it all :rolleyes:

Mandela's a guest of honor every where he goes.

sovtek

jbkenn wrote:

There was an amnesty, its called the GFA.
The only people who can decriminalise the IRA, are the IRA, decommission, disband, disappear.

jbkenn

...and leave a monopoly of loyalist terrorist and criminals.

Xterminator

sovtek wrote:

...and leave a monopoly of loyalist terrorist and criminals.

You just dont get it do you?
That's for the state to deal with. E.G. Police force, courts etc

You dont form a milita if there a problem, you use the exisiting mechanisims in the state. PS they work better if you co-operate with them too.

X

sovtek

Xterminator wrote:

You just dont get it do you?
That's for the state to deal with. E.G. Police force, courts etc

You dont form a milita if there a problem, you use the exisiting mechanisims in the state. PS they work better if you co-operate with them too.

X

Then why aren't we hearing about "terrorist, murderers, criminals" in refernce to loyalist in the media and red faced calls for them to disarm and decriminalize?
Why is just about every new thread here now about the IRA.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Why is just about every new thread here now about the IRA.

Well this was answered here before Sovtek.
I put it down to a general acceptance by a lot of people that SF and the IRA leadership are the same.
Loyalists dont stand for election in the Republic so people care less about them and what they are up to.
A lot of people do get annoyed with what they see as tacit acceptance of criminality by those that stand for election here.

A big example of that, I heard this morning on morning Ireland.
A reporter asked a lass why she was going to vote SF in meath given the McCartney murder.
She said theres no proof who did it...she said that despite the mcCartney family saying all over the media yesterday everybody knows who did it but no one will come foward because of intimidation.
70 people in the pub and no one saw who did the murder?? I dont think so Tim...

Can you see how SF supporters taking a line like that would be annoying to non SF supporters?
Remember they are only more in the limelight here because they have a profile.

Johnny_the_fox

Earthman wrote:

Well this was answered here before Sovtek.
I put it down to a general acceptance by a lot of people that SF and the IRA leadership are the same.
Loyalists dont stand for election in the Republic so people care less about them and what they are up to.
A lot of people do get annoyed with what they see as tacit acceptance of criminality by those that stand for election here.

I understand what you are saying from a southern point of view with regards Loyalists. But they are part of north... as Gerry Adams said about the IRA - they are not going to disappear.

nobody says anything about the amount of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks by loyalists in years gone by.

2004/2005
Loyalist: 59 Shootings and 54 Assaults
Republican : 11 Shootings and 26 Assaults

2003/2004
Loyalist: 67 Shootings and 74 Assaults
Republican : 36 Shootings and 54 Assaults

stats from the CSU PSNI

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Well this was answered here before Sovtek.
I put it down to a general acceptance by a lot of people that SF and the IRA leadership are the same.
Loyalists dont stand for election in the Republic so people care less about them and what they are up to.

I thought it was documented that the British backed NI government used loyalist para's?
Am I wrong on this?

BuffyBot

nobody says anything about the amount of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks by loyalists in years gone by.

I can never understand this "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude. Even schoolkids begin to understand that excuse doesn't really work once you're over 6 years old - I'm always amazed that some adults don't grasp it as well.

A Dub in Glasgo

BuffyBot wrote:

I can never understand this "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude. Even schoolkids begin to understand that excuse doesn't really work once you're over 6 years old - I'm always amazed that some adults don't grasp it as well.

It highlights the hypocrisy of people who pontificate about the non-use of violence when they really mean the violence of the Republican side.

sovtek

BuffyBot wrote:

I can never understand this "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude. Even schoolkids begin to understand that excuse doesn't really work once you're over 6 years old - I'm always amazed that some adults don't grasp it as well.

What I think he is asking...as well as I...is why is there such heated criticism put on the IRA when the same or worse is still being perpetrated by the loyalist...yet we hardly ever hear that as a condition for "going ahead with the GFA" or as a default reason not to vote for whatever political party they are linked to?

Johnny_the_fox

BuffyBot wrote:

I can never understand this . Even schoolkids begin to understand that excuse doesn't really work once you're over 6 years old - I'm always amazed that some adults don't grasp it as well.

I never said anything about "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude.

I was highlighting the fact that it happens... but yet never reported.

Xterminator

What I think he is asking...as well as I...is why is there such heated criticism put on the IRA when the same or worse is still being perpetrated by the loyalist...yet we hardly ever hear that as a condition for "going ahead with the GFA" or as a default reason not to vote for whatever political party they are linked to?

I am not aware of any loyalist TD's in Dail eireann.

I agree the british government should apply any financial sanctions to both sides , eg any loyalist MP's, Assembley members who are linked to an active terrorist organisation too. So would just about ever boards poster.

But do you accept that here in the republic of Ireland, we perhaps concern ourselves more with crimes commited in our jurisdiction, and that this is right and proper.

And when we see the laws of our land broken, this is disturbing. Perhaps even more so when SF/IRA dont recognise the actions as criminal, as that means they reject the laws of the land as created by our democratically elected officials. (They may not be perfect, but they are law!).

Does that explain why the discussion might be heated, and seem to focus more on the IRA?

X

ishmael whale

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

I never said anything about "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude. I was highlighting the fact that it happens... but yet never reported.

Fine, but are you suggesting any particular relevance be attached to this fact?

I don't particulary see loyalist violence as having any direct impact on what we are talking about, unless you are suggesting that it in some way justifies IRA involvement in crime. Which seems to suggest that acceptable social behaviour is defined by whatever loyalist skangers get up to at any particular time.

Roisin Dubh

seedot wrote:

The Republican movement is at an impasse and needs to go on the attack. It needs to look at the place it has come to and take strength from it. I am not a Republican. I'm throwing in some advice fromt the sideline, the cyber hurler on the ditch. But there's things they need to say at the moment which would be important for all ofus.

There's no point in saying reject criminality to people you define as criminal. As long as membership of the IRA is a crime, any push on a decriminalisation policy will result in a split - and you can understand them. The violence of Irish Republicanism has always been political and each generation has fought for that on the path to gaining political power. The state is powerful because it was declared in 1916 - which cannot be an act of criminality.

Draw the line. Say that membership of the IRA should be removed from the statute book as a crime and only then can the IRA accept the state.

I heard Joe Reilly on radio from Meath - he seemed to have a better approach than the leadership of SF which is running scared: is there a changing of the guard?

Nope sorry. Not a runner at all in my view. You shouldn't even join it. There needs to be a deterrent even to joining the damn thing in the first place. Not only is that in the interests of protecting society in general, but also for protecting the individual who might have thoughts of joining, since if he/she ever changed their mind, their lives might come under IRA threat in future. Best not to start the cycle.

However, if the IRA disbands I would consider granting an amnesty to former members awaiting trial solely on charges of IRA membership, if they are not charged with other crimes.

Zombrex

sovtek wrote:

Why is just about every new thread here now about the IRA.

Because most people on this thread are Irish, the IRA claim to represent us, you either support or don't support the IRA, and they are in the news a lot at the moment

I don't think you will find many who support the UVF :rolleyes:

A thread on the Loyalists would go something like this.

Poster 1
I think loyalist are bad and should be got rid off

Poster 2
I agree

<long pause>

Poster 1
Ummmm .... whats for dinner

Why does every thread discussing the IRA have to have someone saying "Yeah but what about the loyalists" :rolleyes:[/i]

monument

Xterminator wrote:

You just dont get it do you?
That's for the state to deal with. E.G. Police force, courts etc

You dont form a milita if there a problem, you use the exisiting mechanisims in the state. PS they work better if you co-operate with them too.

X

See there a problem there, a big one. The state was and to an extent is still 'a problem'.

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

I never said anything about "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude.

I was highlighting the fact that it happens... but yet never reported.

For at least some of the people that have replied to your comments, there real point is that they don’t care. They don’t care about the north. They only really care when SF are doing well in politics in the south.

Sorry, that's unfair, with the SDLP and FF thinking about merging some care more then ever about the north.

Stabshauptmann

Xterminator wrote:

You just dont get it do you?
That's for the state to deal with. E.G. Police force, courts etc

You dont form a milita if there a problem, you use the exisiting mechanisims in the state. PS they work better if you co-operate with them too.

X

The PIRA was set up because the state of NI was unwilling to deal with loyalist mobs. The largest party doesnt believe the holy cross incident was wrong, what is wrong is an appology to the guildford 4. It is easy to understand why some people dont trust the state of NI

Stabshauptmann

Sleepy wrote:

Make it legal to be a terrorist. Now I've really heard it all :rolleyes:

many countries fund paramilitaries-and im not talking mad conspiricies here, the CIA is the most notable example

Stabshauptmann

Earthman wrote:

Well this was answered here before Sovtek.
I put it down to a general acceptance by a lot of people that SF and the IRA leadership are the same.
Loyalists dont stand for election in the Republic so people care less about them and what they are up to.
A lot of people do get annoyed with what they see as tacit acceptance of criminality by those that stand for election here.

A big example of that, I heard this morning on morning Ireland.
A reporter asked a lass why she was going to vote SF in meath given the McCartney murder.
She said theres no proof who did it...she said that despite the mcCartney family saying all over the media yesterday everybody knows who did it but no one will come foward because of intimidation.
70 people in the pub and no one saw who did the murder?? I dont think so Tim...

Can you see how SF supporters taking a line like that would be annoying to non SF supporters?
Remember they are only more in the limelight here because they have a profile.

The rise of SF is a good thing, it forces politicians to get off their asses and show ppl why not to vote for these ppl. The problem is hypocracy, so SF have links to the IRA so has all the other main parties on this island at some stage.
So SF has links to criminality, FF accepted corruption as part and parcel of ever day life in Haughtys time - when an entire cabinet is at something then its practically policy.

Nobody is offering coherent reasons not to vote SF they're just bashing them. Cheap shots look like just that, "cheap". It looks like the PDs cant compete with SF where the truth is they are just filled with contempt.

Show ppl SF doesnt fulfill its pledges
Show them there policies are unworkable
Prove the links between SF and the IRA
Explain why thats a bad thing
Show how SF perverts juctice, intimidates etc, dont just say it, prove it

Thats how you stop the rise of SF

Stabshauptmann

BuffyBot wrote:

I can never understand this "well they did it first/ but we're not the only ones doing it" attitude. Even schoolkids begin to understand that excuse doesn't really work once you're over 6 years old - I'm always amazed that some adults don't grasp it as well.

Wow petty innuendo, that changes everything.
Context is important when you are talking about an organisations reason d'etre.
The PIRA was founded to defend nationalist communities from loyalist aggression. It wont go away if this threat isnt dealt with in a way satisfactory to them

Stabshauptmann

Xterminator wrote:

I am not aware of any loyalist TD's in Dail eireann.

I agree the british government should apply any financial sanctions to both sides , eg any loyalist MP's, Assembley members who are linked to an active terrorist organisation too. So would just about ever boards poster.

But do you accept that here in the republic of Ireland, we perhaps concern ourselves more with crimes commited in our jurisdiction, and that this is right and proper.

And when we see the laws of our land broken, this is disturbing. Perhaps even more so when SF/IRA dont recognise the actions as criminal, as that means they reject the laws of the land as created by our democratically elected officials. (They may not be perfect, but they are law!).

Does that explain why the discussion might be heated, and seem to focus more on the IRA?

X

SF has two mandates, they "mediate" for the IRA and they represent the views of the majority of nationalists in NI.
Imposing sanctions on SF doesnt effect their links to the IRA, it attempts to disinfranchise the majority of nationalists in NI.
Tackling the IRA is something the governments like side stepping, SF asks to take the blame because they believe it will benifit them and the process, the governments give them what they ask because it will help the process and because they believe it will hurt SF. Thats my opinion.

I think its about time this process of shadows, political point scoring and double think ends.

ishmael whale

Necromancer wrote:

The rise of SF is a good thing, it forces politicians to get off their asses and show ppl why not to vote for these ppl. ......

Show ppl SF doesnt fulfill its pledges
Show them there policies are unworkable
Prove the links between SF and the IRA
Explain why thats a bad thing
Show how SF perverts juctice, intimidates etc, dont just say it, prove it

Thats how you stop the rise of SF

I think that's a fair point. Clearly disaffection with the political process gives SF an opportunity to gain support. But, to be honest, its also a case of challenging SF to prove that it offers a better alternative and not allowing it to pretend it has no substantial links to IRA while doing it.

The pattern of concerns has already been gone over many times. The concern is that IRA have no political excuse to be active, and that their activities are therefore aimed at their own members and/or SF. They used armed force pursuing their objectives before the GFA, and they don’t seem to see the need to stop. That’s the essential concern, that SF/IRA are simply pursuing their own aggrandisment and we’ll end up with a semi-mafia in power.

There’s an array of areas in which the political system does not seem to be delivering. I ‘d list these as:
1. Ensuring the quality of our educational system doesn’t go down the pot,
2. Getting some value for what we’re spending on health,
3. Developing effective transportation systems where they are needed.
4. Bringing reason and order to spatial planning.
5. Reducing our energy dependence on fossil fuels.
6. Dealing with other environmental issues particularly waste.
7. Ensuring an effective law enforcement system including standards in public life.

I don't see voting for any of the main parties adds much to the delivery of this agenda. Its a matter of chosing the best of poor alternative. But that's not a reason for voting for SF. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard FF defend Ray Burke on the basis of 'sure we're all on the take', which seems to be what some contributors to recent threads have been saying in defence of SF.

Victor

Fair enough decriminalise the IRA (although I prefer the amnesty idea), but the IRA must decriminalise itself first.

Decriminalising membership of the IRA (See the Tohill kidnap case) in the north hasn't exactly worked so far.

gurramok

ishmael whale wrote:

I don't particulary see loyalist violence as having any direct impact on what we are talking about, unless you are suggesting that it in some way justifies IRA involvement in crime. Which seems to suggest that acceptable social behaviour is defined by whatever loyalist skangers get up to at any particular time.

Just seen on RTE that loyalist terror group has claimed responsibility for a murder.
loyalist murder
Will there be huge political pressure to bring these murderers to justice ?

BuffyBot

gurramok wrote:

Just seen on RTE that loyalist terror group has claimed responsibility for a murder.
loyalist murder
Will there be huge political pressure to bring these murderers to justice ?

I guessed you missed the bit (perhaps rather conveniently) which says "A number of people were questioned about the killing and released pending reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions."

Seems they've got a bit further with this investigation, doesn't it. Perhaps because people co-operated with them..

pogoń

Necromancer wrote:

Wow petty innuendo, that changes everything.
Context is important when you are talking about an organisations reason d'etre.
The PIRA was founded to defend nationalist communities from loyalist aggression. It wont go away if this threat isnt dealt with in a way satisfactory to them

Interesting.

The group responsible for killing the greatest number of Catholics in NI was ...... the UDA, the UVF, the British Army (?) ....... wait for it .........

No, in fact it was those wacky, loveable Irish freedom fighters, the Provisional IRA.

Presumably the greatest contribution the PIRA could have made to defend vulnerable Nationalist Communities would have been to never have existed ...

It also might interest people to learn that more Republicans were killed by other Republicans than by the Security Services.

What a terrible, terrible shame.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seedot

How about if this was accepted but the IRA was no longer a proscribed organisation in exchange for acceptance of justice system and definitions of criminality, along with legitimacy of Irish Army as the army of the republic.

I'm not proposing making bombing, or firearms, or punishment beatings or any of that stuff legal. Just membership of the IRA.

sovtek

Xterminator wrote:

Does that explain why the discussion might be heated, and seem to focus more on the IRA?

X

That's a fair point.
As with any resistance movement (or terrorist org..whatever your term) they have basically been trained to do one thing.
The armed wing of the ANC here now often are armed gangs that attacked farmers as well as gun down "armoured" transport.
It seems to me that someone needs to give them a job doing something other than what they've trained for (possibly) their entire lives.

Zombrex

Necromancer wrote:

The PIRA was set up because the state of NI was unwilling to deal with loyalist mobs.

The only people who actually believe this are the die hard 'RA supporters, who ironically, should be the people who know more than anyone that that is simply not true.

Zombrex

seedot wrote:

How about if this was accepted but the IRA was no longer a proscribed organisation in exchange for acceptance of justice system and definitions of criminality, along with legitimacy of Irish Army as the army of the republic.

I'm not proposing making bombing, or firearms, or punishment beatings or any of that stuff legal. Just membership of the IRA.

If you say that the IRA had to accept they had no power or mandate to represent the people of Ireland (which they don't), then there would be no point for the IRA to exist. If they still did exist, then the only reason for there existant would be to commit crimes against the state of Ireland and the UK. Therefore being a member of the IRA means you are in a group that's only purpose is criminal.

Decriminalising the IRA is pointless, and illogical because the only reason for the IRA to exist is criminality

the_syco

Xterminator wrote:

You just dont get it do you?
That's for the state to deal with. E.G. Police force, courts etc

You dont form a milita if there a problem, you use the exisiting mechanisims in the state. PS they work better if you co-operate with them too.

X

Oh, you mean like how well the English goverment worked with the loylists over the years.

BuffyBot wrote:

Seems they've got a bit further with this investigation, doesn't it. Perhaps because people co-operated with them..

Yes, I saw the bit where the Red hand Defenders admitted that they killed him. The IRA also admit to this sort of thing as well, from time to time. But if your trying to somehow relate this to the incident whereby no-one has come forward about the murder of the the dude that everyone says was killed by the IRA... they didn't admit to killing him.
Thats the thing. When one party admit to the killing, witnesses come forward quicker. Just a simple observation.

=-=

I, personally, hope that SF never get into power. Not only do they think that the mafia should be all forgiven, turned into an members club they also think that all companies should pay 40% tax (ensuring the Celtic Tiger is well and truely dead), but you have to wonder; WTF WOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR ARMY, THE ACTUAL IRISH ARMY, AND THE NORTH??? I'd say they'd "liberate" it.

Oh, and we'd become part of George's "axis of evil". State sponsored terrorism, and no doubt the FARC would then come over on "sight seeing" missions... :mad:

ishmael whale

gurramok wrote:

Just seen on RTE that loyalist terror group has claimed responsibility for a murder.
loyalist murder
Will there be huge political pressure to bring these murderers to justice ?

Probably not, but then I’m not aware of any significant unionist political party having a problem with people co-operating with police. But that’s not really the point.

The point is are you saying that we have to aim at the lowest common denominator. If loyalist paramilitaries are scumbags, does that mean its unreasonable to expect republicans to be more than scumbags?

FTA69

Wicknight wrote:

The only people who actually believe this are the die hard 'RA supporters, who ironically, should be the people who know more than anyone that that is simply not true.

Not really wicknight, it is commonly accepted by most that the reason for the rapid regrowth of the IRA was Loyalist pogroms and the Unionist state's (and later the British Army's) repression of the civil rights campaign. The fact that the B Specials and RUC also actively engaged in these pogroms also served to alienate people from the state and as such support the IRA. Out of curiosity wicknight, what is your analysis of the reasons why people supported the IRA, was it a mass "criminal" mentality?

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

The fact that the B Specials and RUC also actively engaged in these pogroms also served to alienate people from the state and as such support the IRA.

That's a terrible lie.

Do you have any evidence for this?

FTA69

It is a commonly accepted fact that the police in all their guises both on and off duty attacked Civil Rights demonstrators, examples being Burntollet Bridge where with the tacit support of on-duty police Loyalist mobs (including off-duty police) attacked the Peoples' Democracy march. We've all seen the film and photo of the RUC clubbing unarmed demonstrators and I'm not about to trawl through the internet to prove to you something you already know well.

If you want a more extreme example of repression of demonstrations have a look at the incident the Irish people call Bloody Sunday.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

It is a commonly accepted fact that the police in all their guises both on and off duty attacked Civil Rights demonstrators, examples being Burntollet Bridge where with the tacit support of on-duty police Loyalist mobs (including off-duty police) attacked the Peoples' Democracy march. We've all seen the film and photo of the RUC clubbing unarmed demonstrators and I'm not about to trawl through the internet to prove to you something you already know well.

If you want a more extreme example of repression of demonstrations have a look at the incident the Irish people call Bloody Sunday.

maybe we should go after the danes for what the vikings done.

what has irish history (well a version of it anyway) got to do with the racketeering, rape gangs, robberies, mruder, being carried out by the membership of the IRA.

The IRA has outlived its usefulness the same way the old IRA turned to criminality after it outlived its usefulness and required stamping out by de valera in the 1940s.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

It is a commonly accepted fact that the police in all their guises both on and off duty attacked Civil Rights demonstrators, examples being Burntollet Bridge where with the tacit support of on-duty police Loyalist mobs (including off-duty police) attacked the Peoples' Democracy march. We've all seen the film and photo of the RUC clubbing unarmed demonstrators and I'm not about to trawl through the internet to prove to you something you already know well.

If you want a more extreme example of repression of demonstrations have a look at the incident the Irish people call Bloody Sunday.

None of these incidents constitute a pogrom.

Find evidence of ethnic cleansing (what used to be called a pogrom) by British security services.

(I can find plenty by Republicans).

FTA69

maybe we should go after the danes for what the vikings done.

The difference between the Brits and the Vikings being the Brits are still here and the police are still oppressing people.

rape gangs

What in the name of Jesus are you on about billy? You're crossing the line now boy.

The IRA has outlived its usefulness the same way the old IRA turned to criminality after it outlived its usefulness and required stamping out by de valera in the 1940s.

De Valera interned them in the Curragh because their bombing campaign in England undermined his neutrality, not because of "criminality". The fact remains billy, that your only definition of criminality also extends to those in 1920 and 1916.

None of these incidents constitute a pogrom.

No, but the systematic burning out and eviction of Catholics from areas in Belfast does eg Bombay St.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

What in the name of Jesus are you on about billy? You're crossing the line now boy.
.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2419279&postcount=291

post links to marian finucane show you will need realplayer to hear it

shuttle forward to 30 minutes into the interview with the sisters of robert mccartney where ira and rape are mentioned in the same sentence

as you can understand they are in a better position to know what is going on in the north than the armchair terrorists you have been listening to in waterford.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

No, but the systematic burning out and eviction of Catholics from areas in Belfast does eg Bombay St.

The difference, FTA69, is that happened in 1969, it was criminal, it was wrong, but it was 35 years ago, what the McCartney family are talking about, is happening in the here and now, and is being done to the community by their own, not by Loyalists.
Your constant equating with the men and women of 1916 and 1920, is beginning to grate, they had honour and courage, they fought the good fight and when it was over, the did not resort to criminal activity, intimidation and murder.

jbkenn
p.s. FYI the B Special rabble were abolished in 1970.

Victor

sovtek wrote:

It seems to me that someone needs to give them a job doing something other than what they've trained for (possibly) their entire lives.

You mean like the proper community watch systems being sponsored by both governments where guys go around at night with torches and radios rather than balaclavas and baseball bats?

FTA69

shuttle forward to 30 minutes into the interview with the sisters of robert mccartney where ira and rape are mentioned in the same sentence

She mentioned that there were stories of an IRA member being involved in a sexual assault in the area, she never said anything about "rape gangs", which conjures up images of Rwanda or Somalia.

as you can understand they are in a better position to know what is going on in the north than the armchair terrorists you have been listening to in waterford.

Armchair? What political activism do you engage in billy out of curiosity? The only experience you are relying on is a statement you heard on the radio which you managed to misconstrue. I also happen to know Republicans from the Short Strand and the Markets, I've also been there myself and contrary to your deepest wishes the people there are not revolting against the Republican Movement as has been spouted by the gutter media. The area records one of the highest Sinn Féin vote and has a long history of being defended by the IRA from both British, police and Loyalist incursions.

FTA69

The difference, FTA69, is that happened in 1969, it was criminal, it was wrong, but it was 35 years ago,

My references to 1969 had nothing to do with the McCartney family but pogón's ridiculous assertions that Loyalists and the police never engaged in pogroms against Nationalists. It was a seperate issue.

Your constant equating with the men and women of 1916 and 1920, is beginning to grate

It's a fair point considering these men were denigrated as "terrorists" and "criminals" back then as well for challenging imperialism. We see Bobby Sands dismissed as a fanatical fool by many here but yet Terence McSwiney is held up as a hero. That is the inconsistancy and hypocrisy I am trying to outline and put into perspective.

p.s. FYI the B Special rabble were abolished in 1970.

To be replaced by the sectarian colluders of the UDR.

A Dub in Glasgo

Poster from the '80s

mUrDeR

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

My references to 1969 had nothing to do with the McCartney family but pogón's ridiculous assertions that Loyalists and the police never engaged in pogroms against Nationalists. It was a seperate issue.

FYI pogrom

pogrom NOUN An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews.

It's a fair point considering these men were denigrated as "terrorists" and "criminals" back then as well for challenging imperialism. We see Bobby Sands dismissed as a fanatical fool by many here but yet Terence McSwiney is held up as a hero. That is the inconsistancy and hypocrisy I am trying to outline and put into perspective.

I was wondering how you would work Bobby "No thanks, I think I'll skip lunch today" Sands, into the arguement, you also forgot to mention his T-Shirts are available for sale at all good Sinn Fein shops for only $15. Not just a hero, but merchandisable as well

To be replaced by the sectarian colluders of the UDR.

Abolished in 1992

jbkenn

FTA69

FYI pogrom

Yes and the mass evicting of Catholics with the tacit support of the police cannot be construed as a pogrom.

I was wondering how you would work Bobby "No thanks, I think I'll skip lunch today" Sands

That's exactly the petty sniping I mean, you still haven't addressed my point jbkenn. Terence McSwiney died on hunger strike in Brixton Prison, is he to be the butt of your bad jokes next?

Abolished in 1992

To be replaced with the sectarian colluders of the RIR.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/602086.stm