IRA statement

tomMK1

mycroft wrote:

TomMK1 mastery on the haku response.

It's pretty simple here tom, people response with actual points and actuall facts, flinging about a accusation about a couple of serious instants of members of the BA collusion as justification for the entire campaign, is just well pathetic.

no, what it does (as these things, as we all really know, arent just accusations - im just not into this "Ive a web link so its true" crap) is it underlines the point the british army and SAS do not operate under rules, as you so fondly believe. in an ideal world, maybe, buit the fact remains they dont. I dont have to quote stuff to prove that (well i shouldnt have to as there are enough offline resources to document such facts).

Which part of my 'haku response' - a generalisation if ever i read one - do you not understand, or wish clarified since it obviously wasnt good enough?

Do you not believe that the british army have resorted to what, in the case of the IRA for example, would be referred to as terrorism? If you do, then how can you claim as you did earlier that they have "justice, and laws, and tribunals" - which are useless in reality then as Britains dirty war is never washed in public.

tomMK1

mycroft wrote:

The IRA haven't disbanded and the Brits aren't sending all the soldiers home.

The IRA more than likely wont disband - traditionally they never have. Ask Bertie, he'll tell ye. and until theres peace the brits wont go home.

the point is (as mentioned earlier) its time to move on. the IRA are disarming, thats what we all want. they say they are committed to peace ..once they disarm (hopefully soon), then there wont be any point in pretending the IRA are standing in the way of the peace process. Im sure though that wont stop a lot of people pretending they are .. maybe by asking for them to disband. but then, how can you prove they disbanded? i know, lets also get them to present themselves to the nearest copshop. Will that be the next thing you want? Will that be an honestly feasible thing to ask?

i dont think so myself.

mycroft

tomMK1 wrote:

no, what it does (as these things, as we all really know, are just accusations - im just not into this "Ive a web link so its true" crap)

Better known as the I've a claim and I'm going to support it with facts crap.

is it underlines the point the british army and SAS do not operate under rules, as you so fondly believe. in an ideal world, maybe, buit the fact remains they dont. I dont have to quote stuff to prove that (well i shouldnt have to as there are enough offline resources to document such facts).

Don't wave me in the way of the library and say "meh do my research for me. (Hold on, is this cdebru I see before me?)

Which part of my 'haku response' - a generalisation if ever i read one - do you not understand, or wish clarified since it obviously wasnt good enough?

yes list em off, support your claims, discuss and debate them.

Do you not believe that the british army have resorted to what, in the case of the IRA for example, would be referred to as terrorism? If you do, then how can you claim as you did earlier that they have "justice, and laws, and tribunals" - which are useless in reality then as Britains dirty war is never washed in public.

God damn you mean the current bloody sunday tribunal was just a big april fools? I look stupid now don't I.

And again pathetic sneers of whataboutrey are just low.

tomMK1

mycroft - You havent answered my question (at least if you have, not in a very straightforward way). The bloody sunday enquiry didnt cover anything after the early 70s. what has that got to do with anything anyway?

Better known as the I've a claim and I'm going to support it with facts crap.

Don't wave me in the way of the library and say "meh do my research for me. (Hold on, is this cdebru I see before me?)

No its called 'Im am debating about something ive actually done some research on'. if a mod gets mad at me and demands I provide a link to something on the web about the things the SAS have BA have done convertly and illegally, then Im sure I'll find something, but please do go to the library. Might help your arguments a bit.

yes list em off, support your claims, discuss and debate them.

My claim is that the british army dont act in the way you have described them as acting. i am debating it .. you though seem to be ignoring that and trying to switch the subject to the Bloody Sunday enquiry - well thats all i could gleam from the quoted post.

county

so what if the SAS have not done things shall we say[not by the book]if the end result is dead IRA terrorists that suits me just fine

tomMK1

i knew someone was going to say that. Ergo then, if you believe the IRA are terrorists, then obviously the SAS are too. Wonder how many agree with you? Personally, if people agree that all armies the world over who do things convertly and undemocratically (a lot Id say) are really terrorists, then in that case the IRA must be terrorists too. On the other hand if those armies arent terrorists, I'd like to know why the IRA are classed as such .... and lets not start that 'the IRA arent accountable, armies are' malarky, as the IRA are accountable to their own people and in general republicans, and certainly the BA and the SAS darent really accountable for things they dont want to be accountable for. And for microft - it took decades of campaigning by SF and others to get a decent bloody sunday enquiry going and even that one had flaws

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Well seeing as were discussing a conflict that occured after WW2, and SFIRAs shameful conduct in that conflict, WW2 or what occured in that conflict isnt especially relevant.

I thought that because the Geneva Convention during World War II ignored the rights of non-signatories, the post-war one would too... And there's no need to attack me when I said I'm wrong.

Sand wrote:

Yes, *if* theyre true. Which will not be merely assumed by the DUP given so many false dawns before. It will takes years of complete terrorist non-activity on the part of SFIRA for the DUP to consider them acceptable negotiating partners.
As for moves on decomissioing, I doubt it will be more than a token gesture. Most likely their largest, bulkiest and least useful weapons will be destroyed but theyll retain the small arms that every crinimal empire needs. Token, tactical gestures are not enough anymore.

I believe that total decommissioning should be enough of a gesture of good will. It's what they wanted before, after all... And I think the IRA want u of criminality for good. If they don't, them to hell with them, this declaration i WORTHLESS, and I will come join you, Sand.

Sand wrote:

What we know is that she was abducted and murdered by SFIRA. We know they lied and denied they had murdered her.
We also know they claimed she had a radio, which would be a unique situation, and afaik SFIRA have never produced any radio that they can support their claim with. Its not up to me to prove she was an innocent woman, its up to SFIRA - who have already lied regarding the murder, to prove she was a spy. Personally, I dont accept the unlikely story of known liars at face value.

The Brits have lied too... I never asked you to prove she was innocent, which is going to be as hard as proving she was guilty now. All I said is that we are unlikely to know if she was a spy - we can only surmise. How about we agree to disagree? She might have been a spy, and she might hav been innocent.

Sand wrote:

I wouldnt support it, but I wouldnt oppose it either. If SFIRA adhered to the GC and did not deliberately attack civillians then I wouldnt care what happened to them. Thats all hypothetical of course, because they never adhered to the GC and routinely massacred civillians as policy. Hence my deep contempt of Provos, their so called idealogy and their supporters. That and their deceit as well of course.

Fair enough. I do not support the Provos' methods either. I believe attacking innocent civilians is wrong in a 'freedom fighters' campaign.

tomMK1

Sand wrote:

massacred civillians as policy

I dont think that would be accurate. also i dont think either sinn fein or the ira went out of their way to basically kill civillians, nevermind kill civillians as part of their policy.

nevermind the fact Sinn Fein are a political grouping seperate from the IRA

rsynnott

tomMK1 wrote:

I dont think that would be accurate. also i dont think either sinn fein or the ira went out of their way to basically kill civillians, nevermind kill civillians as part of their policy.

nevermind the fact Sinn Fein are a political grouping seperate from the IRA

Omagh was a freak asteroid hit, then?

marco murphy

The IRA or RIRA or any ''republican'' movement would have killed a lot more civilians if they were targetting civilians,which they arent. Omagh was not deliberate,anyone who thinks so...well need i say it.

rsynnott

Poblachtach wrote:

Omagh was not deliberate,anyone who thinks so...well need i say it.

Again, was it an asteriod strike? Was it a spontanious release of vacuum energy? Gas lines? No? Well, then, someone planted the bomb. Someone deliberately, AT THE VERY LEAST, set up a situation where innocent people were likely to be killed or injured.

county

tomMK1 wrote:

I dont think that would be accurate. also i dont think either sinn fein or the ira went out of their way to basically kill civillians, nevermind kill civillians as part of their policy.

nevermind the fact Sinn Fein are a political grouping seperate from the IRA

well it should about time they start acting like a political party and stop being a bunch of criminals,whats the criteria for becoming a member of SF these days,a criminal record would help considering about 90% of its members have one!

supersheep

Omagh was an attack by RIRA, not PIRA... And if I'm correct, what happened at Omagh was that they evacuated the wrong street - the warning wasn't very clear. It was a deliberate bomb attack, but not necessarily a deliberate attempt to kill civilians...

supersheep

county wrote:

well it should about time they start acting like a political party and stop being a bunch of criminals,whats the criteria for becoming a member of SF these days,a criminal record would help considering about 90% of its members have one!

Really? Can you back that up? Of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin in Westminster and Dublin, I believe three have spent time in jail, and Gerry Adams was interned, if I recall correctly. Definitely not ninety percent...
Remember, the IRA are the criminals, not Sinn Féin...

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

Really? Can you back that up? Of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin in Westminster and Dublin, I believe three have spent time in jail, and Gerry Adams was interned, if I recall correctly. Definitely not ninety percent...
Remember, the IRA are the criminals, not Sinn Féin...

They just aid and abbet criminals. Fine, updstanding citizens altogether. (In any case, the lines seem blurred)

supersheep wrote:

Omagh was an attack by RIRA, not PIRA... And if I'm correct, what happened at Omagh was that they evacuated the wrong street - the warning wasn't very clear. It was a deliberate bomb attack, but not necessarily a deliberate attempt to kill civilians...

Ah, just a bomb to inconvenience them, then? How nice.

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

They just aid and abbet criminals. Fine, updstanding citizens altogether. (In any case, the lines seem blurred)

Aid and abet how? I think I see what you're getting at, but I could be wrong... Could you elaborate a little before I answer, so I don't go off on a tangent?

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, just a bomb to inconvenience them, then? How nice.

War ain't nice. And that's what they were fighting, or saw themselves as fighting.

marco murphy

There was a massive police presence,they were likely to get caught if they parked the car at the target. They left the car. The civilians were moved right beside the bomb.Ill say no more.

sceptre

Poblachtach wrote:

There was a massive police presence,they were likely to get caught if they parked the car at the target. They left the car. The civilians were moved right beside the bomb.Ill say no more.

That's a piss-poor defence that wouldn't stand up anywhere. It's equivalent to shooting a bullet at a cop and complaining that you didn't mean it when you hit a kid with a balloon. Poor. Very poor. If you can't get your bomb to its target, even if you believe your target is legitimate, you don't get to plead anything but guilty (not even stupid) when you leave your bomb in an armed state where any passerby could get blown up as a result. Especially when you make an ass of your warning.

"Ooh, I'm sorry judge, how was I to know that the crowd would get moved next to my live bomb".


As for county, without evidence that 90% of SF(P) have criminal records (which you can't possibly have for at least two reasons (firstly it almost certainly isn't true and secondly you don't have the evidence anyway)) you're just exaggerating, which does nothing for your case.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

Oh and Eamonn Collins got a bullet in the back of the head for leaving the IRA.

One sparrow does not a summer make.

mycroft wrote:

My goddam MEP Mary Lou six months ago refused to condemn the murder as a crime. that makes this relevant still. Her family haven't a body to bury still. That makes it relevant. The IRA still say she was an informer and haven't provided any evidence yet. That makes it relevant. Now.

Boo fecking Hoo. So what if Mary Lou doesn't condemn the murder? What difference does it make either way? Not one bit that's what.
It's pathetic how you'll mention Jean McConville a hundred bloody times on this board, yet not once rant about any of the civilians murdered by British hands. And Bloody Sunday is an entirely different kettle of fish. Not only in scope of fatalities but also that it was a watershed moment that decided the course of history for the next 25+ years. Not so with Jean McConville. She was just another ol victim of the troubles like so many on both sides. Brought up today by the SF Basher Brigade in a petty exercise of point scoring, trying to make political hay. I guess because they fear the rise of SF and apparenly don't like the fact that the IRA are willing to disarm. Quite amusing really.

mycroft wrote:

BTW jamn0 I'll be bookmarking this page. Next time you bring up bloody sunday as justification for anything you're going to meet your own words flying back in your face.

Ah ha, nice that you'd reveal your own little motive and prejudices for us mycroft. You pretend humanitarian motives for your whinging about Jean McConville; conversely showing none to the 14 victims of Bloody Sunday. At least we can drop the facade and get down to the crux of the matter. You don't give a piss about Jean McCon, she's just your convenient cannon fodder for hate-filled anti SF rants.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

One sparrow does not a summer make.

He's not the only one, just the most visible, of many.

Boo fecking Hoo. So what if Mary Lou doesn't condemn the murder? What difference does it make either way? Not one bit that's what.

it does. it matters a great deal. I pay her salary, she's my MEP, for her not to proclaim the death of a mother of ten as crime, ten years on is a sad example of SFs unwilliness to acknowledge the crimes of its murderers.

It's pathetic how you'll mention Jean McConville a hundred bloody times on this board, yet not once rant about any of the civilians murdered by British hands.

I actually have. And I worked on Paul Greengrass' dramitastiation.

And Bloody Sunday is an entirely different kettle of fish. Not only in scope of fatalities but also that it was a watershed moment that decided the course of history for the next 25+ years. Not so with Jean McConville. She was just another ol victim of the troubles like so many on both sides. Brought up today by the SF Basher Brigade in a petty exercise of point scoring, trying to make political hay. I guess because they fear the rise of SF and apparenly don't like the fact that the IRA are willing to disarm. Quite amusing really.

Goddam I'd thought you'd lie low for a few weeks. No shame for SF though.

So bascially isn't not ex judicary killing that bothers you, it's just the number. So tell me, how many ex judicary killings can the IRA commit before it's an issue. I'm guessing it's between 1 and 13.

Ah ha, nice that you'd reveal your own little motive and prejudices for us mycroft. You pretend humanitarian motives for your whinging about Jean McConville; conversely showing none to the 14 victims of Bloody Sunday. At least we can drop the facade and get down to the crux of the matter. You don't give a piss about Jean McCon, she's just your convenient cannon fodder for hate-filled anti SF rants.

Er No, when haven't I said I wasn't outraged about bloody sunday? Where exactly have I don't care about the victims of bloody sunday?

You're the one who's exposed their rank indifference to a murder thirty years ago. I've not. You've exposed your indifference to the Mc Convilles families search for justice and at the same time demanded justice for the Blood Sunday Victims

jamno wrote:

Cry me a river why don't you. Your dragging up 30 year old corpses. No relevance today. Tell me when you come back to this century. Besides how old and tired is this bloody sunday crap. they're dead. End of story, get over it.

I've changed the words. If (and I doubt that'd you'd look at the words you said with the context slightly changed that you'll run to the toilet and vomit and maybe in a week or two you'll look yourself in the eye in the mirror.

tomMK1 wrote:

knew someone was going to say that. Ergo then, if you believe the IRA are terrorists, then obviously the SAS are too. Wonder how many agree with you? Personally, if people agree that all armies the world over who do things convertly and undemocratically (a lot Id say) are really terrorists, then in that case the IRA must be terrorists too. On the other hand if those armies arent terrorists, I'd like to know why the IRA are classed as such .... and lets not start that 'the IRA arent accountable, armies are' malarky, as the IRA are accountable to their own people and in general republicans, and certainly the BA and the SAS darent really accountable for things they dont want to be accountable for. And for microft - it took decades of campaigning by SF and others to get a decent bloody sunday enquiry going and even that one had flaws

And tell me TomMk1 dozens of organisations not just SF where a part of the Bloody Sunday enquiry, including the BBC. Why aren't SF campaigning as zealots for such an IRA campaign of accountablity for IRA atroctries. Why aren't the RA helping the victims of Warrington, and Enniskillen, and Omagh seek justice, Because good friday agreement blah blah blah if one side needs to find justice why shouldn't the other one?

TomMK1 wrote:

mycroft - You havent answered my question (at least if you have, not in a very straightforward way). The bloody sunday enquiry didnt cover anything after the early 70s. what has that got to do with anything anyway?

So bascially the british government (who for example have been exposed over the guilfford four, brimigham six, gilbrator shoot to kills, and several other security investigations , I've not answer, what have I avoided?

No its called 'Im am debating about something ive actually done some research on'. if a mod gets mad at me and demands I provide a link to something on the web about the things the SAS have BA have done convertly and illegally, then Im sure I'll find something, but please do go to the library. Might help your arguments a bit.

If you've done your research you can support it, without vaguely references, to your links. Other people support their claims. you demand we do. Incidently, I'll be taking up your challenge, any time you claim something, anything, i'll reference a mod, and ask you to support a link.

I dont think that would be accurate. also i dont think either sinn fein or the ira went out of their way to basically kill civillians, nevermind kill civillians as part of their policy.

Kingsmills Enniskillen, Guildford, Brimingham, the entire 70s mainland uk campaign, never let it be said you let the facts get in the way of your worldview.

Irish1 wrote:

The IRA will never disband and the British soldiers won't leave for years if not decades.

Hold on a sec, the Paramilitary wing of a political party you feel will be in government will be in power within ten years will never disband and you're okay with this? Why don't you start singing Gerry Gerry Uber alles and be done with it?

In a democracy you feel a paramilitary organistion has any place. Seriously?

sceptre

jman0 wrote:

I guess because they fear the rise of SF and apparenly don't like the fact that the IRA are willing to disarm.

I don't fear the rise of Sinn Fein. I've little doubt that at their zenith, assuming for the sake of discussion that they reach it, they'll make little more difference to my life than the PDs do. I'd guess less. If they're lucky. As for not liking the "fact that the IRA are willing to disarm" I've mentioned before that it's good and they should have done it long ago.

Quite amusing really.

Indeed, though I'm probably chuckling for different reasons than yours.

You don't give a piss about Jean McCon

I do, and I'll tell you why. Jean McConville was murdered by a group that claim to effectively represent me in that they claim to be the rightful trustees of the government of my country. I'm concerned by all deaths in the conflict/troubles/war/fools pissing about with guns and rhetoric and by restrictions on rights of freedom in the same affair but by none more so than those carried out by fools who effectively claim to be acting for my good. They may be claiming to represent the unheard and/or disenfranchised Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and occasionally this may be the case or may not be the case. Either way though, as the claimants on the democratic principles of the second Dail they're pretending to be representing those down South, including me, and their murders and kangaroo courts are something of a sticking point with me while they still hold to this pretence. That's why I'm especially sore about their unwillingness to get off their arses and do something for various families they've left fatherless and motherless, including that of Jean McConville, of whom I haven't hitherto posted. McConville isn't the only one of course.

Now you can call me a Sinn Fein basher if you like but you can rise off your toddy and find something undeniable to support it lest you look a fool. Otherwise it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated catchprase that acts as rather weak currency. And don't forget that the next time you or anyone else refers to "SF bashers" that warble on about McConville and secretly couldn't give a flying monkey you'll be including me in that group. Which I probably won't like. To whit: get stronger currency.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Hold on a sec, the Paramilitary wing of a political party you feel will be in government will be in power within ten years will never disband and you're okay with this? Why don't you start singing Gerry Gerry Uber alles and be done with it?

In a democracy you feel a paramilitary organistion has any place. Seriously?

Paramilitary wing??? I really couldn't be bothered going around in circles again trying to explain to you that SF and the IRA are not the one group of people.

The IRA will never disband thats a fact, not because I don't want them to mind you. They will however in time no longer be a paramilitary organisation and the legislation that make them an illegal oragisation (in 1936 I think) makes provisions for them to become a legal organisation. I think Bertie made reference to this lately.

Sinn Fein have convinced the IRA that politics is the only way forward this must now try and the DUP at the table and try and get a powersharing agreement ironed out.

tomMK1

mycroft wrote:

And tell me TomMk1 dozens of organisations not just SF where a part of the Bloody Sunday enquiry, including the BBC.

I am well aware of that - though the BBC didnt start a campaign for justice for the Bloody Sunday victims

Why aren't SF campaigning as zealots for such an IRA campaign of accountablity for IRA atroctries. Why aren't the RA helping the victims of Warrington, and Enniskillen, and Omagh seek justice, Because good friday agreement blah blah blah if one side needs to find justice why shouldn't the other one?

why arent britain doing the same? Oh, and I have no idea if youve ever watched the news, but the PIRA had nothing to do with Omagh - which incidentally is where Im from, so dont start on about how the RIRA and the PIRA are the same.

So bascially the british government (who for example have been exposed over the guilfford four, brimigham six, gilbrator shoot to kills, and several other security investigations , I've not answer, what have I avoided?

exposed? guildford four - after how many years? and you are telling me that its been internationally accepted that Gibraltar was a shoot to kill exercise? give me a break ... we all know thats the case, but its never been admitted

If you've done your research you can support it, without vaguely references, to your links. Other people support their claims. you demand we do. Incidently, I'll be taking up your challenge, any time you claim something, anything, i'll reference a mod, and ask you to support a link.

Do whatever the hell you want - your antics on a internet messageboard will not get around the simple fact that your argument doesnt hold water and that the british army HAVE been involved in the deaths of innocent civillians in the north.

its amazing how quick your argument falls apart.

Kingsmills Enniskillen, Guildford, Brimingham, the entire 70s mainland uk campaign, never let it be said you let the facts get in the way of your worldview.

so their plans were to go out and kill innocent civillians? thats a lie. I remember Enniskillen - I was only a few dozen miles away. No republican I met that day was proud to be a republican.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

supersheep

jman0 wrote:

Boo fecking Hoo. So what if Mary Lou doesn't condemn the murder? What difference does it make either way? Not one bit that's what.
It's pathetic how you'll mention Jean McConville a hundred bloody times on this board, yet not once rant about any of the civilians murdered by British hands. And Bloody Sunday is an entirely different kettle of fish. Not only in scope of fatalities but also that it was a watershed moment that decided the course of history for the next 25+ years. Not so with Jean McConville. She was just another ol victim of the troubles like so many on both sides. Brought up today by the SF Basher Brigade in a petty exercise of point scoring, trying to make political hay. I guess because they fear the rise of SF and apparenly don't like the fact that the IRA are willing to disarm. Quite amusing really.
Ah ha, nice that you'd reveal your own little motive and prejudices for us mycroft. You pretend humanitarian motives for your whinging about Jean McConville; conversely showing none to the 14 victims of Bloody Sunday. At least we can drop the facade and get down to the crux of the matter. You don't give a piss about Jean McCon, she's just your convenient cannon fodder for hate-filled anti SF rants.

Arguments like these do not help people see Sinn Féin or the IRA in a positive way... The only possible difference between Bloody Sunday and Jean McConville, apart from numbers, is the possibility that she was an informer. Let's assume she was not for a moment. Then her murder was as wrong an act as any of the killings on Bloody Sunday. I'm actually with the "Sinn Féin bashers" here...

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't. Deliberately killing civilians is wrong.

tomMK1

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

find me any republican who things any death is good. I dont think anyone thinks that the deaths in warrington were fantastic. does america gloat over the deaths in iraq - britain over the deaths caused in WW2? no .. but thats the nature of war.

also in the Omagh bomb there are rumours of collusion: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/ire-a04.shtml
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/publications/ruc_omagh2.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,11008,1066420,00.html
http://britishcollusion.com/omagh.html

can you explain to me why noone asks about that?

(also the ombudsman made a reference to it in her report on Omagh)

mycroft

tomMK1 wrote:

I am well aware of that - though the BBC didnt start a campaign for justice for the Bloody Sunday victims

Yeah and the SF campaign for justice for the IRA victims is just rolling along.

why arent britain doing the same? Oh, and I have no idea if youve ever watched the news, but the PIRA had nothing to do with Omagh - which incidentally is where Im from, so dont start on about how the RIRA and the PIRA are the same.

Why aren't britain doing the same as what?
And tell me where did the RIRA get their training? Their equipment? Why haven't the IRA or SF helped with the investigation.

exposed? guildford four - after how many years? and you are telling me that its been internationally accepted that Gibraltar was a shoot to kill exercise? give me a break ... we all know thats the case, but its never been admitted

But it has been exposed as one. And er admited. And please stop dancing around the subject anyway to use your own words.

Do whatever the hell you want - your antics on a internet messageboard will not get around the simple fact that your argument doesnt hold water and that the british army HAVE been involved in the deaths of innocent civillians in the north.

And when did I say they didn't?

its amazing how quick your argument falls apart.

I'd be laughing if it wasn't for the below

so their plans were to go out and kill innocent civillians? thats a lie. I remember Enniskillen - I was only a few dozen miles away. No republican I met that day was proud to be a republican.

So what then. They planted a bomb at a war memorial and then were horrified innocent people were killed?

Or the IRA were shocked, shocked I tell you, when their campaign to target pubs in birmingham, and guilford "accidently" killed and injuried civilians.

Away with yourself. The IRA have targeted civilians, you're lying.

irish1 wrote:

Paramilitary wing??? I really couldn't be bothered going around in circles again trying to explain to you that SF and the IRA are not the one group of people.

Be a dear and tell the rest of the real world that. Everyone else on the planet is working off the assumption that SF are the paramilitary wing of the IRA. Including er, SF's gift shop. Why else would they sell goods celebrating the IRA?

The IRA will never disband thats a fact, not because I don't want them to mind you. They will however in time no longer be a paramilitary organisation and the legislation that make them an illegal oragisation (in 1936 I think) makes provisions for them to become a legal organisation. I think Bertie made reference to this lately.

So when it continues recruiting, punishment beatings, and robberies, we'll just consider it some wacky native tradition like the puck fair?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

find me any republican who things any death is good. I dont think anyone thinks that the deaths in warrington were fantastic. does america gloat over the deaths in iraq - britain over the deaths caused in WW2? no .. but thats the nature of war.

So are you saying that what Britian and American is doing it Iraq is morally justifable? Cause I certainly don't think it is, and I think neither do you? Yet when the IRA do it, well that is just the "nature of war"

Are you saying that it is simply the "nature of war" if the IRA throw a bomb into a crowed pub in an effort to kill a handful of off duty soliders in there like in Guildford or Birmingham, but end up killing children as well. What exactly is the military significance of off duty soldiers in a public house? Were these soliders critical to the "occupation" of Northern Ireland?

Or maybe you can explain the military significance of exploding a bomb in a crowed shopping mall in Warrington (after giving a coded warning that the bomb was 16 miles to the north)? How exactly is blowing up a British Gas showroom and an Argos shop not deliberatly targetting civilians? Was the Argos shop critical to the ending British rule in Northern Ireland?

tomMK1

mycroft wrote:

Yeah and the SF campaign for justice for the IRA victims is just rolling along.

SF and others are working on justice campaigns for those killed by the british and loyalist death squads. Its obvious that they wont campaign for IRA victims, considering it was a war. You obviously dont seem to understand that. Did britain campaign to help those they killed during WW2? Obviously not.

Why aren't britain doing the same as what?

as what you expect the republicans to be doing.

And tell me where did the RIRA get their training? Their equipment? Why haven't the IRA or SF helped with the investigation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/ire-a04.shtml
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/.../ruc_omagh2.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nire...1066420,00.html
http://britishcollusion.com/omagh.html
... theres many who dont seem to be helping the investigation .. im waiting for you to give out about them.

But it has been exposed as one. And er admited. And please stop dancing around the subject anyway to use your own words.

no offense, but balls. exposed, believed by some, not believed by many others and not admitted to by the BG. Really, stop saying things that arent true[/quote]

And when did I say they didn't?

Im probably getting confused here with the number of posters saying exactly the same thing over and over and over again, but I was sure you mentioned that the BA werent terrorists .... my bad if im wrong on that.

So what then. They planted a bomb at a war memorial and then were horrified innocent people were killed?

Or the IRA were shocked, shocked I tell you, when their campaign to target pubs in birmingham, and guilford "accidently" killed and injuried civilians.

Away with yourself. The IRA have targeted civilians, you're lying.

So Im a liar now then eh? I cant defend or vouch for the IRA actions, so dont try to 'win' your argument on that front. the basic point is that it wasnt IRA policy to kill civillians.

Be a dear and tell the rest of the real world that. Everyone else on the planet is working off the assumption that SF are the paramilitary wing of the IRA. Including er, SF's gift shop. Why else would they sell goods celebrating the IRA?

Maybe because of the armed struggle? They sell things made by prisioners so that makes the SF leadership in the IRA. Fantastic logic .. i just sooo envy you.

So when it continues recruiting, punishment beatings, and robberies, we'll just consider it some wacky native tradition like the puck fair?

psst. was that a 'funny' line again? should i laugh yet?

where is your proof that it will?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

So are you saying that what Britian and American is doing it Iraq is morally justifable? Cause I certainly don't think it is, and I think neither do you? Yet when the IRA do it, well that is just the "nature of war"

Are you saying that it is simply the "nature of war" if the IRA throw a bomb into a crowed pub in an effort to kill a handful of off duty soliders in there like in Guildford or Birmingham, but end up killing children as well. What exactly is the military significance of off duty soldiers in a public house? Were these soliders critical to the "occupation" of Northern Ireland?

Or maybe you can explain the military significance of exploding a bomb in a crowed shopping mall in Warrington (after giving a coded warning that the bomb was 16 miles to the north)? How exactly is blowing up a British Gas showroom and an Argos shop not deliberatly targetting civilians? Was the Argos shop critical to the ending British rule in Northern Ireland?

see above .. and please, stop living in the past.