IRA statement

jbkenn

With the defeat of the civil rights association many believed their only hope for happiness would be within a united ireland

Kaptain Redeye, when exactly were the NICRA defeated, and by whom?

jbkenn

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Id put it down to his having his buttons pushed and thus heading off into the wild wild lands of ranting provoism. Personally I think hes close to actually recognising Provo idealogy for the ****e it is, hence the irrational attempt at defending of it.

Two hours before your post, he pointed out he'd missed it... I think we can call that character assassination.

Sand wrote:

Ive changed no facts. On every single point with which the Provos disagreed with the Officials theyve lost, right down to surrendering the "armed struggle". Thousands of people died for nothing. Rant all you like, but thats reality.

They didn't lose. They changed their tactics, when it was more suitable for them to do so. That seems to me like sense...

Sand wrote:

Well, I wouldnt claim the British Army are anything other than human, and thus imperfect, but they adhere to the GC, and are responsible for their actions to a democratic parliment and the rule of law. Yes, breaches occur. But breaches are punished as you note when you noted convictions.
On the other hand, SFIRA does not maintain any of these checks on their actions - least of all the GC. For your project, research the GC and see how many rules SFIRA broke when they murdered her[McConville]. I did it once in a post here, think I counted at least 6 probably more. It is then of course no surprise that the most depraved acts in the Troubles, such as the use of forced suicide bombers, were employed by SFIRA.

The Geneva Convention allows for the execution of spies without trial, if I recall correctly. And, assuming she was a spy (which seems likely - why would they kill a Catholic mother-of-ten?), then it didn't break the Convention. Anyways, I don't think anyone's claiming the IRA are angels...

Sand wrote:

I believe there are evil acts and good acts. Dragging kids out and beating them I wouldnt see as a good act even if Ghandi was doing it. Nor would I view Kingsmills as a good act even if Martin Luther King was at it. If an act is evil, its evil regardless of whose doing it.
Im never surprised that its the defenders of evil idealogies that try their best to sell "world of greys" ****e. If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh.

So is killing evil then? Cos, by your logic, that makes the British Army just as bad as the IRA. Is bombing evil?

Sand wrote:

That they killed 3 times as many civillians as the British Army, and killed far more Catholics? That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that.

Loyalist killed more civilians than the IRA - 800+ versus 516.

Sand wrote:

Oh what heroes. Sure, theyre trying to murder us, but at least theyve give us a few minutes warning.

More than the Loyalists did.

axer

I didnt know that the IRA had signed up to the Geneva Convention - anyways its not like any other nations abide by it. Just look at the british armies' ally, the good 'aul USA. They loved to show Saddam Hussein on TV. Am not 100% sure but I think it contravenes the GC showing POWs on national TV?
Violence was the tactic of the IRA not the goal.
Every civilian death in a war is sickening no matter if that victim is an Iraqi civilian, a British civilian or otherwise.

Villain

Well I was away for the long weekend so just catching up now.

I see Sand you're good friend Mr Paisley has said the IRA have won and the British army have surrended by removing the watch towers and sending soldiers home. You see both sides can play the "We won you lost, mines bigger than yours........" game but thats not going to help anyone is it.

The IRA has laid down it's arms and the British are De-militarising, from what I can see the Loyalists are the only ones that haven't made any movement, their still killing, it may be other loyalists their killing but it's still murder, I don't here Sand talking about them though????.

It's time we move on and look to the future, the future where Paisley and his friends have to sit down and talk to Sinn Fein so a powersharing government can be put in place.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

Well I was away for the long weekend so just catching up now.

I see Sand you're good friend Mr Paisley has said the IRA have won and the British army have surrended by removing the watch towers and sending soldiers home. You see both sides can play the "We won you lost, mines bigger than yours........" game but thats not going to help anyone is it.

The IRA has laid down it's arms and the British are De-militarising, from what I can see the Loyalists are the only ones that haven't made any movement, their still killing, it may be other loyalists their killing but it's still murder, I don't here Sand talking about them though????.

It's time we move on and look to the future, the future where Paisley and his friends have to sit down and talk to Sinn Fein so a powersharing government can be put in place.

The INLA are still active

Stabshauptmann

jbkenn wrote:

Kaptain Redeye, when exactly were the NICRA defeated, and by whom?

jbkenn

When they stopped marching.

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The INLA are still active

Thats true but their not in the middle of a gangland war up north like the loyalists.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Violence was the tactic of the IRA not the goal.

Violence was the single goal of the IRA, they were/are terrorist, in that they hope to change a political situation by terrorising the population of a country enough so that they changed opinion.

What ever you say about the Allies in Iraq (and I believe the war was both illegal and highly morally wrong) the American and Britian armies sought to win the war through over whelming use of force, not through means of terrorism.

The IRA did not have that option, there was no way they could ever win their war through force. So instead they turned to terrorism to achieve their goals, in that they attacked and killed in an effort to wear down the British government, army and public, through targetting and killing of "legitamate" targets such as British Army personal and illegal (what ever why you look at it) targets like civilians.

In Iraq the army killed as a means to an end. If a soldier got in the way of the British army he was shot. If he hadn't got in the way he would not have been shot. Now that is not to say that the war was in anyway justifiable or moral, because it (in my view) isn't. But the IRA would have shot the soldier anyway, because the goal was to terrorise the enemy as much as possible. Violence wasn't a means to an end, it was the end, it was the goal.

So can we stop these "The British are terrorist in Iraq" statements (talking in general here), because they show a fundamental lack of understanding of what terrorism actually is. Not every immoral evil act is an act of terrorism. "Terrorism" has become a buzz word for denouncing evil acts, we have forgetton what the word actually means.

jman0

That's complete rubbish Wicknight.
There is no universally accepted definition of the word "terrorism".
Besides, HMG's army would qualify as such because they intentionally murdered 14 unarmed civilians during Bloody Sunday, and they did it to put Catholics in their place (aka: to terrorise them).

Zombrex

jman0 wrote:

That's complete rubbish Wicknight.
There is no universally accepted definition of the word "terrorism".

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism
n :
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

Seems pretty universal to me :rolleyes:

jman0 wrote:

Besides, HMG's army would qualify as such because they intentionally murdered 14 unarmed civilians during Bloody Sunday, and they did it to put Catholics in their place (aka: to terrorise them).

You are right it would. What the Paratrooper regiment did on Bloody Sunday was a mixture of revenge and intimedation of N.I Catholics. I think it is pretty well established now that they aimed for civilians in an attempt to frighten and coerces the N.I Catholics into being to affraid to "cause trouble". That was an act of terrorism. It is exactly the same tactic the IRA used.

So I would ask people who believe the IRA were justified but the British Army at Derry weren't, what is the difference? The acts of Bloody Sunday were illegal, immoral and crimes against humanity. They were acts of illegal terrorism. But they are exactly the same tactics the IRA have been using for the last 30 years? They are exactly the same tactics the IRA have based their "war" around. So what is the difference?

Stabshauptmann

Because you want to continue the lies the the British Army killed that girl? More convenient than accepting that SFIRA killed her, SFIRA used her death to try and demonise the British Army, and when SFIRA were finished with her - then, finally then they admitted it was them.

More character assasination.

Yeah, its a brave and heroic cause youve taken up. I salute you.

You like one up manship, its how you get you kicks. You're now being shown up to be an inept user of logic and to be clueless when it comes to history. Im rubbing it in (and loving every minute of it) becuase I think it will teach a valuable lesson. How to be a gracious winner. Im going to continue to embarrass and shame your lack of ability and knowledge untill a mod bans me (when I will complain its not against the charter, and hopefully the charter will be changed) or you cop on and Ill move to the next person on my list.

You said..I said....You said

What exactly was I lying about?

You said I was only pointing out British war crimes. Thats a blatent lie, not only do I know and admit the IRA commited war crimes, but I asked you to help me compile a list of them. When someone stoops so low as you just have, its a wonder they dont break their back.

Did you or did you not point out convictions against the crown forces (which I hope youll allow is interchange with BA) as evidence that SFIRA were far better behaved in the Troubles?

The interchanging will make typing faster. Ill just use BA from here out, but when quoting statistics, use the figure for all crown forces.
You said I was holding the IRA as saints, when infact it would be closer to say they were the lesser of two evils. Though what I realy want to do is get you to acknowledge the sea of grey between black and white. Who commited less war crimes is a thread for another day - though that the IRA killed a comparitivly small number of civilians, and a small number of ppl compared to their capabilities is an indisputable fact.

Again, its touching to imagine you crying hot salty tears of rage over your keyboard.

Im going to get a webcam and video myself laughing at you, but then you might be so enraged as to attack me at the next boards beers.

Well Id say its more because Im summarising your position, which doesnt make sense.

Translate: Sand cant comprehend clear logic when its non-sectarian or is so adament not to admit defeat that he'll put his fingers in his ears and sing all day.

Well, I wouldnt claim the British Army are anything other than human, and thus imperfect, but they adhere to the GC, and are responsible for their actions to a democratic parliment and the rule of law. Yes, breaches occur. But breaches are punished as you note when you noted convictions.

The soldiers on Bloody Sunday were decorated by the Queen. Thats just one example but their is a list of unpunished crimes, when my project is finsihed Ill email you it and perhaps you can add to it.

On the other hand, SFIRA does not maintain any of these checks on their actions - least of all the GC. For your project, research the GC and see how many rules SFIRA broke when they murdered her[McConville]. I did it once in a post here, think I counted at least 6 probably more. It is then of course no surprise that the most depraved acts in the Troubles, such as the use of forced suicide bombers, were employed by SFIRA.

Well heres a sneak preview, when the IRA killed McConville, even if she was a spie and could be executed under the GC, the manner in which they killed her would be illegal. Theres a bit in the GC about depriving family of the deceased body. See the way I can say that, it doesnt contradict anything I said before, but watch how the vulchers will circle over it. Go on Sand, its so tempting, do it, try and get one up. :rolleyes:

Typo on my part. There is hardly any mistaking what I meant when you look at the context, especially the Orwell quotes.

Im looking at the context and dont see how its a typo. What did you mean to say?

Stabshauptmann

I believe there are evil acts and good acts. Dragging kids out and beating them I wouldnt see as a good act even if Ghandi was doing it. Nor would I view Kingsmills as a good act even if Martin Luther King was at it. If an act is evil, its evil regardless of whose doing it.

Well, we wont get into spiritual beliefs, but in short I dont believe in absolutes. A very long time ago I think I wrote a post about the death penalty and absolutes. You may be wondering how I can support the IRA and be opposed to absolutes - Im just destroying your arguements, not advancing my own beliefs.

Im never surprised that its the defenders of evil idealogies that try their best to sell "world of greys" ****e. If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh.

Once again I see you resort to A)Character assasination and B)Lies.
The PIRA, and its the PIRA we're talking about had nothing to do with Omagh.
And it never surprises me that A)Its always those who are losing that resort to the above tactics, and B)Extremeists and the intolerant close minded types always cling to absolutes
Is this the third time Ive shown you to have your facts wrong in this post?
OIRA and Sunnigdale, SF-DUP 30 years ago, and the PIRA were responsible for Omagh.

As I said Provo idealogy doesnt survive contact with objective analysis.

Nore evidently does your ideology.

So far its 3-0 on logic and 3-0 on facts both in my favour. Plus theres your constant attempts at character assasintaion. Face it Sand, Im a superior opponent and you're just digging a hole. And do you know why its so easy for me to beat you - Im not tied down to any intolerant ideology.

What you described was what happened - a falling rate of attacks. You said nothing about how this happened, or why, which I had already pointed out was hardly anything to do with a SFIRA campaign that only provoked further attack through stuff like Kingsmills. You merely assumed that killing roughly 1 loyalist a year did the trick.

Sand I dont think you are stupid (in this instance), I think you are purposefully ignoring a brilliant piece of logic. Your logic that the rate of IRA attacks on loyalists is a good measure of how well the IRA defendd nationalist areas is flawed, the measure of the IRAs ability to defend nationalist communities is the change in rates of loyalist attacks on said communities which you now admit fell.
4-0 to me on logic.
Now if you look at the siege of St Mathews, only one loyalist was killed. Your logic is based on the assumption that the IRA are blood thirsty - that is incompatible with the fact that the IRA ususally gave warnings. They didnt always, but statistically, its fair to make the generalisation that they did.

And you quickly rush on past the objective explanation - reform of the police forces, and deployment of the British Army. No wonder Provos hate reality and need to construct a world of lies to sustain their beliefs.

You think that reform of the police services lead to the decrease in attacks on nationalist areas. What reform and when? Police collusion was ungoing throughout the troubles. Pat Finucane was murdered in 1989. The only reform so far has been the office of the ombudsman and that was after the GFA.

Id say you're ripping up your teddy bears over there.

Im ripping the piss out of you on IRC and msn. Sand Im winning 3-0 on facts and 4-0 on logic. And Im going to rub it. Na na na na, na na na na, way hhay hoo, goodbye. Its killing you, I can just imagine you smacking your keyboard. Im loving every moment of this. Can you feel it, Oh I feel good, praise the Lord. *Does little dance*
See Sand, when I make you look stupid, and rub it in, I feel a little bit warm and fuzzy inside, but when I see it getting to you, when you reply with anger like that, thats when I start doing my little victory dance.
*Does dance*

That they killed 3 times as many civillians as the British Army, and killed far more Catholics? That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that.

Well how about we look at the facts, maybe they'll give me a "way out".
Loyalists: 800+
PIRA 500+.
More to fear from the IRA, I think not.
So thats 4-0 on facts and 4-0 on logic. The only cometition for me sand is to see whether I can beat you more on logic or facts

Oh what heroes. Sure, theyre trying to murder us, but at least theyve give us a few minutes warning.

Yes!! Wh00T, I love it when you make a tit of yourself with logic like that. *Gets some salt to put in wound*
If the IRA were trying to murder people, why would they give warnings at all? The whole point of warnings is so people get out of harms way. The IRA wanted to show what they could do.

So in the end its 5-0 on logic and 4-0 on facts in my favour and Im not even going to bother counting your blatent lies or attempts at character assasinations

Zombrex

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

More to fear from the IRA, I think not.

For a group that was supposed to protect Catholics the IRA killed nearly a quarter of all Catholics killed in the troubles. Loyalists killed nearly half (700), Republicans killed over 300 ... hard to see where the protection bit comes into it :rolleyes:

Also the IRA killed more Catholics (369) than the British Army did (264).

Also the IRA killed more Catholics than the Loyalists killed Protestants (192).

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

tomMK1

ah sure wouldnt it be fine if we could trust statistics. what about allt he people the SAS and the army claimed they never killed? what about the people loyalists killed and then blamed the IRA? Unfortunately we'll never know the real tally of deaths as we've never been given all the information.

tomMK1

btw - for those who use it - the inaccurate phrase SF/IRA ccertainly no longer can be used. outside its highly inaccurate assumption in the first place, the IRA dont exist anymore.

Also, shouldnt the mods note the use of that phrase as a bit like trolling for an argument?

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

the IRA dont exist anymore.

Call me cynical but I think it might be a bit premature to say that

jbkenn

the IRA dont exist anymore.

Since when?, I dont remember them saying they were going to fold their tent and finally f*ck off.
FYI While Sinn Fein exists so do the RA.

jbkenn

jman0

Wicknight wrote:

So I would ask people who believe the IRA were justified but the British Army at Derry weren't, what is the difference? The acts of Bloody Sunday were illegal, immoral and crimes against humanity. They were acts of illegal terrorism. But they are exactly the same tactics the IRA have been using for the last 30 years? They are exactly the same tactics the IRA have based their "war" around. So what is the difference?

Firstly:
The term "terrorism" is controversial and has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Secondly:
Consider that Bloody Sunday in 1972 was not the first instance of HMG's army use of terrorism. They hardly adopted this tactic from the IRA! :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

Wicknight wrote:

For a group that was supposed to protect Catholics the IRA killed nearly a quarter of all Catholics killed in the troubles. Loyalists killed nearly half (700), Republicans killed over 300 ... hard to see where the protection bit comes into it :rolleyes:

Also the IRA killed more Catholics (369) than the British Army did (264).

Also the IRA killed more Catholics than the Loyalists killed Protestants (192).

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

The flaws in your logic are that:

A)Its sectarian sectarian logic. Catholic and nationalist are not interchangeable terms.
B)You've changed context. Civilians had more to fear from the loyalist paramilitares than from the IRA
C)Even by your own admission the loyalist paramilitaries, even though killing a much smaller number of people, killed far more catholics. Though Im not going to get into sectarian debates with you.

Zombrex

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Thats very sectarian logic. Catholic and nationalist are not interchangeable terms.

True, and I didn't use them interchangeable ... i said "Catholic" all along .. though by that statement you seem to be implying that Catholic non-nationalists are valid targets for the IRA.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Anyway, what you quotes out of context was that Civilians had more to fear from the loyalist paramilitares than from the IRA

The Republican movement killed about 700 "civilians", the Loyalist movement about 800 so I would hardly say civilians felt particularly safe around either group :rolleyes:

Also the IRA kill over 400 members of the police service (including Catholics) who I would not classify as legitiamate targets.

So maybe we should define what you believe a legitimate target is, instead of talking about "civilans" as if everyone else is fair game

Stabshauptmann

You quoted me talking about civilians to sand and put in catholics instead of civilians.
The IRA killed about 500, not 700 civilaisn.
Any other mistakes you want to make while we're at it?

Now onto a topic worthy of debate: were the RUC legitimate targets.
Why wouldnt they be?

Stabshauptmann

Wicknight wrote:

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism
n :
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

So lets look at the war in Iraq:
The threat to attck Iraq unless American demands were met would be through intimindation or coercion, "Shock and Awe" would be an example of instilling fear, Cluster bombs and mines would be unlawful use of force and then the actual fighting is the calculated use of violence. What was the aim of the war, to remove Saddam from power/secure oil? sounds politically motivated to me.

See how easy it is to manipulate your definition?

Seems pretty universal to me :rolleyes:

You're either witty or thats very ironic

Sand

Two hours before your post, he pointed out he'd missed it... I think we can call that character assassination.

And in the posts he made before that he highlighted the passage Mr Nice Guy noted and went on some rant about why hes "fighting" me. I grant though, the layer of froth and spittle on his monitor might have hampered the view of exactly what he was replying to. Again, what was that about character assassination?

They didn't lose.

Theyd be the first guys in history to unconditionally surrender and win then...

The Geneva Convention allows for the execution of spies without trial, if I recall correctly. And, assuming she was a spy (which seems likely - why would they kill a Catholic mother-of-ten?), then it didn't break the Convention. Anyways, I don't think anyone's claiming the IRA are angels...

More than that though, shes was supposed to have a trial by her peers which she didnt get, and even if she was guilty as hell, armies arent allowed to execute mothers of young children if I remember reading up on the GC correctly. And firstly, she was born a Protestant and converted upon marraige to a Catholic man, and secondly they murdered her because she was an (ex) Prod in a Catholic area who comforted a British soldier as he died on her doorstep - like youd hope someone would comfort your family if they were dying. That marked her out as a traitor to the Provos. And the Provos lied for years that she had run off with a British soldier, to further destroy the lives of her children left behind, when they *knew* they had killed her. Everything about the provos is lies.

I didnt know that the IRA had signed up to the Geneva Convention

Armies are bound by it regardless of who signs up to it. Guerilla armies are also covered by it, *if* they want to be recognised as guerilla armies/rebels. It protects guerillas from being shot outright for being out of uniform. SFIRA might claim to be an army fighting a war, but they never operated according to the GC hence theyre merely terrorists and crinimals. The British didnt criminalise the Provos, the Provos did.

the future where Paisley and his friends have to sit down and talk to Sinn Fein so a powersharing government can be put in place.

Not going to happen in anywhere like the near future. SFIRA have to do exactly nothing, every day, forever. Do you think all crinimal and paramilitary activity stopped at 4pm last Thursday? It took SFIRA 11 years since the beginning of the peace proccess to agree to surrender, I dont think anyone could blame the DUP if they demanded 11 years to verify SFIRAs word.

You like one up manship, its how you get you kicks.

Im more entertained by people losing the plot and ranting and raving to be honest. What you call one upmanship, I call attacking posts I completely disagree with.

Im rubbing it in (and loving every minute of it) becuase I think it will teach a valuable lesson. How to be a gracious winner. Im going to continue to embarrass and shame your lack of ability and knowledge untill a mod bans me (when I will complain its not against the charter, and hopefully the charter will be changed) or you cop on and Ill move to the next person on my list.

Oh so now youve got a grudge list. Are the names on it written in your own blood?

You said I was only pointing out British war crimes. Thats a blatent lie,

BZZZT - Wrong answer Im afraid. I never said "only" . I just mentioned that aspect of your defence of SFIRAs atrocities as being less worse than the other guy. Youre fierce fast throwing baseless accusations of lying around.

I asked you to help me compile a list of them.

Do your own project research Especially when youve already decided that the outcome will be SFIRA has a better record than the BA.

You said I was holding the IRA as saints

Nope I didnt. Id doubt youre all that critical of them though, when you claimed in your first or second post here that they were far more humane than their enemy - would this be the loyalists, or the British Army your referring to here?

Though what I realy want to do is get you to acknowledge the sea of grey between black and white. Who commited less war crimes is a thread for another day - though that the IRA killed a comparitivly small number of civilians, and a small number of ppl compared to their capabilities is an indisputable fact.

By that fecked up logic you should be building statues of British soldiers and worshipping them in thanks for not nuking Derry and South Armagh. They had the capability, they chose not to do it...

Im going to get a webcam and video myself laughing at you, but then you might be so enraged as to attack me at the next boards beers.

Ah for Provos, violence is always the answer isnt it.

Translate: Sand cant comprehend clear logic when its non-sectarian or is so adament not to admit defeat that he'll put his fingers in his ears and sing all day.

Its your logic, and its you that said it didnt make sense I just put it out in the light of day where you actually had to pause and read what you were ranting.

Well heres a sneak preview, when the IRA killed McConville, even if she was a spie and could be executed under the GC, the manner in which they killed her would be illegal. Theres a bit in the GC about depriving family of the deceased body. See the way I can say that, it doesnt contradict anything I said before, but watch how the vulchers will circle over it. Go on Sand, its so tempting, do it, try and get one up.

Oh no, I applaud you for your deep investigation and refusal to accept the incident at face value. Though as I mentioned to Supersheep above theres a fair bit more digging for you to do. Dont worry though, if it doesnt suit your preordained conclusion you can always ignore it...

Well, we wont get into spiritual beliefs, but in short I dont believe in absolutes.

Oh I know you dont, I already explained thats why youre able to support SFIRA unconditionally and without question even when their lies are demonstrated for you - McConville for example. A person who believes in right and wrong couldnt do that.

The PIRA, and its the PIRA we're talking about had nothing to do with Omagh.

I never said they did... I was actually hoping youd question that, so I could then ask you why Omagh was wrong and Warrington right? Sorry, I remember, you probably dont accept Omagh was wrong, no more than Warrington because youve already stated you dont believe in absolutes. Merely grey. Tactical moves. Murdering a certain number of people to force better terms at the negotiating table. Omagh wasnt morally wrong in Provo thinking, it was strategically wrong.

Your logic that the rate of IRA attacks on loyalists is a good measure of how well the IRA defendd nationalist areas is flawed, the measure of the IRAs ability to defend nationalist communities is the change in rates of loyalist attacks on said communities which you now admit fell.

My logic is simple. You claim SFIRA was created to fight off hordes of Loyalists. They only managed to kill 30 odd in 30 years. Meanwhile they were committing attacks like Kingsmills. Hence Loyalists has little to fear from SFIRA, whilst their community - which they also saw themselves as defending - was enraged by sectarian attacks upon them. Under those conditions is it logical to assume that Loyalist attacks should have been more likely, or less likely? A lot of provocation, and no real threat of being killed by the so called defenders.

And you desperately refuse to recognise or factor in the real reasons for the fall in loyalist attacks.... reform of the security forces and deployment of the British Army to patrol the peace lines. Because that might actually challenge your bland acceptance of the Provo theology.

You ran away on the point regarding SFIRAs surrender of every point they disagreed on with the Officials, ran away on the (lack of) justification SFIRA had for atrocities like the Birmingham Pub bombings when the majority of nationalists wanted Sunningdale to succeed, ran away on sectarian attacks of SFIRA, ran away on answering why SFIRA was able to kill so many Catholics in supposedly sectarian security forces, ran away on your cheering of the fact SFIRA still continues its terrorist/crinimal activities (Which is where you came in on this thread, since then youve been ranting and raving and trying to turn it into a personal vendetta because of some imagined slight against either yourself or some posters you care about).

In fact youve ran away on just about every single point and are now apparently out buying a web cam to film yourself ranting, dancing and cackling whilst obsessing over me. Will you be telling your grandchildren about this day?

If the IRA were trying to murder people, why would they give warnings at all? The whole point of warnings is so people get out of harms way. The IRA wanted to show what they could do.

They killed more people than *any* other organisation in the Troubles. And youre claiming they were trying not to? Will I add this to the list of further SFIRA failures?

Real zinger though.

Stabshauptmann

OUt of two very long posts you've picked ounly a handful of lines. Its ironic then how you can talk about running away.

One point you quoted was an example of an undeniable war crime by yhe IRA, your retort, that Id probably ignore it. Your attempts at logic baffle those of us with intelligence.

Ive highlighted 5 cases of you using flawed logic, but leaving them aside, youve only corrected youself one one of the four counts of false facts.
That still leaves 3 outstanding.

Youve already started hiding from my points, it probably wont be long before you stop replying. Ive shown you to be irrational, a liar, cowardly, mistaken about many facts. But this isnt personal abuse apparently the way Im rubbing it in, and apparently not against the charter. But Ill tell you what, if you admit that you were mistaken about the 3 outstanding facts - use whatever excuse you want, and Ill stop the whole one manship. Ill leave you in peace. Or would that be surrender
See any striking similarities yet?

Sand

OUt of two very long posts you've picked ounly a handful of lines. Its ironic then how you can talk about running away.

Well youve been desperately trying to change the subject into a personal vendetta against me ever since you realised crowing about Provo criminality and terrorism whilst attempting to get in government wasnt all that clever. Im happy to still talk about how SFIRA surrendered unconditionally, and how SFIRA have always talked ****e and delivered nothing.

As it is the only two things you mentioned of note in your last posts were your denial over the Loyalists attacks being stopped by better policing and military deploment, and the SFIRA bomb warnings.

The rest was lying about what I said, ignoring counters to your "arguments" (which youve done again), ranting and saying how much you hate me. Oh I forgot, the bodycounts as well, where SFIRA still killed 17 civillians for every loyalist, and 3 civillians for every civillian the BA killed, and more Catholics than the British Army or indeed any other group in the troubles killed, where you added nothing new. Apart from your claim SFIRA tried to limit the bodycount. Where youll have to admit they failed - again.

One point you quoted was an example of an undeniable war crime by yhe IRA, your retort, that Id probably ignore it.

Well you seem happy to try to ignore every other lie in SFIRAs version of history. What you see wrong with McConvilles murder is that they didnt bury her publicly, not that they abducted, tortured and murdered an innocent woman for daring to comfort a dying man, buried her in some unmarked grave which they gave so little throught too that they promptly forgot exactly where it was, lied about her being an informant and running off with a solider to increase the hurt of her family and ensure they were ostracised, and only after immense pressure return her body to her family decades later and admit what happened? And even still they lie.

Maybe youll protest, maybe you wont. But the point that seemed most important to you was *IF* she was a spy, then it was okay to kill her. When you dont even question the ****e of discovering the only radio ever issued by British intelligence to an informant in NI ever. Conventient that.

Orwell had a great quote that sums up SFIRA fanboys

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception

Ive highlighted 5 cases of you using flawed logic, but leaving them aside, youve only corrected youself one one of the four counts of false facts.
That still leaves 3 outstanding.

Ive not corrected myself on anything other than the typo as far as I remember? Youve ran from every point from your initial one right through to the last ones. All thats maintained constant is your bitterness and hatred. Which only entertains me tbh.

Ill leave you in peace.

Last I checked, youre the one so wound up that hes cackling, dancing, ranting, and buying a web cam to record himself to try and provoke a fight. I am at peace, you cant claim to be the way youre acting

uberwolf

Sand wrote:

Last I checked, youre the one so wound up that hes cackling, dancing, ranting, and buying a web cam to record himself to try and provoke a fight. I am at peace, you cant claim to be the way youre acting

focus on the posts and not the posters. And while you're posting could you avoid winding everyone up with the surrender and defeat. play nice

Stabshauptmann

Ive not changed the subject. Ive pointed out 4 mistakes in facts by you:
1)The OIRA-PIRA split was before Sunnigdale
2)SF-DUP were by no means main stream before the troubles so they cant be at it again after 30 years
3)Omagh bombing was carried out by the RIRA not the PIRA
4)Loyalist paramilitaries killed more civilians than the IRA

You corrected yourself over the mistake that the PIRA were responsible for Omagh, are you now taking that back?

This must really be killing you, these facts are all widly known, yet you deny them. Its not obscure, or open to interpretation. You're just wrong.

On a side note its a pity Uber has no problem with my posting style. Maybe he does but just thinkss ignoring it is the best way for me to stop. I dunno, still, I think one-up-manship is the main failing of this board and its mods.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

1)The OIRA-PIRA split was before Sunnigdale

And what I actually said was...

Why were Provos formed? Was it because they rejected the Officials for their increasing Marxist bent? For their willingess to contest elections? For the Officials rejection of the armed struggle as being justifiable?

Where did I claim it was after? Am I not blaming SFIRA for refusing to support the Sunningdale agreement, as the majority of nationalists wished, whilst you argued that they actually had a mandate to intensify their terrorism? And now were back to, as Seamus Mallon put it to "Sunningdale for slow learners". If I was blaming SFIRA for not supporting Sunnindale then they would logicially have to be seperate to the OIRA by that point? Yes?

2)SF-DUP were by no means main stream before the troubles so they cant be at it again after 30 years

And what I said was....

Of course you cant exactly point out where anyone went around asking the population what they though SFIRA should do, and indeed they rejected Sunningdale when you admit the majority of nationalists supported it. SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?

Where did I say they were mainstream? If anything I pointed out that SFIRA acted against the wishes of the people it claimed to represent. Paisley led the Unionist effort to undermine Sunningdale and SFIRA helped out by doing their best to undermine it with violence. Which is, exactly what theyre doing 30 years later.

3)Omagh bombing was carried out by the RIRA not the PIRA

And what I said was....

Im never surprised that its the defenders of evil idealogies that try their best to sell "world of greys" ****e. If they believed in right and wrong, it would be hard for them to support planting a bomb in Warrington or Omagh.

Point out where I said the PIRA planted the Omagh bomb? I cited them as evil acts that defenders of evil idealogies try to blur in grey so they can support them. You still havent explained how you differentiate between Warrington and Omagh btw. Oh wait you have. The PIRA did one, the RIRA did another, that appears to be the important difference.

4)Loyalist paramilitaries killed more civilians than the IRA

Point where I said Loyalists didnt kill more than SFIRA? Actually, no Loyalist group killed as many civillians or Catholics for that matter as SFIRA either way. All combined Loyalists groups did though. SFIRA only managed to knobble 32 of them in return though, which is a lousy effort imo.

Ive not changed the subject. Ive pointed out 4 mistakes in facts by you:

I think youll find you either made 4 mistakes of your own, or lied and put words in my mouth in a crude attempt at character assassination. Im deeply saddened.

This must really be killing you, these facts are all widly known, yet you deny them.

Seemingly theyre better known than what I actually said...

On a side note its a pity Uber has no problem with my posting style. Maybe he does but just thinkss ignoring it is the best way for me to stop. I dunno, still, I think one-up-manship is the main failing of this board and its mods.

Seeing as youve yet to make a valid point (other than your imagined ones) I dont think it can be described as one-upmanship.

focus on the posts and not the posters. And while you're posting could you avoid winding everyone up with the surrender and defeat. play nice

In fairness, most of his posts by this stage are him describing him acting in that fashion and the personal nature of his attacks on me. I think Ive been very nice about it.

Ill make a deal with the provo fanboys though - if they dont celebrate SFIRA murderous campaign and continuing criminality and defend it as legitimate then I wont remind them of SFIRAs unconditional surrender.

tomMK1

jbkenn wrote:

Since when?, I dont remember them saying they were going to fold their tent and finally f*ck off.
FYI While Sinn Fein exists so do the RA.

jbkenn

i think that really just proves a point that maybe people dont really care or not if the IRA go out of business .. its really sinn fein they want to quit. that just takes things to a real fairyland scenario, saying one thing and deep down really meaning another.

If their statement cant be read that they're dumping arms and doing only legal things in the future - which means to all intents and purposes they're gone, then I dont know what does really.

I dont think its premature assuption either - just as I didnt think adams' initial request to the IRA was a pre election publicity stunt.

Anyway, so it seems then when they do disarm the whole spotlight will shift to Sinn fein really really being the IRA in secret. What a surprise. that was sarcasm btw.