IRA statement

tomMK1

since political change happens all over the world, all the time, without terrorism.

off hand I cant think of much major political change that didnt involve warfare of some kind

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

when it comes to the north and whats going on, i certainly seem to have a better grip on it than your fine self sir. btw theres no need for such pityful attempts at personal insult. it shows where your argument is going.

Hey I was just saying I wasn't surprised that you didn't know if you were in the IRA or not, it seems a common conditions with members of Sinn Fein, especially the leaders :rolleyes:

tomMK1

that is what you are assuming and its what you are being told by a politcal base which fears Sinn Fein.

It doesnt mean its true and as a SF member, personally i find it an ignorant point of view to hold, as though people have a right to slander sinn fein members as they are all assumed to be in the IRA. It isnt correct.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

that is what you are assuming and its what you are being told by a politcal base which fears Sinn Fein.

It doesnt mean its true and as a SF member, personally i find it an ignorant point of view to hold, as though people have a right to slander sinn fein members as they are all assumed to be in the IRA. It isnt correct.

Well you are basically saying that the Republic of Ireland's Army intelligence service is lying about Sinn Fein for politcal purposes because they are scared of them, so maybe you might want to ease up on the "slander" allegations there matey...

i am simply saying I believe my Army's intelligence service assessment of SF and I wouldn't believe SF offical spin as far as could throw Gerry Adams, and I would trust what Adams says even less

tomMK1

no i am not saying that.

First off, Im saying that one report claims certina SF members to be in the IRA - not MOST members mind you, certain individuals. that was denied, and never ever backed up with evidence of any kind.

I do not care how much you can or cant trust gerry adams, as that bears nothing to the issue iof most sinn fein people being in the IRA, as has been inaccurately claimed.

So to round that off, telling me that the irish forces believe gerry adams to be in the IRA is the same as most people being in the IRA ..well, thats a bit silly really is it? It always helps when you stick to the point and not try and confuse the issue. then again, with the IRA standing down, the anti-republicans dont really have anything to argue with anymore.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

so maybe you might want to ease up on the "slander" allegations there matey...

why? what have you said to say that people have a right to slander sinn fein members in saying that most of them are in the IRA?

the answer is that you've said and proved absolutely nothing to give people that right. basically who ever made the inaccurate claim that most members of sinn fein are in the IRA (i cant remember who said it at this stage) should retract that and stop flogging a dead horse 'matey'

Sand

But I have gotten Earthman's atention. My personal goals are going to be met quite soon.

If you want to change the charter, then post in the charter discussion sticky, or pm a mod, or go to the feedback forum. Have an actual objective defintion of "one-upmanship". Some friendly advice.

You put the same date for "the ideology they rejected" as the date for the "agreement they rejected" ie The Split and Sunnigdale.

Kaptain, when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.

You know I didnt put the same date for those actions, as you would have quoted where I said on such and such a day, of such and such a month of such and such a year, SFIRA simultaneously created itself and announced it was rejecting Sunningdale.

What you said was: ""SFIRA plus Paisley in action again. Wonderful how they came together 30 years later to bury the GFA isnt it?"".
I said something like, its rediculous to suggest they're back together where they started because 30 years ago they hardly existed let alone be mainstream. You tryed to avoid this, so I made a reminder posts with the line

Again stop digging. You know I didnt claim anything about their popularity or lack of it or again you would have quoted it. My statement is totally accurate. Paisley and SFIRA destroyed Sunningdale, and they teamed up to destroy the GFA 30 years later.

My aim isnt to prove anything, its to highlight your errors for my own personal enjoyment. By your own admission, you didnt put in the disclaimer that the RIRA carred out the omagh bombing, in a thread were you were lambasting the PIRA, and where you were refering to the IRA as "evil". You used a collective term for PIRA and RIRA activities.

Firstly your claiming your objective is purely a personal attack on me. Thats against the charter. I ask you kindly to desist.

Secondly, you really ought to stop digging. There is no need for a disclaimer in a paragraph which identifies "they" in the sentence before, and doesnt mention either the PIRA or the RIRA. Anyone versed in the english language would agree. In fact, I dont think I mentioned either of those abbreviations at all in the entire thread until you introduced them?

Ah, I thought you were trying to say civilians had more to fear from the IRA than from loyalists. I read it as "That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist".

Well, at least youve stopped digging here which is a start. But youve again quoted me inaccurately to invent an argument. What I said was

That civillians had more to fear from SFIRA than Loyalist did?There is no getting away from that

You said it was a typo, what are the exact words you meant to type

I already told you.

Wrong. The Geneva Convention only covers signatories. For example, in WWII, Russia was not a signatory. Russians captured by the Germans were put to work in slave labour camps, fed measly meals, and shot on whims. Other prisoners were put up well. And, if I recall correctly, the GC doesn't cover guerrillas out of uniform. They have to have a certain number of identifying characteristics, such as insignia and the like, which negate the usefulness of guerrilla warfare.

No, Im afraid youre wrong. The Geneva Convention (articles 2 and 3, 3 most applicable) covers *every* party in a war, be they soldiers of a national army, or a rebel army that was just created last sunday. No party to a war is immune from prosecution to war crimes just because they didnt sign. Adherence to the GC is the standard of what differentiates an actual army from terrorist thugs who merely claim to be an army. So either SFIRA are terrorists or they are war crinimals. Im open to either. Either way, SFIRA crinimalised and disgraced their own "struggle".

I would. This gives them what they want. They should take it and get back to power-sharing.

All it provides is promises which have proven false so many, many times before. If they want feel good hype they could read the last dozen or so P O Neill statements.

I highly doubt we will ever know the truth of what happened to Jean McConville.

Oh, hears another Orwell quote - this guy had some good one liners.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Do you believe there is no such thing as a just war? Just wondering.

Yes. If SFIRA had limited their campaign to its stated aims - protecting Catholic areas from Loyalist onslaughts, whilst adhering to the GC whilst doing so - then that would be just - self defence when security forces were either unwilling or unable to intervene - and no one could disagree as war is all too common. But they didnt. They were never interested in defending Catholics. They moved as fast as they could to carrying out terrorist atrocities like the Birmingham Pub bombings.

Tactics.

So to your mind SFIRAs willingness to stand for election, enter the GFA and swear off violence is merely a tactical ploy? Unionists think exactly the same thing which is why the GFA is dead.

tomMK1

Unionists think exactly the same thing which is why the GFA is dead.

its dead my ass. how can you support peace but then claim the GFA is dead before its even implimented properly?

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

If you want to change the charter, then post in the charter discussion sticky, or pm a mod, or go to the feedback forum. Have an actual objective defintion of "one-upmanship". Some friendly advice.

I did pm mods and posted in feedback when what was or isnt personal abuse was being discussed. This wasnt my first idea.

Kaptain, when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.

You're in a hole and Im standing up here smiling down, Im going to watch as you try to distance yourself from your own words with much gusto and spinning. Try not to get too dissy. The only thing keeping you in the hole is a combination of pride and fear that Ill rub it in if you take it back. I wont, promise. Now that I have earthmans attention Im not arsed gloating any more.

You know I didnt put the same date for those actions, as you would have quoted where I said on such and such a day, of such and such a month of such and such a year, SFIRA simultaneously created itself and announced it was rejecting Sunningdale.

Sand, you are being overally anal as I predicted you would. You said, and I quoted it for you that both happened 30 years ago. I wasnt as pedantic as to try and twist that you meant 1975 but you did put them at the same time. You didnt pick a time of day either.

Again stop digging. You know I didnt claim anything about their popularity or lack of it or again you would have quoted it. My statement is totally accurate. Paisley and SFIRA destroyed Sunningdale, and they teamed up to destroy the GFA 30 years later.

Last time I checked, and I hope history hasnt changed too much since then, it was disquite within the UUP, reflective of the unionist population as a whole that forced the resignation of Faulkner. From the bbc as well:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/powersharing/exec.shtml

The first political casualty was Brian Faulkner. He was forced to resign as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party when its ruling body, the Ulster Unionist Council, voted to reject the Agreement on 4 January. He immediately formed a new party, the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland but could only persuade 17 pro-Sunningdale colleagues to join him. This was a political disaster for Faulkner who now only represented a minority in the majority unionist community. The nationalist SDLP had 19 seats which effectively gave the minority community a majority in the new government.

It wasnt SF and the DUP who sank sunnigdale.

Firstly your claiming your objective is purely a personal attack on me. Thats against the charter.

No, its not a personal attack on you, its an attack on a posting style which is common on this board and which you regularly use. Since getting Eathmans attention Ive started pming him to discuss the issue of taunting and one up manship.

I ask you kindly to desist

Dont you like people laughing at you when youve made a mistake?

There is no need for a disclaimer in a paragraph which identifies "they" in the sentence before, and doesnt mention either the PIRA or the RIRA. Anyone versed in the english language would agree.

So in my analogy, a thread about the BA in Iraq, and someone starts calling defenders of BA attrocities defenders of evil actions and then picks 2 examples, one which has nothing to do with the BA - it would be reasonable not to put in a disclamier?
Thats clutching at straws.

This thread is quite clearly about the Provisional Irish Republican Army, its even in the title.

In fact, I dont think I mentioned either of those abbreviations at all in the entire thread until you introduced them?

You use the term SFIRA which no organisation defines itself as (those of use versed in politics and history know that) and everyone knows refers to the PIRA and SF.

Well, at least youve stopped digging here which is a start. But youve again quoted me inaccurately to invent an argument. What I said was

But its still wrong. While its not wrong in the way I origionally thought it was Ive pointed out how its wrong in the way you meant it too.
The sentence made perfect sense to you because you thought you were describing some fact which was self evident, but when such a "fact" was clearly wrong, the sentence as a whole makes less sense and since you admit that your posts have typos and sometimes make no sense I thought you were trying to say something else.

Come on Sand, Im waiting for you to either come up with a source saying there were 32,000+ loyalists or admit that you were wrong.

I already told you.

A typo - when you hit the wrong keys or forget a word. What sentence did you mean to write that can be easily constructed from what you did write.

Sand, do you honestly think that ppl cant see you are trying to avoid confronting these errors.

* You are standing by your assertion that SF and the DUP scuppered Sunnigdale when history doesnt support that account. Contribute surely, but not in the major way you imply.

*On the OIRA-PIRA split and the issue of the omagh bomb you are arguing semantics. If the split had nothing to do with sunnigdale and if the PIRA had nothing to do with the omagh bomb just say so; say that you know so but were just careless when you implied when they did and that you had not malicious intent. Which do you think ppl will think less of you for, defending a point you know to be false or carelessly making links which dont exist. Though it will be up to people to decide if your mistake was due to carelessness or deliberate malice.

*And then there is the point about PIRA loyalist killings. The point has been disproven unless you have a source for loyalist numbers in excess of 32,000. Can you acknowledge that or will you refuse to answer because I misread your mistake?

Four mistakes Sand, you're in a hole and Ive offered you a way out that doesnt involve songs and dances or attempts to embarrass you.
2 of your mistakes cant be defended; and 2 you have only semantics to hide behind; admit these two were worded in a way that could be interpreted in a way which you didnt mean. And you wont be just trusting my promise that I wont rub it in, Earthman promises to ban me if I do

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

Maybe it has, but then again how do you come to that conclusion? there were decades of no unrest before 1969, but yet little had changed in the preceeding 40 years.

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future gains.

tomMK1 wrote:

off hand I cant think of much major political change that didnt involve warfare of some kind

I didn't use the word "major". That quibble aside, how much terrorism was required to secure Scottish devolution? How many civilian deaths led to the creation of Slovakia and the Czech Republic? What barbaric atrocity brought down the Berlin Wall?

supersheep

Sand wrote:

No, Im afraid youre wrong. The Geneva Convention (articles 2 and 3, 3 most applicable) covers *every* party in a war, be they soldiers of a national army, or a rebel army that was just created last sunday. No party to a war is immune from prosecution to war crimes just because they didnt sign. Adherence to the GC is the standard of what differentiates an actual army from terrorist thugs who merely claim to be an army. So either SFIRA are terrorists or they are war crinimals. Im open to either. Either way, SFIRA crinimalised and disgraced their own "struggle".

Ooops... My bad. That was signed after WWII. I never considered the possibility here that there was more than one GC, even though I knew it. Meesa stupid.

Sand wrote:

All it provides is promises which have proven false so many, many times before. If they want feel good hype they could read the last dozen or so P O Neill statements.

Let me qualify that, as I should have before - given that the promises are true. And, if the rumours are true, we should see moves on decommissioning soon...

Sand wrote:

Oh, hears another Orwell quote - this guy had some good one liners.

George Orwell wrote:

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

So, you have definitive proof of what happened? I'd like to hear it. What I was saying is there are two stories, and either could be true. And like I said, if she was killed because she comforted a dying soldier, then it is a terrible atrocity.

Sand wrote:

Yes. If SFIRA had limited their campaign to its stated aims - protecting Catholic areas from Loyalist onslaughts, whilst adhering to the GC whilst doing so - then that would be just - self defence when security forces were either unwilling or unable to intervene - and no one could disagree as war is all too common. But they didnt. They were never interested in defending Catholics. They moved as fast as they could to carrying out terrorist atrocities like the Birmingham Pub bombings.

And now your original post:

Sand wrote:

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.

War is killing people to force better terms at the negotiating table, no? Also, one of their stated goals was the unification of Ireland. So, if they'd tried to do that and kept to the Geneva Convention, would you support them then?

Sand wrote:

So to your mind SFIRAs willingness to stand for election, enter the GFA and swear off violence is merely a tactical ploy? Unionists think exactly the same thing which is why the GFA is dead.

Spinning it... I said it was tactical, not a ploy... Political tactics, whatever... Just because it's tactical doesn't mean they're not doing it in good faith.

Wicknight wrote:

If the membership of one group is made up of a large number of another group then they are pretty much the same group
if a large number of the UDA are also british army, or ex-british army and the army know and (unoffically) approve of this, is it not safe to say that the UDA are nothing more than the terrorist wing of the British Army?

You can say that, but it's spin and deliberate masking of the truth to get what you want - namely tarring Sinn Féin with a terrorist brush.

Wicknight wrote:

The Post Office is the IRA if a large number of its members are also in the IRA or have strong connections with it and the Post Office supports and speaks for the IRA.
And if a member of the British Intellegence forces also is a member of the UVF and the army know this and approve it, then the British Army are not infact involved in collusion .. cause they are totally seperate organsitations with nothing to do with each other .. they just have member who are member of both ... but totally seperate ...
Of course the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA goes much futher than the above example. The two organistation as so inter-twinned it is hard to imagine one without the other. Such, hell even the leaders of SF sit on the IRA army council (oh thats right, they don't offically ... so we will have to be very quiet about that little fact ... )

Well, for one, they're no longer on the council... Front page news in the Indo a few days back... I'm assuming that the second paragraph was sarcasm, yeah? In which case, you're right - they're separate but colluding. And so were the IRA and Sinn Féin - separate organisations, which have continually grown further and further apart, and are now totally separate - probably with some common members.

jman0

Sand wrote:

No, Im afraid youre wrong. The Geneva Convention (articles 2 and 3, 3 most applicable) covers *every* party in a war, be they soldiers of a national army, or a rebel army that was just created last sunday. No party to a war is immune from prosecution to war crimes just because they didnt sign. Adherence to the GC is the standard of what differentiates an actual army from terrorist thugs who merely claim to be an army. So either SFIRA are terrorists or they are war crinimals. Im open to either. Either way, SFIRA crinimalised and disgraced their own "struggle".

That's rubbish Sand. Both those articles you link to state "High Contracting Parties" and that refers to parties of conflict that are signatories of the treaty. You should also be advised that not all nations sitting at the UN have even agreed to allow International Court of Justice (ICJ) in their jursticition. For example the USA recognises the ICJ, but only on a case-by-case basis. They reserve the right to decide if they will allow ICJ to "try" a case against them. It's a joke.
Insofar as your statement that:

Sand wrote:

No party to a war is immune from prosecution to war crimes just because they didnt sign.

Are u fecking serious?
Maybe you don't follow the news because if you did, you'd know already that the USA (i like to pick on them) prefer to bully other countries into signing treaty's that allow for immunity from being tried for war crimes at the Hague. This is just one example.

Sand wrote:

Adherence to the GC is the standard of what differentiates an actual army from terrorist thugs who merely claim to be an army.

This is not fact Sand, this is your own idealism. There are more than one treaty (including the GC) that refer to "irregular forces", but there is no defining standard black/white approach to conflict. The GC are the best we have but it is true that the only people bound to it's conventions are those that have signed the treaty. Now the UN may create conditions upon entry in the General Assembly, whereby a nation can only have a vote on the floor if they've already signed such-and-such treaty. But the IRA are an irregular army and are not signatories of these treatys and are not a member nation of the UN.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Adherence to the GC is the standard of what differentiates an actual army from terrorist thugs who merely claim to be an army.

This appears to be somewhat at odds with your previous stance of what distinguishes military and terrorist actions....given that I believe the GC and adherence to it had absolutely nothing to do with the distinction.

So it would seem that unless you've changed your stance, you can have terrorist thugs carrying out military actions, militaries carrying out terrorism, as well as the non-apparently-contradictory terrorists doing terrorism and militaries carrying otu military actions...

Having said that....while I accept that many will argue that the GC only really applies to conventional (possibly only symmetrical) warfare, I must say that I find little solace in anyone who argues that because aspects of the GC are not directly applicable, and the group in question has not signed (and cannot sign) up, that there is no onus on them to try and uphold any aspects of said Conventions.

jc
jc

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

and Im standing up here smiling down, Im going to watch as you try to distance yourself from your own words with much gusto and spinning. Try not to get too dissy. The only thing keeping you in the hole is a combination of pride and fear that Ill rub it in if you take it back. I wont, promise. Now that I have earthmans attention Im not arsed gloating any more.

Sand, you are being overally anal

2 week ban for that.
Attack the post and not the poster.
You know the rules.

Sand

its dead my ass. how can you support peace but then claim the GFA is dead before its even implimented properly?

Because its reality. The GFA is based on mutual trust and actual willingness to make peace. The GFA is a nicely written document but its worthless when either side utterly distrusts the other, and SFIRA have destroyed their own credibility with claims to endorse the peace proccess but continue terrorist atrocities on the side. The atmosphere thus created is poisonous, where the moderates have been sidelined and the extremists dicatate the dialogue.

These are not fertile grounds for peace, regardless of pretty words. I support peace, but I dont support a sham attempt at "getting a deal" that breaks down straight away. The failure of those sort of deals only leads to bitterness and makes achieving actual peace all the harder.

Ooops... My bad. That was signed after WWII. I never considered the possibility here that there was more than one GC, even though I knew it. Meesa stupid.

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.

Let me qualify that, as I should have before - given that the promises are true. And, if the rumours are true, we should see moves on decommissioning soon...

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.

So, you have definitive proof of what happened? I'd like to hear it. What I was saying is there are two stories, and either could be true. And like I said, if she was killed because she comforted a dying soldier, then it is a terrible atrocity.

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.

War is killing people to force better terms at the negotiating table, no? Also, one of their stated goals was the unification of Ireland. So, if they'd tried to do that and kept to the Geneva Convention, would you support them then?

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.

That's rubbish Sand. Both those articles you link to state "High Contracting Parties" and that refers to parties of conflict that are signatories of the treaty.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

The first notes that you dont need to have signed the GC to be bound and protected by its provisions. The second highlights the case of valid rebellions against a state, whereby the rebel group could never have possibly signed the GC. Theyre still bound by minimum standards as noted in the same article, which SFIRA never maintained. Hence, despite SFIRAs demands that the UK treat them as a rebel army, it was SFIRA who criminalised their own "struggle". Not the UK.

the USA (i like to pick on them) prefer to bully other countries into signing treaty's that allow for immunity from being tried for war crimes at the Hague. This is just one example.

The USA tries its own soldiers for breaches of the GC, as countries have done for most of the GCs existence - the UK has tried several soldiers for acts in Iraq for example - thats what its protecting. Its soldiers are not immune to prosecution as those hicks in Abu Gharib found out. It doesnt want to allow the Hague court to try its soldiers because it fears (understandbly) that anti-american sentiment would lead to a kangeroo court.

But the IRA are an irregular army and are not signatories of these treatys and are not a member nation of the UN.

Theyre not required to be either signatories or member states to be bound and protected by the GC as noted above. If you want to call them an army, fine, their war crimes for the sheer size of their force probably rival SS battallions. If theyre not an army then theyre just plain vanilla terrorists and crinimals. Either classification is fine with me.

This appears to be somewhat at odds with your previous stance of what distinguishes military and terrorist actions....given that I believe the GC and adherence to it had absolutely nothing to do with the distinction.

So it would seem that unless you've changed your stance, you can have terrorist thugs carrying out military actions, militaries carrying out terrorism, as well as the non-apparently-contradictory terrorists doing terrorism and militaries carrying otu military actions...

Are you refferring to a thread way, way back where I stated that terrorists deliberately attacked civillians, where military did not. Then you asked what did that make SFIRA in that they attacked both civillians and the British Army? As I recall I said that whilst attacking military targets was valid in an of itself, it did not change that their routine, approved and premeditated policy was to massacre civillians, hence they were still terrorists, but terrorists attacking military targets in some cases. The inverse would also be true.

Regardless I dont see how it contradicts using the standard of the GC - not deliberately attacking civillians is a requirement of adherence to the GC.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

But the IRA are an irregular army and are not signatories of these treatys and are not a member nation of the UN.

Another one of those magical pieces of transubatiation, the IRA are an army when their prisoners are arrested and demand that they be treated as prisoners war and not criminals. They're not an army when their activities are called in question in the light of standards of engagement and treatment of it's own prisoners and "justice" system.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

Another one of those magical pieces of transubatiation, the IRA are an army when their prisoners are arrested and demand that they be treated as prisoners war and not criminals. They're not an army when their activities are called in question in the light of standards of engagement and treatment of it's own prisoners and "justice" system.

Nothing out of the ordinary there mycroft. HMG are signatories of the treaty's comprising the Geneva Conventions whereas the IRA are not.
HMG signed up to a treaty that contains stipulations for the treatment of prisoners of war (international and internal conflict).
Nice diversion mycroft.

Zombrex

jman0 wrote:

Nothing out of the ordinary there mycroft. HMG are signatories of the treaty's comprising the Geneva Conventions whereas the IRA are not.
HMG signed up to a treaty that contains stipulations for the treatment of prisoners of war (international and internal conflict).
Nice diversion mycroft.

But the IRA are not prisioners of war, as Mycroft just pointed out, they are UK and Irish citizens who committed criminal acts within the UK and Ireland, and as such they are treated in the same manner as other criminals.

The IRA can't have it both ways. Either they are a legitimate army (and should be treated as such) in which case they are quilty of serious war crimes by pretty much any standard of war defined in this modern time, or they are civilians in which case they should be treated as criminals.

jman0

Wicknight wrote:

But the IRA are not prisioners of war, as Mycroft just pointed out, they are UK and Irish citizens who committed criminal acts within the UK and Ireland, and as such they are treated in the same manner as other criminals.

The IRA can't have it both ways. Either they are a legitimate army (and should be treated as such) in which case they are quilty of serious war crimes by pretty much any standard of war defined in this modern time, or they are civilians in which case they should be treated as criminals.

If they are not prisoners of war and are just ordinary criminals than why have the British released them at the time of the IRA's military cessation?
Because that is exactly what is stipulated in the GC.
But presently this is an irrelavant topic diversion.
Are you trying to revisit 1981 or something?
Why should i care if the Republican argument for POW status is sound or not?

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

If they are not prisoners of war and are just ordinary criminals than why have the British released them at the time of the IRA's military cessation?
Because that is exactly what is stipulated in the GC.
But presently this is an irrelavant topic diversion.
Are you trying to revisit 1981 or something?
Why should i care if the Republican argument for POW status is sound or not?

Because it's really very simple, the IRA demand rights for their prisoners, as they are an army, and yet don't hold their own officers or to those they deem as traitors to any kind of regard.

What evidence was presented to Jean Mc Conville's family. What tribunal and court of appeal did Eamonn Collins get? What court of appeal is their to IRA justice.

By demanding the otherside hold themselves to a higher standard, and to greater moral code than they hold themselves to, it exposes them for what they are.

Murdering scum.

jman0

mycroft wrote:

Because it's really very simple, the IRA demand rights for their prisoners, as they are an army, and yet don't hold their own officers or to those they deem as traitors to any kind of regard.

That's not very true is it? Don't you remember HMG's propaganda that said the only way out of the IRA (for a volunteer) was with a bullet in the back of the head?
You know, as in: once a member there is no way out.
Complete rubbish.

mycroft wrote:

What evidence was presented to Jean Mc Conville's family. What tribunal and court of appeal did Eamonn Collins get? What court of appeal is their to IRA justice.

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 Jean McConville crap. She's dead. End of story, get over it.

mycroft wrote:

By demanding the otherside hold themselves to a higher standard, and to greater moral code than they hold themselves to, it exposes them for what they are.

Guess what mycroft, that is exactly what the British government portend. And it's precisely what they believe in when they sign up to things like the GC. Of course, they don't abide by those rules now do they. Because as a signatory of the GC they agree not to murder enemy combatants that are unarmed, or surendering. Yet they've done this many times.
Even if you take the line that the IRA are not an army and are just criminals, still by HMG's own laws they cannot put a bullet in the back of someone's head, as judge and jury. What does that make HMG other than murdering scum?

tomMK1

thats a question i wish someone would answer.

Mr.Nice Guy

jman0 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 Jean McConville crap. She's dead. End of story, get over it.

What a vile thing to say. Disgusting.

I'm with mycroft on this one.

tomMK1

i think the point that was being made is that there are thousands of 'jean mcconville's on both sides. kids killed in their beds in derry during riots (armour piercing bullets going through houses), joyriders shot at point blank range .... no-one seems to remember those though .. probably because theyve never been in the Indo or something

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

That's not very true is it? Don't you remember HMG's propaganda that said the only way out of the IRA (for a volunteer) was with a bullet in the back of the head?
You know, as in: once a member there is no way out.
Complete rubbish.

IRA propaganda that the brits killed that wee girl going to get milk was used as IRA propaganda for years. Both sides uses lies.

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

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 Jean McConville crap. She's dead. End of story, get over it.

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.

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.

Guess what mycroft, that is exactly what the British government portend. And it's precisely what they believe in when they sign up to things like the GC. Of course, they don't abide by those rules now do they. Because as a signatory of the GC they agree not to murder enemy combatants that are unarmed, or surendering. Yet they've done this many times.

Fine piece of whatabouteree. You're sicken by behaviour of one side, yet consider it justified by your own side.

Even if you take the line that the IRA are not an army and are just criminals, still by HMG's own laws they cannot put a bullet in the back of someone's head, as judge and jury. What does that make HMG other than murdering scum?

Never said that members of her HMG weren't. So by that rational of yours don't you agree the IRA are as well?

tomMK1 wrote:

i think the point that was being made is that there are thousands of 'jean mcconville's on both sides. kids killed in their beds in derry during riots (armour piercing bullets going through houses), joyriders shot at point blank range .... no-one seems to remember those though .. probably because theyve never been in the Indo or something

And the fact remains that theres justice, and laws, and tribunals set up by one side to at least give closure to the victims of one side, the IRA can't even remember where they dumped the bodies of their victims.

tomMK1

just as the british army can never remember helping the loyalist paramilitaries kill the common enemy.

mycroft

tomMK1 wrote:

just as the british army can never remember helping the loyalist paramilitaries kill the common enemy.

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.

Villain

Move on people, each side can go back as far as they want and show the awful murders that were carried out on each side.

The IRA has laid down arms and the British army are taken down their towers and sending soldiers home, lets move on and discuss the future of Northern Ireland not the past. Please.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Move on people, each side can go back as far as they want and show the awful murders that were carried out on each side.

The IRA has laid down arms and the British army are taken down their towers and sending soldiers home, lets move on and discuss the future of Northern Ireland not the past. Please.

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

Villain

mycroft wrote:

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

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