maccored wrote: » there were - had to be - informers in the IRA, but not to the extent you like to claim. As for your other two points ... you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but yet cant show anything to back it up. Bar hearsay.
SafeSurfer wrote: » The posters here who, in my opinion deny reality, constantly suggest posters with a different opinion educate themselves about the Troubles in order to have a serious discussion. The reality is that every serious, journalist, commentator and historian of the period accepts what you deny, to be the reality.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The same set of journo's/ commentators who were in denial about British collusion as well. Funny that. I don't deny the IRA did the Northern Bank...I just don't know.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Is there any serious journalist, commentator or historian that accepts the points above? In all seriousness, what historians would you recommend reading to get an objective overview of the conflict in the north?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What serious historian has given anything other than an opinion on the Northern Bank? Serious historians present facts, evidence and data and then extroplate from them. So link us to one who presents facts evidence and data on the Northern Bank robbery. Not interested in opinions btw, they are two a penny on NI.
Edgware wrote: » There's a lot you dont know
SafeSurfer wrote: » So no suggestions from your no doubt vast and varied reading on the subject then.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I lived through the conflict...I don't think I have read a single history of it tbh. It's a live subject by the way as we still don't know what all the British were involved in. The story you choose to believe is one that emanates mostly from those who see the Irish as worse than the British. Not trustworthy IMO. Did you know that rather than reveal what they were involved in around the Dublin Monaghan bombings, they locked those files away for another few decades. How can any 'historiian' write a true record therefore.
SafeSurfer wrote: » So your perspective is gained entirely from. Well your own perspective. Yet you criticise other posters for not seeing the big picture and relying on one sided sources.
joeguevara wrote: » From what I know about the northern bank robbery is that it wasn’t directly organised or carried out by any one organisation. How could it be seeing as most organisations implicated are cellular in nature with non linear power structures. This is one of the reasons that so difficult to infiltrate or prosecute anything. Also, while there has been evidence that it was carried out by a large group of republicans it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone can categorically say that it was carried out by the IRA as some non IRA members were probably involved. But equally it is not correct to state that IRA members were not involved. Would that be a fair assessment?
maccored wrote: » why not the uda or the uvf? or the real ira? or someone. Puzzles me why all fingers point to the ira. it suited a lot of people should SF lose political support around that time
joeguevara wrote: » From my extensive reading on the subject and from speaking to people, it appears that it isn’t one organisation that carried it out, or at least none where there is credible demonstrable evidence of an order. I never pointed the finger at anyone and was clear that it looks like a group of people rather than one org. What appears to be lost on a lot of people who are unaware of paramilitary organisations is that due to their cellular non linear structure, it is difficult for one person to know if a person in the next town over is a member or not. I agree that people jump to conclusions without knowledge and one thing i have learned is never to presume to know what it was like to grow up in the troubles and experience the disgusting things that were inflicted. I am fairly sure that the northern bank robbery was not carried out by a loyalist paramilitary organisation. But I agree that no one can categorically state it was the IRA.
maccored wrote: » i have no idea who did it - I'll admit that ... but there was a lot going on politically in 2004. Theres many sides who could profit - not only from the actual money, but politically. I just find it a bit strange how its apparently so obvious the IRA done it - yet theres not a thing linking the IRA to it. Does not compute.
joeguevara wrote: » arguments are based on posters stating conjecture as fact.
joeguevara wrote: » My own opinion is that it more than likely was carried out by a group that probably contained some IRA members but not necessarily ordered by a centralised decision. I think it should be recognised that yourself and Francie have posted that you are unaware of who carried it out and arguments are based on posters stating conjecture as fact.
Edgware wrote: » Legion of Mary, Knights of St. Columbanus? There was a lot of shadowy outfits operating there
maccored wrote: » and another thing .... yes, don't debate a subject if you don't understand it. People like myself - and other posters - who have grown up through it (including those with opposing views) have a different understanding of the nuances of life during that time. Its so different from what you read in the media. therefore if someone gleans their knowledge from only the likes of the indo, then they really need to read some books and take time to develop their opinion before shooting off the hip because everyone tells then they should
Yeah_Right wrote: » The thing about having lived through it is that it narrows your perspective. You can't look at the various incidents or issues objectively because your opinion is most likely skewed through your experiences of living through the Troubles. And by "you" I mean people on all sides of it. I'm not meaning this as a criticism by the way but its something that I think certain posters on here don't understand and won't accept about themselves. As a neutral who studied it for a semester I have a view that would be more "big picture". An overview. I don't have the real world experience, so to speak. The deaths, maiming, bombings etc are numbers, words and pictures. They are stories not experiences. I never lived through the terror, pain or intimidation that people on all sides experienced. I just read about it. This means that I don't have a dog in the fight and therefore (I think) I look at it all more dispassionately than others here. Yet some people, like Francie, tell me I should get my money back from the course I studied because I have a different opinion to him. With that attitude, how will there ever be progress?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are purporting to be a dispassionate New Zealander and yet you arrive on here with the zeal of the best of our belligerent Unionists to like and thank any post that demeans and derides republicans. I can spot the self appointed 'impartialists' who studied 'overviews' and independently a mile off tbh, you are not fooling me anyhow with the 'no dog in the fight' stuff.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You disagree with the opinion of those you label ““Self appointed impartialists” and also with non self appointed impartialists such as the International Monitoring Commission whose report on the Northern Bank Robbery states "We believe that the Northern Bank robbery and abductions - and the other robberies and abductions - were carried out with the prior knowledge and authorisation of the leadership of PIRA," the report states. "In our view Sinn Féin must bear its share of responsibility for all of the incidents,"
FrancieBrady wrote: » The IMC said that the IRA were not involved in the Paul Quinn murder...yet we have the 'impartiialists' here landing the Shinners with the responsibility for that one too.
