Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anything new? Delours Price

2»

Comments

  • #32
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭gallag


    Sometimes I wish there were no more revelations and we could start forgeting the past, start building bridges, both sides admitting that they did some ****ed up sh1t, and forging a genuine commitment to not only for our generation to simply abide each other but to insure our children are oblivious to our madness and become friends, families and closest allies and look back with shame on our days.


  • #33
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    awec wrote: »
    Yea, in a court of law.

    But of course, if she said anything that makes the IRA look bad we'll be hearing how she's talking nonsense and telling lies etc etc.

    If she says stuff that makes the IRA look ok it'll be good old reliable Dolours.

    Depends - her questionable mental stability might have an effect on how much her words can be trusted alone.
    In or outside a court.
    ScumLord wrote: »
    I don't really understand the hysteria over past involvement in the IRA. We spent all those years telling them to use political methods to solve their problems and now that the terrorists have become politicians people harp on about the past as if it's a surprise.

    Just get on with it.

    Amen.


  • #34
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    GRMA wrote: »

    When did she or other republicans do that?

    There was a number of specific retaliations (in return for loyalist atrocities) against Protestants such as Kingsmill although it was a short lived tactic.

    That said, it amply highlights the bizarre world of provo moral relativism that indiscriminate bombings of urban areas and booby trapping innocent workers is fine and dandy, but any suggestion of sectarian slaughter is met with incredulity and outrage.


  • #35
    northernpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 198 ✭✭northernpower


    Luca Brasi wrote: »
    Anyone who can conduct a campaign of violence against people because of their religion cannot be called Republican. Check out a dictionary to see the meaning of the word.

    Nice username. Taken from a book that glorifies terrorism for selfish gain. Is there a hypocrisy in the way you moralise to everyone else?


  • #36
    Luca Brasi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    northernpower wrote: »
    Nice username. Taken from a book that glorifies terrorism for selfish gain. Is there a hypocrisy in the way you moralise to everyone else?
    My computer crashed when I tried to have the username Truthful Gerry


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    anncoates wrote: »
    There was a number of specific retaliations (in return for loyalist atrocities) against Protestants such as Kingsmill although it was a short lived tactic.

    That said, it amply highlights the bizarre world of provo moral relativism that indiscriminate bombings of urban areas and booby trapping innocent workers is fine and dandy, but any suggestion of sectarian slaughter is met with incredulity and outrage.

    It certainly was not as the poster said.

    There's a massive difference between fighting a war and slaughtering people because of their religion

    nasty stuff regardless


  • #38
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Luca Brasi wrote: »
    When you ask that question you have lost all credibility.
    I think you lost yours with that claim in the first place


  • #39
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    anncoates wrote: »
    That said, it amply highlights the bizarre world of provo moral relativism that indiscriminate bombings of urban areas and booby trapping innocent workers is fine and dandy, but any suggestion of sectarian slaughter is met with incredulity and outrage.

    Did the IRA engage in sectarian killing? Yes. Was sectarian killing the modus operandi of the IRA? No. If the IRA had carried out a purely sectarian murder campaign like loyalist paramilitaries had then there'd have been a lot more dead innocent Protestants and perhaps a full scale ethnic civil war up north.

    Sectarian killings and vicious atrocities like Kingsmill and Enniskillen only ever hurt support for militant Republicanism and the IRA were all too aware of it.


  • #40
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Truman Burbank wrote: »
    Once a murderer, always a murderer. They are the true ScumLords and ScumLadies. Think of the hysteria of their tortured, maimed and blown-to-bits victims.
    So what's the alternative? Tell them to fup off and go back to sectarian violence?

    There may be many politicians on both side of the divide that were former terrorists. It's a pointless waste of time fixating on the past, the point is they are in politics now and not out shooting people, we succeeded in our goal now it's time for phase two not bickering over the past.


  • #41
    Luca Brasi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    ScumLord wrote: »
    So what's the alternative? Tell them to fup off and go back to sectarian violence?

    There may be many politicians on both side of the divide that were former terrorists. It's a pointless waste of time fixating on the past, the point is they are in politics now and not out shooting people, we succeeded in our goal now it's time for phase two not bickering over the past.
    "succeeded in our goal"

    I thought the Provo goal was a united Ireland and a Democratic Socialist Republic. Have the DUP embraced socialism and left the United Kingdom?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Luca Brasi wrote: »
    "succeeded in our goal"

    I thought the Provo goal was a united Ireland and a Democratic Socialist Republic. Have the DUP embraced socialism and left the United Kingdom?
    I think he meant the goal of people who wanted republicans to engage in constitutional politics rather than fighting


  • #43
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    For those interested, the funeral will take place on Monday at 11am, Mass in St Agnes Chapel, Andersonstown, Belfast.


  • #44
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Its doing the rounds on facebook that her sister Marian has been refused compassionate leave to attend the funeral


    She was granted compassionate bail by a court, as well as bail for the charges she was on in the first place but because she had her "license" revoked she needed "compassionate parole" too which was denied

    If this is true its a bloody joke and utterly utterly shameful. Lots of prisoners, who have done terrible are allowed out to go to funerals.

    This is just vindictive.

    She's a danger to no one, she's too sick to be kept in a cell and is instead under armed guard in hospital


  • #45
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter what she has said because it even if it was true it's still hearsay.

    There would need to be a flood of people with corroborating dates, times and locations to give her allegations any weight which is not likely.

    It's not hearsay!

    Saying MR X ordered me to abduct and kill Jean McConville is not hearsay.

    Saying that you were told by Dolours Price that she was ordered by Mr. X to abduct and kill Jean McConville is hearsay.

    However, in this case, Price's testimony is obviously recorded, so hearsay really is an irrelevant concept if her testimony is published.


  • #46
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    It's not hearsay!

    Saying MR X ordered me to abduct and kill Jean McConville is not hearsay.

    Saying that you were told by Dolours Price that she was ordered by Mr. X to abduct and kill Jean McConville is hearsay.

    However, in this case, Price's testimony is obviously recorded, so hearsay really is an irrelevant concept if her testimony is published.
    Nothing will come of it anyway, like nothing came of the Darks tapes


  • #47
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Did the IRA engage in sectarian killing? Yes. Was sectarian killing the modus operandi of the IRA? No. If the IRA had carried out a purely sectarian murder campaign like loyalist paramilitaries had then there'd have been a lot more dead innocent Protestants and perhaps a full scale ethnic civil war up north.

    Sectarian killings and vicious atrocities like Kingsmill and Enniskillen only ever hurt support for militant Republicanism and the IRA were all too aware of it.

    I think saying that certain operations were the not the modus operandi of the IRA displays a certain touching naivete - or perhaps loyalty - to them.

    The fact is that the leadership never had full control of brigades - something abetted by the decentralized 70s cell structures - especially not those operating in Armagh whether as the Provos or under nom de plumes such as the South Armagh Republican Action Force

    The fact remains that operatives never faced court-martial for supposedly unauthorized spectaculars like Kingsmill, Tullyvallen and Eniskillen. When you consider this, it makes the disavowal by the IRA command ring hollow. After all, couldn't the Brits have also claimed (wrongly of course) that many of the atrocities committed by soldiers were not officially sanctioned and just rogue elements, nervous teenagers etc?

    I believe Adams did oppose the outbreak of tit-for-tat sectarian killings in the 70s but just tactically - as you point out - not because he gave a fig about the deaths or even didn't consider them a little useful.

    The fact is that the leadership always played a curious dance with the brigades (and the grassroots): more trying to influence then to assert full control over.

    Once that's the case, disassociating yourself from your own soldiers and their actions - but implicitly endorsing them by not taking action against them - becomes a weak and unsatisfactory position.

    Plus it was always a tactic of the Adams/McGuinness command to reap the "benefits" of publicly-toxic operations while simultaneously distancing themselves from them (Kingsmill sends a message to the Loyalists; we get rid of a minor tout like Jean McConville but we didn't authorize those oeprations, etc etc).


  • #48
    Geri Male
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 216 ✭✭Geri Male


    I'm so broke up about Jean McConville. I don't think I've stopped crying for 10 years.

    RIP Dolours - a true republican.


  • #49
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    anncoates wrote: »
    I think saying that certain operations were the not the modus operandi of the IRA displays a certain touching naivete - or perhaps loyalty - to them.

    I'm basing what I've said on a cold appraisal of the statistics rather than naivety or loyalty (ffs). The IRA's civilian killings made up ~35% of their overall kill count. Of British Army killings ~50% were civilians. Loyalist paramilitaries 85% civilians. That statistics speak for themselves. Btw many of the civilians the IRA killed would have been Catholics. These facts call into question any caricatured notion that the IRA were driven by sectarian blood-lust.
    The fact is that the leadership never had full control of brigades - something abetted by the decentralized 70s cell structures - especially not those operating in Armagh whether as the Provos or under nom de plumes such as the South Armagh Republican Action Force. The fact remains that operatives never faced court-martial for supposedly unauthorized spectaculars like Kingsmill, Tullyvallen and Eniskillen. When you consider this, it makes the disavowal by the IRA command ring hollow.

    I guess that's the nature of a localised paramilitary force. You couldn't go in and 'clean house', as it were, without risking causing a split which was anathema to the IRA. That's perhaps one of the reasons the IRA didn't 'clean house' after the Omagh bombing when it was even suggested that they should by some politicians in the north iirc.
    Once that's the case, disassociating yourself from your own soldiers and their actions - but implicitly endorsing them by not taking action against them - becomes a weak and unsatisfactory position.

    In a war comic these unsporting things don't happen but the reality of conflict doesn't conform to such delightfully naive notions - be they official armies or insurgents.
    Plus it was always a tactic of the Adams/McGuinness command to reap the "benefits" of publicly-toxic operations while simultaneously distancing themselves from them (Kingsmill sends a message to the Loyalists; we get rid of a minor tout like Jean McConville but we didn't authorize those oeprations, etc etc).

    As I've said before IRA atrocities such as Kingsmill and Enniskillen only ever hurt 'the cause'.


Advertisement