Fratton Fred wrote: » 724 "accidental" deaths? Really?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » They wouldn't have won. If history has thought us anything sophisticated armies can annihilate the enemy's central command in hours but they'll be worn down over an extended period of occupation. The British would have had to leave defeated eventually but they could flatten the country in the process. The leaders of the pro-treaty side probably considered this.
very state maintains itself through violence. What do you think the Gards and Army are for in the Republic?
Nope, they maintained a presence in the north east of Ireland because most people in the north east of Ireland wanted them to. They've even admitted many years later they have no strategic interest in NI. They only stayed because Unionists wanted them to.
I'm not arguing which came first I'm saying IRA killings only provoked more attacks on catholic civilians.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Britain never made such a threat. If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to. A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one. The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland. It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.
Crooked Jack wrote: » Out of 10,000+ explosive devices detonated and countless shootings. I'd also be interested to see where you're getting your figures from and what constitutes civilian. We've seen some people argue on here that the RUC should have been seen as "civilian" casualties. For example, CAIN has civilian casualties at 621. Not, as I have said, that that's a justification, no civilian death was acceptable, but the figures clearly show that civilians were not the target. Other evidence from throughout the conflict, such as IRA reactions to civilians deaths and the IRA's own rules and the political direction of the organisation, show they had no interest in targeting civilians. It was militarily, strategically and politically counter productive. I dont know why you are so keen to argue otherwise given the evidence but unless you have something new to add I'm finished going around in circles with you on this one.
FTA69 wrote: » That's nonsense to be fair Fred. The phrase was said to Barton with a view to what would happen if hostilities resumed; meanwhile you had Macready drawing up plans to intern 100,000 people and summarily execute thousands more.
Fratton Fred wrote: » 724 civilians killed by republican paramilitaries. I really fail to see how you can't grasp this, it is fairly simple. You bomb a pub in Birmingham on a Friday night, then civilians are the target, where is the doubt? Let me put it another way. Blow up a bus full of soldiers, as well as dead soldiers, there are four dead civilians. OK, that's an accident, soldiers were the target. Bomb a McDonald'. On a Saturday lunchtime in a town with no military connection, who is the target? Civilians. There is no debate about this.
Fratton Fred wrote: » It was said to Barton, yes, but solemnly, not as a threat. Other than as a passing reference, none of the Irish delegates raised it. If you read the Dail debates afterwards it gets a very fleeting mention, surely this threat of annihilation would have been pretty much the main topic of discussion, whereas the main concern was the oath of allegiance.
Crooked Jack wrote: » So now you even know the tone in which things were said. Jesus Fred you arent doing yourself any favours.
Fratton Fred wrote: » I know because Barton and Griffith both say as much in their notes. Read some primary sources (such as the Dail debates on the subject) and you'll appreciate the manner it was said as well.
Crooked Jack wrote: » I've studied this subject in depth, it's quite clear what the brits were up to. Sign this or die. Classic british democracy.
Manassas61 wrote: » Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings. Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army. Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered. She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.
Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings.
Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.
Manassas61 wrote: » Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings. Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.
Suspicion immediately fell upon the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), who denied involvement. By 8 December, the British Army was blaming the INLA on grounds that the IRA, in a mixed village, would have made greater efforts not to risk killing civilians.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing
Fratton Fred wrote: » Then try studying something other than an phoblacht, because you are very very wrong.
FTA69 wrote: » Manassas61 wrote: » Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army. She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason. There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer. The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.
Manassas61 wrote: » Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army. She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.
Fratton Fred wrote: » How many times was the Europa Hotel bombed? And what did Claudy do to warrant three car bombs?
Manassas61 wrote: » There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer. The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.
Tramps Like Us wrote: » I'm trying to remember a war where no civilians were killed, or even just a bombing campaign, whether its Lancaster bombers or newfangled drones. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable, tragic, regrettable consequence of war and always have been (especially with a 30 year one) - which is why everything must be carefully considered before entering one. Dissident republicans (who this thread is about) who outright advocate a continuation of the campaign (as distinct from those who just disagree with the GFA) don't have a coherent political analysis or even any political or military strategy beyond the idea to keep plugging away and see if something happens - it is on this basis they should be challenged (if you want to do something which is actually useful) The argument some posters here are putting forward and the moralizing over civilian deaths should not be taken at face value, given the fact that they accept the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths their own countries army has inflicted - for these people it is not really about civilian deaths and they should not pretend it is - there is no mention of the murders of civilians which founded NI and helped maintain it and why would there be, they don't fit their agenda.
Charlie Rock wrote: » I don't believe people like Manassa61 really care about Jean Mc Conville - they care about trying to make Republicans look evil so what they do is focus in on killings that will provide the most 'emotional capital' to help underpin their anti-Republican crusades.
Manassas61 wrote: » You can try to dress it up what ever you want, it is a factual historical reality that they picked her up and murdered her and didn't return her body. This is not a lie, this did happen and she was a civilian.
Manassas61 wrote: » You can try to dress it up what ever you want
Charlie Rock wrote: » You're the one doing the dressing up not I. If I could easily go on a similar crusade to paint British Soldiers as child killers by awaking the ghosts of some of the children they murdered. Unlike you, and your fellow travellers, I won't dance on their graves by using their deaths to my own selfish ends. Also, I'm not so stupid as to think the BA or RUC was made up exclusively of bloodthirsty degenerates.
Manassas61 wrote: » You would not find me defending those actions. Same way I would not expect to find anyone trying to even remotely "defend" what happened to Jean Mcconville.
Godge wrote: » Did you not know the real story? It wasn't us. Maybe it was a renegade group. We didn't torture her. It really wasn't us. She deserved it. She was sleeping with a British soldier. It definitely wasn't us. She was an informer. We don't know what happened. It was a British government plot to discredit the IRA, they probably know where she is. Maybe it was a beach in Dundalk but we don't know for certain because it wasn't us. Did the Irish government turn a blind eye to whoever did it. She deserved it because she was an informer. It definitely wasn't us. Oh. OK, it was us and we are sorry but we are not taking back any of the other things we said. The list of SF/IRA excuses, stories and slander in relation to Jean McConville is lengthy and disgraceful.
Tramps Like Us wrote: » If she was a British agent, and I believe she was, she was not a civilian.
