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

Bloody Sunday soldier to be charged with murder

Options
1…89111314…22

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    dermo888 wrote: »
    The Provisional IRA was secretive and incredibly well organised, to a point it was almost inpenetrable.

    Dunno about that, it was secretive and well organised all right but almost inpenetrable? Some reports had it that "One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members."https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-28694353.html


  • Options
    #303
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Dunno about that, it was secretive and well organised all right but almost inpenetrable? Some reports had it that "One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members."https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-28694353.html




    So an organisation consisting of 50% informers under British orders had to be negotiated with? That's a non-sequitur if ever there was one.


  • Options
    #304
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So an organisation consisting of 50% informers under British orders had to be negotiated with? That's a non-sequitur if ever there was one.

    Not to mention bomb the centre of England to bring the British to the table and keep their significant arms dumps secret and a bargaining chip.
    Somebody doesn't seem able to spot propaganda when she sees it or wants to uncritically believe it.


  • Options
    #305
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Not to mention bomb the centre of England to bring the British to the table .
    The British were bringing the Republicans to the table since the early 1970s in the quest for peace, when they flew Adam's and others to London.


  • Options
    #306
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    The British were bringing the Republicans to the table since the early 1970s in the quest for peace, when they flew Adam's and others to London.

    Not in public they weren't and that was the point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So an organisation consisting of 50% informers under British orders had to be negotiated with? .

    Nobody claimed it was an organisation with 50% informers. Read more carefully.


  • Options
    #308
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Nobody claimed it was an organisation with 50% informers. Read more carefully.


    "rising to one in two among senior members." Having 50% of the leadership is effectively the same as 50% amongst rank and file given that one follows instruction of the other. The notion that - despite such penetration- the IRA/Sinn fein would have be dealt with via negotiations is, as I said earlier, a non-sequitur.


  • Options
    #309
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Not in public they weren't and that was the point.

    It does not really matter if it was in the public or not, the British wanted peace, the extremist Republicans wanted the armed struggle until there was a British withdrawal.


  • Options
    #310
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    It does not really matter if it was in the public or not, the British wanted peace, the extremist Republicans wanted the armed struggle until there was a British withdrawal.

    Why did Adams etc go to London? Sightseeing?

    You really need to take stock. You keep making these self contradictory statements.


  • Options
    #311
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Odhinn wrote: »
    "rising to one in two among senior members." Having 50% of the leadership is effectively the same as 50% amongst rank and file given that one follows instruction of the other.

    Rubbish. The report said 1 in 4 among rank and file members. Not 1 in 2.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Rubbish. The report said 1 in 4 among rank and file members. Not 1 in 2.


    "One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members."



    Total bollocks, tbh. Gerry and Martin would be serving hard time if that was the case.


  • Options
    #313
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Why did Adams etc go.

    For talks about peace but the Republicans said they would only cease their armed struggle if the British govt withdrew.


  • Options
    #314
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    For talks about peace but the Republicans said they would only cease their armed struggle if the British govt withdrew.

    So both aggressors were looking for peace but couldn't meet each others demands.
    The war/conflict continued.

    When the British agreed to the GFA then we had peace. Both sides were happy with the agreement.


  • Options
    #315
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So both aggressors were looking for peace but couldn't meet each others demands.
    The war/conflict continued.

    When the British agreed to the GFA then we had peace. Both sides were happy with the agreement.
    Do you consider the ira as soldiers as your post suggests that by calling the conflict a war ?


  • Options
    #316
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    both aggressors .

    PIRA, INLA, UVF ?


  • Options
    #317
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Do you consider the ira as soldiers as your post suggests that by calling the conflict a war ?

    They were calling it a warzone all week in interviews and media. So I always use conflict/war, read it as you saw it yourself.

    I am not interested in the 'was it a war' conversation, who cares what it was, 3000 + people died. And ditto for the 'army or not' stuff.


  • Options
    #318
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    PIRA, INLA, UVF ?

    They were at the meeting in London too? Didn't know that.


  • Options
    #319
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So both aggressors were looking for peace but couldn't meet each others demands.
    .

    The PIRA and INLA were not looking for peace, they were looking for a united Ireland and said they would keep up the armed struggle, and the economic pressure on London with all the bombings etc, until they got a united Ireland / British withdrawal / call it what you want.


  • Options
    #320
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They were calling it a warzone all week in interviews and media. So I always use conflict/war, read it as you saw it yourself.

    I am not interested in the 'was it a war' conversation, who cares what it was, 3000 + people died. And ditto for the 'army or not' stuff.
    As you describe it as a war then surely both sets of soldiers/aggressors should face justice don't you think?


  • Options
    #321
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am not interested in the 'was it a war' conversation, who cares what it was,

    If someone said it was a terrorist campaign, and not a war, then I think you would care "what it was".

    If it was a war, which side generally played by the rules of the Geneva convention?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    The PIRA and INLA were not looking for peace, they were looking for a united Ireland and said they would keep up the armed struggle, and the economic pressure on London with all the bombings etc, until they got a united Ireland / British withdrawal / call it what you want.

    Nor were the British. Their Army colluded with Loyalism to bring down the flawed Sunningdale Agreement with the UW Strike and almost scuppered the GFA demanding disarmament before John Major quietly dropped that demand after the bombs in England and allowed SF to the table.
    Britain was looking for a victory, not 'peace'. They hoped to negotiate it in secret. Like right now with Brexit and their desire to get their own way, they don't care about northern Ireland and never did.

    These are the facts not some fantasy.


  • Options
    #323
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    janfebmar wrote:
    If it was a war, which side generally played by the rules of the Geneva convention?


    Neither side considering the British army engaged in the murder of civilians as did the terrorists.


  • Options
    #324
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    As you describe it as a war then surely both sets of soldiers/aggressors should face justice don't you think?

    If it were me, no. That is divisive when there is a peace process. I support a full participation truth process. Fully transparent and exhaustive, so that everything that was done is in the open.

    If all take part in that, and we have peace then I think it is time to move on and build that peace. Sadly that is not happening.


  • Options
    #325
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    If someone said it was a terrorist campaign, and not a war, then I think you would care "what it was".

    If it was a war, which side generally played by the rules of the Geneva convention?

    If one was a 'terrorist' then they all were. It is a yawn inducing argument over a redundant word now.


  • Options
    #326
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Britain was looking for a victory, not 'peace'.

    They wanted peace. It was not in their interests, economically or politically, to have terrorists going around shooting their government employees, attacking the government itself, killing civilians, bombing pubs, hotels, shopping centres, factories, destroying the economy, tourism etc.


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    they don't care about northern Ireland and never did.

    If that was the case they would not be paying 11 billion a year or whatever in to the place.


  • Options
    #327
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Neither side

    I said "generally". Now try again.


  • Options
    #328
    janfebmar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    As you describe it as a war then surely both sets of soldiers/aggressors should face justice don't you think?
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If it were me, no. That is divisive when there is a peace process.

    So you think only one set of soldiers/aggressors should face justice? Is that not more divisive?


  • Options
    #329
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    They wanted peace. It was not in their interests, economically or politically, to have terrorists going around shooting their government employees, attacking the government itself, killing civilians, bombing pubs, hotels, shopping centres, factories, destroying the economy, tourism etc.


    They wanted peace as long as it was the result of a victory. They could have conceded the GFA at any time. But they didn't, they took one side and as we are fnding out more and more, colluded with them and stoked the conflict/war, even alegedly bombing my county town and Dublin.

    Facts again.

    If that was the case they would not be paying 11 billion a year or whatever in to the place.

    Well they are cutting it more and more. So signs are....

    They've realised that they are never going to win in Ireland, and they have more or less withdrawn in the GFA, which they are adamant they will uphold. Leaving it to the people of the island of Ireland to decide their future, was the victory of the GFA for me.


  • Options
    #330
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    janfebmar wrote: »
    So you think only one set of soldiers/aggressors should face justice? Is that not more divisive?

    You should try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions.

    There is no 'truth process' and no facility to deal with the past as promised and committed to in the GFA.

    In that context then if they wish to seek retribution from one side then all sides should face justice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,952 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »

    There is much more detailed analysis elsewhere but it is all littered by the very clear fact that the British knew the implications of what they were doing and NOT doing.


    So you are saying the British establishment had a crystal ball and knew full well years in advance that relenting to Catholic/Nationalist demands to deploy the army to protect them against Loyalist mobs would have resulted in a 30-year war.....

    Can they also predict the lottery numbers for Wednesday's draw?


Advertisement