Mountbatten wanted United Ireland

PDN · 28-12-2007 7:43pm #1

It turned out 'Uncle Dickie' offered to do anything he could to help bring about a United Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/queens-cousin-wanted-united-ireland-1254247.html

Should he now be regarded as a martyr?

ejmaztec · 28-12-2007 8:24pm

PDN wrote: »

It turned out 'Uncle Dickie' offered to do anything he could to help bring about a United Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/queens-cousin-wanted-united-ireland-1254247.html

Should he now be regarded as a martyr?

I'd be interested in McArmalite's response, as he said in another post "And to think the IRA blew up such a lovely man." He was either being sarcastic, or he had access to British Cabinet Papers before they were released into the public domain.:eek:

I think that, if Mountbatten was allowed to express his opinion at the time, the UVF would have gotten to him instead.

guinnessdrinker · 28-12-2007 10:24pm

Interesting article. But I wonder if Mountbatten genuinely was hoping to see reunification or if it was wishful thinking on behalf of the Irish Ambassador.

Possibly even more interesting is Terence O' Neil's comments refered to at the end of the article.

marco murphy · 28-12-2007 10:39pm

It turned out 'Uncle Dickie' offered to do anything he could to help bring about a United Ireland:

I think it was more that he offered to assist in peace talks rather than to actively co-operate in bringing about re-unification.

eroo · 28-12-2007 10:53pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd be interested in McArmalite's response, as he said in another post "And to think the IRA blew up such a lovely man." He was either being sarcastic, or he had access to British Cabinet Papers before they were released into the public domain.:eek:

I think that, if Mountbatten was allowed to express his opinion at the time, the UVF would have gotten to him instead.

UVF wouldn't have gotten near him!Think about it,they lacked the ''skills'' required,they weren't used to carry out terrorist attacks such as that i.e.large scale acts.Also,it would only have backfired on them,the British Govt. would have been forced to crack down on loyalist paramilitaries

marco murphy · 28-12-2007 11:02pm

UVF wouldn't have gotten near him!Think about it,they lacked the ''skills'' required,they weren't used to carry out terrorist attacks such as that i.e.large scale acts.Also,it would only have backfired on them,the British Govt. would have been forced to crack down on loyalist paramilitaries

I would'nt call it large scale really. The British Government was in cahoots with the UVF, so I doubt he would have been targetted for expressing those views.

McArmalite · 29-12-2007 3:17pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd be interested in McArmalite's response, as he said in another post "And to think the IRA blew up such a lovely man." He was either being sarcastic, or he had access to British Cabinet Papers before they were released into the public domain.:eek:

I think that, if Mountbatten was allowed to express his opinion at the time, the UVF would have gotten to him instead.

Just been patronising to a gullible Irish ambassador.

Poblachtach wrote: »

I would'nt call it large scale really. The British Government was in cahoots with the UVF, so I doubt he would have been targetted for expressing those views.

Totally agree Poblachtach. Besides, the most the UVF, UFF etc were ever capable was running into a Nationalist pub or shop and opening fire on anyone inside with their british supplied firearms and running away - often under the influence of drink.

Fratton Fred · 31-12-2007 10:27am

McArmalite wrote: »

Just been patronising to a gullible Irish ambassador.

Totally agree Poblachtach. Besides, the most the UVF, UFF etc were ever capable was running into a Nationalist pub or shop and opening fire on anyone inside with their british supplied firearms and running away - often under the influence of drink.

That sounds like you are trying to excuse a murder.

Lets face it, the blood thirsty godfathers of the IRA wouldn't have cared if he was for or against reunification, he was a high profile royal so they would have murdered him anyway.

Mick86 · 31-12-2007 1:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets face it, the blood thirsty godfathers of the IRA wouldn't have cared if he was for or against reunification, he was a high profile royal so they would have murdered him anyway.

I thought the IRA held the opinion that murdering members of the Royal Family would be counter-productive.

Fratton Fred · 31-12-2007 2:14pm

Mick86 wrote: »

I thought the IRA held the opinion that murdering members of the Royal Family would be counter-productive.

Eventually I believe they did, but in the 70s and early 80s it appears that anyone was "Fair Game".

McArmalite · 31-12-2007 3:09pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That sounds like you are trying to excuse a murder.

Lets face it, the blood thirsty godfathers of the IRA wouldn't have cared if he was for or against reunification, he was a high profile royal so they would have murdered him anyway.

He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people " *

On the same day, the 27 August 1979, 18 terrorists from the british parachute regiment were also executed at Warrenpoint, Co. Down. ( I think one more died from his injuries later).

After Bloody Sunday the Provisional IRA issued a statement saying that " Today is a day that the people of Ireland will never forget, a day will come when the people of britain will never forget about it also ". They certainly lived up to their words.

The second-in-command that day was captain mike jackson, who became chief of the general staff of the british army in Iraq. Clearly, " the blood thirsty godfathers of the " british army and establishment are as cowardly and murderous as ever.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Eventually I believe they did, but in the 70s and early 80s it appears that anyone was "Fair Game".

Obviously unarmed civil rights protesters along with hundreds of nationalists ( and thousands of Iraqi's ) murdered by the brit forces " was "Fair Game" ", not just for the british army and govt. but still also with 'mainland' unionists like yourself. Don't like a taste of your own medicine when it's given back - but that's the essence of been british isn't it ?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten%2C_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death

Fratton Fred · 31-12-2007 3:27pm

McArmalite wrote: »

He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people " *

On the same day, the 27 August 1979, 18 terrorists from the british parachute regiment were also executed at Warrenpoint, Co. Down. ( I think one more died from his injuries later).

After Bloody Sunday the Provisional IRA issued a statement saying that " Today is a day that the people of Ireland will never forget, a day will come when the people of britain will never forget about it also ". They certainly lived up to their words.

The second-in-command that day was captain mike jackson, who became chief of the general staff of the british army in Iraq. Clearly, " the blood thirsty godfathers of the " british army and establishment are as cowardly and murderous as ever.

Obviously unarmed civil rights protesters along with hundreds of nationalists ( and thousands of Iraqi's ) murdered by the brit forces " was "Fair Game" ", not just for the british army and govt. but still also with 'mainland' unionists like yourself. Don't like a taste of your own medicine when it's given back - but that's the essence of been british isn't it ?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten%2C_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death

so to sum up then, it was an excuse for a murder.

purple'n'gold · 31-12-2007 3:39pm

"He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people " *

Dear me, and here’s me thinking it was an old man, an old woman and two children on a fishing trip. I never realized they were of such military importance.

McArmalite · 31-12-2007 4:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so to sum up then, it was an excuse for a murder.

It was a justifiable execution - " He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people ".

purplengold wrote: »

Dear me, and here’s me thinking it was an old man, an old woman and two children on a fishing trip. I never realized they were of such military importance.

The death of the two children was genuinely very much regretted by the IRA, but dreadfully in all wars/conflicts innocent people are unfortunately killed. But tell me a conflict where innocent people have not been killed ?? If the deaths of innocent people in conflicts are the barometer of war crimes, britain would surely rank among the worst in history. Indeed in the ongoing conflict in Iraq 655,000 people are believed to have been killed* - a large proportion by the " the blood thirsty godfathers of the " british army ". Somehow, I don't think the same level of chest beating and pontificating will be directed at arguably the worst war criminal state in history. It's called hypocrisy.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

Fratton Fred · 31-12-2007 4:46pm

McArmalite wrote: »

It was a justifiable execution - " He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people ".

The death of the two children was genuinely very much regretted by the IRA, but dreadfully in all wars/conflicts innocent people are unfortunately killed. But tell me a conflict where innocent people have not been killed ?? If the deaths of innocent people in conflicts are the barometer of war crimes, britain would surely rank among the worst in history. Indeed in the ongoing conflict in Iraq 655,000 people are believed to have been killed* - a large proportion by the " the blood thirsty godfathers of the " british army ". Somehow, I don't think the same level of chest beating and pontificating will be directed at arguably the worst war criminal state in history. It's called hypocrisy.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

Please, it's the festive season, stop trying to justify murdering innocent people it just makes you look incredibly hypocritical

marco murphy · 31-12-2007 5:02pm

Lets face it, the blood thirsty godfathers of the IRA wouldn't have cared if he was for or against reunification, he was a high profile royal so they would have murdered him anyway.

Perhaps. Regardless, his actions while in his position justifies his execution.

Please, it's the festive season, stop trying to justify murdering innocent people it just makes you look incredibly hypocritical

Perhaps you can live up to your own teachings and stop using the death of two children as a politcal football.

Fratton Fred · 31-12-2007 5:15pm

Poblachtach wrote: »

Perhaps. Regardless, his actions while in his position justifies his execution.

Personally I don't think anyone's execution is justified, but I can understand why you would say that. Mountbatten lived by the sword.

Poblachtach wrote: »

Perhaps you can live up to your own teachings and stop using the death of two children as a politcal football.

More than happy to oblige.

eroo · 31-12-2007 7:43pm

The death of the two children was genuinely very much regretted by the IRA, but dreadfully in all wars/conflicts innocent people are unfortunately killed

It is different if someone is killed in crossfire between troops,that can be accidental...but some fella flipping a switch or leaving on a timer..with the end result being the 'accidental' death of innocent people...just doesn't work that way.

Btw,you use the word 'justifiable'...Mountbatten died not because of the blast,instead he died because his legs had been blown off and he subsequently drowned in the sea..
If you can justify such a horrible death....

PDN · 31-12-2007 9:16pm

Poblachtach wrote: »

Perhaps. Regardless, his actions while in his position justifies his execution.

So if someone did nasty stuff in a previous conflict then that justifies killing them 30 years later?

Does this logic still apply today? For example, would someone be justified in executing former IRA men today who carried out atrocities 30 years ago in a 'war' that is now over?

Mick86 · 31-12-2007 10:09pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Please, it's the festive season, stop trying to justify murdering innocent people it just makes you look incredibly hypocritical

Don't you laugh when the barstoolers use words like execute to give a semi-legitimate gloss to sordid murder.

PDN wrote: »

For example, would someone be justified in executing former IRA men today who carried out atrocities 30 years ago in a 'war' that is now over?

Isn't that what the IRA itself has been doing of late. Admittedly it must be really confusing when you can't figure out who was working for MI-5, MI-6 or the RUC and who wasn't.

jahalpin · 31-12-2007 10:25pm

McArmalite wrote: »

It was a justifiable execution - " He was executed in retaliation for the queen awarding the officer commanding the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, derek wilford, an MBE for his actions. Mountbatten was the Mrs Windsor's first cousin and a leading member of the british establishment and one of the principle architects in the partition of India. In the words of Gerry Adams " What the I.R.A. did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people ".

The death of the two children was genuinely very much regretted by the IRA, but dreadfully in all wars/conflicts innocent people are unfortunately killed. But tell me a conflict where innocent people have not been killed ?? If the deaths of innocent people in conflicts are the barometer of war crimes, britain would surely rank among the worst in history. Indeed in the ongoing conflict in Iraq 655,000 people are believed to have been killed* - a large proportion by the " the blood thirsty godfathers of the " british army ". Somehow, I don't think the same level of chest beating and pontificating will be directed at arguably the worst war criminal state in history. It's called hypocrisy.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

People who are executed are normally tried in a court of law first. What actually happened was that he was murdered by cold blooded cowardly scum.

It really takes a brave person to blow up an old couple and some children on a boat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling members of the paracute regament terrorists is a bit rich, they were soldiers doing their job protecting the population from the terrorists in the IRA and trying to bring a bit of normallity to life in Northern Ireland

marco murphy · 31-12-2007 11:56pm

Don't you laugh when the barstoolers use words like execute to give a semi-legitimate gloss to sordid murder.

Is Gerry Adams a barstooler?

Isn't that what the IRA itself has been doing of late. Admittedly it must be really confusing when you can't figure out who was working for MI-5, MI-6 or the RUC and who wasn't.

I don't know what you are referring to, please elaborate.

So if someone did nasty stuff in a previous conflict then that justifies killing them 30 years later?

Of course. Nazi war criminals no?

Calling members of the paracute regament terrorists is a bit rich, they were soldiers doing their job protecting the population from the terrorists in the IRA and trying to bring a bit of normallity to life in Northern Ireland

I don't see why this is alien to you at all. The Parachute Regiment were hardly model soldiers. How does protecting the population and the shooting of 28 people, and cubring of civil rights marches link?
Is this normal to you? Scum isn't the word for them.

jahalpin · 01-01-2008 12:12am

Poblachtach wrote: »

I don't see why this is alien to you at all. The Parachute Regiment were hardly model soldiers. How does protecting the population and the shooting of 28 people, and cubring of civil rights marches link?
Is this normal to you? Scum isn't the word for them.

They were mostly young soldiers in what was efectively a war zone, they would have been scared and when faced with an angry mod reacted the way most poeple in their situation would have

marco murphy · 01-01-2008 12:25am

They were mostly young soldiers in what was efectively a war zone, they would have been scared and when faced with an angry mod reacted the way most poeple in their situation would have

Bullsh*t. Highly acclaimed to be the most professional. How does the shooting of 28 innocent people constitute professional?

jahalpin · 01-01-2008 12:29am

Poblachtach wrote: »

Bullsh*t. Highly acclaimed to be the most professional. How does the shooting of 28 innocent people constitute professional?

They were unlikely to be as innocent as they are portrayed to be. Much in the same way that the IRA describe cold-blooded, illegal, cowardly murders as "justifiable executions"

marco murphy · 01-01-2008 12:41am

They were unlikely to be as innocent as they are portrayed to be.

I think you know how weak that conclusion is.
Marching for civil rights hardly warrants being cut down in cold blood.

And I know it's not worth it, wasting time on a british apologist, but from where do you make your conclusion?

dlofnep · 01-01-2008 11:29am

jahalpin wrote: »

Calling members of the paracute regament terrorists is a bit rich, they were soldiers doing their job protecting the population from the terrorists in the IRA and trying to bring a bit of normallity to life in Northern Ireland

LOL! Talk about self delusion.

They gunned down civilians causing 14 needless deaths. Sure it was ok for them to kill children as young as 17?

Your recollection of Bloody Sunday is either skewed or you have no idea what infact actually happened. Every documented eye-witness report, from both the civilians and irish and british media has stated that the civilians were unarmed. Along with a handful of people shot in the back as they tried to run to save their lifes, do you really think they were just "doing their job"?

I assure you - The British forces present on Bloody Sunday were terrorists by any definition of the word.

Brian Capture · 01-01-2008 12:48pm

McArmalite wrote: »

It's called hypocrisy.

So is justifying the killing of British soldiers and Mountbatten while simulanteously regretting the death of children civilians - one of whom was Nicholas Knatchbull, a royal in the making.

I hope you had the balls to support the Warrington attack.

Surely a main principle of republicanism should be to celebrate all British deaths, not just the ones that suit us?

passive · 01-01-2008 12:56pm

Err... Since when did we get an "Up the 'Ra" forum?

And can we retract their people cards now? please?

Brian Capture · 01-01-2008 1:15pm

passive wrote: »

Err... Since when did we get an "Up the 'Ra" forum?

And can we retract their people cards now? please?

Go into a pub anytime England are playing a soccer or rugby match and see how many Irish people are screaming for the opposition - no matter who they are.

If those same people haven't the balls to have the courage of the convictions and celebrate IRA bombings, the 7/7/05 attacks etc, well then they're hypocrites.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 01-01-2008 1:22pm

rofl

hahahahaha
awesome.

Mountbatten wanted United Ireland

Comments