"fifty Dead Men Walking"

[Puckoon]

Puck, as I already said, I don't believe I should withdraw all support from an organisation over a few bad apples. My Catholic Church example explains that. Other that that your post, for the first time was reasonable. Your father must be a calming influencing on you. You now claim to be an honourable man and accept that many people do support the IRA. In this honour would you think differently about how, at the start of this thread you termed pro-IRA posters as "little sc**bag provos" who were "stupid"...

What the feck are you talking about?

The inital post was directed at posts calling for McGartland to get his commuppence. I stand by it fully. The language on the first couple pages of this thread indicate to me - that lynch boy is wrong and there are those who relish deaths and would relish it still. I am firmly entitled to believe that opinion scumbagish.

There isnt an issue of a calming influence, and while your patronising remarks could be taken up as insulting, in the way you no doubt mean it, I am not interested in rehashing old posts - as I said previously, you could talk about it for years and end up at the same starting point. If you must know - I debated a few points with another poster on the thread, and tried to understand a little. However, I do have my iron cast opinions and they will probably stop me from ever being able to support the organisation that you support. Id rather learn and understand, but I wont do that from having opinions rammed down my throat, nor will I ever think that comments like those found on the first page have any place in a modern peaceful Ireland, nor will I apologise to those who are in accord with such comments. Therefore - I tried to actually discuss with you, and you come back with insults directly at me.

Furthermore - when hold yourself to the same standards of detachment and non emotional language, and ill accept your criticism of me not doing the same.

Finally - if you can point out to me where I claim to be an honourable man - and why that deserves such sarcasm from a man who is supportive of murder, Ill be happy enough to bury the hatchet (but you'd forgive me if I might still hold onto the handle - just incase).

Let me just add that if you are equating my initial post with the atrocities which I highlighted and then asked you to show me honour - well then we're all fucked.


(In the present climate - I wouldnt be proud of being a member of the catholic church either - but that is another discussion).

[Nally Stand]

"I am all for honour". That is where I took it that you were claiming to be honourable. As for your final comment, I do NOT condone murder. I believe that the IRA were not a murder gang because, as already stated, their attacks for the vast majority were political and reactionary to circumstances which made them a part of a war against a regime which was truely murderous and discriminatory. I don't believe those who fought to bring britain to the table were murderers. Such, in my view, is war.

[fitzroyalty]

When those who make the law, break the law, there is no law

[Nally Stand]

Indeed

[Myles Na G.]

Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

You've already been caught out manipulating statistics to back up your argument, so if I were you I'd keep my head down for a while on that particular subject. I suspect you're too young to remember the early 70's, therefore you can be excused your ignorance of the IRA's bombing campaign in that period. They exploded thousands of bombs in the early part of the decade. The majority were aimed at civilian targets (pubs, hotels, shops) in an attempt to reduce the north to a wasteland. Most didn't result in civilan casualties, but many did, either because the device detonated prematurely or because the warnings were ballsed up.

[lynchbhoy]

Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

You've already been caught out manipulating statistics to back up your argument, so if I were you I'd keep my head down for a while on that particular subject. I suspect you're too young to remember the early 70's, therefore you can be excused your ignorance of the IRA's bombing campaign in that period. They exploded thousands of bombs in the early part of the decade. The majority were aimed at civilian targets (pubs, hotels, shops) in an attempt to reduce the north to a wasteland. Most didn't result in civilan casualties, but many did, either because the device detonated prematurely or because the warnings were ballsed up.

err - he wasnt caught out with incorect stats ....it was pointed out what was included in those stats - even still at least he could back up his claims with some stats rather than running away without being able to substantiate your own, talking of which - you say he obv doesnt rem the 70's - well looking at what you posted last
(thousands of bombs - all at civillian targets    etc) shows you must have been taking too much acid or whatever during the 70's yourself if thats the kind of rubbish and innacurate lies you are trying to peddle !
Using statistics on damaged property etc to try and claim that the ira were out to target civillians  !!!
even in the bad old days of state sponsored propaganda, they could not get those kinds of claims to stick ...your revisionism is as always, both way off the mark and downright stupid as well as being a big lie - like yourself!

[Myles Na G.]

Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

You've already been caught out manipulating statistics to back up your argument, so if I were you I'd keep my head down for a while on that particular subject. I suspect you're too young to remember the early 70's, therefore you can be excused your ignorance of the IRA's bombing campaign in that period. They exploded thousands of bombs in the early part of the decade. The majority were aimed at civilian targets (pubs, hotels, shops) in an attempt to reduce the north to a wasteland. Most didn't result in civilan casualties, but many did, either because the device detonated prematurely or because the warnings were ballsed up.

err - he wasnt caught out with incorect stats ....it was pointed out what was included in those stats - even still at least he could back up his claims with some stats rather than running away without being able to substantiate your own, talking of which - you say he obv doesnt rem the 70's - well looking at what you posted last
(thousands of bombs - all at civillian targets    etc) shows you must have been taking too much acid or whatever during the 70's yourself if thats the kind of rubbish and innacurate lies you are trying to peddle !
Using statistics on damaged property etc to try and claim that the ira were out to target civillians  !!!
even in the bad old days of state sponsored propaganda, they could not get those kinds of claims to stick ...your revisionism is as always, both way off the mark and downright stupid as well as being a big lie - like yourself!

Not a mention of the A word. Good man yourself!

[Nally Stand]

More made up tripe from Myles the Revisionist. As already pointed out my stats are given plainly and are verified by the source I have given. So I'll ask you again, could you provide me with stats to back up your fanciful claims? And it certainly reeks of pure desperation to back up your claim that IRA attacks were mostly on civilians by only including bomb attacks and only including the early years of the 70's. How do you expect to be taken seriously? And could you provide a stat for that claim too thanks?

[Minder]

Around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around.

[Myles Na G.]

More made up tripe from Myles the Revisionist. As already pointed out my stats are given plainly and are verified by the source I have given. So I'll ask you again, could you provide me with stats to back up your fanciful claims? And it certainly reeks of pure desperation to back up your claim that IRA attacks were mostly on civilians by only including bomb attacks and only including the early years of the 70's. How do you expect to be taken seriously? And could you provide a stat for that claim too thanks?

Incorrect. You quoted statistics which only hold together if you accept the republican definition of a 'legitimate target', which your source seems to have transmuted into 'willing participant'. I refuse to accept that definition, which turns a brickie or a pizza delivery boy into a combatant. That's twisted republican morality and you can shove it up yer hole. You're also big on questions, but light on answers. I asked on page 10 of this thread whether you accepted that pubs, hotels, shops, etc were constituted civilian targets and I'm still waiting for an answer.

[saffron sam2]

Touts will be shoot.

[Myles Na G.]

'Other indices of sharply escalating violence were a rise in the number of shootings from 73 in 1969 to 1,756 in 1971 and of explosions from 9 to 1,022 in the same period. On 20 March the Provisionals made their most destructive and indiscriminate contribution to the tool kit of terrorism with the first use of a car bomb in a devastating explosion in Belfast's Donegall Street. Claimed to be a blow at the 'colonial economic structure' and the British ruling class, this Provisional bomb killed six people, most of them members of the crew of a bin lorry.'
'Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, Penguin 2006, p225

[Nally Stand]

You once again demonstrate the art of giving an example of one attack to make generalisations. So I'll ask again, where in that quote does it state that most of those attacks were on civilian targets as per your claim? I also note that you make no effort to justify your generalisations by speaking only of bombings and only in a 3 or four year period. And my stats are as defined in Lost lives. And even if you did discount those you disagree were willing participants, then civilians were still in the...

[Nally Stand]

...minority of victims so your generalisations in any case are dishonest. As for civilian areas, attacks where no evacuation warnings were given or not of enough notice was given were not justifiable. I don't think even you could contend that those were in the minority.

[Main Street]

As for civilian areas, attacks where no evacuation warnings were given or not of enough notice was given were not justifiable. I don't think even you could contend that those were in the minority.

No, I don't think Mylies would.
If you want to tout an opinion, then by all means do so.
'All means'  (in your case) includes the use of a minimum standard of expression to get your point across, to elevate it from an indecipherable rant.