Army admits 'not defeating IRA'
The Army has admitted for the first time that it did not win the war against the IRA.
The admission is contained in an internal document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Army also admitted mistakes were made on Bloody Sunday, but only in how it deployed its vehicles.
The 100 page document analyses in detail the British army's role in Northern Ireland over 37 years.
It focuses on specific operations as well as providing an overview of its performance.
The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.
It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
The Army admits mistakes over Bloody Sunday - but only in how it used vehicles during the arrest operation.
It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".
In a statement, the Pat Finucane Centre - a human rights group - said the document "betrays a profoundly colonial mindset towards the conflict here and those involved in it".
"Loyalist violence and the links between loyalist paramilitaries and the state has been airbrushed out of this military history," it said.
The dup have been telling us lies this last few years it seems ;)
from the Pat Finucane Centre website
http://www.serve.com/pfc/misc/opbanner.html (http://www.serve.com/pfc/misc/opbanner.html)
"it is clear that the document was not intended to be put in the public domain. We are making it temporarily available on our website in case the MoD attempts to restrict access."
here is the direct link to "Operation Banner"
http://www.serve.com/pfc/misc/opbanner.pdf (http://www.serve.com/pfc/misc/opbanner.pdf)
It looks like a typically a la carte response to this report from the decidedly one-sided and propagandist Pat Finnucane Centre.
PS. What 'army' that hasn't lost or achieved its stated objectives, totally and permanently ends its violent campaign and gives-up all of its weaponry?
I know an Army that defeated them, The Irish Free State Army ;)
Quote from: GweylTah on July 06, 2007, 12:15:28 PM
PS. What 'army' that hasn't lost or achieved its stated objectives, totally and permanently ends its violent campaign and gives-up all of its weaponry?
The good old barmy army, me old codger -howzat!!
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 12:25:45 PM
Gweytafuck, exactly why are you a member of the GAA Board ??? It seems to me that every single one of your posts is meant to provoke a reaction. If the British army are admitting that they didnt defeat the IRA ( it was stalemate if you ask me) and the IRA are certainly winning the peace, what more do you need.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
To answer your first point, I like to fish but without the cruelty of sitting on a river bank with a rod and hook.
;)
On the second point, I think you are deluded to the point of having been brain-washed, but that's your look-out.
Posting filter applied for user :GweylTah
This users posts are not displayed as they are on your blocked poster list.
You can add this user to your list in the Profile section
Im liking these new bits functionality Admin!!!
Feck even ex-peelers are lining up on Talkback now to pay tribute to Óglaigh na hÉireann. :o
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
Óglaigh na hÉireann
Is that the Proper one or the insurgents you talking about :D
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 12:25:45 PM
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
What does this post mean - I assume I am reading it wrong
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 12:53:02 PM
My outlook would be slighly different than most. Sadly my views would probably get me banned from this board and I would rather remain a member than rise to your bait.
I am sure there are boards for twisted little fat arsed lesbian loyalists lie yourself. f**k off and find one.
I hope you talking to Gweytafuck & not me, Im only taking the mick, coz I not a fan of the IRA etc.
Not speaking for 5Times but it probably means that although we often hear the unionists bleating about the Brits keeping the gloves on, to a large extent the IRA did the same. It could have been a lot rougher than it was.
QuoteThe Army admits mistakes over Bloody Sunday - but only in how it used vehicles during the arrest operation.
They must have picked up a few parking tickets on the day. ::)
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
Feck even ex-peelers are lining up on Talkback now to pay tribute to Óglaigh na hÉireann. :o
So's Fishead Sam :P
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on July 06, 2007, 12:20:54 PM
I know an Army that defeated them, The Irish Free State Army ;)
Quote from: nifan on July 06, 2007, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 12:25:45 PM
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
What does this post mean - I assume I am reading it wrong
That's what I was wondering too.
It sounds like that for the IRA, to have gone to the level 5times wanted, should have targeted "some young lad standing on a street corner".
Is that right, 5Times? :(
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 01:03:22 PM
Not speaking for 5Times but it probably means that although we often hear the unionists bleating about the Brits keeping the gloves on, to a large extent the IRA did the same. It could have been a lot rougher than it was.
To be fair Donagh this refers the security forces not being allowed to go out and shoot members of the IRA, wherever and whenver they encountered them and chose to, or inddeed to hunt them down and shoot them c.f. Israel) - which is exactly how the IRA operated. (As well as its various bombings, civilian atrocities etc).
Quote from: MW on July 06, 2007, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
Feck even ex-peelers are lining up on Talkback now to pay tribute to Óglaigh na hÉireann. :o
So's Fishead Sam :P
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on July 06, 2007, 12:20:54 PM
I know an Army that defeated them, The Irish Free State Army ;)
Little confused about the above post, will I be sorry I asked ???
The sad truth in the history of this wee part of the world was that when Irish civilians (and RUC/UDR) were killed, the English would think it was terrible what one Irish man was doing to another.
When stuff happened in Britain, or to British soldiers, then it was heinous, an abomination, murderous, evil etc. and usually led to more oppression, be it military or legislative.
Posting filter applied for user :GweylTah
This users posts are not displayed as they are on your blocked poster list.
You can add this user to your list in the Profile section
Some serious double standards on the part of some northern members here:
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation and statements of intent to filter out his contributions, while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on July 06, 2007, 01:23:02 PM
Quote from: MW on July 06, 2007, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
Feck even ex-peelers are lining up on Talkback now to pay tribute to Óglaigh na hÉireann. :o
So's Fishead Sam :P
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on July 06, 2007, 12:20:54 PM
I know an Army that defeated them, The Irish Free State Army ;)
Little confused about the above post, will I be sorry I asked ???
Just pointing out you're paying tribute (well, kind of) to Óglaigh na hÉireann...the official one...
Quote5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
I'm assuming it was a typo.
Quote from: J70 on July 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation
Have I missed these?
Quote
while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
Is that really what he said? My reading is that the IRA constrained themselves with legitimate targets while others took out lads on street corners. Saying that does not automatically mean he wishes the same.
He said in his opinion the IRA didnt go far enough.
I certainly read the sentence as J70 states, hence I asked 5times to clarify what he meant.
Quote from: An Fear Rua on July 06, 2007, 12:47:31 PM
Posting filter applied for user :GweylTah
This users posts are not displayed as they are on your blocked poster list.
You can add this user to your list in the Profile section
Im liking these new bits functionality Admin!!!
Posting filter applied for user :GweylTah
This users posts are not displayed as they are on your blocked poster list.
You can add this user to your list in the Profile sectionbeat you to it!
get with the program AFR - I've had this 'b*llshit blocker' filter on this while now.
The guts of it is that the IRA weren't defeated and the British Army weren't defeated. Each side knew though that neither was going to let the other 'win', hence a stalemate and truce that both sides were happy for.
However, I think it's going over old ground that probably is best left in the past.
Ach lads think of what you are missing :D
5times - so what did you mean when you said "IMHO they didnt go far enough"
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 01:55:08 PM
Donagh seems to have summed up what I was saying.
Loyalist paramilataries with the help of RUC/PSNI special branch and the British army had a free passage into Nationalist areas to murder innocent people, be it a young lad outside a shop or an old man on his way home from the pub, very fuckin heroic. Whereas the IRA mainly targetted members of the crown forces. I have always thought the IRA showed a lot of restraint, it would have been very easy to drive onto the Shankill Rd or Rathcoole and shoot ordinary everyday Protestants.
Getting back to my earlier point about Gawaytafuck, why does he/she/it feel the need to post on what is primarily a GAA discussion board. He/she/it contributes nothing positive to this board and only seeks to stir up trouble. If He/she/it continues I think it should be removed.
Then again it cant really be easy being a Northern Prod, you`re not exactly British, certainly people in Britain dont view them as British. They are not exactly Irish, no one wants them, but sadly Britain is stuck with them. I think it is worth noting that the United Kingdom is made uo of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, so I suppose at best they are United Kingdomers. Must be really hard for Gweytafuck, not exactly knowing who you are or what you are, still it could be worse, it could be the wrong time of the month, then we`d really get it in the neck. ;)
forget about it 5T
Its hard for some of these folk to accept that the Army are indeed acknowledging the undefeated Irish Republican Army (gawd bless 'em)
It will be harder still for them to stomach it as we career towards a united Ireland.
with the installation of the martyred dead IRA republicans as 'Historic Irish heroes' a la Pearse , Connolly and the men of 1916 - being the final straw as they all jump ship and head back to rangersland -ooops sorry , meant scotland!
;) :D
I doubt if the IRA ever wanted to unleash all-out war here, they tended to back-off a bit whenever they got a taste of their own medicine.
Of course, incidents such as murdering elected representatives, massacres of shoppers on Bloody Friday, pensioners at Enniskillen, dog-fanciers at La Mon, etc, etc, indicate that they got quite close at times.
Interesting, too, that it was only when their evil mirror images on the loyalist side started to out-number them in the body count, coupled with widespread infiltarion (even people in south Armagh and east Tyrone were being bought!!!), that they became persuadable to become champions for the Peace Process. Certainly the ability to turn defeat into some sort of victory, through claiming ownership of the Peace Process, took plenty of cheek.
Anyway, it's over and, this side of 9/11, terrorism and its advocates are persona no grata nowaways in the western world, whatever internet warriors like 5Times spew.
Quote from: J70 on July 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Some serious double standards on the part of some northern members here:
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation and statements of intent to filter out his contributions, while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
I would take it as a compliment, and really very ironic given things like the Broadcasting Ban in the South and Thatcher's broadcasting rules in the UK and the campaign by republicans against these regulations and the victimhood card they played over the bans.
But, hey, I'll live with it - if people want to remain unenlightened and un-exposed to others' opinions, orientations, life-styles, home-truths, etc, let them stay in their lonely, reclusive and deluded world.
::)
Posting filter applied for user :GweylTah
This users posts are not displayed as they are on your blocked poster list.
You can add this user to your list in the Profile section
Obv where you lead others follow Lynchbhoy ;D
How do you do that? I went into my profile and couldn't work it out.
BTW - not for Gweyltah. There are many way worse around here.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 06, 2007, 01:59:39 PM
with the installation of the martyred dead IRA republicans as 'Historic Irish heroes' a la Pearse , Connolly and the men of 1916 - being the final straw as they all jump ship and head back to rangersland -ooops sorry , meant scotland!
;) :D
Behave yourself >:( :o :P
Fcuk sakes 5iveTimes that 'bombshell' wasn't long 'killing' off this thread.
:D
There is a nice picture on page 37. Soldier on rural patrol
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:34:58 PM
Fcuk sakes 5iveTimes that 'bombshell' wasn't long 'killing' off this thread.
:D
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5ive Times did.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
Quote from: Long time dead on July 06, 2007, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5ive Times did.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
I take it you didn't read the whole thread then
Quote from: J70 on July 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Some serious double standards on the part of some northern members here:
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation and statements of intent to filter out his contributions, while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
Well I have to admit, 5Time's comment did sit a little uneasy with me.
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:50:25 PM
Quote from: Long time dead on July 06, 2007, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5ive Times did.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
I take it you didn't read the whole thread then
Why does it make this statement sound less like sanctioning sectarian slaughter?
Edit - his full post was
Gweytafuck, exactly why are you a member of the GAA Board It seems to me that every single one of your posts is meant to provoke a reaction. If the British army are admitting that they didnt defeat the IRA ( it was stalemate if you ask me) and the IRA are certainly winning the peace, what more do you need.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.Was it a typo?
QuoteThat was never condoned on this thread.
Quote from: Long time dead on July 06, 2007, 02:49:21 PM
5ive Times did.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
No need to be so lazy
the obvious interpretation is
that the IRA did not go that farHas anybody read the Operation Banner?
I got up to page 40 so far.
I don't know what's new
Says that the RUC were ill equipped to deal with the Burntollet ambushers. ::)
Says the Faulkner pulled the strings to introduce Internment - strongly opposed by the Army.
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
No he didn't and neither did I.
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
No he didn't and neither did I.
???
How would you read "IMHO the ira didnt go far enough" comment donagh
My post was in response to the one deleted by 5Times, not the one you referred to. As he has since deleted that post to protect his anonymity, I'll be respecting that and not referring to it again – as I have done in the past when other contributors have been "outted" – including two or three from OWC.
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Fcuk sake sammy - he didnt say they should have targetted
kids on streets
Changing a few words there to suit your agenda ::)
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Fcuk sake sammy - he didnt say they should have targetted kids on streets
Changing a few words there to suit your agenda ::)
Humblest apologies he said young lad not kid. ::)
Quote from: Main Street on July 06, 2007, 03:04:28 PM
QuoteThat was never condoned on this thread.
Quote from: Long time dead on July 06, 2007, 02:49:21 PM
5ive Times did.
IMHO the IRA didnt go far enough, they tried to use legitimate targets such as Police, Army and genuine Loyalists, not some young lad standing on a street corner.
No need to be so lazy
the obvious interpretation is that the IRA did not go that far
Has anybody read the Operation Banner?
I got up to page 40 so far.
I don't know what's new
Says that the RUC were ill equipped to deal with the Burntollet ambushers. ::)
Says the Faulkner pulled the strings to introduce Internment - strongly opposed by the Army.
Yeah that was very obvious. :o
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Fcuk sake sammy - he didnt say they should have targetted kids on streets
Changing a few words there to suit your agenda ::)
Humblest apologies he said young lad not kid. ::)
Arrogant pr1ck
Quote from: nifan on July 06, 2007, 03:12:40 PM
How would you read "IMHO the ira didnt go far enough" comment donagh
Could mean a lot of things nifan, as I often heard republicans before the ceasefires offering opinions on what the IRA should or should not do. I already offered my interpretation of what he said on the other page and I'm not going to try and read his mind on it.
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Fcuk sake sammy - he didnt say they should have targetted kids on streets
Changing a few words there to suit your agenda ::)
Humblest apologies he said young lad not kid. ::)
Arrogant pr1ck
You certainly sound like one, but thanks for confirming it. ;)
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: full back on July 06, 2007, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 06, 2007, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on July 06, 2007, 02:39:39 PM
Aye you're right, sectarian slaughter is f**king hilarious. ::)
That was never condoned on this thread.
5Times said that the IRA didn't go far enough and that they should have targetted kids on street corners (presumably even more than they already did) and you made a joke out of it.
Fcuk sake sammy - he didnt say they should have targetted kids on streets
Changing a few words there to suit your agenda ::)
Humblest apologies he said young lad not kid. ::)
Arrogant pr1ck
You certainly sound like one, but thanks for confirming it. ;)
Yawn - you
still here sammy
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
To SammyG et al.
My comments have been distorted by many of you so I will make them clear for you.
How the fcuk can your comments be distorted. You said the IRA didn't go far enough, that's black and white, no need for distortion
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
Even if tht sickening logic was correct how would you explain Bloody Friday or La Mon or Enniskillen etc etc etc
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Now you can take my comments as you wish, but it seems that you are happy enough that Loyalists murdered innocent Catholics on street corners, in their places of work and in their homes, they rarely targetted IRA members or indeed Republicans. Their motto was and correct me if Im wrong "any taig will do". If that sits ok with you, then dont pass comment on my views.
When has anybody said they are happy with Loyalist attrocities? So called Loyalist paramilitaries are scum who are more interested in drug dealing and pimping than they are in politics. There only loyality is crime as somebody once said.
i never get involved in any of these political threads but why is sammgy g on a gaa board if he dislikes "the other side so much" he allways has the last word so you should just ignore him and let him write to himself.Before you say anything like what would i know about the troubles sammy g, my parents Relations have lived in the bogside all their lives and one of their children was killed by a ruc vehicle so i know plenty about the troubles and the hurt people have felt.However i feel very lucky to live in the south where i have loads of protestant and catholic friends and where religion doesn't matter.
The quite deliberate murders of Protestant civilians at, for example, Enniskillen and Darkley, and the singling-out by the IRA of only sons of Protestant farmers near the border gives the lie to that attempt at rewriting history from 5Times, who was bragging earlier.
As to the massacre of Protestants at Kingsmills (while any Catholics were spared) putting an end to the killings of Catholics, that's nonsense, too. The Provos killed dozens of Catholics in south Armagh/south Down over the years.
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
To SammyG et al.
My comments have been distorted by many of you so I will make them clear for you.
The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
Now you can take my comments as you wish, but it seems that you are happy enough that Loyalists murdered innocent Catholics on street corners, in their places of work and in their homes, they rarely targetted IRA members or indeed Republicans. Their motto was and correct me if Im wrong "any taig will do". If that sits ok with you, then dont pass comment on my views.
to a certain extent I would have agreed with you a number of years ago- and at times I half thought about it that maybe it would be giving 'them' (colluding brit/ruc/unionist/loyalist death squads etc) a bit of their own medicine by changing the modus operandi from selecting military targets to picking indiscriminate innocents like the colluding death squads /army and ruc did.
(yes I know the IRA killed some of their own and also innocents - but the MO was not to do this).
But I am glad that the IRA decided not to do so and maintained themselves as a cut above the low life that tried to use every dirty trick in the book to defeat the Oglaigh na heireann - but as the brit army has admitted - could never do so!
Things have moved on , so there is no point in debating in revisionist history with the well known forked tongues of dup loving unionism !
let them say what they want. Apartheid and oppression in the six counties has been beaten, we are on the road to a united country so remember to be gracious in victory !
:)
Quote from: ziggysego on July 06, 2007, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on July 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Some serious double standards on the part of some northern members here:
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation and statements of intent to filter out his contributions, while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
Well I have to admit, 5Time's comment did sit a little uneasy with me.
But yet you blocked GweylTah.
Just like other posters here.
It's OK to condone IRA violence, but not OK to say that they were defeated. >:(
Disgusting.
Though I don't know anyone on thid board, that I know of anyway, I'm sure I can rely on one-or-two free-thinking, free-speech advocates to get my thoughts across somehow.
;)
Lads calm down for fck sake, people going over the top all over the place & we aint at the Somme, look @ all the football & hurling @ the weekend or whatever sport ya into, lads just go out and have a few pints tonight and if ya still upset take it up on monday, but its the weekend. :)
good man fishead sam ,sure we will start of with the corrib gasline first thing on monday ;)
Quote from: the Deel Rover on July 06, 2007, 05:05:44 PM
good man fishead sam ,sure we will start of with the corrib gasline first thing on monday ;)
I'm holding the ceasefire while Mayo still in the Championship, the good of the County always comes first.
Maigh-Eo Abu, since seeing that selection for Saturday night I'm as high as a kite with excitement, off to the Connacht Final on Sunday too, Wohoo.
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
To SammyG et al.
My comments have been distorted by many of you so I will make them clear for you.
The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
Now you can take my comments as you wish, but it seems that you are happy enough that Loyalists murdered innocent Catholics on street corners, in their places of work and in their homes, they rarely targetted IRA members or indeed Republicans. Their motto was and correct me if Im wrong "any taig will do". If that sits ok with you, then dont pass comment on my views.
Since I have to assume that i am part of the et al,
What would you have thought the IRA hould have done, as you didnt think they went far enough?
And who seems happy for loyalists to murder innocent catholics? Do you think we do? Why on earth would I be happy for catholics to be killed.
It certainly isnt OK with me.
The whole thread has been disgusting. There are thousands of people out there on both sides who weren't winners, or their families left behind I'm sure don't feel like winners. It's a cliche but in war there are no winners.
Now "we've moved on" could all you fireside fusiliers get back to more important stuff like who is the biggest ride on local news ;D
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
.
The fact that the police arrested and imprisoned the UVF gangsters carrying out the loyalist side of the tit-for-tat sectarian murder spree might have had something to do with it, hmm? ::)
BTW, worth reading the document a bit deeper, commentary like this comes into it:
"By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place."
"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, that success is unique."
(I have to admit I've lifted this from Slugger rather than picking through myself yet)
Don't usually get involved in this political debate but on this one felt I had to. I agree with Ziggy, 5Sams comment made me very uneasy but some of the comments wilfully misinterpreting it make me more uneasy.
"They didn't go far enough" has somehow been interpreted by someone as "they didn't go that far". Two very different comments and interpretations and it's interesting to see people whose comments I would have generally respected before not criticising this comment. I hope he meant the latter and is guilty of nothing more than poor English but that doesn't seem to be case and when pulled up on it by nifan he has avoided it.
I haven't posted here in some time, but reading some of the remarks not only here but on the Shoot-to-Kill thread has bothered me.
First, I don't believe that 5Times was advocating that the IRA should have killed kids on street corners, but I am bothered by his view that they didn't go far enough. From my standpoint, they went plenty far enough and thoroughly relinquished their moral authority when they targeted civilians (La Mon et al) and particularly when they used proxy bombs. Blowing innocent people to smithereens is monstrous.
Second, I also feel the urge to comment on the Gway-to-Hell sub-thread. While I don't always agree with them, I respect Nifan and SammyG because they are essentially good-natured, I believe. Gway, on the other hand, is insidious. Throughout his long tenure as a contributor to this board, with his "occasional" (now apparently a synonym for "relentless") posts, his modus operandi has remain unchanged. At first glance, he appears to be a reasonable, rational human being. Closer examination, however, reveals his chameleon quality. Behind the façade of fairness, he likes to put the boot in (albeit Hush Puppies), which unmasks the disguised hypocrite. He likes to present himself as the Lone Ranger, championing free speech and fairness, but in reality he is more like the Lone Rangers Fan.
For example, his glee in "winding-up" people about serious issues is reprehensible. His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board, when he should be extolling the unimaginable peace that SF has helped engineer (and I'm no Shinner) is typical. Similarly, his comments on the Shoot-to-Kill thread are symptomatic of his two-facedness. Instead of condemning the execution policy of the police force and its subsequent cover-up, he in fact quietly supports that very policy by arguing that in a war all action is justified. Now, while the IRA undoubtedly believed it was in a war, I'm not sure the same can be said of the RUC, but even if it were, in a war, principled combatants have a duty to take prisoners, if they can, and not summarily execute them. And the police had ample opportunity to detain the people they gunned down, gangster-style. Gway seems to imply that while it is wrong for the IRA to be judge, jury and executioner, it is acceptable for the RUC to be so. Gway, there is a qualitative difference between a guerrilla terrorist organization and a civilian police force. The second is held to a higher standard of conduct
However, as for the push to ban The Gwayltee Mountain Boy from the board, I would have to oppose this move, as much as his disappearance would please me. I read his posts for the same reason that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the other keepers of righteousness—it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking. It prevents complacency.
Enough said, Up Armagh!
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 06, 2007, 09:52:35 PM
I haven't posted here in some time, but reading some of the remarks not only here but on the Shoot-to-Kill thread has bothered me.
First, I don't believe that 5Times was advocating that the IRA should have killed kids on street corners, but I am bothered by his view that they didn't go far enough. From my standpoint, they went plenty far enough and thoroughly relinquished their moral authority when they targeted civilians (La Mon et al) and particularly when they used proxy bombs. Blowing innocent people to smithereens is monstrous.
Second, I also feel the urge to comment on the Gway-to-Hell sub-thread. While I don't always agree with them, I respect Nifan and SammyG because they are essentially good-natured, I believe. Gway, on the other hand, is insidious. Throughout his long tenure as a contributor to this board, with his "occasional" (now apparently a synonym for "relentless") posts, his modus operandi has remain unchanged. At first glance, he appears to be a reasonable, rational human being. Closer examination, however, reveals his chameleon quality. Behind the façade of fairness, he likes to put the boot in (albeit Hush Puppies), which unmasks the disguised hypocrite. He likes to present himself as the Lone Ranger, championing free speech and fairness, but in reality he is more like the Lone Rangers Fan.
For example, his glee in "winding-up" people about serious issues is reprehensible. His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board, when he should be extolling the unimaginable peace that SF has helped engineer (and I'm no Shinner) is typical. Similarly, his comments on the Shoot-to-Kill thread are symptomatic of his two-facedness. Instead of condemning the execution policy of the police force and its subsequent cover-up, he in fact quietly supports that very policy by arguing that in a war all action is justified. Now, while the IRA undoubtedly believed it was in a war, I'm not sure the same can be said of the RUC, but even if it were, in a war, principled combatants have a duty to take prisoners, if they can, and not summarily execute them. And the police had ample opportunity to detain the people they gunned down, gangster-style. Gway seems to imply that while it is wrong for the IRA to be judge, jury and executioner, it is acceptable for the RUC to be so. Gway, there is a qualitative difference between a guerrilla terrorist organization and a civilian police force. The second is held to a higher standard of conduct
However, as for the push to ban The Gwayltee Mountain Boy from the board, I would have to oppose this move, as much as his disappearance would please me. I read his posts for the same reason that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the other keepers of righteousness—it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking. It prevents complacency.
Enough said, Up Armagh!
Agree with all of that oraisteach,
well except for the last line ;)
SammyG,NIFan,Evil Genius Tonto and MW offer a different opinion here but act like gentlemen/women even when taking flack from all sides.
i thought the same about Gweyltah until recently, he /she seems a bit too interested in Tit for tat and mudslinging than actually debating on here.
wouldnt support his/her banning though.
dont be fooled by them Ballyhaise lad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_01dk4yQZc
as this thead indicates - even the brit army admits
'we will never be defeated , while Ireland has such sons ' !
:)
Quote from: MW on July 06, 2007, 07:47:00 PM
BTW, worth reading the document a bit deeper, commentary like this comes into it:
"By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place."
"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, that success is unique."
(I have to admit I've lifted this from Slugger rather than picking through myself yet)
You are missing a telling line in the full quote
"812. By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place.
It is revealing to examine why it then took another quarter of a century to end the campaign."Yet nothing was revealed :)
There are quite a few digs at the Stormont lickspittles
"Thus there is an important requirement to identify situations which are likely to lead to social unrest, insurgency or civil war. In Northern Ireland, this should not have been difficult. Junior officers present in Northern Ireland in 1969 were well aware of
8 - 1 the discrimination and deprivation, and asked themselves at the time why the Government did not do anything about it.
8- 4
Stormont was part of the problem and could have been so recognised at the time."
"But, simplistically, the long-term solution was not to deploy three battalions into the Divis Flats; but rather to bulldoze them and build decent, respectable homes with proper amenities."
On the border
"solutions considered, the most common was that of closing the Border with a fence and security force. Estimates of up to 29 battalions were considered to be required for the security force. One proposal was to lay minefields along the Border: that was rapidly dismissed. At various times dozens of minor crossings were closed by Royal Engineer units. After a while this would be found not to work because, if not kept under continuous observation, the local population would lift the obstacles or bypass them."
On the armagh sniper, a grudging tribute
"However, on 16 March 1990 a Barrett .50" heavy calibre rifle was used on a patrol on the outskirts of Crossmaglen. Only one shot was fired, and one soldier was hit. The range was 850m. Subsequent events suggest that this was an extremely lucky shot."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej9Zjpe6nX4&mode=related&search=
Quote from: Main Street on July 06, 2007, 11:41:27 PM
"However, on 16 March 1990 a Barrett .50" heavy calibre rifle was used on a patrol on the outskirts of Crossmaglen. Only one shot was fired, and one soldier was hit. The range was 850m. Subsequent events suggest that this was an extremely lucky shot."
Eh?
ah sure Donagh
it was a while unlucky shot.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFf-QLp_dMY&mode=related&search=
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26OC215p718&mode=related&search=
have to say Donagh
you and your cohorts are a wee bit too sdlp for our liking - way too middle of the road !
cant see why you would even want to answer these jaffas on this here board !
:D :D
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 06, 2007, 09:52:35 PM
His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board
Why should such a view have the reaction to it that has been expressed by people.
I certainly believe the IRA were defeated. Look at the facts:
-They did not achieve (or even nearly achieve) their ultimate aim.
-They have accepted the principle of consent.
-They supported an Agreement which relinquished the Irish Republic's claims to this part of the UK
-They have handed in all their weapons.
-Some of their most high profile members/ex members sit in Stormont, a partitionist parliament.
-They support a party which administers British rule in NI.
-They can no longer engage in violence.
Tell me again - where is the success in this story? :D
Undefeated my arse.
Quote from: Tonto on July 07, 2007, 01:05:15 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 06, 2007, 09:52:35 PM
His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board
Why should such a view have the reaction to it that has been expressed by people.
I certainly believe the IRA were defeated. Look at the facts:
-They did not achieve (or even nearly achieve) their ultimate aim.
-They have accepted the principle of consent.
-They supported an Agreement which relinquished the Irish Republic's claims to this part of the UK
-They have handed in all their weapons.
-Some of their most high profile members/ex members sit in Stormont, a partitionist parliament.
-They support a party which administers British rule in NI.
-They can no longer engage in violence.
Tell me again - where is the success in this story? :D
Undefeated my arse.
yep you and the rest of the jaffas tell us what the objective of the IRA was
fcuk me
you lads still even now try to tell us whats what :D :D
Quote from: Tonto on July 07, 2007, 01:05:15 AM
Why should such a view have the reaction to it that has been expressed by people.
I certainly believe the IRA were defeated. Look at the facts:
-They did not achieve (or even nearly achieve) their ultimate aim.
-They have accepted the principle of consent.
-They supported an Agreement which relinquished the Irish Republic's claims to this part of the UK
-They have handed in all their weapons.
-Some of their most high profile members/ex members sit in Stormont, a partitionist parliament.
-They support a party which administers British rule in NI.
-They can no longer engage in violence.
Tell me again - where is the success in this story? :D
Undefeated my arse.
All very true. But Unionism in its various guises, ranging from the Conservative & Unionist Party to Big Ian, fought the Troubles on the basis of 'not an inch'. While one could argue that barely two centimetres was ceded to Nationalism in its various guises, ranging from the Irish government to the Provos, I think several miles of concessions were made.
I agree Deiseach - both sides seem to be claiming victory and laughing at the others defeat, when in fact compromise seems to be the name of the game, as it should be.
Quote from: nifan on July 07, 2007, 03:13:56 AM
I agree Deiseach - both sides seem to be claiming victory and laughing at the others defeat, when in fact compromise seems to be the name of the game, as it should be.
It's understandable that both sides would not want to admit that they didn't get what they wanted. They'd both be wrong though ;)
5times, that is a truly romantic look at the IRA.
For a start, as the report says they where professional and well trained. They had more than a few pitchforks and the odd rusty shotgun in the arsenal as well(pistols, rifles, semtex, RPGs etc). They had decent financial backing, and support from teh likes of Qaddafi.
A few farmers :o
Aye, romantic is one word for it.... :-\
Quote from: Tonto on July 06, 2007, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on July 06, 2007, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on July 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Some serious double standards on the part of some northern members here:
Gweyltah's posts bring a hail of condemnation and statements of intent to filter out his contributions, while 5Times' wish that the IRA had not shown restraint and confined themselves to "legitimate" targets is ignored.
Well I have to admit, 5Time's comment did sit a little uneasy with me.
But yet you blocked GweylTah.
Just like other posters here.
It's OK to condone IRA violence, but not OK to say that they were defeated. >:(
Disgusting.
f**k me if this thread wasn't bad enough (I haven't even read to the end) we have you throwing in the token "disgusting". ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 07, 2007, 11:24:05 AM
Compromise may be the name of the game but, the IRA were basically a bunch of farmers, brickies, teachers, young and old with poor equipment and poor training. They took on the British Army and although it would be going too far to say they won, they had a moral victory. Large parts of the Six Counties were no go areas for the army, their only means of transport was by helicopter. The army had satellites, listening devices, the most advanced security camera system in the world, helicopters, you name it they had it, they even tried to recruit people from within our own communities, people who had nothing, but still the British ended up around the negotiating table. Not bad for a few farmers, not bad at all.
The problem with that analysis is that the British, for political reasons, never unleashed their full might. Had the British adopted the tactics that the IRA were prone to using - planting bombs in the heart of Nationalist territory, executing anyone suspected of collaborating with the enemy, snipers, no-go areas - then things might have been very different. But British public opinion would never have tolerated its army operating in such a manner, just as it couldn't in less enlightened times in the 1920's.