Shankill Bombing

[nrico2006]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

Be interested to hear a response to this post.

[Jim Bob]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

Be interested to hear a response to this post.

The usual weasel words I predict ,!!

[Orior]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

Much as I hate to stoop to whataboutery, the british interned many innocent people, and carried out a shoot to kill policy, but then wouldn't give political status to prisoners.

[Applesisapples]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

I disagree fundamentally with you on most things, but you are exactly right war is kill or be killed, but in the same way the British denied it was war this was all about the propaganda. And we are still at it on this island lauding the armed insurrection of the  "old" IRA and UVF whilst denouncing the recent manifestations. Time to stop the hypocrisy and move on.

[seafoid]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

I disagree fundamentally with you on most things, but you are exactly right war is kill or be killed, but in the same way the British denied it was war this was all about the propaganda. And we are still at it on this island lauding the armed insurrection of the  "old" IRA and UVF whilst denouncing the recent manifestations. Time to stop the hypocrisy and move on.

It wasn't a conventional war with 2 armies of soldiers in uniform. It was more like a partisan war. For a lot of unionists it was about law and order.
IRA prisoners were not given the recognition that uniformed prisoners of war would have had. They couldn't arm like a proper army.
The paramilitaries were not soldiers and didn't have the training that soldiers have which is one of the reasons the bombs were so volatile.
The whole thing was a joke really because it was so pointless. 
The Unionists could have ended it all at any time if they wanted to. Because of the Unionists it went on far longer than it should have. Sunningdale for slow learners.

[Keyser soze]

G did we get an influx of sinner bots on this! Alot of people have the blinkers on, sending a man into a populated area to let off a bomb indefensible! So they get everyone out of the shop; you think no-one gona die outside when this goes off! What your excuses for putting a man in a car with a bomb then senting them up to police^army check points to get blown up! Suppose it was a war line makes it alright!

Shinner bot? Most certainly not. I'd be extremely critical of SF. But I was born early 70s and lived through a lot of shit so I'm speaking a lot from experience and I hate when someone sitting in an ivory tower somewhere casting judgement on the death of an ordinary young man from Ardoyne who died and labelling him as a mass murderer or a terrorist without any context whatsoever. I hate it worst when those sat in said ivory towers will commemorate Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha et all but then use the "ah but that was different" card.

Horrible things happened and what you mentioned was horrible and indeed a war crime. Not justifying any atrocity or killing. Merely trying to articulate (onto deaf ears it seems) that these people didn't wake up one day and decide to murder people out of bloodthirst but that they were ordinary people living extraordinary lives during a f**king{ war

It is much too simplistic to go full Ruth Dudley Edwards on the issue, which many have done.

So no. Certainly not a Shinner bot. But not a hypocritic either.

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

Be interested to hear a response to this post.

The usual weasel words I predict ,!!

Where have you guys been for the past 40 years, any cow in the field that lived through the troubles could explain this to you in a minute flat ffs  .

[general_lee]

With respect to the use of the term 'war', it strikes me that Republicans want to have it both ways.  If it was a 'war' why do Republicans complain when the security forces "executed" IRA terrorsists on 'active service'.  What's wrong with a 'shoot to kill policy' if there is a war going on?  Also, I'm pretty sure murdering greengrocers etc who supplied police and army bases would not be allowed in the Geneva Convention.

Just like shooting 14 year old wee girls in the back isn't allowed in the Geneva Convention but you won't see any Brits before a judge anytime soon. In fact, you'll have unionists and their Tory overlords campaigning on behalf of these poor soldiers, who are clearly victims of a witch hunt 

It's all well and good holding the IRA to account on the same level as the Brit army but the reality is PIRA probably wouldn't have come into existence only for obvious reasons eg Unionist misrule and British gov arrogance and indifference. You have one of the most powerful military forces in the world, using shoot to kill policies (while denying it) and engaging in urban Warfare (while also denying being at war). That's why republicans "complained".

I think every volunteer was reminded when joining that they'd either die, end up on the run or in prison. So i don't think republicans were under any illusion that they faced the prospect of being shot dead; it's moreso the dubious circumstances in which these incidents occurred (ie unarmed or surrendering) and the trying of them before diplock courts (despite them supposedly being criminals) that irked some.

The Brits were also running agents in Unionist death squads who murdered catholic civilians at will in what are British streets, wonder is that allowed under Geneva convention?

[Milltown Row2]

They were running agents in both camps, allowing death squads away with murder, Steak knife being the most known

[michaelg]

They were running agents in both camps, allowing death squads away with murder, Steak knife being the most known

That doesn't seem to qualify as "collusion" in some quarters.

[trailer]

They were running agents in both camps, allowing death squads away with murder, Steak knife being the most known

That doesn't seem to qualify as "collusion" in some quarters.

Far from terrorising Britain or indeed Loyalists/ Unionists, the IRA terrorised it's own community first. Drug dealing, racketeering, robbery, punishment beatings etc. This is what the IRA did for Nationalists. 

[Milltown Row2]

They were running agents in both camps, allowing death squads away with murder, Steak knife being the most known

That doesn't seem to qualify as "collusion" in some quarters.

Far from terrorising Britain or indeed Loyalists/ Unionists, the IRA terrorised it's own community first. Drug dealing, racketeering, robbery, punishment beatings etc. This is what the IRA did for Nationalists.

Not so much drug dealing going on back in the day, more of a  dissidents thing and a loyalist, racketeering was bad but in West Belfast that stopped completely during the 90's

As for hoods getting a beating after breaking into houses robbing granny's of their pension or stealing people's cars and killing people or maiming them, there wasn't much sympathy for them at the time in fairness

[Jim Bob]

Nationalists had to fear from Provos, loyalists and British Army.
Anyone of those groups would have thought nothing of putting a bullet into any nationalist's head

[Milltown Row2]

Nationalists had to fear from Provos, loyalists and British Army.
Anyone of those groups would have thought nothing of putting a bullet into any nationalist's head

I didn't fear the provos, and I'd no fear of the Brits, now if I had have joined the RA I'd have given anyone one of those groups a reason to put a bullet into my head for various reasons..

[Jim Bob]

Nationalists had to fear from Provos, loyalists and British Army.
Anyone of those groups would have thought nothing of putting a bullet into any nationalist's head

I didn't fear the provos, and I'd no fear of the Brits, now if I had have joined the RA I'd have given anyone one of those groups a reason to put a bullet into my head for various reasons..

Ooooh you are sooo hard.......

Many Nationalists feared the Provos For various reasons

[trailer]

They were running agents in both camps, allowing death squads away with murder, Steak knife being the most known

That doesn't seem to qualify as "collusion" in some quarters.

Far from terrorising Britain or indeed Loyalists/ Unionists, the IRA terrorised it's own community first. Drug dealing, racketeering, robbery, punishment beatings etc. This is what the IRA did for Nationalists.

The above is proof that you, sir are full of bollocks.

Another excellent retort. Given you come across as a Neanderthal, I shall stop replying to you.