Margaret Thatcher....

[Nally Stand]

Typical of the sentiments of many of this board. The IRA apologised but they get roundly attacked by you, yet each of you have ignored my point that the british army have yet to even admit they were an active protagonist let alone apologised to it's victims.
As for the victims of the disappeared, haven't you noticed a steady increase in the numbers being found. They aren't being found by chance.

So easy to criticise the group which reacts to the aggressor isn't it?

wat about the Brits is not a reasoned arguement. We know what they are and wat to expect from them. So now those who do the same as the Provos are 'traitors' according to Sinn Fein... is hard to figure out the logic.

My point is not a simple "what about the brits" argument. That would suggest I am trying to completely deflect attention from Republicans. I am not trying to do that in the slightest.
Myself, and yourself Fox, seem to have been the only people in the latest discussion on the thread, to make even a passing reference to the fact that the IRA were not the only ones to have carried out immoral acts. I am stressing that while both sides did carry out certain reprehensible acts; many posters, on a thread about thatcher of all people, are still intent on focusing exclusively on the IRA and are happy to blissfully ignore the simple fact that the IRA issued an apology (whether you accept it or not) while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

[Maguire01]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

[ardmhachaabu]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

Didn't Blair offer an apology as well?

[Nally Stand]

14 deaths. I would imagine I don't need to remind you both that they were responsible for considerably more carnage than that.

Also, as mentioned, they have yet to admit they were a fully fledged protagonist in the conflict which is a 100% necessary precursor to an apology, if they are to be taken seriously.

[Tonto]

Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.

Nally, "likening" the IRA campaign to a massacre does not mean that an exact event occurred during the Troubles.  But shooting unarmed people dead in front of their families (whether or not they are defined as "combatants"), bursting into a church and shooting worshippers, murdering 10 unarmed workers simply because they are Protestant, forcing civilians to drive bombs etc. etc. etc. constitutes war crime. If it was a "war"; can we expect Adams et al in the Hague in the near future?  No - because it wasn't a f**king war and we expect acts like I have listed from the IRA because they are nothing but a terrorist gang who engaged in 30 years of mindless terrorism and achieved exactly NOTHING.  But sure it was all a bit of craic wasn't it.

As for me being "anti-republican".  No, I am not.  I am anti-murder; I'll let you make up your own mind as to whether you think that makes me anti-republican.

Edit: Just noticed your "morally justified" comment.  Take a look at yourself.

[pintsofguinness]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell 



Would you liken the Brit's role in the conflict to Dunblane Tonto?

[Tonto]

Would you liken the Brit's role in the conflict to Dunblane Tonto?

I didn't liken the IRA to Dunblane.  I said it was as much of a war as Dunblane.  In other words; NOT a war.

[Maguire01]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell 

I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.

[Nally Stand]

Still does not answer my question though does it. If Tonto wants to liken the ENTIRE IRA campaign to Dunblane, then give even ONE single, solitary example of what I asked. Sensationalist, shameless nonsense.

Nally, "likening" the IRA campaign to a massacre does not mean that an exact event occurred during the Troubles.  But shooting unarmed people dead in front of their families (whether or not they are defined as "combatants"), bursting into a church and shooting worshippers, murdering 10 unarmed workers simply because they are Protestant, forcing civilians to drive bombs etc. etc. etc. constitutes war crime. If it was a "war"; can we expect Adams et al in the Hague in the near future?  No - because it wasn't a f**king war and we expect acts like I have listed from the IRA because they are nothing but a terrorist gang who engaged in 30 years of mindless terrorism and achieved exactly NOTHING.  But sure it was all a bit of craic wasn't it.

As for me being "anti-republican".  No, I am not.  I am anti-murder; I'll let you make up your own mind as to whether you think that makes me anti-republican.

Again, you make sweeping generalisations by way of pure sensationalism. The IRA's campaign was not based on "bursting into Churches to murder worshipers" or on sectarian killings. Critics of the IRA are always intent on singling out individual immoral acts and using them to characterize the entire campaign and to do that is deliberately dishonest, deceptive and sensationalist. The IRA didn't come about because a group of men decided they wanted to go out and shoot people "for a bit of craic" (to use your words). The IRA came about as a reaction to the circumstances of the day. The IRA were at war, the British (despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as collusion and shoot-to-kill operations) claimed they were not, therefore the Hague clearly wouldn't be taking anybody up for war crimes. Like it or not though, the fact that for the majority of the conflict IRA prisoners had political status, was a closet acceptance by the british government of the fact that they simply couldn't be treated like ODC's.
Furthermore, if you are anti-murder like me, does your condemnation only apply to republicans or are you silently accepting of the murderous regime the british government had in place here? Do you think the IRA became such a big force because of this regime or just by accident and "for a bit of craic"?

Edit: Just noticed your "morally justified" comment.  Take a look at yourself.

Get off your high horse and stop trying to be condescending, I have no need to take any "look at myself" your Holiness. I have repeatedly stated that certain IRA actions were completely and totally morally reprehensible. I do not however use those instances to characterise the entire IRA campaign and ignore the very reason for the IRA having existed in the first place and ignore the reasons that drove so so many people into it's ranks.

[Nally Stand]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell 

I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.

An inaccuracy? I said the British Government needs to admit that it was a protagonist in the conflict and not a peace-keeper, and apologise for it's activities. Failing to admit it was a protagonist and issuing an apology to the families of just 14 of those victims might suffice to you, but not for me or thousands of others.

[Maguire01]

while the British government won't even accept that it has anything to apologise for and claims it was just the unfortunate peacemaker in a conflict between troublesome Irish hooligans.

Although it did apologise for Bloody Sunday.

After 38 years of lies and cover up, 12 years of an inquiry and nearly 200 million - fair play to the brits for that.
and still not a sign of charges.
People having issue with things the IRA done I can understand, people backing up and sweeping over the Brit's role - f**king hell 

I'm not backing them up at all, or sweeping over anyone's role. Just pointing out an inaccuracy in Nally Stand's statement.

An inaccuracy? I said the British Government needs to admit that it was a protagonist in the conflict and not a peace-keeper, and apologise for it's activities. Failing to admit it was a protagonist and issuing an apology to the families of just 14 of those victims might suffice to you, but not for me or thousands of others.

I've highlighted what you said. That was the inaccuracy I was pointing out.

And I never said that an apology to 14 families was sufficient.

[Tonto]

Again, you make sweeping generalisations by way of pure sensationalism. The IRA's campaign was not based on "bursting into Churches to murder worshipers" or on sectarian killings. Critics of the IRA are always intent on singling out individual immoral acts and using them to characterize the entire campaign and to do that is deliberately dishonest, deceptive and sensationalist. The IRA didn't come about because a group of men decided they wanted to go out and shoot people "for a bit of craic" (to use your words). The IRA came about as a reaction to the circumstances of the day. The IRA were at war, the British (despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as collusion and shoot-to-kill operations) claimed they were not, therefore the Hague clearly wouldn't be taking anybody up for war crimes. Like it or not though, the fact that for the majority of the conflict IRA prisoners had political status, was a closet acceptance by the british government of the fact that they simply couldn't be treated like ODC's.
Furthermore, if you are anti-murder like me, does your condemnation only apply to republicans or are you silently accepting of the murderous regime the british government had in place here? Do you think the IRA became such a big force because of this regime or just by accident and "for a bit of craic"?

Get off your high horse and stop trying to be condescending, I have no need to take any "look at myself" your Holiness. I have repeatedly stated that certain IRA actions were completely and totally morally reprehensible. I do not however use those instances to characterise the entire IRA campaign and ignore the very reason for the IRA having existed in the first place and ignore the reasons that drove so so many people into it's ranks.

Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?

And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.

[Nally Stand]

Nally, do you accept that shooting unarmed people, 'combatants' or not, constitutes a war crime?

War crimes? Did we not already establish that the Hague is hardly likely to be involved here? The IRA fought a guerrilla campaign, the shooting of unarmed combatants comes as part of such a campaign. In the case of non combatants then why would I condone that? Maybe these are questions you should be also seeking an answer to from the British government. Or does it's involvement in up to (according to the number of families who regard themselves as collusion victims) 900 sectarian murders (most of which of unarmed non-combatants) not bother you?

And btw you said that Thatcher 'murdered' the hunger strikers so cut out these accusations of 'sensationalism' bollix.

"Margaret Thatcher and the British Government have murdered my brother and his blood is on Margaret Thatcher's hands."
(Brother of Hunger Striker Francis Hughes)
The Hughes family are not the only family to feel this way. In such a complex thing you can open it to any interpretation you feel appropriate. I go along with the families in their view that thatcher put them into a position of hunger strike and forced them to see it through to the end. In my view that's murder. In your's it's not. I don't give a toss what way you look at it to be honest. I also don't see how it is sensationalist. Maybe if i took a leaf out of your book and drew a parallel between the entire british army campaign and the Dunblane massacre and said something like how the brits campaign was about bursting into Churches to shoot worshipers, I might have been sensationalist.

p.s. resorting to personal abuse? 

[Maguire01]

Where's the personal abuse there?

[Nally Stand]

Where's the personal abuse there?

My SINCERE apologies Maguire01, I thought the word "bollix" was a stand alone comment aimed at me, but it seems it was not. This obviously upset you. Or maybe not. Maybe you are once again (weirdly) stalking me, in which case, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.