It Must be Marching Season

[michaelg]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?   

[EC Unique]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?

Not at all. That was active service.

[michaelg]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?

Not at all. That was active service.

Not quite sure if you are taking the piss or not?  You can't have it both ways.  If it was a war as you say, the IRA men shot at Loughgall were surely on active service too?  Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that - You can't suddenly start bleating about war crimes when things don't work out as planned.

[Nally Stand]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?

Not at all. That was active service.

Not quite sure if you are taking the piss or not?  You can't have it both ways.  If it was a war as you say, the IRA men shot at Loughgall were surely on active service too?  Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that - You can't suddenly start bleating about war crimes when things don't work out as planned.

Britain has never acknowledged that they were in a war. For that reason alone, they had no right to sanction and engage in Shoot to Kill operations (never mind the vast scale of collusion in the murders of innocents).

[haveaharp]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?

Not at all. That was active service.

Not quite sure if you are taking the piss or not?  You can't have it both ways. 

If Michaelg you are saying or accepting it was a war to suit your Loughgall argument then surely the maze prisoners should have been treated as prisoners of war. You cant have it both ways.

[lynchbhoy]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

Regular forces of sovereign democracies are accountable to their governments, who in turn are accountable to the people who elect them. The Vietnam war was brought to an end because American public opinion was sickened by the war, both by the casualties their forces were suffering and by the way in which their forces were behaving in places like My Lai. Tony Blair lost his reputation as an otherwise half decent prime minister because it was thought he had conned the public into an unpopular war in Iraq. Irregular forces generally don't have the same level of accountability. In the early 70s, the IRA defied public opinion throughout the island of Ireland by continuing to wage its campaign of violence, despite the mounting toll of civilian casualties caused by its bombing of city centres in the north and in England. Only when Sinn Fein started pursuing votes in the 80s and 90s did republicans start taking heed of the Irish people's wishes on their so called armed struggle.

i'd not be giving sf that much credit- you have to admit that once the british lead establishment started treating nationalist/Irish/catholic people like people and not animals and second class citizens, and the program of oppression and persecution was eased off (dont know if you can say it has completely stopped but is negligible now) that the militant violence stopped.
partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted. that is now mostly there (though youd wonder with some of the decisions that are still made and the lack of equal treatment eg towards protestors on the streets- but a minor detail imo compared to yesteryear).

interestingly when the british army/gov/establishment stopped colluding with the uvf/lvf/uup/dup purveyors of violence - the problems mostly stopped.
so a comparison with british army/gov/establishment to the local violent gangs is correct.

[Maguire01]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

Regular forces of sovereign democracies are accountable to their governments, who in turn are accountable to the people who elect them. The Vietnam war was brought to an end because American public opinion was sickened by the war, both by the casualties their forces were suffering and by the way in which their forces were behaving in places like My Lai. Tony Blair lost his reputation as an otherwise half decent prime minister because it was thought he had conned the public into an unpopular war in Iraq. Irregular forces generally don't have the same level of accountability. In the early 70s, the IRA defied public opinion throughout the island of Ireland by continuing to wage its campaign of violence, despite the mounting toll of civilian casualties caused by its bombing of city centres in the north and in England. Only when Sinn Fein started pursuing votes in the 80s and 90s did republicans start taking heed of the Irish people's wishes on their so called armed struggle.

i'd not be giving sf that much credit- you have to admit that once the british lead establishment started treating nationalist/Irish/catholic people like people and not animals and second class citizens, and the program of oppression and persecution was eased off (dont know if you can say it has completely stopped but is negligible now) that the militant violence stopped.
partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted. that is now mostly there (though youd wonder with some of the decisions that are still made and the lack of equal treatment eg towards protestors on the streets- but a minor detail imo compared to yesteryear).

interestingly when the british army/gov/establishment stopped colluding with the uvf/lvf/uup/dup purveyors of violence - the problems mostly stopped.
so a comparison with british army/gov/establishment to the local violent gangs is correct.

Eh, no. Unless the "programme of oppression and persecution" only ended in the 90s.

partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted.

Apparently a few of the "we" wanted a united Ireland as well.

[HiMucker]

Why Maguire do you think the oppression ended before the 90s?

[lynchbhoy]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

Regular forces of sovereign democracies are accountable to their governments, who in turn are accountable to the people who elect them. The Vietnam war was brought to an end because American public opinion was sickened by the war, both by the casualties their forces were suffering and by the way in which their forces were behaving in places like My Lai. Tony Blair lost his reputation as an otherwise half decent prime minister because it was thought he had conned the public into an unpopular war in Iraq. Irregular forces generally don't have the same level of accountability. In the early 70s, the IRA defied public opinion throughout the island of Ireland by continuing to wage its campaign of violence, despite the mounting toll of civilian casualties caused by its bombing of city centres in the north and in England. Only when Sinn Fein started pursuing votes in the 80s and 90s did republicans start taking heed of the Irish people's wishes on their so called armed struggle.

i'd not be giving sf that much credit- you have to admit that once the british lead establishment started treating nationalist/Irish/catholic people like people and not animals and second class citizens, and the program of oppression and persecution was eased off (dont know if you can say it has completely stopped but is negligible now) that the militant violence stopped.
partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted. that is now mostly there (though youd wonder with some of the decisions that are still made and the lack of equal treatment eg towards protestors on the streets- but a minor detail imo compared to yesteryear).

interestingly when the british army/gov/establishment stopped colluding with the uvf/lvf/uup/dup purveyors of violence - the problems mostly stopped.
so a comparison with british army/gov/establishment to the local violent gangs is correct.

Eh, no. Unless the "programme of oppression and persecution" only ended in the 90s.

partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted.

Apparently a few of the "we" wanted a united Ireland as well.

sorry there chief, but obv despite living up there for a while, you dont seem to know or understand much about this.
my point stands- please elaborate what part you think is incorrect.

also , i'd have thought youd have heard this before as you have been up there so long - but the reason why people wanted a united Ireland was because in getting this, by default they reckoned the persecution, oppression and so on would be eradicated. Thats why there isnt as big a push for it these days because the initial requirements have been met.

im not trying to sound condescendng or patronising, but jeez are you deliberately trying to miss the point or claim you didnt know ?

[michaelg]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

So you had no problem with IRA volunteers being shot by the British Army / SAS at Loughgall etc?

War crimes. The current British government must be fed up with the amount of apology's they are being forced into issuing these days.

So presumably the murder of police and army personnel by IRA "soldiers" were war crimes too then?

Not at all. That was active service.

Not quite sure if you are taking the piss or not?  You can't have it both ways. 

If Michaelg you are saying or accepting it was a war to suit your Loughgall argument then surely the maze prisoners should have been treated as prisoners of war. You cant have it both ways.

Don't really care whether Maze prisoners were prisoners of war or not to be honest - In any case, I was responding to the other poster who talked about it being a war.

[lynchbhoy]

it was a war.
the british army and gov thought so...

[Maguire01]

Why Maguire do you think the oppression ended before the 90s?

I don't think there was sufficient oppression to warrant, for example, the Shankill bombing.
Or the ending of the first ceasefire with Canary Wharf.
Do you?

[Maguire01]

Compare the Brits with other regular armed forces and paramilitary groups with other irregular forces - otherwise it's just a case of comparing apples and bananas.

Why?
Does it feel better if you're shot/blown up or whatever by the apples as opposed to the bananas?

Is there a "feelgooder" hierarchy of victims e.g "  Well I was blown up by a proper regular army so there! "

There seems to be this notion that if you wear an official uniform it makes it different. British forces and the IRA.... No difference. Both soldiers in a war.

Regular forces of sovereign democracies are accountable to their governments, who in turn are accountable to the people who elect them. The Vietnam war was brought to an end because American public opinion was sickened by the war, both by the casualties their forces were suffering and by the way in which their forces were behaving in places like My Lai. Tony Blair lost his reputation as an otherwise half decent prime minister because it was thought he had conned the public into an unpopular war in Iraq. Irregular forces generally don't have the same level of accountability. In the early 70s, the IRA defied public opinion throughout the island of Ireland by continuing to wage its campaign of violence, despite the mounting toll of civilian casualties caused by its bombing of city centres in the north and in England. Only when Sinn Fein started pursuing votes in the 80s and 90s did republicans start taking heed of the Irish people's wishes on their so called armed struggle.

i'd not be giving sf that much credit- you have to admit that once the british lead establishment started treating nationalist/Irish/catholic people like people and not animals and second class citizens, and the program of oppression and persecution was eased off (dont know if you can say it has completely stopped but is negligible now) that the militant violence stopped.
partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted. that is now mostly there (though youd wonder with some of the decisions that are still made and the lack of equal treatment eg towards protestors on the streets- but a minor detail imo compared to yesteryear).

interestingly when the british army/gov/establishment stopped colluding with the uvf/lvf/uup/dup purveyors of violence - the problems mostly stopped.
so a comparison with british army/gov/establishment to the local violent gangs is correct.

Eh, no. Unless the "programme of oppression and persecution" only ended in the 90s.

partity and the right to life and the right to live is all that we wanted.

Apparently a few of the "we" wanted a united Ireland as well.

sorry there chief, but obv despite living up there for a while, you dont seem to know or understand much about this.
my point stands- please elaborate what part you think is incorrect.

also , i'd have thought youd have heard this before as you have been up there so long - but the reason why people wanted a united Ireland was because in getting this, by default they reckoned the persecution, oppression and so on would be eradicated. Thats why there isnt as big a push for it these days because the initial requirements have been met.

im not trying to sound condescendng or patronising, but jeez are you deliberately trying to miss the point or claim you didnt know ?

Resorting to your usual patronising comments I see. Having a different opinion clearly amounts to 'not knowing' or 'not understanding'.

Regardless of why the conflict started - the reasons for which I fully appreciate - it didn't continue into the 1990's to battle oppression. That is my point.

[lynchbhoy]

well if thats what you believe , thats just fine, no problem.

I'm not being patronising at all. you know what you know -I for one certainly dont agree with that perspective.
your perspective certainly aint true from round my parts.

its laughable as you are quite patronising yourself with your comments!

[HiMucker]

Why Maguire do you think the oppression ended before the 90s?

I don't think there was sufficient oppression to warrant, for example, the Shankill bombing.
Or the ending of the first ceasefire with Canary Wharf.
Do you?

I would be of the belief that no cause is worth a single innocent life.  However you just need to look at the many conflicts in the world and throughout history that is was inevitable that the British and unionist oppression of nationalists in the north would lead to a violent back lash.  I think it is disingenuous to sit back now and criticise and label the ira as some blood thirsty bunch of thugs.  Alot of what they done was wrong, but a situation of some type of long term non violent civil disobedience would have been a pipe dream.
IMO the canary wharf bombing achieved more than the previous Twenty years of violence by the IRA.  Not saying I agree with it, but is just my opinion.