gaaboard.com

 Just finished watching this.  Its availability here to watch online in two parts.

http://www.zshare.net/video/1948680077163adc/ (http://www.zshare.net/video/1948680077163adc/)  part one

http://www.zshare.net/video/194875616a2bf8c1/ (http://www.zshare.net/video/194875616a2bf8c1/)   part two

Quality ok to watch.

Thanks for that,
there are also  links there to download the files, probably better to watch like that.

WTF - Is this not yet to be released????

I downloaded on rapidshare. Great quality picture. Not a bad show.

Watched this sunaday night on DVD.

McGartland a bit of a sc**bag in my eyes.
Thats the view i got from the film.

Endangered alot of innocent lives most notably his own family.
Enjoyed taking the money as well.

Is the book a good read?
Think i mght purchase.

Will it give me a different opinion of McGartland if i read it?

Quote from: rossie mad on March 03, 2010, 12:21:22 PM

Watched this sunaday night on DVD.

McGartland a bit of a sc**bag in my eyes.
Thats the view i got from the film.

Endangered alot of innocent lives most notably his own family.
Enjoyed taking the money as well.

Is the book a good read?
Think i mght purchase.

Will it give me a different opinion of McGartland if i read it?

NO you got it right the 1st time

Quote from: rossie mad on March 03, 2010, 12:21:22 PM

Watched this sunaday night on DVD.

McGartland a bit of a sc**bag in my eyes.
Thats the view i got from the film.

Endangered alot of innocent lives most notably his own family.
Enjoyed taking the money as well.

Is the book a good read?
Think i mght purchase.

Will it give me a different opinion of McGartland if i read it?

All informers are scumbags imo

Sc**bag informer and I hope he gets what's coming to him.   >:(

Look at all the little sc**bag provos.

Hope he gets what's coming to him. What's that franko, are you or your buddies gonna kill him?

I would not buy any book written by a tout. Why put money in their pocket, did they not get enough off the Brits?

I was only asking.
To be honest it doesnt bother me whether he was a tout or not,its his actions which endangered innocent peoples lives as well as well as taking the money that made me think he was a sc**bag.

i just wondered if the book is much like the film or will it give me a different perception of the man.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 03:53:16 PM
Look at all the little sc**bag provos.

Hope he gets what's coming to him. What's that franko, are you or your buddies gonna kill him?

Erm, not really sure where you got that from - but to answer your question;
I am absolutely certain that neither I, nor any of my circle of friends will ever murder Martin McGartland.

I would, however, be lying if I were to say that I would not raise a smile if someone else were to do it.

Is it OK for me to think this Puck?  ::)

Quote from: JUst retired on March 03, 2010, 04:01:04 PM
I would not buy any book written by a tout. Why put money in their pocket, did they not get enough off the Brits?

You could read 'Killing Rage'.

Quote from: Franko on March 03, 2010, 04:08:01 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 03:53:16 PM
Look at all the little sc**bag provos.

Hope he gets what's coming to him. What's that franko, are you or your buddies gonna kill him?

Erm, not really sure where you got that from - but to answer your question;
I am absolutely certain that neither I, nor any of my circle of friends will ever murder Martin McGartland.

I would, however, be lying if I were to say that I would not raise a smile if someone else were to do it.

Is it OK for me to think this Puck?  ::)

Puck's a pacifist i.e. he's happy for others to do his fighting for him and he can stay in the ivory tower - apart from when it comes to the unborn or the sick and old - whatever's convenient really.

Where'd you pull that definition from - your ass? Grow up you idiot.

No one fought for me. Or my family. I can go back as many generations as necessary on both sides and they didnt need anyone fighting the brits for them. They kept their heads down and made livings for themselves off the land. Their own land. No "ivory towers" or the like. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Franko - asking me if your opinion is OK is a redundant question. You think whatever you want. I happen to think your comments are disgusting.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 05:34:23 PM
Where'd you pull that definition from - your ass? Grow up you idiot.

No one fought for me. Or my family. I can go back as many generations as necessary on both sides and they didnt need anyone fighting the brits for them. They kept their heads down and made livings for themselves off the land. Their own land. No "ivory towers" or the like. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Franko - asking me if your opinion is OK is a redundant question. You think whatever you want. I happen to think your comments are disgusting.

I wasn't talking about fighting the brits.  You enjoy freedoms today that are only there because others fought for them. 

So who fought for me? And where was I happy for it?

Unless of course you are holding me responsible for the date and time of my birth.



And what the f**k does that have to do with me thinking that the opinions of people looking forward to McGartland "getting what is coming to him" (which I can only assume is his murder) is disgusting?

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 05:43:12 PM
So who fought for me? And where was I happy for it?

Unless of course you are holding me responsible for the date and time of my birth.



And what the f**k does that have to do with me thinking that the opinions of people looking forward to McGartland "getting what is coming to him" (which I can only assume is his murder) is disgusting?

Well you live in the US and enjoy it's freedoms no doubt, a nation built and maintained through violence. Have a look at it's history to see who's been fighting for you.

If you had an issue with Franko's comments then address it to him - from my reading of it you called three of us "provo scumbags" which I think is a mighty rich considering some of your opinions on when killing is acceptable so I said so.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 05:34:23 PM
Where'd you pull that definition from - your ass? Grow up you idiot.

No one fought for me. Or my family. I can go back as many generations as necessary on both sides and they didnt need anyone fighting the brits for them. They kept their heads down and made livings for themselves off the land. Their own land. No "ivory towers" or the like. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Franko - asking me if your opinion is OK is a redundant question. You think whatever you want. I happen to think your comments are disgusting.

Reminds me of the tale where a man says to a farmer I'll buy your land. The farmer says 'no way it's not for sale. My father and his father and his farther before him have farmed this land and my son will farm it too'. The buyer asks, how did your grandfather get it? The farmer proudly answers, 'he fought for it'. The buyer says, 'well then, I'll fight you for it now'.

I live where I live - I dont give much worry to the history of it. I also enjoy the advances in medicine when I am sick, or my family is sick - does that mean I should agree with the nazism which progressed medicine so rapidly during WW2? Stop trying to use the fact that Im alive in 2010 to suggest that I am happy to let others do my fighting for me. A stupid comment you have used more than once. You love jumping in on my opinions on murder - so maybe you need to settle the head now and then before telling me how and to whom to address my posts.

I lived in the north for 22 years, during plenty of the troubles, and I don't ever recall having any issues with my freedom being denied to me, nor my family.

Now that I think about it, the only things I remember are my dad having two cars stolen from the royal victoria car park, one burned out, and one taken for forensic evidence and my uncle having his sangars van hijacked at gun point by the IRA in Derry. It wasnt the brits that did any of that.

You are wasting your time puck

Selfless of you puck. It's great you didn't suffer. Tell me though, what of all those who did suffer greatly at the hands of british policies in Ireland? Are those people, who were then motivated to fight back also "scumbags"?

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

I'm beginning to think there are really only about 4 topics on here which are rehashed every few days.

Quite possibly, as for some reason Donagh has just posted two maps of the six counties, coloured orange and green. I would imagine to show how us taigs are taking over the north.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 06:12:25 PM
I live where I live - I dont give much worry to the history of it. I also enjoy the advances in medicine when I am sick, or my family is sick - does that mean I should agree with the nazism which progressed medicine so rapidly during WW2? Stop trying to use the fact that Im alive in 2010 to suggest that I am happy to let others do my fighting for me. A stupid comment you have used more than once. You love jumping in on my opinions on murder - so maybe you need to settle the head now and then before telling me how and to whom to address my posts.

I lived in the north for 22 years, during plenty of the troubles, and I don't ever recall having any issues with my freedom being denied to me, nor my family.

Now that I think about it, the only things I remember are my dad having two cars stolen from the royal victoria car park, one burned out, and one taken for forensic evidence and my uncle having his sangars van hijacked at gun point by the IRA in Derry. It wasnt the brits that did any of that.

Well maybe you should come down out of the ivory tower for 5 minutes and have a think about it.

I need to settle the head?  Have a look back at the beginning of the thread and see who was the first person to abuse other posters. I think you'll find it was you.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 03, 2010, 08:16:51 PM
Selfless of you puck. It's great you didn't suffer. Tell me though, what of all those who did suffer greatly at the hands of british policies in Ireland? Are those people, who were then motivated to fight back also "scumbags"?

Certainly they were, when they dragged half naked men down deserted country lanes, bound their hands and feet and shot them in the head. Scumbags of the highest order - and half of them themselves reporting to the police/army/MI5/special branch. Do you find honour in this?

Certainly they were when they strapped men into bombed veichles and instructed them to drive into army barracks. Scumbags of the highest order. Do you find honour in that?

But its not for me to judge - they and their apologists can wax lyrical about poor us'uns when they momentarily reach the pearly gates.

It is great I didnt suffer - and its no coincidence it came with a family up bringing of keeping your mouth shut and getting on with your own business - just down the road from you.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 09:21:34 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 03, 2010, 08:16:51 PM
Selfless of you puck. It's great you didn't suffer. Tell me though, what of all those who did suffer greatly at the hands of british policies in Ireland? Are those people, who were then motivated to fight back also "scumbags"?

Certainly they were, when they dragged half naked men down deserted country lanes, bound their hands and feet and shot them in the head. Scumbags of the highest order - and half of them themselves reporting to the police/army/MI5/special branch. Do you find honour in this?

Certainly they were when they strapped men into bombed veichles and instructed them to drive into army barracks. Scumbags of the highest order. Do you find honour in that?

But its not for me to judge - they and their apologists can wax lyrical about poor us'uns when they momentarily reach the pearly gates.

It is great I didnt suffer - and its no coincidence it came with a family up bringing of keeping your mouth shut and getting on with your own business - just down the road from you.

Like the man you ran to the defence of in this thread?

As for the other point, you have spouted similar nonsense before - I know a family who minded their own business and kept their mouth shut and they lost their child in a loyalist/brit gun and bomb attack on their family business, hundreds and hundreds of people are like them.

The first point you've highlighted is mentioned to shed light upon the hypocrisy of the IRA members - who often shot innocents to protect the fact that they were a mole.

Anyway - you Provo sympathisers can play together now all you want.


Ive decided I take it all back - all of us owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the provisional IRA for the very freedom we enjoy today.

Now, do you have an address I can send the card and flowers to? If you have said address - will you do us a favour and send it on to the McConville family?

So puck, by your logic, if you kept your head down nothing would happen? What about the literally hundreds of innocent nationalists who kept their heads down and were killed?? What if your family fell into that?? Also are you so stupid to think that the IRA could have carried out such a strong sustained campaign if 50% of it's members were touts? And your examples aren't exactly typical of their attacks but then that doesn't suit you to admit does it.

Who mentioned 50% of the IRA being touts?

By the way, did you ever get those statistics for the claim that the old IRA killed many more innocents than the provisional IRA?

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 10:00:44 PM
Who mentioned 50% of the IRA being touts?

By the way, did you ever get those statistics for the claim that the old IRA killed many more innocents than the provisional IRA?

You did. Or at least that's what it sounds like in your last post.

Sure those half naked men (or Jean McConville) dragged down country lanes should have kept their mouths shut minded their own business like you and your family and they would have never suffered, according to your logic.

Point of information:

A pacifist would never condone violence against elephants.


Therefore he would never live in an ivory tower.



********* Muppet grabs coat and makes a run for it ****

I see there I wrote "half of them". Right - I should have known I was dealing with such literists.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 03, 2010, 10:07:34 PM
Sure those half naked men (or Jean McConville) dragged down country lanes should have kept their mouths shut minded their own business like you and your family and they would have never suffered.

I fixed that for you - according to your opinion.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 10:13:09 PM
I see there I wrote "half of them". Right - I should have known I was dealing with such literists.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 03, 2010, 10:07:34 PM
Sure those half naked men (or Jean McConville) dragged down country lanes should have kept their mouths shut minded their own business like you and your family and they would have never suffered.

I fixed that for you - according to your opinion.

Not my opinion at all but it is yours, you said so in one of your previous posts.  Sounds like you're a bit confused. 

You puck, you said "half of them" were running to MI5. Half is 50%. And I was referring to an interview I seen several years ago with Tim Pat C (to my recollection) who referred to how the % of innocents killed by the PIRA compares favourably with that of the Old IRA/IRB & with most armed groups in any conflict for that matter. Interestingly, the brit army in the north had a percentage almost three times higher than the IRA and loyalists was something like 93% innocent victims.

Not in the slightest. ::)

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 03, 2010, 10:22:59 PM
You puck, you said "half of them" were running to MI5. Half is 50%. And I was referring to an interview I seen several years ago with Tim Pat C (to my recollection) who referred to how the % of innocents killed by the PIRA compares favourably with that of the Old IRA/IRB & with most armed groups in any conflict for that matter. Interestingly, the brit army in the north had a percentage almost three times higher than the IRA and loyalists was something like 93% innocent victims.

Concrete evidence there. Another case solved.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 03, 2010, 10:22:59 PM
You puck, you said "half of them" were running to MI5. Half is 50%. And I was referring to an interview I seen several years ago with Tim Pat C (to my recollection) who referred to how the % of innocents killed by the PIRA compares favourably with that of the Old IRA/IRB & with most armed groups in any conflict for that matter. Interestingly, the brit army in the north had a percentage almost three times higher than the IRA and loyalists was something like 93% innocent victims.

Do you have any statistics to back this up again?

I know Donagh/Ulick doesnt value the CAIN reporting, and theres been a thread on here before, but those claims are laughable.

But let's keep talking about the IRA anyway eh. And I did take the "half of them" literally. I had to because you clearly rely on sensationalist generalisations and exaggerations in your points

They are based on the book "Lost Lives" and the opinion of a man who is more qualified than most to talk about the Old IRA/IRB. You want more stats look yourself.

Not really - you keep refering to the legitimacy of the armed struggle and I just happen to point out incidents which fly in the face of any sort of legitimacy at all. Other than murder. Nothing sensationalist, generalised or exaggerated about that.

Now, do you have any statistics on the breakdown of civilian Vs military target murder/death/killings carried out by the pIRA, or are we working of an anecdotal basis?

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 10:31:53 PM
Do you have any statistics to back this up again?

I know Donagh/Ulick doesnt value the CAIN reporting, and theres been a thread on here before, but those claims are laughable.

He/I did? What was that about?

The latest stats I've read, based on the Lost Lives book, was that 79% of IRA victims were willing participants in the conflict (21% innocent civilians). That would compare favourably with any other conflict whether it be the War of Independence or the Iraq War (where estimates put the US & UK civilian casualties at 95%).

No generalisations or exaggerations? So most IRA attacks involved people getting bound, gagged and shot? And "half" their members were touts? As for stats. I told you to read Lost Lives.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 03, 2010, 10:58:27 PM
No generalisations or exaggerations? So most IRA attacks involved people getting bound, gagged and shot? And "half" their members were touts? As for stats. I told you to read Lost Lives.

and those who were shot were asking for it as they didnt mind their own business or keep their mouth shut

Fwiw, the War of Independence as it was played out in the 6 counties was top heavy with civilian casualties.
A much higher  nr of civilians killed than the rest of Ireland at that time and much higher than the 30 year war.

More touts were murdered in the War of Independence. You could hardly drive 100m on a Cork country road but there would be a dead tout blocking your way. Touts are a cancer.
No question, in times of war, a tout is a moral hazard to be eliminated.

I have never met a tout whose life was worth more than the dust under my shoe.
I also include squealers in there.
i don't know about snitches, depends who they snitch on. I would make a moral judgement based on the merits of each snitch case.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 05:34:23 PM
Where'd you pull that definition from - your ass? Grow up you idiot.

No one fought for me. Or my family. I can go back as many generations as necessary on both sides and they didnt need anyone fighting the brits for them. They kept their heads down and made livings for themselves off the land. Their own land. No "ivory towers" or the like. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Franko - asking me if your opinion is OK is a redundant question. You think whatever you want. I happen to think your comments are disgusting.

Thanks for that.  Can I just remind you that your 'allowing' me to think whatever I want infers that you won't then insult me for thinking it.

I happen to have the opinion that what Martin McGartland and his fellow touts/snitchers/informers did was far more disgusting than any remarks I have made.  So, to re-iterate, I hope he gets what's coming to him.

Quote from: Ulick on March 03, 2010, 10:50:14 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 10:31:53 PM
Do you have any statistics to back this up again?

I know Donagh/Ulick doesnt value the CAIN reporting, and theres been a thread on here before, but those claims are laughable.

He/I did? What was that about?

The latest stats I've read, based on the Lost Lives book, was that 79% of IRA victims were willing participants in the conflict (21% innocent civilians). That would compare favourably with any other conflict whether it be the War of Independence or the Iraq War (where estimates put the US & UK civilian casualties at 95%).

Think I'd like to read more on that, particularly as regards the definition of a 'willing participant'.  I'd guess it would be taken to quite wide for these purposes, eg Patsy Gillespie.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:46:02 PM
You are wasting your time puck

Hold on a second, weren't you on another thread, calling for 2 children (who certainly had committed a terrible crime) to be hanged?  :o

McGartland knowingly stood and watched a man get tortured and killed for something which he did.  What punisment would you ascribe to someone who had done something like this?  At what point does your 'eye for an eye' mantra end?

Great film I thought. Watched it ages ago, our fella had it on dvd. Completely legal of course! :P

Quote from: Rav67 on March 03, 2010, 11:55:52 PM
Think I'd like to read more on that, particularly as regards the definition of a 'willing participant'.  I'd guess it would be taken to quite wide for these purposes, eg Patsy Gillespie.

Gillespie worked for the British army so yes I'd say he was a willing participant.

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 12:02:07 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:46:02 PM
You are wasting your time puck

Hold on a second, weren't you on another thread, calling for 2 children (who certainly had committed a terrible crime) to be hanged?  :o

McGartland knowingly stood and watched a man get tortured and killed for something which he did.  What punisment would you ascribe to someone who had done something like this?  At what point does your 'eye for an eye' mantra end?

I revised my opinion, I suggest you read the thread again

For a supporter of murdering b*stards you have some neck on ya

I wonder how many supporters of the provo killing machine on here would have shot/bombed anyone themselves.  I suspect that not too many would have, they prefer to sit in the comfort of their armchairs at home and pontificate to the rest of us about pacifism etc

Hypocrites!

Hypocrites? Feck man at least if you are going to call us hypocrites have a real reason, not what you "think" we "would" have done. Then again, you've claimed to be the man in the know when it comes to different IRA brigade areas. Sure you would know who on this board was a member at that rate.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:35:33 AM
I wonder how many supporters of the provo killing machine on here would have shot/bombed anyone themselves.  I suspect that not too many would have, they prefer to sit in the comfort of their armchairs at home and pontificate to the rest of us about pacifism etc

Hypocrites!

Quite possibly none.  Just because you empathise with the cause for which someone does something (and possibly support their methods) doesn't mean you would necessarily go to the same lengths for the cause yourself.

How many members of the catholic church become priests/nuns/monks?  A very small percentage I would venture.  I know someone on here who sits behind his/her keyboard pontificating about the greatness of the church.  Is he/she equally as big a 'hypocrite'?

What a bullshit point ffs.  ::)

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 04, 2010, 08:46:50 AM
Hypocrites? Feck man at least if you are going to call us hypocrites have a real reason, not what you "think" we "would" have done. Then again, you've claimed to be the man in the know when it comes to different IRA brigade areas. Sure you would know who on this board was a member at that rate.

ffs Nally do you not know you are talking to Willie Frazer,he knows everything about the Ra ;D

Well i didnt think posting i watched this dvd and giving my thoughts on what i thought of it would have opened up this can of worms.

I watched Mongol last night telling the story of genghis khan and his rise to power.

Very good film in my eyes and you get a very good respect for him as a man and as a leader.

They will hardly be two pages about that though

Quote from: rossie mad on March 04, 2010, 09:46:24 AM
Well i didnt think posting i watched this dvd and giving my thoughts on what i thought of it would have opened up this can of worms.

I watched Mongol last night telling the story of genghis khan and his rise to power.

Very good film in my eyes and you get a very good respect for him as a man and as a leader.

They will hardly be two pages about that though

Do you want someone to explain why or can you work it out yourself?

How do you mean?

Quote from: rossie mad on March 04, 2010, 10:06:55 AM

How do you mean?

I thought I detected a hint of sarcasm in the comment about the amount of pages this thread has went to.  The point I was alluding to is that it doesn't take a genius to work out why a film about an IRA informer would generate more interest on a GAA discussion board than a film about Genghis Khan.

If you weren't being sarcastic please accept my humblest apologies because I certainly was!

No i was far from being sarcastic although after reading the post it did seem like that.

I was actually just stating the obvious.

Sarcasm is the best form of ignorance in my book to be honest.

Both sides of the above argument have valid points though.

Quote from: rossie mad on March 04, 2010, 10:28:32 AM

No i was far from being sarcastic although after reading the post it did seem like that.

I was actually just stating the obvious.

Sarcasm is the best form of ignorance in my book to be honest.

Both sides of the above argument have valid points though.

Sorry didnt read the last line of your post franko.
Wasnt trying to get at you.

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 08:47:23 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:35:33 AM
I wonder how many supporters of the provo killing machine on here would have shot/bombed anyone themselves.  I suspect that not too many would have, they prefer to sit in the comfort of their armchairs at home and pontificate to the rest of us about pacifism etc

Hypocrites!

Quite possibly none.  Just because you empathise with the cause for which someone does something (and possibly support their methods) doesn't mean you would necessarily go to the same lengths for the cause yourself.

How many members of the catholic church become priests/nuns/monks?  A very small percentage I would venture.  I know someone on here who sits behind his/her keyboard pontificating about the greatness of the church.  Is he/she equally as big a 'hypocrite'?

What a bullshit point ffs.  ::)

Your posts make you seem like a clueless gabshite

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:19:12 PM

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 08:47:23 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:35:33 AM
I wonder how many supporters of the provo killing machine on here would have shot/bombed anyone themselves.  I suspect that not too many would have, they prefer to sit in the comfort of their armchairs at home and pontificate to the rest of us about pacifism etc

Hypocrites!

Quite possibly none.  Just because you empathise with the cause for which someone does something (and possibly support their methods) doesn't mean you would necessarily go to the same lengths for the cause yourself.

How many members of the catholic church become priests/nuns/monks?  A very small percentage I would venture.  I know someone on here who sits behind his/her keyboard pontificating about the greatness of the church.  Is he/she equally as big a 'hypocrite'?

What a bullshit point ffs.  ::)

Your posts make you seem like a clueless gabshite

Your lack of any coherent argument or any attempt at such makes you seem like you are wrong.  ;)

people can talk about motivation and 'support' ec all they like
but the motivation was there
easy now sitting in the comfort of a ceasefire pontificating about how unnecessary fighting was

but in the middle of the bad old days, when catholics/nationalists/Irish were being persecuted and worse still - subjected to random acts of violence on families and individuals that were innocents - then eventually there was going to be a point where the camels back broke.
ordinary people turned to retaliation.
thats what it was -  retaliation. no big ideal for a united Ireland at the time as survival was the goal.
a life that did not have the violence allowed towards catholics/Irish/nationalists etc
unfortunately it took violence to stop this happening. civil rights movement and their attempts had no affect. It only got people killed and more attacked by the colluding appartheid like crown forces and unionist/loyalist vigilante kkk types.
Yes it was then mooted that a united Ireland would be the utopia that if reached would end the apartheid state and its at times genocidal activities and persecution.
However staying alive and being able to live a peaceful and somewhat free and normal life was what most of these volunteers wanted for their families.
Unfortunately it took violence to realise that.
Now we never want to have to see that again and thankfully we wont have to.

Franko the Church isn't priests and nuns etc, or not even the building.  It's all people who consider themselves Catholic so your point about the church is totally worthless

I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

Oh and another thing, the provos were riddled with touts.  Donaldson in the office, McShane in the car, I wonder if there is a tout within the trusted cabal.  It wouldn't surprise me.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
Franko the Church isn't priests and nuns etc, or not even the building.  It's all people who consider themselves Catholic so your point about the church is totally worthless

I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

thats your opinion and fair enough.
you would prob be right about a few (obv in your own family) - but theres going to be a contingent of people you are wrong about.
rem from those times these ira folk have to spring up from somewhere !

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
Franko the Church isn't priests and nuns etc, or not even the building.  It's all people who consider themselves Catholic so your point about the church is totally worthless

I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

Well for a start you have no idea who would or wouldn't do anything. 
Most importantly though you can support something without being a part of it. Most people who vote and support political parties would not be a member of them. Of course no one would want their children to put themselves in harms way, that doesnt mean you can't respect, admire and support those who do. 

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
Franko the Church isn't priests and nuns etc, or not even the building.  It's all people who consider themselves Catholic so your point about the church is totally worthless

I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

Yes, and nationalism/republicanism isn't IRA bombers/gunmen or safe houses, so how exactly does that make my analogy less applicable?  ???

Just because I wouldn't personally shoot someone in the name of 'irish unity' or whatever phrase you want to use to describe it doesn't mean that I can't call myself a nationalist.  Just because you aren't a priest doesn't mean you can't call yourself a Catholic.

Keep up please.  Is it any wonder the child abusers have managed to hoodwink you into defending them.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
Franko the Church isn't priests and nuns etc, or not even the building.  It's all people who consider themselves Catholic so your point about the church is totally worthless

I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

Oh and another thing, the provos were riddled with touts.   Donaldson in the office, McShane in the car, I wonder if there is a tout within the trusted cabal.  It wouldn't surprise me.

Yes, and the Church is riddled with paedophiles...  is there a point to make here...??

The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Oh and Franko, almost forgot to ask you the question.  If it ever transpires that wee Marty or Gerry were touts, will you be shouting for them to be stripped, bound, gagged, blindfolded, shot and left in a ditch along the border with 2 bullets in the back of their head?

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
I stand by what I said, those people on here who are shouting about the legitimacy of armed struggle wouldn't do it themselves.  I have an uncle who is a supporter of the Shinners and all through his life he shouted about the injustices of this, that and the other.  Whenever anyone asked him if he wanted any of his sons to get involved, he went strangely quiet on it.  You and others on here remind me of him, armchair generals who are full of shit

This sort of point always confuses me.

It usually comes from those of the opinion that 'those who were in the IRA were all cowards and criminals' while they argue the point that 'those who weren't in the IRA are all cowards for not being cowards and criminals' ???

Zap, you have confused me

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Well there's no evidence that they were "riddled", unlike the church!

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:06:44 PM
Zap, you have confused me

Do you think that the posters on here you talk about did well as they never joined the IRA or is it something they should be shamefull about?

Quote from: Zapatista on March 04, 2010, 06:09:59 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:06:44 PM
Zap, you have confused me

Do you think that the posters on here you talk about did well as they never joined the IRA or is it something they should be shamefull about?

Ah I get ya now.  It's not for me to say how anyone should feel about it.  I think that they are bigmouths in that they are talking the talk and not prepared to walk the walk.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 04, 2010, 06:07:56 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Well there's no evidence that they were "riddled", unlike the church!

I wouldn't be so sure

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Oh and Franko, almost forgot to ask you the question.  If it ever transpires that wee Marty or Gerry were touts, will you be shouting for them to be stripped, bound, gagged, blindfolded, shot and left in a ditch along the border with 2 bullets in the back of their head?

If your fairytale situation transpires and either of those two did something like that then, in my opinion, they'll deserve the same treatment as McGartland should get.  I wont be 'shouting' for it but (as I said for McGartland) I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be happy to see it happen.

Was that supposed to be a hard question or something?

I'm also alarmed at the detail you go into with regard to the 'disposal' of touts.  Have you something to hide or are you just trying to beef up you argument with a few dangerous sounding words?

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 06:22:18 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Oh and Franko, almost forgot to ask you the question.  If it ever transpires that wee Marty or Gerry were touts, will you be shouting for them to be stripped, bound, gagged, blindfolded, shot and left in a ditch along the border with 2 bullets in the back of their head?

If your fairytale situation transpires and either of those two did something like that then, in my opinion, they'll deserve the same treatment as McGartland should get.  I wont be 'shouting' for it but (as I said for McGartland) I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be happy to see it happen.

Was that supposed to be a hard question or something?

I'm also alarmed at the detail you go into with regard to the 'disposal' of touts.  Have you something to hide or are you just trying to beef up you argument with a few dangerous sounding words?

Firstly, it's not so much of a fairytale really.  Donaldson was high profile, he had been to Libya to get guns from Gadaffi, didn't stop him from being turned, if he was turned, then so could Martin or Gerry.

Why are you alarmed at the detail?  What is wrong with an accurate description of what has happened to so many through the years? 

Ardmhaca do you seriously think the IRA could have mounted such a heavy and sustained campaign if it were "riddled" with touts?? And tell me, do you join every group and organisation you support? Funny that the best you can come up with is to attack people for having a pro IRA line on this board. I suppose it would suit you better if we all left? Then you wouldn't have so many tough questions to avoid and wouldn't have to write so much sensationalist shite with "dangerous sounding words".

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:27:44 PM

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 06:22:18 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Oh and Franko, almost forgot to ask you the question.  If it ever transpires that wee Marty or Gerry were touts, will you be shouting for them to be stripped, bound, gagged, blindfolded, shot and left in a ditch along the border with 2 bullets in the back of their head?

If your fairytale situation transpires and either of those two did something like that then, in my opinion, they'll deserve the same treatment as McGartland should get.  I wont be 'shouting' for it but (as I said for McGartland) I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be happy to see it happen.

Was that supposed to be a hard question or something?

I'm also alarmed at the detail you go into with regard to the 'disposal' of touts.  Have you something to hide or are you just trying to beef up you argument with a few dangerous sounding words?

Firstly, it's not so much of a fairytale really.  Donaldson was high profile, he had been to Libya to get guns from Gadaffi, didn't stop him from being turned, if he was turned, then so could Martin or Gerry.

Why are you alarmed at the detail?  What is wrong with an accurate description of what has happened to so many through the years?

Do you see the word above which I have highlighted in bold?   Well that word means that your scenario is a fairytale.

Regardless, as I have said, my opinion would still be the same.

There is nothing wrong with your accurate description.  I just think you were being a bit sensationalist (thanks Nally  ;))by describing the events in such detail.  I could resort to the same rubbish myself when describing the abuse perpetrated by the 'leaders' of the group you so often defend but I obviously have a little more taste and a little less time than your good self.

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 06:50:36 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:27:44 PM

Quote from: Franko on March 04, 2010, 06:22:18 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
The provos are riddled with paedophiles too or are you conveniently ignoring that?

Oh and Franko, almost forgot to ask you the question.  If it ever transpires that wee Marty or Gerry were touts, will you be shouting for them to be stripped, bound, gagged, blindfolded, shot and left in a ditch along the border with 2 bullets in the back of their head?

If your fairytale situation transpires and either of those two did something like that then, in my opinion, they'll deserve the same treatment as McGartland should get.  I wont be 'shouting' for it but (as I said for McGartland) I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be happy to see it happen.

Was that supposed to be a hard question or something?

I'm also alarmed at the detail you go into with regard to the 'disposal' of touts.  Have you something to hide or are you just trying to beef up you argument with a few dangerous sounding words?

Firstly, it's not so much of a fairytale really.  Donaldson was high profile, he had been to Libya to get guns from Gadaffi, didn't stop him from being turned, if he was turned, then so could Martin or Gerry.

Why are you alarmed at the detail?  What is wrong with an accurate description of what has happened to so many through the years?

Do you see the word above which I have highlighted in bold?   Well that word means that your scenario is a fairytale.

Regardless, as I have said, my opinion would still be the same.

There is nothing wrong with your accurate description.  I just think you were being a bit sensationalist (thanks Nally  ;)) by describing the events in such detail.  I could resort to the same rubbish myself when describing the abuse perpetrated by the 'leaders' of the group you so often defend but I obviously have a little more taste and a little less time than your good self.

Sensationalist to describe the brutality they put people through and the funniest thing of all is, the ones shooting touts were touts

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
Sensationalist to describe the brutality they put people through and the funniest thing of all is, the ones shooting touts were touts

And.... ???

Again I feel compelled to ask you if you have a point?  Or are you just blurting out sentences?

Well ardmhaca I think we all are mature enough to have our own opinions so writing a post like you're writing a thriller won't change the minds of anyone. We're not all sucked in by years of a similar style of journalism.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
Sensationalist to describe the brutality they put people through and the funniest thing of all is, the ones shooting touts were touts

^^ See that bit I bolded just for you franko, that's my point.  Are you a bit slow?

Your inside knowledge of the IRA never ceases to amaze ardmhaca.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 04, 2010, 07:33:07 PM
Your inside knowledge of the IRA never ceases to amaze ardmhaca.

There's these things nally, they are called books.  It's amazing what is in some of them

"i know more about the IRA in Ardoyne than I can say here". Well did you read that in a book? If so why can't you say what you know? And maybe while you're at it you could tell me in what book it states that all the touts were shot by touts? And that the IRA was "riddled" with touts? Remember you lose points if your references aren't correctly laid out;-)

Can't answer that publicly, not sure if i would privately either. 
I will say that it wouldn't be the first time I witnessed the OC over there beating one of his mates up when they were out boozing together
Yes I said riddled, the book about Scap tells all.

I will tell you even better than that, the 2 men who had kidnapped McGartland and had him in a flat in Twinbrook questioning and torturing him

Both of them have been long suspected of being touts too

They reckon the main causes of failure of Irish rebellions were drink cowardice, touts and spies.

Some folk tend to have a rosy picture of older rebel days.
In the War of Independence, up to 200 of (category A) touts were executed and God knows how many were scalped, tarred or exiled.
Tom Barry's  brigade was accused of hiding a sectarian slaughter behind the veil of executing informers but the recorded facts state he nailed 15 touts all told, some 9 catholics and 6 protestants.
When you nail a tout, you need to get the message out in the starkest manner to all other touts.

In Clare a freshly executed tout had a label pinned to his chest
EXECUTED BY THE I.R.A.    GETTING THEM AT LAST.     BEWARE.

I asked for quotes from books. And seeing a fight in a bar doesn't mean you know about the Ardoyne IRA, get your head out of your arse. As for the IRA being "riddled", how is it that the British Army described the IRA as a "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resiliant force" and admitted that they could not defeat it? Note this came from a LEAKED british army report. Seems to be an odd way to describe a group they supposedly had "riddled" with touts.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 04, 2010, 07:58:46 PM
I asked for quotes from books. And seeing a fight in a bar doesn't mean you know about the Ardoyne IRA, get your head out of your arse. As for the IRA being "riddled", how is it that the British Army described the IRA as a "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resiliant force" and admitted that they could not defeat it? Note this came from a LEAKED british army report. Seems to be an odd way to describe a group they supposedly had "riddled" with touts.

You are back to being ignored

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:09:16 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 04, 2010, 07:58:46 PM
I asked for quotes from books. And seeing a fight in a bar doesn't mean you know about the Ardoyne IRA, get your head out of your arse. As for the IRA being "riddled", how is it that the British Army described the IRA as a "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resiliant force" and admitted that they could not defeat it? Note this came from a LEAKED british army report. Seems to be an odd way to describe a group they supposedly had "riddled" with touts.

You are back to being ignored

Because you have no answer for him?

Was wondering how long it would take you pints

I can't answer about Ardoyne as it could put people I was once very close to under serious threat, surely you can read between the lines?

There are any number of different books out there about touts

Oh and if anyone was to ask me for quotes from books, they would get ignored too.  People like that aren't worth it

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:31:32 PM
Was wondering how long it would take you pints

I can't answer about Ardoyne as it could put people I was once very close to under serious threat, surely you can read between the lines?

There are any number of different books out there about touts

I would have read most of them and no where have I read that the IRA were riddled with touts or that touts shot other touts. If what you're claiming is true, and I were you, I would be very annoyed with the British forces/Police etc because it's bizarre that the IRA managed such a lengthy campaign and they were happy for those working for them i.e. touts to shoot other touts. (Mind you we all know they allowed operations and loss of life to protect their touts).

What was Scap?  His sidekick (can't remember his name)  They were both touts and they shot touts

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:41:32 PM
What was Scap?  His sidekick (can't remember his name)  They were both touts and they shot touts

But you make it sound like it was every occasion

There were others too and you know it like the 2 who took McGartland to the flat in Twinbrook, it has been long said they are both long-standing touts

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
There were others too and you know it like the 2 who took McGartland to the flat in Twinbrook, it has been long said they are both long-standing touts

Neither of us can say that all touts were shot by touts and tbh I don't really care who shot them. 
Btw if you do believe that what's your views on their handlers that allowed it to happen? If you do believe the IRA were "riddled with touts" what's your views on their handlers who allowed their operations, shooting and bombings etc?

I think it's an incredibly evil, murky dirty world those people in.  I hold them equally responsible for some incidents if not all that their informers were involved in.  I also think they are just as bad as those who pulled the trigger etc

Ardmhaca, how about an explanation for ignoring me? Perhaps try acting like the grown up i'm assuming you are, without resorting to "i'm ignoring you". What's next? "I'm telling on you"? Answer my questions honestly from my last post for the sake of debate and discussion instead of hiding from tough questions.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
Sensationalist to describe the brutality they put people through and the funniest thing of all is, the ones shooting touts were touts

So are you saying that all touts were shot by touts?

I would compare that ridiculous outburst with me saying, for instance;

Priests raped children,
or
British people are murdering evil scum
or
Armagh people are crooked diesel smuggling benefit grabbers

Now, each of these statements are complete rubbish.  I know of individual cases where each of these statements are true but I have the wit/intelligence/cop-on to realise that just because I've heard this to be true in one instance does not make it true in all instances.  Can you comprehenmd the difference.  Coming on here and spouting rubbish does nothing for your credibility.  For that matter, either does refusing to provide sources for your statements of 'fact' or 'ignoring' people because they pose a question you cannot answer.

I have to conclude that you are completely out of your depth here and for your own benefit I would advise you to stop posting rubbish about things you clearly have no clue about.

PS.

Can I infer from your quote above that you would find it funny if a tout was found to murder McGartland?  In that case we'd both be happy!  ;D

From 'insider: Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA':

Bradley on the IRA's Internal Security squad: 'complete incompetents, drunks, wasters. Sometimes people confuse them with the Nutting Squad. They wouldn't have had the balls. They did the beatings, torturings, but not the killing. They spent their days in the pub at the bottom of Clonard Street. They did their interrogations in a house near the pub so they didn't have to walk too far.' (p213)

Real heroes.

Quote from: Franko on March 05, 2010, 12:54:27 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 04, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
Sensationalist to describe the brutality they put people through and the funniest thing of all is, the ones shooting touts were touts

So are you saying that all touts were shot by touts?

I would compare that ridiculous outburst with me saying, for instance;

Priests raped children,
or
British people are murdering evil scum
or
Armagh people are crooked diesel smuggling benefit grabbers

Now, each of these statements are complete rubbish.  I know of individual cases where each of these statements are true but I have the wit/intelligence/cop-on to realise that just because I've heard this to be true in one instance does not make it true in all instances.  Can you comprehenmd the difference.  Coming on here and spouting rubbish does nothing for your credibility.  For that matter, either does refusing to provide sources for your statements of 'fact' or 'ignoring' people because they pose a question you cannot answer.

I have to conclude that you are completely out of your depth here and for your own benefit I would advise you to stop posting rubbish about things you clearly have no clue about.

PS.

Can I infer from your quote above that you would find it funny if a tout was found to murder McGartland?  In that case we'd both be happy!  ;D

ffs Franko he thinks he knows everything about every IRA unit in Ireland,OC fighting,touts shooting touts and all that sh1te ;D,he is a complete clown and is one who takes after his uncle,plenty of mouth and then runs away.

When it's all documented in the future, and it will be for sure, we will see who was right and who was wrong.  Anyone who believes all the shite Shinners spout can't be living in reality because the Shinners aren't in reality.  Sin sin mar a deirtear

The ardmhacaabu 'one stop shop' handbook of debating tactics;

1. Insult people with opposing opinions
2. State 'facts' and refuse to provide sources
3. Ignore anyone who asks an awkward question
4. If tactics 1-3 fail, pull out the lucky 8 ball and predict the future
5. Continue the debate in a different language in the hope of confusing your opponents

Have you any more masterstrokes up your sleeve?   ;D

Just noticed the thread on Torrens Knight there. Not a post from ardmhaca abu on it. I take it it's only IRA attacks that really horrify him. Rest assured if Knight happened to have an 8th cousin who in turn had a second cousin who's brother-in-law once owned a dog sold to him by a nephew of an IRA man the thread would have been bombarded with posts about those "shinner cowardly murdering w**k£rs".

Yeah I thought I'd make it more ardmhaca sounding. Thanks for noticing there.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 05, 2010, 10:57:20 PM
Just noticed the thread on Torrens Knight there. Not a post from ardmhaca abu on it. I take it it's only IRA attacks that really horrify him. Rest assured if Knight happened to have an 8th cousin who in turn had a second cousin who's brother-in-law once owned a dog sold to him by a nephew of an IRA man the thread would have been bombarded with posts about those "shinner cowardly murdering w**k£rs".

The difference is that there's noone on this board stating that Knight and his colleagues were / are heroes, patriots, justified in their actions, etc. Whereas there's a whole bunch of dicks saying exactly that type of thing about the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
The difference is that there's noone on this board stating that Knight and his colleagues were / are heroes, patriots, justified in their actions, etc. Whereas there's a whole bunch of dicks saying exactly that type of thing about the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA.

nothing cowardly in fighting back to save your family from violent terrorism from the people that were supposed tobe upholding he law and protecting all its citizens !

be glad and thankful it obv never darkened your door !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 06, 2010, 04:24:12 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
The difference is that there's noone on this board stating that Knight and his colleagues were / are heroes, patriots, justified in their actions, etc. Whereas there's a whole bunch of dicks saying exactly that type of thing about the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA.

nothing cowardly in fighting back to save your family from violent terrorism from the people that were supposed tobe upholding he law and protecting all its citizens !

be glad and thankful it obv never darkened your door !

the violence that used to frighen me when I was growing up in the dark days of the late 60's and early 70's came from two sources. I was frightened of loyalist extremists - tartan gangs, shankill butchers, that sort of thing -  and I was frightened of the bombs that used to explode around Belfast on a daily basis. The bombs which killed and maimed hundreds were planted mainly by the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA. 'fighting back to save your family' my hole.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 04:51:11 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 06, 2010, 04:24:12 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
The difference is that there's noone on this board stating that Knight and his colleagues were / are heroes, patriots, justified in their actions, etc. Whereas there's a whole bunch of dicks saying exactly that type of thing about the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA.

nothing cowardly in fighting back to save your family from violent terrorism from the people that were supposed tobe upholding he law and protecting all its citizens !

be glad and thankful it obv never darkened your door !

the violence that used to frighen me when I was growing up in the dark days of the late 60's and early 70's came from two sources. I was frightened of loyalist extremists - tartan gangs, shankill butchers, that sort of thing -  and I was frightened of the bombs that used to explode around Belfast on a daily basis. The bombs which killed and maimed hundreds were planted mainly by the cowardly murdering w**k£r of the IRA. 'fighting back to save your family' my hole.

they did and I (and thousands if not hundreds of thousands more) are also thankful that they did.
you can twist it whatever way your wee mind likes, but thats the way it was, and thats how history will venerate these guys, just as the men of 1916 and 1921 were once 'villains' and are now 'heroes and patriots'.
Obv people like you will find it hard to take, but I suspect that there are other reasons why you whinge about the IRA etc - usually in these situations you will find that a family memeber was  kneecapped etc for drug dealing/theiving/anti social crimes or touting etc

there are a few who loswt family members because of the ira, but a lot more would have been lost and still being lost if the lads did not start the fightback. A lot of my own family wouldnt be here today if they didnt - so I can say from our own personal exp (and those from the area around us) that this was a thing that had to be done to fight back against the state run apartieid and physically violent persecution !

Gerry Bradley on why people joined the IRA:
'Like any big organisation, people joined for different reasons. Some guys joined to take advantage of being in the 'RA. 'RA men were celebrities, especially in the '70s. You were stuck in your own area...Women had nowhere else to go either. Some women threw themselves at local celebrities. Some guys joined the 'RA to get off with women and never did ops. ...Some guys joined for opportunistic reasons, to enjoy the protection of being in the 'RA. Yes, some paedophiles joined for that reason. Yes, the IRA didn't deal with all the chancers and criminals the way they should have, and over the years there were plenty of them, but what could you do? Kill them all? Kick them out of the country?'
(p270)
Heroes my hole.

The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 03, 2010, 05:07:46 PM

Quote from: Franko on March 03, 2010, 04:08:01 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 03, 2010, 03:53:16 PM
Look at all the little sc**bag provos.

Hope he gets what's coming to him. What's that franko, are you or your buddies gonna kill him?

Erm, not really sure where you got that from - but to answer your question;
I am absolutely certain that neither I, nor any of my circle of friends will ever murder Martin McGartland.

I would, however, be lying if I were to say that I would not raise a smile if someone else were to do it.

Is it OK for me to think this Puck?  ::)

Puck's a pacifist i.e. he's happy for others to do his fighting for him and he can stay in the ivory tower - apart from when it comes to the unborn or the sick and old - whatever's convenient really.

truer words were never spoke.

Fcuk sake Myles are you that desperate to find something to attack the IRA on?lol You think an organisation the british army privately admitted it could not defeat and referred to as a "professional, dedicated, highly skilled, and resiliant" force, was made up of people looking for fame and who made no secret of their membership? If you are going to debate, don't make yourself look so dumb ffs

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

As someone who was involved, he's entitled to his view and it carries more weight than the ramblings of the armchair generals, the wannabees and the sadly deluded who post on here on a regular basis.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

As someone who was involved, he's entitled to his view and it carries more weight than the ramblings of the armchair generals, the wannabees and the sadly deluded who post on here on a regular basis.

You're another one that likes to ram his views down other people's throats, easy knowing you're a unionist.  As I said to MW not so long ago, you have your opinions, no one will change them, others will have theirs so there's no point in you trying to ram your views down someone's neck.  Quoting nonsense out of books just makes you look like a tit. 

As someone with a vested interest in discrediting the IRA it carries absolutely no weight. You not suppose a private british army document which was leaked gives more insight? You think those who died or suffered in the H Blocks did so cos they just couldn't get a woman unless they were in the ra?! You think the approx one thousand people murdered by collusion had nothing to do with people joining? Bloody Sunday wasn't a motivation? RUC harassment? I'm debating with a moron.

Can we have a whipround for lynchbhoy not to use the word "apartheid" in every post about the troubles. Please.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2010, 09:50:21 PM
Can we have a whipround for lynchbhoy not to use the word "apartheid" in every post about the troubles. Please.

Certainly, I only have 5 rand on me though.

Quote from: Minder on March 06, 2010, 09:55:01 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2010, 09:50:21 PM
Can we have a whipround for lynchbhoy not to use the word "apartheid" in every post about the troubles. Please.

Certainly, I only have 5 rand on me though.

I remember clearly sitting at the back of the bus on the way to the township.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 09:31:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

As someone who was involved, he's entitled to his view and it carries more weight than the ramblings of the armchair generals, the wannabees and the sadly deluded who post on here on a regular basis.

You're another one that likes to ram his views down other people's throats, easy knowing you're a unionist.  As I said to MW not so long ago, you have your opinions, no one will change them, others will have theirs so there's no point in you trying to ram your views down someone's neck.  Quoting nonsense out of books just makes you look like a tit.

From the man with nearly 11,000 posts to his name!  :D :D

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 06, 2010, 09:36:46 PM
As someone with a vested interest in discrediting the IRA it carries absolutely no weight. You not suppose a private british army document which was leaked gives more insight? You think those who died or suffered in the H Blocks did so cos they just couldn't get a woman unless they were in the ra?! You think the approx one thousand people murdered by collusion had nothing to do with people joining? Bloody Sunday wasn't a motivation? RUC harassment? I'm debating with a moron.

I don't have to discredit the IRA -they did a good enough job of that themselves. 'the approx one thousand people murdered by collusion' - what's your source for that fairly impressive statistic? Do you have a source, or do you belong to the Lynchbhoy's 'make it up as you go along' school of debate? And does the collusion you refer to include the collusion of the countless republicans who acted as agents, informers, etc for the British state?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 07, 2010, 10:39:29 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 09:31:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

As someone who was involved, he's entitled to his view and it carries more weight than the ramblings of the armchair generals, the wannabees and the sadly deluded who post on here on a regular basis.

You're another one that likes to ram his views down other people's throats, easy knowing you're a unionist.  As I said to MW not so long ago, you have your opinions, no one will change them, others will have theirs so there's no point in you trying to ram your views down someone's neck.  Quoting nonsense out of books just makes you look like a tit.

From the man with nearly 11,000 posts to his name!  :D :D

Great argument  ::)

Firstly, you have completely ignored my question, and secondly, my source is An Fheirne and the Pat Finucane Centre who between them represent between 700 and 1000 families who were victims of collusion. Did these "countless" touts do that? And I'll ask again, do you not think that the events i stated could have possibly politicised those who decided to join the IRA? Or were they only, as you imply, disinterested in all that and were only interested in being a celeb and getting a woman? Sensible debate pls

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 07, 2010, 10:49:50 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 07, 2010, 10:39:29 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 09:31:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 06, 2010, 09:29:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
The gospel according to Gerry Bradley  ::)

As someone who was involved, he's entitled to his view and it carries more weight than the ramblings of the armchair generals, the wannabees and the sadly deluded who post on here on a regular basis.

You're another one that likes to ram his views down other people's throats, easy knowing you're a unionist.  As I said to MW not so long ago, you have your opinions, no one will change them, others will have theirs so there's no point in you trying to ram your views down someone's neck.  Quoting nonsense out of books just makes you look like a tit.

From the man with nearly 11,000 posts to his name!  :D :D

Great argument  ::)

Thank you. I thought so too.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 07, 2010, 11:07:09 AM
Firstly, you have completely ignored my question, and secondly, my source is An Fheirne and the Pat Finucane Centre who between them represent between 700 and 1000 families who were victims of collusion. Did these "countless" touts do that? And I'll ask again, do you not think that the events i stated could have possibly politicised those who decided to join the IRA? Or were they only, as you imply, disinterested in all that and were only interested in being a celeb and getting a woman? Sensible debate pls

I'm not even going to talk about An Fheirne, since it was launched by Gerry Adams and covered in great detail by An Phoblacht. I'm only interested in impartial sources, not propaganda crap from the Shinners. The Pat Finucane Centre lists details of 140 cases. It also links to independent legal reports which talk about 72 cases in the 70's. Those numbers are perhaps nearer the truth. (that said, it lists Bloody Sunday as one of the cases. State murder certainly, but where's the collusion there?) One case is too many, but when you start talking ridiculous figures taken straight from the Shinners publicity machine, then you weaken your own argument. You think the republican informants and agents weren't also responsible for the deaths of many people? You think the people in IRA internal security who were British agents weren't in a position to have people executed to cover their own backs and the backs of other agents too? Plenty of people were politicised by the events you cite, but they didn't all rush off to join an organisation which specialised in bombing civilian targets. 

Sweet feck where to start. Firstly, the number of families which join An Fheirne is driven by the fact that the FAMILIES joined it. I don't care who set it up, the victims stand for what they stand for. Secondly, what of the british handlers who allowed people to be shot to protect their own men? Not important? Finally, the IRA "speciality" was not bombing civilian areas. That would suggest most IRA attacks were on civilian targets. Which is a lie Myles.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 07, 2010, 08:04:51 PM
Sweet feck where to start. Firstly, the number of families which join An Fheirne is driven by the fact that the FAMILIES joined it. I don't care who set it up, the victims stand for what they stand for. Secondly, what of the british handlers who allowed people to be shot to protect their own men? Not important? Finally, the IRA "speciality" was not bombing civilian areas. That would suggest most IRA attacks were on civilian targets. Which is a lie Myles.

Pubs, restaurants, shops, bus stations, hotels ... you don't class those as civilian targets?  :o

Did you not read my post? I said that to say attacking civilian areas was the IRA "speciality" is implying that most IRA targets were civilian which is a LIE. In fact almost 80% of IRA victims according to Lost Lives were willing participants in the conflict. That is a percentage which would rate higher than the vast majority of world conflicts.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2010, 09:50:21 PM
Can we have a whipround for lynchbhoy not to use the word "apartheid" in every post about the troubles. Please.

well forgive me for telling it how it was !
by the way its not just me who associates the noth of Ireland statelet with the spectre of its own brand of apartheid
even this piece posted the other day moots how the north of Ireland soccer fans were guilty of it

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/brian-mcnally/Why-the-talent-drain-to-the-Republic-shows-Northern-Ireland-are-still-paying-the-price-for-abuse-dished-out-to-Neil-Lennon-The-Brian-McNally-Column-article344981.html

"As is the implication that they can dragoon unwilling Catholics into a set-up that a decade ago had vocal sections demanding religious apartheid."

the north of Ireland version of apartheid had people from Irish/catholic/nationalist communities instead of 'Blacks'.
Otherwise the same hindering of work, life, religious freedom and freedom of movement etc was par for the course. Also 'taigs' were not 'allowed' join certain clubs/institutions or into certain places.
how is that 'apartheid'.
Lest we forget - though you obv have !

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 07, 2010, 07:42:53 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 07, 2010, 11:07:09 AM
Firstly, you have completely ignored my question, and secondly, my source is An Fheirne and the Pat Finucane Centre who between them represent between 700 and 1000 families who were victims of collusion. Did these "countless" touts do that? And I'll ask again, do you not think that the events i stated could have possibly politicised those who decided to join the IRA? Or were they only, as you imply, disinterested in all that and were only interested in being a celeb and getting a woman? Sensible debate pls

I'm not even going to talk about An Fheirne, since it was launched by Gerry Adams and covered in great detail by An Phoblacht. I'm only interested in impartial sources, not propaganda crap from the Shinners. The Pat Finucane Centre lists details of 140 cases. It also links to independent legal reports which talk about 72 cases in the 70's. Those numbers are perhaps nearer the truth. (that said, it lists Bloody Sunday as one of the cases. State murder certainly, but where's the collusion there?) One case is too many, but when you start talking ridiculous figures taken straight from the Shinners publicity machine, then you weaken your own argument. You think the republican informants and agents weren't also responsible for the deaths of many people? You think the people in IRA internal security who were British agents weren't in a position to have people executed to cover their own backs and the backs of other agents too? Plenty of people were politicised by the events you cite, but they didn't all rush off to join an organisation which specialised in bombing civilian targets.

do you have a point in any of these idiotic rants?
what point are you (badly) attempting to make ?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 07, 2010, 08:15:38 PM
Did you not read my post? I said that to say attacking civilian areas was the IRA "speciality" is implying that most IRA targets were civilian which is a LIE. In fact almost 80% of IRA victims according to Lost Lives were willing participants in the conflict. That is a percentage which would rate higher than the vast majority of world conflicts.

You obviously didn't read my post - I said civilian targets, not civilian areas. Do you class pubs, hotels, etc as civilian targets or not? And what exactly is a 'willing participant' in a conflict? Leaving aside professional soldiers, do you mean construction workers doing work on a police station? Do you mean government employees handing out census forms? Former soldiers and policemen? Alleged informants (some uncovered by British agents)? Just because the IRA defines someone as a combatant doesn't make it so.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 08, 2010, 03:18:48 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2010, 09:50:21 PM
Can we have a whipround for lynchbhoy not to use the word "apartheid" in every post about the troubles. Please.

well forgive me for telling it how it was !
by the way its not just me who associates the noth of Ireland statelet with the spectre of its own brand of apartheid
even this piece posted the other day moots how the north of Ireland soccer fans were guilty of it

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/brian-mcnally/Why-the-talent-drain-to-the-Republic-shows-Northern-Ireland-are-still-paying-the-price-for-abuse-dished-out-to-Neil-Lennon-The-Brian-McNally-Column-article344981.html

"As is the implication that they can dragoon unwilling Catholics into a set-up that a decade ago had vocal sections demanding religious apartheid."

the north of Ireland version of apartheid had people from Irish/catholic/nationalist communities instead of 'Blacks'.
Otherwise the same hindering of work, life, religious freedom and freedom of movement etc was par for the course. Also 'taigs' were not 'allowed' join certain clubs/institutions or into certain places.
how is that 'apartheid'.
Lest we forget - though you obv have !

That is just such a pile of steaming keek that it doesn't even merit any kind of considered response. Well up to your usual standards, LB.

Quote from: Main Street on March 03, 2010, 11:22:45 PM
I have never met a tout whose life was worth more than the dust under my shoe.
I also include squealers in there.
i don't know about snitches, depends who they snitch on. I would make a moral judgement based on the merits of each snitch case.

What is a tout? Is it anyone who reports anything to the Police that would lead to an arrest or do you have to be inside an organisation to be a tout or are you only a tout if you report on Paramilitary / terrorist / freedom fighter activity?

Civilian targets and civilian areas both mean the same thing, ie civilian. And it is not I nor the IRA which used the term willing participants in this example, rather it is from Lost Lives. So therefor only 20% of IRA victims fell into that category. A smaller percentage than any other group in the conflict by a long way (60% civilian victims for the british army & 93% for loyalists) So therefor I ask, are you a pacifist, or only a pacifist when it comes to the IRA?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 08, 2010, 10:34:09 PM
Civilian targets and civilian areas both mean the same thing, ie civilian. And it is not I nor the IRA which used the term willing participants in this example, rather it is from Lost Lives. So therefor only 20% of IRA victims fell into that category. A smaller percentage than any other group in the conflict by a long way (60% civilian victims for the british army & 93% for loyalists) So therefor I ask, are you a pacifist, or only a pacifist when it comes to the IRA?

Only 20%? A round of applause please.

Serious debate please? How about that?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 08, 2010, 10:34:09 PM
Civilian targets and civilian areas both mean the same thing, ie civilian. And it is not I nor the IRA which used the term willing participants in this example, rather it is from Lost Lives. So therefor only 20% of IRA victims fell into that category. A smaller percentage than any other group in the conflict by a long way (60% civilian victims for the british army & 93% for loyalists) So therefor I ask, are you a pacifist, or only a pacifist when it comes to the IRA?

I'm not familiar with the Lost Lives material, so I'm not in a position to debate the percentages, but I'd still want to know how the term 'willing participant' is defined. I'm not a pacificist, but I do think there are very few situations in which violence is justified. The IRA campaign certainly doesn't fall into that category, IMO. Killing the people who needed persuading of the virtues of a united Ireland was never going to work. Republicans have come to realise that now. Most people realised it 30 years and 3600 lives ago.

You may ring the editor of Lost Lives to find your definition. Do you therefor think that everything would have been fine & dandy if sunningdale was supported by republicans? Even though the circumstances were as they were and britain was still very much at war with nationalists? Don't forget that the IRA had several ceasefires which ended due to britain not taking the peace process seriously. And the assembly, even with relative peace has been a struggle to keep afloat. How would sunningdale have lasted?

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2010, 10:19:33 PM

Quote from: Main Street on March 03, 2010, 11:22:45 PM
I have never met a tout whose life was worth more than the dust under my shoe.
I also include squealers in there.
i don't know about snitches, depends who they snitch on. I would make a moral judgement based on the merits of each snitch case.

What is a tout? Is it anyone who reports anything to the Police that would lead to an arrest or do you have to be inside an organisation to be a tout or are you only a tout if you report on Paramilitary / terrorist / freedom fighter activity?

A tout is an informer.
The informer here is someone from within his own community presenting himself as one thing but betraying the same people.
Generally not the brightest of sparks, easily fooled by tall talks of stable income for life  in return for services. Delusional about their self importance in the face of almost universal contempt. The tout can not be trusted ever.
A tout is such a creature that even his own mother would disown him. How bad do you have to be to be disowned by your own mother?
Not everybody who gives information to the police is a tout.
Someone who gives information to the police  could well be doing so out of a perceived civic duty, there may well be no hypocrisy, betrayal or financial reward involved.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 08, 2010, 11:06:07 PM
You may ring the editor of Lost Lives to find your definition. Do you therefor think that everything would have been fine & dandy if sunningdale was supported by republicans? Even though the circumstances were as they were and britain was still very much at war with nationalists? Don't forget that the IRA had several ceasefires which ended due to britain not taking the peace process seriously. And the assembly, even with relative peace has been a struggle to keep afloat. How would sunningdale have lasted?

In what way was Britain 'at war' with nationalists?

Collusion in hundreds of murders not enough? Ur hard hard man. How about harassment at every checkpoint u'd meet? How about, like for my family and neighbours, constant death threats and watching british forces regularly turn our house upside down and walk out laughing as they go onto the next house all for the crime of living in a nationalist area? Ps you're very adept at ignoring my arguments in posts preferring instead to deny my facts. Lazy or have you no actual argument?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 09, 2010, 07:51:48 PM
Collusion in hundreds of murders not enough? Ur hard hard man. How about harassment at every checkpoint u'd meet? How about, like for my family and neighbours, constant death threats and watching british forces regularly turn our house upside down and walk out laughing as they go onto the next house all for the crime of living in a nationalist area? Ps you're very adept at ignoring my arguments in posts preferring instead to deny my facts. Lazy or have you no actual argument?

I'll deny your facts (or anyone elses for that matter) if I think they're wrong. You're at it again here, with your collusion in hundreds of murders. I'm sorry you had a hard time at the hands of British forces. Thousands upon thousands of people also had a hard time at the hands of republican forces. Thousands were killed, thousands more maimed and injured and bereaved in the course of the IRA's campaign of bombing civilian targets - which you dismiss fairly lightly, applauding instead the IRA's 80% success rate against so called legitimate targets or whatever. And I do have an argument, actually, a fairly simple one. It goes like this: the IRA was the biggest disaster ever visited upon the people of Ireland after the famine. How's that?

Right. And even without british troops and old unionist rule pre civil rights, the IRA still would have been the group they were? You forget they came about as a reaction? And it's easy to dismiss the 20% but does the 93% for loyalists not put them above the IRA in your scale of evil? Or the british armys 60%? And if you have an argument with the collusion statistics them take it up with the families. Who are you to tell them they are wrong Myles?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 09, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
Right. And even without british troops and old unionist rule pre civil rights, the IRA still would have been the group they were? You forget they came about as a reaction? And it's easy to dismiss the 20% but does the 93% for loyalists not put them above the IRA in your scale of evil? Or the british armys 60%? And if you have an argument with the collusion statistics them take it up with the families. Who are you to tell them they are wrong Myles?

The IRA wouldn't have been the group they became had it not been for the outbreak of sectarian violence at the end of the '60's. That much we're agreed on, I think. However, while many may have joined the IRA as a reaction to that violence, the IRA itself was not a reaction. The IRA had been running campaigns against the British, both in the north and in Britain, since partition. The 30s, the 40, and 50s all saw IRA actions. Most of these campaigns fizzled out because of a lack of interest from the nationalist population. When the violence started at the end of the 60s, many young nationalists suddenly got interested. That was the reaction you talk about. The IRA took this reaction and harnessed it and went back to what they'd been doing off and on through previous decades: they went to war with the British. I think their war was outdated, morally wrong and politically counter productive. I have no interest in their 'high' success rate. They killed and maimed in the name of Irish unity and I think that's unforgiveable.

Quote from: Main Street on March 09, 2010, 12:00:31 AM

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2010, 10:19:33 PM

Quote from: Main Street on March 03, 2010, 11:22:45 PM
I have never met a tout whose life was worth more than the dust under my shoe.
I also include squealers in there.
i don't know about snitches, depends who they snitch on. I would make a moral judgement based on the merits of each snitch case.

What is a tout? Is it anyone who reports anything to the Police that would lead to an arrest or do you have to be inside an organisation to be a tout or are you only a tout if you report on Paramilitary / terrorist / freedom fighter activity?

A tout is an informer.
The informer here is someone from within his own community presenting himself as one thing but betraying the same people.
Generally not the brightest of sparks, easily fooled by tall talks of stable income for life  in return for services. Delusional about their self importance in the face of almost universal contempt. The tout can not be trusted ever.
A tout is such a creature that even his own mother would disown him. How bad do you have to be to be disowned by your own mother?
Not everybody who gives information to the police is a tout.
Someone who gives information to the police  could well be doing so out of a perceived civic duty, there may well be no hypocrisy, betrayal or financial reward involved.

Would gang members come under that umbrella? If someone joined a local gang which graduated from standing on street corners to stealing cars and a member escalated to stabbing someone, would a member be a tout for turning him in?

Well the entire Island was partitioned along sectarian lines against the will of the majority of people in the Island so it was hardly morally wrong. And that implies that the IRA were a sectarian force which they were certainly not. The circumstances that have birth to the PIRA were not sectarian, but political and largely if not completely, defensive in nature at the very start. How does this compare to the morality of the british army?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 07, 2010, 08:15:38 PM
Did you not read my post? I said that to say attacking civilian areas was the IRA "speciality" is implying that most IRA targets were civilian which is a LIE. In fact almost 80% of IRA victims according to Lost Lives were willing participants in the conflict. That is a percentage which would rate higher than the vast majority of world conflicts.

I just checked this stat - as I am trying to explain my knowledge of Ireland and the troubles to an American - and the percentage quoted from this book which you have brought into discussion is closer to 64% than almost 80. 644 civilians to be exact out of 1781 IRA deaths. That'd be over one third.

Not making any other point than that, but I thought as you quote the book, you may like to know.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 10, 2010, 11:35:39 PM
I just checked this stat - as I am trying to explain my knowledge of Ireland and the troubles to an American - and the percentage quoted from this book which you have brought into discussion is closer to 64% than almost 80. 644 civilians to be exact out of 1781 IRA deaths. That'd be over one third.

Not making any other point than that, but I thought as you quote the book, you may like to know.

Puck, you are not making the distinction between a "willing participant" and a "civilian". E.g. Lost Lives counts those who worked for the British Army as "civilians", whereas we know that someone who takes sides in a war situation like that is actually a "willing participant" participant in the conflict. If you go through the book you'll see that it also lists why such "civilians" were targeted. Such examples make up the other 15%.

Quote from: LeoMc on March 09, 2010, 09:02:54 PM

Quote from: Main Street on March 09, 2010, 12:00:31 AM

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2010, 10:19:33 PM

Quote from: Main Street on March 03, 2010, 11:22:45 PM
I have never met a tout whose life was worth more than the dust under my shoe.
I also include squealers in there.
i don't know about snitches, depends who they snitch on. I would make a moral judgement based on the merits of each snitch case.

What is a tout? Is it anyone who reports anything to the Police that would lead to an arrest or do you have to be inside an organisation to be a tout or are you only a tout if you report on Paramilitary / terrorist / freedom fighter activity?

A tout is an informer.
The informer here is someone from within his own community presenting himself as one thing but betraying the same people.
Generally not the brightest of sparks, easily fooled by tall talks of stable income for life  in return for services. Delusional about their self importance in the face of almost universal contempt. The tout can not be trusted ever.
A tout is such a creature that even his own mother would disown him. How bad do you have to be to be disowned by your own mother?
Not everybody who gives information to the police is a tout.
Someone who gives information to the police  could well be doing so out of a perceived civic duty, there may well be no hypocrisy, betrayal or financial reward involved.

Would gang members come under that umbrella? If someone joined a local gang which graduated from standing on street corners to stealing cars and a member escalated to stabbing someone, would a member be a tout for turning him in?

WTF do think I am, a toutometer?
You should have listened to your Mammy, stopped hanging around street corners and made something better of your life. You might have been able to aim a bit higher towards the bigger questions around our existence, instead of bugging me with the conscience pangs of your life as a  snitch.

Quote from: Ulick on March 10, 2010, 11:55:58 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 10, 2010, 11:35:39 PM
I just checked this stat - as I am trying to explain my knowledge of Ireland and the troubles to an American - and the percentage quoted from this book which you have brought into discussion is closer to 64% than almost 80. 644 civilians to be exact out of 1781 IRA deaths. That'd be over one third.

Not making any other point than that, but I thought as you quote the book, you may like to know.

Puck, you are not making the distinction between a "willing participant" and a "civilian". E.g. Lost Lives counts those who worked for the British Army as "civilians", whereas we know that someone who takes sides in a war situation like that is actually a "willing participant" participant in the conflict. If you go through the book you'll see that it also lists why such "civilians" were targeted. Such examples make up the other 15%.

Like you say - I will have to go through the book, Im sure it is an interesting read no matter what viewpoint one holds.

Although there are lots of things in your posts that are opinions - such as what makes someone a "willing participant", but thats a debate for another time. I dont know what reasonings they give for the murder of the other 15%, but Im sure somewhere down the line our opinions on the validity of them as targets will differ.

Both lost lives and the CAIN report however - give the civilian casualties in the same number range - 621 from CAIN up until 2001, 644 from lost lives up until 2004. Its a significant chunk of lives of people who probably ( I imagine)  didnt pose much of a direct threat to anyone.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 11, 2010, 12:14:48 AM
Its a significant chunk of lives of people who probably ( I imagine)  didnt pose much of a direct threat to anyone.

Yes but let's say you have a situation like the mid-80's where the IRA have a strategy to take out barracks in rural Tyrone and Armagh in order to increase their Brit free zones. They pick off barracks one by one only for the Brits to employ people to rebuild them again. What are the options in a war situation? Everyone knew the risks whether they were IRA, Brit, RUC or someone in the employ of and providing support to any of those groups.

So if you opposed IRA objectives and policies you could be classed as a "willing participant" and murdered.  Or even if you didn't know or care that this week's IRA strategy was to "increase Brit free zones" and you were just a brickie's labourer going to work wherever you were sent today, you were also a "willing participant"?

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 08, 2010, 11:06:07 PM
You may ring the editor of Lost Lives to find your definition.

Quote from: Ulick on March 10, 2010, 11:55:58 PM
Puck, you are not making the distinction between a "willing participant" and a "civilian". E.g. Lost Lives counts those who worked for the British Army as "civilians", whereas we know that someone who takes sides in a war situation like that is actually a "willing participant" participant in the conflict. If you go through the book you'll see that it also lists why such "civilians" were targeted. Such examples make up the other 15%.

So in essence Nally Stand's claim that this definition of "willing participant" can be got from the editor of Lost Lives is incorrect.   The editor will confirm his defintion of a civilian, altering the percentages significantly and the term "willing participant" is actually an interpretation of the background information given in the book.

/Jim.

Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2010, 08:31:51 AM
So if you opposed IRA objectives and policies you could be classed as a "willing participant" and murdered.

Really? I didn't know that. You'd wonder how the SDLP survived all these years.

Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2010, 08:31:51 AM
Or even if you didn't know or care that this week's IRA strategy was to "increase Brit free zones" and you were just a brickie's labourer going to work wherever you were sent today, you were also a "willing participant"?

Well I probably would have wondered why I was getting three or four times the pay of any other brickie's labourer and what all the warnings were about. If I wondered and still didn't get it (or know) I probably would have deserved to have been shot for being so f**king stupid.

Quote from: Ulick on March 11, 2010, 09:48:14 AM

Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2010, 08:31:51 AM
So if you opposed IRA objectives and policies you could be classed as a "willing participant" and murdered.

Really? I didn't know that. You'd wonder how the SDLP survived all these years.

Killing SDLP members wouldn't be good propaganda now, would it?

Quote from: Ulick on March 11, 2010, 09:48:14 AM

Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2010, 08:31:51 AM
Or even if you didn't know or care that this week's IRA strategy was to "increase Brit free zones" and you were just a brickie's labourer going to work wherever you were sent today, you were also a "willing participant"?

Well I probably would have wondered why I was getting three or four times the pay of any other brickie's labourer and what all the warnings were about. If I wondered and still didn't get it (or know) I probably would have deserved to have been shot for being so f**king stupid.

But if you're that stupid you can hardly be a willing participant. However, not to be facetious - allowing your contention that people rebuilding army barracks were actively facilitating the British presence and thus could be deemed to be as deserving of murder as actual combatants, it's a bit of a stretch, is it not, to include cleaners and vending machine contractors as enemies of the Ireland of Equals?

What did you do in the war, Daddy? I blew up a Mars Bar salesman, son.

Are you asking me or telling me?

I've clearly stated my view - those who supported and collaborated with the British during the conflict took an informed decision about what they were doing. No one lives in a bubble up here, they knew the risks and they were well paid to take them. As such they were "willing participants" in the conflict. We could argue all day about the rights and wrongs or that, or indeed if it was right that the exact same things happened during the 'War for the Free State' or indeed in any other subsequent conflict around the world, but I doubt we'll agree.

Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2010, 10:16:32 AM
But if you're that stupid you can hardly be a willing participant. However, not to be facetious - allowing your contention that people rebuilding army barracks were actively facilitating the British presence and thus could be deemed to be as deserving of murder as actual combatants, it's a bit of a stretch, is it not, to include cleaners and vending machine contractors as enemies of the Ireland of Equals?

What did you do in the war, Daddy? I blew up a Mars Bar salesman, son.

It's the same as taking barracks in the war of independence for arms.
There were troops to be fed.

bizzare as it sounds now, there was a warning to all people in the north of Ireland that working on british army barracks etc would make the 'willing participants' prone to attack.

while this is horrible to think about today, the way it was then that this was 'war' and such things are done during war times.
the ruc, b specials etc and then the british army were gulty of atrocities and willing knoing persecution, harrassment etc of innocents. they were the enemy and if left unchecked, continued on their bullying and terror campaign.
It was nut just bourne out of a couple of 'bad years' in the late sixties as one idiotic revisionist is trying to make out - there was a campaign that was becomming increasingly bad from the 50's onwards. So bad that people started to speak out and stand up to this type of apartheid ( ;)) and brutal regieme.
however these people were beaten up and down the place to keep them quiet (by the colluding 'security forces' , local loyalst/unionist politicians etc) then the civil rights marches sprung up . This obv also didnt work, then the people resorted to fighting back by the same kind of violence they were receiving. A united Ireland was not the goal at the start, but rather became the mantra - that if the Island was re-united, this kind of violent persecution would no longer happen.
What it took for people to reach such decisions as threatening (and killing) people that were to work on buildings (british army bases , ruc barracks etc) is so obviously extreme , people cannot fathom why. In the bad old days, fresh from being at the end of such an ongoin apartheid type of system - itis understandable why.
Equally as obvious now that the violence towards nationalists/Irish/Catholics has been stopped, these people no longer threaten or use violence. There is no longer a reason why.
the state and its sympathisers/apologists brought on this dark cloud on the north of our country.
You can only push people so far before they will react back and badly - look at historical wars throughout the world and you will see the same being repeated.

Re willing participants,
I don't know about the "willing" part, but the participation certainly increased the vulnerability levels.

I remember once on route back to southern sanctuary, I stopped around Newry on the main road to fill up at a petrol station, sat down for a coffee in the cafeteria. Next minute in came a UDR squad (all joviality with the host), to enjoy their tea break. I thought wtf? what am i doing here? how could I have been so fxcking dumb?  I got up and skedaddled out of there quam celerrime.
In case you feel a need to ask, yes another person may well have a different sense of personal security in that situation and be perfectly entitled to it without getting blown up in the crossfire of war.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 11, 2010, 11:01:36 AM
bizzare as it sounds now, there was a warning to all people in the north of Ireland that working on british army barracks etc would make the 'willing participants' prone to attack.

So this suggests that the IRA were in command and leadership of the north of ireland and needed to be obeyed?

It wasn't just construction workers the IRA murdered. The book '10 Men Dead' cites the case of the young female student murdered for handing out census forms - what a tremendous blow for Irish freedom that was! Traders and businesses were also targeted, while leading German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was murdered for the grievous crime of bringing jobs to Ireland. All this was in keeping with the IRA 's strategy of coercing people into compliance with their ideas, starting within their own communities. In the very early days of the British Army's arrival in Belfast, republicans had to work hard to convince the nationalist people that Cromwell's men had, indeed, arrived back on these shores. Local people who provided tea for soldiers were warned off. Young women who had the temerity to go out with soldiers were beaten and tarred and feathered. Ireland should be proud of these bold warriors!

Ironically the German industrialist was thought to have been murdered by on the run tout Roy McShane.

Quote from: Minder on March 11, 2010, 10:21:03 PM
Ironically the German industrialist was thought to have been murdered by on the run tout Roy McShane.

You couldn't make it up.  I see the Shinners have went along with the PSNI being subservient to M15 in a somewat related note

M 15?

good name for a GAA team.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 11, 2010, 11:06:49 PM
You couldn't make it up.  I see the Shinners have went along with the PSNI being subservient to M15 in a somewat related note

I don't see how it is "somewat related" (sic) but anyway tell us more. In what way is the PSNI subservient to "M15" (sic)?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 11, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
It wasn't just construction workers the IRA murdered. The book '10 Men Dead' cites the case of the young female student murdered for handing out census forms - what a tremendous blow for Irish freedom that was! Traders and businesses were also targeted, while leading German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was murdered for the grievous crime of bringing jobs to Ireland. All this was in keeping with the IRA 's strategy of coercing people into compliance with their ideas, starting within their own communities. In the very early days of the British Army's arrival in Belfast, republicans had to work hard to convince the nationalist people that Cromwell's men had, indeed, arrived back on these shores. Local people who provided tea for soldiers were warned off. Young women who had the temerity to go out with soldiers were beaten and tarred and feathered. Ireland should be proud of these bold warriors!

Thanks for the history lesson Myles, I'm just going to log onto Willie Frazer's website here for another.

Myles. Any bollocks can pick out one of the minority of attacks on civilians by the IRA but to use one of these attacks, which were in the minority and use it to generalise the entire IRA campaign is cheap, dishonest, and pathetic. If you were so concerned about civilian murder, how come you aren't investing your energy into fervent criticism of the british army and loyalists?

Nally, I'll disagree with the last post, and I'll tell you why.
I've tried to understand it, and I'll continue to, however these "minority" atrocities were in their very nature so heinous that it is hard to write them off on the basis of their "infrequency".
(the words in " marks " are so because the validity of you using them has yet to be fully assessed and is subject to opinion).

The IRA claimed to represent and protect the republican and nationalist people. Which means they were part of our population, they came from our towns and communities. As pints has told me a couple times "they fought for us".

If someone from your community who lived a great life, and did many great deeds  murdered a child, would it be ok because it wasn't the norm for him? Or was a minority action and so infrequent that it could be swept aside? Or is it true to say that it'd be the one and only thing you'd ever think about when you talked or thought about that person?

To many nationalists (this one included and it appears I am not alone) the atrocities of the IRA campaign (and I'm loathe to not count "military targets" in this just to keep it simple) are so heinous, bloodthirsty and displayed such an atrocious disregard for the most basic of human rights: life, that it is almost impossible to think of the IRA in any other context other than that of murderous thugs.

Perhaps that is why so many of "us" can be nothing other than appalled and disgusted and why these "minority" events are so significant to us.   

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 05:24:49 AM
Myles. Any bollocks can pick out one of the minority of attacks on civilians by the IRA but to use one of these attacks, which were in the minority and use it to generalise the entire IRA campaign is cheap, dishonest, and pathetic. If you were so concerned about civilian murder, how come you aren't investing your energy into fervent criticism of the british army and loyalists?

The IRA's attacks on civilian targets were a regular occurrence,not a 'minority' as you say (and before you start quoting Lost Lives at me again, make sure you've got your facts right this time  ;)) And I do criticise British Army and loyalist attacks whenever appropriate. On this board, however, there are plenty of people doing that already. I prefer to take issue with the fools who think that the IRA was a good thing, rather than the gang of murderous thugs it was in reality.

Quote from: Ulick on March 12, 2010, 01:51:58 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 11, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
It wasn't just construction workers the IRA murdered. The book '10 Men Dead' cites the case of the young female student murdered for handing out census forms - what a tremendous blow for Irish freedom that was! Traders and businesses were also targeted, while leading German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was murdered for the grievous crime of bringing jobs to Ireland. All this was in keeping with the IRA 's strategy of coercing people into compliance with their ideas, starting within their own communities. In the very early days of the British Army's arrival in Belfast, republicans had to work hard to convince the nationalist people that Cromwell's men had, indeed, arrived back on these shores. Local people who provided tea for soldiers were warned off. Young women who had the temerity to go out with soldiers were beaten and tarred and feathered. Ireland should be proud of these bold warriors!

Thanks for the history lesson Myles, I'm just going to log onto Willie Frazer's website here for another.

You're more than welcome. You need it more than most on here.

Quote from: Ulick on March 12, 2010, 01:49:31 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 11, 2010, 11:06:49 PM
You couldn't make it up.  I see the Shinners have went along with the PSNI being subservient to M15 in a somewat related note

I don't see how it is "somewat related" (sic) but anyway tell us more. In what way is the PSNI subservient to "M15" (sic)?

that's right Donagh, pull me up for a typo.  It's just about your standard of "debate"

here's a link for you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8550638.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8550638.stm)

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 12, 2010, 08:23:26 AM
that's right Donagh, pull me up for a typo.  It's just about your standard of "debate"

here's a link for you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8550638.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8550638.stm)

Your link doesn't answer the question or support your original claim. In what way is the PSNI subservient to MI5?

Donagh, I gave you the link, I suggest you read it.  If understanding the implications of what is in the article is beyond you, I will certainly not be helping you understand any further.

Thanks

You said the PSNI is subservient to MI5. There is nothing in that link to support your claim. Now I ask you again, in what way is the PSNI subservient to MI5? Of course you could be just talking bollocks - are you?

I already gave you my reply, it doesn't suit you that you heroes are sellout bastards though, does it?

Oh and Donagh, you are the one talking bollocks as usual

Resorting to personal insults when you've been caught out talking shite? So I take you admit to spouting bollocks? If not support your claim and tell us how the PSNI is subservient to MI5.

read the link you idiot

Your comparison to a child killer is not apt. Such a person is an individual. I have no time for those who carried out attacks on civilians but that doesn't mean that I therefor must scorn the group which, in my view & the view of many others, defended their community at great personal scarcifice and those who wouldn't stand idly by as the british gov acted with impunity in murders and discrimination. I am a Mass goer and I see no problem in being in the Catholic Church just because there were...

..priests involved in sexual abuse. I still believe in the broad organisation. Out of interest, do you feel that no armed defence/resistance from any Nationalist group was justified? Or should we croppies have just lay down? And Myles, you say that it's "not true" that most IRA attacks were not on civilians. That is some masterpiece of revisionism. How do you back up that claim?

Quote from: Puckoon on March 11, 2010, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 11, 2010, 11:01:36 AM
bizzare as it sounds now, there was a warning to all people in the north of Ireland that working on british army barracks etc would make the 'willing participants' prone to attack.

So this suggests that the IRA were in command and leadership of the north of ireland and needed to be obeyed?

sorry your point doesnt make any sense ?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 11, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
It wasn't just construction workers the IRA murdered. The book '10 Men Dead' cites the case of the young female student murdered for handing out census forms - what a tremendous blow for Irish freedom that was! Traders and businesses were also targeted, while leading German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was murdered for the grievous crime of bringing jobs to Ireland. All this was in keeping with the IRA 's strategy of coercing people into compliance with their ideas, starting within their own communities. In the very early days of the British Army's arrival in Belfast, republicans had to work hard to convince the nationalist people that Cromwell's men had, indeed, arrived back on these shores. Local people who provided tea for soldiers were warned off. Young women who had the temerity to go out with soldiers were beaten and tarred and feathered. Ireland should be proud of these bold warriors!

more skewed revisionism from you !
people were not warning of a cromwelian return - it was when the soldiers turned against nationalists that people then went against the soldiers.
but re-write Irish history and fact. Unluckily for you , people here can recall the events from those times so your mistruths are floundering !

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 07:03:10 AM
Nally, I'll disagree with the last post, and I'll tell you why.
I've tried to understand it, and I'll continue to, however these "minority" atrocities were in their very nature so heinous that it is hard to write them off on the basis of their "infrequency".
(the words in " marks " are so because the validity of you using them has yet to be fully assessed and is subject to opinion).

The IRA claimed to represent and protect the republican and nationalist people. Which means they were part of our population, they came from our towns and communities. As pints has told me a couple times "they fought for us".

If someone from your community who lived a great life, and did many great deeds  murdered a child, would it be ok because it wasn't the norm for him? Or was a minority action and so infrequent that it could be swept aside? Or is it true to say that it'd be the one and only thing you'd ever think about when you talked or thought about that person?

To many nationalists (this one included and it appears I am not alone) the atrocities of the IRA campaign (and I'm loathe to not count "military targets" in this just to keep it simple) are so heinous, bloodthirsty and displayed such an atrocious disregard for the most basic of human rights: life, that it is almost impossible to think of the IRA in any other context other than that of murderous thugs.

Perhaps that is why so many of "us" can be nothing other than appalled and disgusted and why these "minority" events are so significant to us.

two things - in your hypothetical scenario - has anything of a henious nature happened to this member of the community to cause them to 'fight back' - but eventhen your example is out of kielter as he targettd a child.

secondly, even the most hardened of ira supporters will admit that killing is wrong and that all the deaths were wrong, but this was in retaliation to what was happening over a longer period of time and was getting worse towards nationalist/catholics/Irish - and worse in some areas than others -
the thoughts of it abhor anyone, bu unfortunately it was a necessary thing to fight back and defend theirselves then.
peaceful protest was beaten up (civil rights marches/bloody sunday) and people who spoke out peacefully were beaten and locked up a la chandi/mandela.

No one that I know of relishes the deaths .

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 12, 2010, 07:31:59 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 05:24:49 AM
Myles. Any bollocks can pick out one of the minority of attacks on civilians by the IRA but to use one of these attacks, which were in the minority and use it to generalise the entire IRA campaign is cheap, dishonest, and pathetic. If you were so concerned about civilian murder, how come you aren't investing your energy into fervent criticism of the british army and loyalists?

The IRA's attacks on civilian targets were a regular occurrence,not a 'minority' as you say (and before you start quoting Lost Lives at me again, make sure you've got your facts right this time  ;)) And I do criticise British Army and loyalist attacks whenever appropriate. On this board, however, there are plenty of people doing that already. I prefer to take issue with the fools who think that the IRA was a good thing, rather than the gang of murderous thugs it was in reality.

completely wong yet again to say that the ira or any side on republicanism targetted civillians as a normal thing. civillians were casualties of war - your revisionist spin is not working here !

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 12, 2010, 08:40:33 AM
read the link you idiot

I have read the link a number of times and it still does not support your claim. Now this is supposed to be a discussion board, so if you are not prepared to discuss things in a polite manner why are you here? If I came onto this or any other forum and told lies to support something I said, people would quite rightly be all over me for it, so here's the possibilities I see:

1. you deliberately told lies
2. you made an innocent mistake because you didn't know the meaning of 'subservient'
3. you still believe your original claim in which case you can explain

Now without the personal attacks can you please explain to us what's going on?

Don't hold your breath Ulick. I'm STILL waiting for an answer to a post I put up near the start of the thread. It was apparently a tough one so i'm "back to being ignored" by him. Ardmhaca tends to avoid tough questions by A: Ignoring you, B: insulting you, C: Answering a different question that nobody asked using as sensationalist language as possible and with as much accusations as possible that he can't back up with stats.

Quote from: Ulick on March 12, 2010, 09:35:16 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 12, 2010, 08:40:33 AM
read the link you idiot

I have read the link a number of times and it still does not support your claim. Now this is supposed to be a discussion board, so if you are not prepared to discuss things in a polite manner why are you here? If I came onto this or any other forum and told lies to support something I said, people would quite rightly be all over me for it, so here's the possibilities I see:

1. you deliberately told lies
2. you made an innocent mistake because you didn't know the meaning of 'subservient'
3. you still believe your original claim in which case you can explain

Now without the personal attacks can you please explain to us what's going on?

Just for the record, in case there is a remote chance that Ulick is insane  he is not insane alone.
I have read the link and find that there is not remotest substantiation of the claim that the PSNI is subservient to MI5.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 12, 2010, 09:20:00 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 11, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
It wasn't just construction workers the IRA murdered. The book '10 Men Dead' cites the case of the young female student murdered for handing out census forms - what a tremendous blow for Irish freedom that was! Traders and businesses were also targeted, while leading German industrialist Thomas Niedermayer was murdered for the grievous crime of bringing jobs to Ireland. All this was in keeping with the IRA 's strategy of coercing people into compliance with their ideas, starting within their own communities. In the very early days of the British Army's arrival in Belfast, republicans had to work hard to convince the nationalist people that Cromwell's men had, indeed, arrived back on these shores. Local people who provided tea for soldiers were warned off. Young women who had the temerity to go out with soldiers were beaten and tarred and feathered. Ireland should be proud of these bold warriors!

more skewed revisionism from you !
people were not warning of a cromwelian return - it was when the soldiers turned against nationalists that people then went against the soldiers.
but re-write Irish history and fact. Unluckily for you , people here can recall the events from those times so your mistruths are floundering !

What else can he do while eating his cornflakes but read the history lessons on the back.

It did not take long after the soldiers arrived, the Downing Street declaration later in the month of August 1969 set the British Army firmly as an instrument of the Stormont regieme.

Quote from: Ulick on March 12, 2010, 09:35:16 AM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 12, 2010, 08:40:33 AM
read the link you idiot

I have read the link a number of times and it still does not support your claim. Now this is supposed to be a discussion board, so if you are not prepared to discuss things in a polite manner why are you here? If I came onto this or any other forum and told lies to support something I said, people would quite rightly be all over me for it, so here's the possibilities I see:

1. you deliberately told lies
2. you made an innocent mistake because you didn't know the meaning of 'subservient'
3. you still believe your original claim in which case you can explain

Now without the personal attacks can you please explain to us what's going on?

don't listen to him Ulick he tells lies makes up stories then when he loses to argument he runs away just like his brave Uncle

Dont be hasty lads, he still has to predict the future and start talking in Irish before all his options are exhausted and he cuts and runs.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 08:55:25 AM
Your comparison to a child killer is not apt. Such a person is an individual. I have no time for those who carried out attacks on civilians but that doesn't mean that I therefor must scorn the group which, in my view & the view of many others, defended their community at great personal scarcifice and those who wouldn't stand idly by as the british gov acted with impunity in murders and discrimination. I am a Mass goer and I see no problem in being in the Catholic Church just because there were...

I think its pretty apt, in that I am trying to explain my feelings on why the IRA cannot be seperated from the atrocities it commited in the eyes of many people in ireland, myself included. Its just an opinion and as my dad said to me yesterday - you could talk about this for years and still not make an iota of progress because peoples beliefs and opinions are there, and settled, and not to be changed.

No one is asking you to scorn the group who you do so evidently admire, but it is a bit of a stretch to pick and choose which members you have time for or no time for considering that they all acted under one name, one goal, one ideal - which somehow crossed over from attacks on british troops to being involved in the bombing and murder of innocent people. Its a whole duck or no dinner scenario to me, and I dont think you can start splitting hairs with regards to things like that. But again thats just an opinion and I dont have an answer to what other options there were. Sunningdale was before my time, and Ive spoken at length to people who believe there was no option but armed resistance, but on the other hand I have spoken at length to nationalists who believe that there was potential for peace through politics at that time. Again, its one of those things where you have to have your own beliefs - and I wasnt around at that time to understand it enough right now.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 12, 2010, 09:17:22 AM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 11, 2010, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 11, 2010, 11:01:36 AM
bizzare as it sounds now, there was a warning to all people in the north of Ireland that working on british army barracks etc would make the 'willing participants' prone to attack.

So this suggests that the IRA were in command and leadership of the north of ireland and needed to be obeyed?

sorry your point doesnt make any sense ?

I think it makes perfect sense.

You stated that there was a warning to all people in the north of ireland. Warnings suggest authority. If your next door neighbour warned you not to look at his new car or he might kill you you might think - who the f**k are you to be telling me what to do.

No one appointed the IRA with any degree of authority to be issuing warnings to the population of northern ireland - except themselves. Failure to adhere to a "warning" from a group which has no mandate, or appointed power (except that which is self appointed) does not in my eyes make you a "willing participant", rather a free spirited individual citizen who doesnt accept orders from gangs of men in balaclavas and hoods. Unfortunately they decided that they indeed were the law and executed many civililans under the guise of being "willing participants"

Well they werent the law - and those people were civilians.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 12, 2010, 09:25:26 AM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 07:03:10 AM
Nally, I'll disagree with the last post, and I'll tell you why.
I've tried to understand it, and I'll continue to, however these "minority" atrocities were in their very nature so heinous that it is hard to write them off on the basis of their "infrequency".
(the words in " marks " are so because the validity of you using them has yet to be fully assessed and is subject to opinion).

The IRA claimed to represent and protect the republican and nationalist people. Which means they were part of our population, they came from our towns and communities. As pints has told me a couple times "they fought for us".

If someone from your community who lived a great life, and did many great deeds  murdered a child, would it be ok because it wasn't the norm for him? Or was a minority action and so infrequent that it could be swept aside? Or is it true to say that it'd be the one and only thing you'd ever think about when you talked or thought about that person?

To many nationalists (this one included and it appears I am not alone) the atrocities of the IRA campaign (and I'm loathe to not count "military targets" in this just to keep it simple) are so heinous, bloodthirsty and displayed such an atrocious disregard for the most basic of human rights: life, that it is almost impossible to think of the IRA in any other context other than that of murderous thugs.

Perhaps that is why so many of "us" can be nothing other than appalled and disgusted and why these "minority" events are so significant to us.

two things - in your hypothetical scenario - has anything of a henious nature happened to this member of the community to cause them to 'fight back' - but eventhen your example is out of kielter as he targettd a child.

secondly, even the most hardened of ira supporters will admit that killing is wrong and that all the deaths were wrong, but this was in retaliation to what was happening over a longer period of time and was getting worse towards nationalist/catholics/Irish - and worse in some areas than others -
the thoughts of it abhor anyone, bu unfortunately it was a necessary thing to fight back and defend theirselves then.
peaceful protest was beaten up (civil rights marches/bloody sunday) and people who spoke out peacefully were beaten and locked up a la chandi/mandela.

No one that I know of relishes the deaths .

Well - even if the hypothetical person had been buggered for years at the hands of another cruel person - does that make killing someone else deserving, right?

Unfortunately not everyone is abhored by death, or by killing. Look through this board and you will find enough examples of people relishing in the murder of army personel and so on. Infact look at the first few pages in this thread and you will see that there are those posting here still who quite obviously relish death - and would relish the death of another man if it were to happen this very day.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 08:55:25 AM
Your comparison to a child killer is not apt. Such a person is an individual. I have no time for those who carried out attacks on civilians but that doesn't mean that I therefor must scorn the group which, in my view & the view of many others, defended their community at great personal scarcifice and those who wouldn't stand idly by as the british gov acted with impunity in murders and discrimination. I am a Mass goer and I see no problem in being in the Catholic Church just because there were...

I think its pretty apt, in that I am trying to explain my feelings on why the IRA cannot be seperated from the atrocities it commited in the eyes of many people in ireland, myself included. Its just an opinion and as my dad said to me yesterday - you could talk about this for years and still not make an iota of progress because peoples beliefs and opinions are there, and settled, and not to be changed.

No one is asking you to scorn the group who you do so evidently admire, but it is a bit of a stretch to pick and choose which members you have time for or no time for considering that they all acted under one name, one goal, one ideal - which somehow crossed over from attacks on british troops to being involved in the bombing and murder of innocent people. Its a whole duck or no dinner scenario to me, and I dont think you can start splitting hairs with regards to things like that. But again thats just an opinion and I dont have an answer to what other options there were. Sunningdale was before my time, and Ive spoken at length to people who believe there was no option but armed resistance, but on the other hand I have spoken at length to nationalists who believe that there was potential for peace through politics at that time. Again, its one of those things where you have to have your own beliefs - and I wasnt around at that time to understand it enough right now.

the peaceful route was tried , but it only succedded in getting more violence and violent persecution from loyalist/unionist/ruc / b specials / colluding security forces etc
I think thats well documented now.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 12, 2010, 09:17:22 AM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 11, 2010, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 11, 2010, 11:01:36 AM
bizzare as it sounds now, there was a warning to all people in the north of Ireland that working on british army barracks etc would make the 'willing participants' prone to attack.

So this suggests that the IRA were in command and leadership of the north of ireland and needed to be obeyed?

sorry your point doesnt make any sense ?

I think it makes perfect sense.

You stated that there was a warning to all people in the north of ireland. Warnings suggest authority. If your next door neighbour warned you not to look at his new car or he might kill you you might think - who the f**k are you to be telling me what to do.

No one appointed the IRA with any degree of authority to be issuing warnings to the population of northern ireland - except themselves. Failure to adhere to a "warning" from a group which has no mandate, or appointed power (except that which is self appointed) does not in my eyes make you a "willing participant", rather a free spirited individual citizen who doesnt accept orders from gangs of men in balaclavas and hoods. Unfortunately they decided that they indeed were the law and executed many civililans under the guise of being "willing participants"

Well they werent the law - and those people were civilians.

apologies but that is still not making sense.
The answer is that this was 'war' - and the consequences were already known for people who chanced it.
Sad but true.
would you cross the road with your eyes shut?
Crossing the road is safe, but with your eyes shut you know that you coul dbe hit by a car, but if you chance it  - you know what the result most prob will be.
By doing so the onus of responsibility then is on yourself as much as the car driver.

the ira were the result of people who started to fight back. not appointed and had a large support from within the community. a lot didnt support them, a lot didnt like the violence and death, but were not too unhappy for what was happening to go and continue on as they were also looking for change - and change by peaceful means was not coming.
It was a case of fighting fire with fire.
If the establishment had treated the people with respect and decency, then violence would not have came about from the persecuted side.

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 04:27:09 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 12, 2010, 09:25:26 AM

Quote from: Puckoon on March 12, 2010, 07:03:10 AM
Nally, I'll disagree with the last post, and I'll tell you why.
I've tried to understand it, and I'll continue to, however these "minority" atrocities were in their very nature so heinous that it is hard to write them off on the basis of their "infrequency".
(the words in " marks " are so because the validity of you using them has yet to be fully assessed and is subject to opinion).

The IRA claimed to represent and protect the republican and nationalist people. Which means they were part of our population, they came from our towns and communities. As pints has told me a couple times "they fought for us".

If someone from your community who lived a great life, and did many great deeds  murdered a child, would it be ok because it wasn't the norm for him? Or was a minority action and so infrequent that it could be swept aside? Or is it true to say that it'd be the one and only thing you'd ever think about when you talked or thought about that person?

To many nationalists (this one included and it appears I am not alone) the atrocities of the IRA campaign (and I'm loathe to not count "military targets" in this just to keep it simple) are so heinous, bloodthirsty and displayed such an atrocious disregard for the most basic of human rights: life, that it is almost impossible to think of the IRA in any other context other than that of murderous thugs.

Perhaps that is why so many of "us" can be nothing other than appalled and disgusted and why these "minority" events are so significant to us.

two things - in your hypothetical scenario - has anything of a henious nature happened to this member of the community to cause them to 'fight back' - but eventhen your example is out of kielter as he targettd a child.

secondly, even the most hardened of ira supporters will admit that killing is wrong and that all the deaths were wrong, but this was in retaliation to what was happening over a longer period of time and was getting worse towards nationalist/catholics/Irish - and worse in some areas than others -
the thoughts of it abhor anyone, bu unfortunately it was a necessary thing to fight back and defend theirselves then.
peaceful protest was beaten up (civil rights marches/bloody sunday) and people who spoke out peacefully were beaten and locked up a la chandi/mandela.

No one that I know of relishes the deaths .

Well - even if the hypothetical person had been buggered for years at the hands of another cruel person - does that make killing someone else deserving, right?

Unfortunately not everyone is abhored by death, or by killing. Look through this board and you will find enough examples of people relishing in the murder of army personel and so on. Infact look at the first few pages in this thread and you will see that there are those posting here still who quite obviously relish death - and would relish the death of another man if it were to happen this very day.

two wrongs dont make a right, but someone on the receiving end can be understood for their retaliation.
what was done , more or less HAD to be done, sadly there was no other way.
I may be castigated to hell for that belief, but these days there is no need or requirement for violence.

Thats a pretty hardcore view that what was done more or less had to be done.  :o

It is what it is.

Thats a pretty blase comment when you think about the actualities of what I am referring to.

Blasé ?
It is a cliche,  - no more no less  :)
Not a comment on your content.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 08:59:40 AM
..priests involved in sexual abuse. I still believe in the broad organisation. Out of interest, do you feel that no armed defence/resistance from any Nationalist group was justified? Or should we croppies have just lay down? And Myles, you say that it's "not true" that most IRA attacks were not on civilians. That is some masterpiece of revisionism. How do you back up that claim?

How do I back up that claim? La Mons, Bloody Friday, Abercorn, Warrington, Birmingham, Enniskillen, Claudy, Darkley, Kingsmill... these are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I'm not going to include the human bombs here, as you'd probably argue that the people strapped into lorries and forced to drive to their deaths were legitimate targets. There were thousands of bomb attacks carried out by the IRA on civilian targets (the IRA no doubt would term them 'commercial' targets, but tell that to a punter blown to hell while having a pint). Many resulted in no casualties. Many others resulted in people being killed and thousands others being maimed for life. Masterpiece of revisionism yer hole.

Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2010, 06:46:11 PM
Blasé ?
It is a cliche,  - no more no less  :)
Not a comment on your content.

Yes - I dont know how to put an accent on the word, but you know what I meant.


So its just a random cliched comment in the middle of a sensitive thread?

Pull the other one!

Jaysus you have a rod up your behind ;D

I've seen more humour in a pisspot (not mylestheslashers though)
No I wasn't commenting on your spelling, by spelling blasé with an accent,
no I wasn't commenting on your content,
I actually didn't pay any attention to what you wrote.

I just followed a cliche about people getting blown away with another cliche
whats done had to be done, get it?
okay?  smile or frown  or just move on and ignore it.

No sir, no rod here, just trying to make sure I understand  :)  I am all for humour - I just would'nt expect to find much in this thread.

That last post, I dont understand one iota. But there you are and there you go. Good luck.

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

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

..needed to "grow up" and most personally sickening to me, stated that we would only "momentarily" be at the Pearly Gates. Personally I don't think it's for you or anyone else here to judge that one and there was certainly no "honour" in that post.

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 09:22:20 PM
Puck, as I already said, I don't believe I should withdraw all support from an organisation over a few bad apples. My Catholic Church example explains that. Other that that your post, for the first time was reasonable. Your father must be a calming influencing on you. You now claim to be an honourable man and accept that many people do support the IRA. In this honour would you think differently about how, at the start of this thread you termed pro-IRA posters as "little sc**bag provos" who were "stupid"...

What the feck are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Indeed

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 09:12:21 PM
Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

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

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 14, 2010, 02:53:47 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 09:12:21 PM
Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

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

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

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 15, 2010, 09:45:38 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 14, 2010, 02:53:47 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 12, 2010, 09:12:21 PM
Ffs Myles you can do better than that! I didn't ask for examples of attacks on civilians, I asked for stats to back up your claim that attacks on civilians were not the minority of attacks. Give me statistics to back that up. And this time answer my question or admitt that your comment was indeed a lazy attempt at revisionism. Even the most hardline unionist cannot claim that most IRA attacks were on civilians going by the statistics!

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Nally Stand on March 15, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
More made up tripe from Myles the Revisionist. As already pointed out my stats are given plainly and are verified by the source I have given. So I'll ask you again, could you provide me with stats to back up your fanciful claims? And it certainly reeks of pure desperation to back up your claim that IRA attacks were mostly on civilians by only including bomb attacks and only including the early years of the 70's. How do you expect to be taken seriously? And could you provide a stat for that claim too thanks?

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

Touts will be shoot.

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

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

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

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

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