IRA Undefeated apparently and brits are bad drivers....

[GweylTah]

Though I don't know anyone on thid board, that I know of anyway, I'm sure I can rely on one-or-two free-thinking, free-speech advocates to get my thoughts across somehow.

[Fishead_Sam]

Lads calm down for fck sake, people going over the top all over the place & we aint at the Somme, look @ all the football & hurling @ the weekend or whatever sport ya into, lads just go out and have a few pints tonight and if ya still upset take it up on monday, but its the weekend. 

[the Deel Rover]

good man fishead sam ,sure we will start of with the corrib gasline first thing on monday

[Fishead_Sam]

good man fishead sam ,sure we will start of with the corrib gasline first thing on monday

I'm holding the ceasefire while Mayo still in the Championship, the good of the County always comes first.

Maigh-Eo Abu, since seeing that selection for Saturday night I'm as high as a kite with excitement, off to the Connacht Final on Sunday too, Wohoo. 

[nifan]

To SammyG et al.

My comments have been distorted by many of you so I will make them clear for you.

The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
Now you can take my comments as you wish, but it seems that you are happy enough that Loyalists murdered innocent Catholics on street corners, in their places of work and in their homes, they rarely targetted IRA members or indeed Republicans. Their motto was and correct me if Im wrong "any taig will do". If that sits ok with you, then dont pass comment on my views.

Since I have to assume that i am part of the et al,

What would you have thought the IRA hould have done, as you didnt think they went far enough?
And who seems happy for loyalists to murder innocent catholics? Do you think we do? Why on earth would I be happy for catholics to be killed.
It certainly isnt OK with me.

[Tony Baloney]

The whole thread has been disgusting. There are thousands of people out there on both sides who weren't winners, or their families left behind I'm sure don't feel like winners. It's a cliche but in war there are no winners.

Now "we've moved on" could all you fireside fusiliers get back to more important stuff like who is the biggest ride on local news 

[MW]

The IRA didnt normally attack ordinary Protestant civilllians. In cases like Kingsmill I feel (and the important bit here is that these are my own personal feelings) that although these deaths were a terrible event, they actually worked no more Catholics were killed in South Armagh since. Job Done.
.

The fact that the police arrested and imprisoned the UVF gangsters carrying out the loyalist side of the tit-for-tat sectarian murder spree might have had something to do with it, hmm?

[MW]

BTW, worth reading the document a bit deeper, commentary like this comes into it:

"By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place."

"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, that success is unique."

(I have to admit I've lifted this from Slugger rather than picking through myself yet)

[CiKe]

Don't usually get involved in this political debate but on this one felt I had to. I agree with Ziggy, 5Sams comment made me very uneasy but some of the comments wilfully misinterpreting it make me more uneasy.

"They didn't go far enough" has somehow been interpreted by someone as "they didn't go that far". Two very different comments and interpretations and it's interesting to see people whose comments I would have generally respected before not criticising this comment. I hope he meant the latter and is guilty of nothing more than poor English but that doesn't seem to be case and when pulled up on it by nifan he has avoided it.

[Oraisteach]

I haven't posted here in some time, but reading some of the remarks not only here but on the Shoot-to-Kill thread has bothered me.

First, I don't believe that 5Times was advocating that the IRA should have killed kids on street corners, but I am bothered by his view that they didn't go far enough.  From my standpoint, they went plenty far enough and thoroughly relinquished their moral authority when they targeted civilians (La Mon et al) and particularly when they used proxy bombs.  Blowing innocent people to smithereens is monstrous.

Second, I also feel the urge to comment on the Gway-to-Hell sub-thread.  While I don't always agree with them, I respect Nifan and SammyG because they are essentially good-natured, I believe.  Gway, on the other hand, is insidious.  Throughout his long tenure as a contributor to this board, with his "occasional" (now apparently a synonym for "relentless") posts, his modus operandi has remain unchanged.  At first glance, he appears to be a reasonable, rational human being.  Closer examination, however, reveals his chameleon quality.  Behind the façade of fairness, he likes to put the boot in (albeit Hush Puppies), which unmasks the disguised hypocrite.  He likes to present himself as the Lone Ranger, championing free speech and fairness, but in reality he is more like the Lone Rangers Fan.

For example, his glee in "winding-up" people about serious issues is reprehensible.  His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board, when he should be extolling the unimaginable peace that SF has helped engineer (and I'm no Shinner) is typical.  Similarly, his comments on the Shoot-to-Kill thread are symptomatic of his two-facedness.  Instead of condemning the execution policy of the police force and its subsequent cover-up, he in fact quietly supports that very policy by arguing that in a war all action is justified.  Now, while the IRA undoubtedly believed it was in a war, I'm not sure the same can be said of the RUC, but even if it were, in a war, principled combatants have a duty to take prisoners, if they can, and not summarily execute them.  And the police had ample opportunity to detain the people they gunned down, gangster-style. Gway seems to imply that while it is wrong for the IRA to be judge, jury and executioner, it is acceptable for the RUC to be so. Gway, there is a qualitative difference between a guerrilla terrorist organization and a civilian police force.  The second is held to a higher standard of conduct

However, as for the push to ban The Gwayltee Mountain Boy from the board, I would have to oppose this move, as much as his disappearance would please me.  I read his posts for the same reason that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the other keepers of righteousness—it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking.  It prevents complacency. 

Enough said, Up Armagh!

[BallyhaiseMan]

I haven't posted here in some time, but reading some of the remarks not only here but on the Shoot-to-Kill thread has bothered me.

First, I don't believe that 5Times was advocating that the IRA should have killed kids on street corners, but I am bothered by his view that they didn't go far enough.  From my standpoint, they went plenty far enough and thoroughly relinquished their moral authority when they targeted civilians (La Mon et al) and particularly when they used proxy bombs.  Blowing innocent people to smithereens is monstrous.

Second, I also feel the urge to comment on the Gway-to-Hell sub-thread.  While I don't always agree with them, I respect Nifan and SammyG because they are essentially good-natured, I believe.  Gway, on the other hand, is insidious.  Throughout his long tenure as a contributor to this board, with his "occasional" (now apparently a synonym for "relentless") posts, his modus operandi has remain unchanged.  At first glance, he appears to be a reasonable, rational human being.  Closer examination, however, reveals his chameleon quality.  Behind the façade of fairness, he likes to put the boot in (albeit Hush Puppies), which unmasks the disguised hypocrite.  He likes to present himself as the Lone Ranger, championing free speech and fairness, but in reality he is more like the Lone Rangers Fan.

For example, his glee in "winding-up" people about serious issues is reprehensible.  His repeated assertion that the IRA lost, which he knows will nettle many on this board, when he should be extolling the unimaginable peace that SF has helped engineer (and I'm no Shinner) is typical.  Similarly, his comments on the Shoot-to-Kill thread are symptomatic of his two-facedness.  Instead of condemning the execution policy of the police force and its subsequent cover-up, he in fact quietly supports that very policy by arguing that in a war all action is justified.  Now, while the IRA undoubtedly believed it was in a war, I'm not sure the same can be said of the RUC, but even if it were, in a war, principled combatants have a duty to take prisoners, if they can, and not summarily execute them.  And the police had ample opportunity to detain the people they gunned down, gangster-style. Gway seems to imply that while it is wrong for the IRA to be judge, jury and executioner, it is acceptable for the RUC to be so. Gway, there is a qualitative difference between a guerrilla terrorist organization and a civilian police force.  The second is held to a higher standard of conduct

However, as for the push to ban The Gwayltee Mountain Boy from the board, I would have to oppose this move, as much as his disappearance would please me.  I read his posts for the same reason that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the other keepers of righteousness—it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking.  It prevents complacency. 

Enough said, Up Armagh!

Agree with all of that oraisteach,
well except for the last line 

SammyG,NIFan,Evil Genius Tonto and MW offer a different opinion here but act like gentlemen/women even when taking flack from all sides.

i thought the same about Gweyltah until recently, he /she seems a bit too interested in Tit for tat and mudslinging than actually debating on here.
wouldnt support his/her banning though.

[lynchbhoy]

dont be fooled by them Ballyhaise lad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_01dk4yQZc

as this thead indicates - even the brit army admits
'we will never be defeated , while Ireland has such sons ' !

[Main Street]

BTW, worth reading the document a bit deeper, commentary like this comes into it:

"By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place."

"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, that success is unique."

(I have to admit I've lifted this from Slugger rather than picking through myself yet)

You are missing a telling line in the full quote
"812.     By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place. It is revealing to examine why it then took another quarter of a century to end the campaign."

Yet nothing was revealed  

There are quite a few digs at the Stormont lickspittles
"Thus there is an important requirement to identify situations which are likely to lead to social unrest, insurgency or civil war. In Northern Ireland, this should not have been difficult. Junior officers present in Northern Ireland in 1969 were well aware of
8 - 1 the discrimination and deprivation, and asked themselves at the time why the Government did not do anything about it.
8- 4
Stormont was part of the problem and could have been so recognised at the time."

"But, simplistically, the long-term solution was not to deploy three battalions into the Divis Flats; but rather to bulldoze them and build decent, respectable homes with proper amenities."

On the border
"solutions considered, the most common was that of closing the Border with a fence and security force. Estimates of up to 29 battalions were considered to be required for the security force. One proposal was to lay minefields along the Border: that was rapidly dismissed. At various times dozens of minor crossings were closed by Royal Engineer units. After a while this would be found not to work because, if not kept under continuous observation, the local population would lift the obstacles or bypass them."

On the armagh sniper, a grudging tribute
"However, on 16 March 1990 a Barrett .50" heavy calibre rifle was used on a patrol on the outskirts of Crossmaglen. Only one shot was fired, and one soldier was hit. The range was 850m. Subsequent events suggest that this was an extremely lucky shot."

[lynchbhoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej9Zjpe6nX4&mode=related&search=

[Donagh]

"However, on 16 March 1990 a Barrett .50" heavy calibre rifle was used on a patrol on the outskirts of Crossmaglen. Only one shot was fired, and one soldier was hit. The range was 850m. Subsequent events suggest that this was an extremely lucky shot."

Eh?