"fifty Dead Men Walking"

[Puckoon]

STRAIGHT TO HELL FOR THAT ONE

[Ulick]

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%.

[Main Street]

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.

[Puckoon]

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.

[Ulick]

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.

[Hardy]

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"?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

You may ring the editor of Lost Lives to find your definition.

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.

[Ulick]

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.

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.

[Hardy]

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?

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.

[Ulick]

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.

[Uladh]

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

[Main Street]

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.

[Puckoon]

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?

[Myles Na G.]

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!