"fifty Dead Men Walking"

[ardmhachaabu]

read the link you idiot

[Nally Stand]

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...

[Nally Stand]

..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?

[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.

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 ?

[lynchbhoy]

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 !

[lynchbhoy]

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 .

[lynchbhoy]

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 !

[Ulick]

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?

[Nally Stand]

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.

[Main Street]

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.

[Main Street]

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.

[glens abu]

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

[Franko]

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.

[Puckoon]

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.

[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?

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.