"fifty Dead Men Walking"

[Puckoon]

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

[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 ?

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.

[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 .

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.

[Puckoon]

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

[Main Street]

It is what it is.

[Puckoon]

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

[Main Street]

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

[Myles Na G.]

..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.

[Puckoon]

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!

[Main Street]

Jaysus you have a rod up your behind

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.

[Puckoon]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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!

[Nally Stand]

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"...

[Nally Stand]

..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.