has martin mcguinness got some cheek ?

[dirtyvileHARRYuk]

i found it so hypercritical that martin is condeming the current troubles as of his past and the party he was representing. how dare he < what a cheek ? i just think they are out of the picture now a days as they can not compete with the moslims as not only do they plant bombs but they send themself up with it lol

the joe is hopeing i dont get knee capped on way to work now lol



martin mcguinness



we are nearly in april,

step forward the fool,

martin mcguinness you are discredited,

over my eyes you wont pull the wool.

how dare you criticize,

its so hypercritical,

today's troubles are minor,

i remember the i-r-a before you went all political.

you may say you are not connected,

just a representative carrying and reading there script,

for years i watched you justify the terror,

and that is now what's causing my conflict.

it don't wash with me,

peace and the i-r-a i don't trust,

but in no way can you compete with al-qaeda,

that's why your story has started to rust.

[WOMBAI]

i found it so hypercritical that martin is condeming the current troubles as of his past and the party he was representing. how dare he < what a cheek ? i just think they are out of the picture now a days as they can not compete with the moslims as not only do they plant bombs but they send themself up with it lol

the joe is hopeing i dont get knee capped on way to work now lol



martin mcguinness



we are nearly in april,

step forward the fool,

martin mcguinness you are discredited,

over my eyes you wont pull the wool.

how dare you criticize,

its so hypercritical,

today's troubles are minor,

i remember the i-r-a before you went all political.

you may say you are not connected,

just a representative carrying and reading there script,

for years i watched you justify the terror,

and that is now what's causing my conflict.

it don't wash with me,

peace and the i-r-a i don't trust,

but in no way can you compete with al-qaeda,

that's why your story has started to rust.

Well said. I can't stand the hypocrite - how he expects anyone to take him seriously with his history is beyond belief - convenient short memory I'd say! Revolting, smarmy disgusting man!!

Good poem Joe! :thumbs:

[setanta]

Well said. I can't stand the hypocrite - how he expects anyone to take him seriously with his history is beyond belief - convenient short memory I'd say! Revolting, smarmy disgusting man!!

Good poem Joe! :thumbs:

Nelson Mandela is now proclaimed the hero of his nation - a great pacifist and negotiator - but you should check up on his activities prior to his arrest and incarceration.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Nelson Mandela is now proclaimed the hero of his nation - a great pacifist and negotiator - but you should check up on his activities prior to his arrest and incarceration.

probably the worst comparison of 2010






stop being an apologist for murder

[Shasown]

Nelson Mandela is now proclaimed the hero of his nation - a great pacifist and negotiator - but you should check up on his activities prior to his arrest and incarceration.

Interesting idea. Would you be putting Martin on a pedestal up there with Nelson?

[setanta]

Interesting idea. Would you be putting Martin on a pedestal up there with Nelson?

Because prior to his arrest Mandela was the leader of the ANC's armed wing , who went on a bombing campaign. They were also considering guerilla warfare if the sabotage didn't have the effect that they desired. He's indirectly responsible for the deaths of many individuals. Just think it's interesting to compare events in different areas sometimes. And it has absolutely nothing to with pedestals of any kind (oh, and it's fairly transparent what you're trying to insinuate there): just curious the way history is viewed or obscured at times.

[Niamh.]

Because prior to his arrest Mandela was the leader of the ANC's armed wing , who went on a bombing campaign. They were also considering guerilla warfare if the sabotage didn't have the effect that they desired. He's indirectly responsible for the deaths of many individuals. Just think it's interesting to compare events in different areas sometimes.

but you're missing the one big difference..........................it wasn't the UK.

[Shasown]

Because prior to his arrest Mandela was the leader of the ANC's armed wing , who went on a bombing campaign. They were also considering guerilla warfare if the sabotage didn't have the effect that they desired. He's indirectly responsible for the deaths of many individuals. Just think it's interesting to compare events in different areas sometimes. And it has absolutely nothing to with pedestals of any kind: just curious the way history is viewed or obscured at times.

Whilst its true that Mandela was leader of the MK(the armed wing of the ANC) while in charge his policy was only to hit local government offices - out of hours to ensure there werent as far as possible civilian casualties, in fact his policy was to avoid any deaths or even injuries, it was mentioned at his trial that he cancelled some operations because it couldnt be ensured there would be no collateral injuries. ( see: Wolfie Kadesh )

Whilst in prison he often called for the ANC leadership to plan and execute operations which would result in minimal casualties. And condemned certain operations as being overly violent. Since the end of apartheid in South Africa and during the Truth and Reconciliation Commision. Mandela was never implicated in any actions which breached human rights, in fact he cristicised others for withholding information etc, including his own wife.

Thats a lot different than Martin's history, with the Hegarty case, Enniskillen and a host of other operations he was linked with. Interesting to note he refused to accept the authority of the court that sentenced him in the 70's in the Republic of Ireland.

Saying that Martin McGuinness has done a lot to bring peace to Northern Ireland negotiating on behalf of both the IRA and Sinn Fein since the 1980's in fact even before that. Without his efforts and risks I dare say there wouldnt be the situation there is there today.

A young Martin McGuinness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6568900/6568929.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=0&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

[setanta]

Whilst its true that Mandela was leader of the MK(the armed wing of the ANC) while in charge his policy was only to hit local government offices - out of hours to ensure there werent as far as possible civilian casualties, in fact his policy was to avoid any deaths or even injuries, it was mentioned at his trial that he cancelled some operations because it couldnt be ensured there would be no collateral injuries. ( see: Wolfie Kadesh )

Whilst in prison he often called for the ANC leadership to plan and execute operations which would result in minimal casualties. And condemned certain operations as being overly violent. Since the end of apartheid in South Africa and during the Truth and Reconciliation Commision. Mandela was never implicated in any actions which breached human rights, in fact he cristicised others for withholding information etc, including his own wife.

Thats a lot different than Martin's history, with the Hegarty case, Enniskillen and a host of other operations he was linked with. Interesting to note he refused to accept the authority of the court that sentenced him in the 70's in the Republic of Ireland.

Saying that Martin McGuinness has done a lot to bring peace to Northern Ireland negotiating on behalf of both the IRA and Sinn Fein since the 1980's in fact even before that. Without his efforts and risks I dare say there wouldnt be the situation there is there today.

A young Martin McGuinness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6568900/6568929.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=0&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

You're not really telling me anything that disproves that there's similarites in both cases, and it's interesting to note Mandela was offered freedom earlier on in his imprisonment on the sole condition that he publically rejected violence as a political weapon. He refused of course.

[Shasown]

You're not really telling me anything that disproves that there's similarites in both cases, and it's interesting to note Mandela was offered freedom earlier on in his imprisonment on the sole condition that he publically rejected violence as a political weapon. He refused of course.

Of course he refused. You are however putting two facts together and coming up with a third "fact" that isnt really conclusive. It's interesting to note the statement that was released through his daughter at the time. It doesnt mention about not wanting to give up an armed struggle or being willing to give up an armed struggle, it did mention however that he was a prisoner even if he was freed he would still technically be a prisoner and as such not in a position to act as a negotiator.

"What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts"

This was because at the time the ANC was outlawed, even if Mandela was free he was then subject to re arrest at any time for being the negotiator or representative of a banned organisation. So logically he couldnt represent anything.

In other words the outlawing of the ANC had to be reversed before any member of the ANC could or would sit and negotiate.

Incidentally referring back to the offer it was if they gave up the armed struggle, as I said Mandela didnt mind destroying parts of government, buildings etc, they were legitimate targets, but denounced the taking of life. Though this position was only taken up after the Sharpsville Massacre.

Besides how many people did Mandela shoot?(his early life as Derry's top shot) Or authorise to be "interrogated" then topped?(Hegarty) Or authorise blown up (Enniskillen)

[setanta]

Of course he refused. You are however putting two facts together and coming up with a third "fact" that isnt really conclusive. It's interesting to note the statement that was released through his daughter at the time. It doesnt mention about not wanting to give up an armed struggle or being willing to give up an armed struggle, it did mention however that he was a prisoner even if he was freed he would still technically be a prisoner and as such not in a position to act as a negotiator.

"What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts"

This was because at the time the ANC was outlawed, even if Mandela was free he was then subject to re arrest at any time for being the negotiator or representative of a banned organisation. So logically he couldnt represent anything.

In other words the outlawing of the ANC had to be reversed before any member of the ANC could or would sit and negotiate.

Incidentally referring back to the offer it was if they gave up the armed struggle, as I said Mandela didnt mind destroying parts of government, buildings etc, they were legitimate targets, but denounced the taking of life. Though this position was only taken up after the Sharpsville Massacre.

Besides how many people did Mandela shoot?(his early life as Derry's top shot) Or authorise to be "interrogated" then topped?(Hegarty) Or authorise blown up (Enniskillen)

And you don't think that the IRA had the same troubles in Northern Ireland during internship when Nationalists were rounded up without trial while Loyalists weren't touched?

You really don't think Mandela has blood on his hands too? Of course he does.

[sooty]

Hello Joe

Whenever I hear about IRA, I am still scared.

They may act like peaceful politicians now but,,,,.
Yes I still remember one of bomb was at Liverpool Street Staion.
I was in City for 11 years during IRA was very active.

Yesterday's Terrorist, todays heroes?

[Shasown]

And you don't think that the IRA had the same troubles in Northern Ireland during internship when Nationalists were rounded up without trial while Loyalists weren't touched?

You really don't think Mandela has blood on his hands too? Of course he does.

It was Internment not internship. An internship is a period of training. I wouldnt call what the internees went through as training, would you? Yes, Faulkner and co had a lot to answer for. What really got to me over that was there were members of the civil rights movement interned even though they had denounced violence. And of course the fact it was loyalist paramilitaries who had started the violence and terrorism and none of them were touched.

I would say that Mandela has next to no blood on his hands compared to McGuinness.

[setanta]

It was Internment not internship. An internship is a period of training. I wouldnt call what the internees went through as training, would you? Yes, Faulkner and co had a lot to answer for. What really got to me over that was there were members of the civil rights movement interned even though they had denounced violence. And of course the fact it was loyalist paramilitaries who had started the violence and terrorism and none of them were touched.

I would say that Mandela has next to no blood on his hands compared to McGuinness.

No point getting like that. I put in the wrong word in my tiredness but you knew exactly what I meant. Although, in saying that internment did function as a type of internship for nationalists.

Mandela has blood on his hands. He created, financed and directed that organization and it's silly to assume that he had no role to play in it's functioning while he was in prison.

[Shasown]

No point getting like that. I put in the wrong word in my tiredness but you knew exactly what I meant. Although, in saying that internment did function as a type of internship for nationalists.

Mandela has blood on his hands. He created, financed and directed that organization and it's silly to assume that he had no role to play in it's functioning while he was in prison.

Of course he had a role to play, but mostly as a figurehead, are you trying to say he ran the ANC's armed struggle from his prison cell? Via mail and visitors perhaps? As it wasnt till his last couple of years imprisonment he was allowed access to a phone.

His mail inbound and outbound was not only censored, sometimes to the point of making it illegible, it was often held back from him or not posted for several weeks. Oh he could have also passed messages via his visitors?

Yeah that would be right, visitors and mail were the same rate. One letter and one visitor every six months. He obviously couldnt run the organisation that way.

He did however send messages to not only the ANC but the wider black and even white South African Community calling for a democratic society in which black and white would be equal with neither side ruling the other.

Incidentally it wasnt until 2008 Mandela could legally go to Disneyland or Disneyworld on holiday. The US still had him as a listed terrorist until then and as such he had to be escorted from the airport to the UN and back, if he stayed in a hotel he had to be guarded and not allowed out without an escort. But that was because the ANC had been declared a terrorist organisation by the South African Government and the US State Department hadnt updated their status.

[setanta]

Of course he had a role to play, but mostly as a figurehead, are you trying to say he ran the ANC's armed struggle from his prison cell? Via mail and visitors perhaps? As it wasnt till his last couple of years imprisonment he was allowed access to a phone.

His mail inbound and outbound was not only censored, sometimes to the point of making it illegible, it was often held back from him or not posted for several weeks. Oh he could have also passed messages via his visitors?

Yeah that would be right, visitors and mail were the same rate. One letter and one visitor every six months. He obviously couldnt run the organisation that way.

He did however send messages to not only the ANC but the wider black and even white South African Community calling not for a democratic society in which black and white would be equal with neither side ruling the other.

Incidentally it wasnt until 2008 Mandela could legally go to Disneyland or Disneyworld on holiday. The US still had him as a listed terrorist until then and as such he had to be escorted from the airport to the UN and back, if he stayed in a hotel he had to be guarded and not allowed out without an escort. But that was because the ANC had been declared a terrorist organisation by the South African Government and the US State Department hadnt updated their status.

He founded them, he provided military training for them and weapons. He flew out of the country to get training himself. These are not the actions of a man who defined his political campaign as being non-aggressive. You reap what you sow and don't forget that Winnie and alot of his colleagues were still heavily involved while he was in prison.

[Shasown]

He founded them, he provided military training for them and weapons. He flew out of the country to get training himself. These are not the actions of a man who defined his political campaign as being non-aggressive. You reap what you sow and don't forget that Winnie and alot of his colleagues were still heavily involved while he was in prison.

Yes and has been previously stated he targeted buildings and government infrastructure only and denounced murders etc. He also denounced human rights breaches.

He insisted during the Truth and Reconciliation Commision that people be open and honest and admonished several of his colleaugues for lying, making false statements about crimes, altering statements or withholding evidence.

He divorced Winnie because of her militancy, shortly after he was released he separated fom her, divorcing her the legally required 4 years later.

[setanta]

Yes and has been previously stated he targeted buildings and government infrastructure only and denounced murders etc. He also denounced human rights breaches.

He insisted during the Truth and Reconciliation Commision that people be open and honest and admonished several of his colleaugues for lying, making false statements about crimes, altering statements or withholding evidence.

He divorced Winnie because of her militancy, shortly after he was released he separated fom her, divorcing her the legally required 4 years later.

Yes, but he had been planning guerilla warfare if the bombings didn't work out as planned, gaining funds from the Soviets among others, who hardly are the type to be giving out free advice to people who weren't about to attack. He would have followed that train of thought had he not been imprisoned. McGuinness was never imprisoned for such a length of time. That's the difference.

[Shasown]

Yes, but he had been planning guerilla warfare if the bombings didn't work out as planned, gaining funds from the Soviets among others, who hardly are the type to be giving out free advice to people who weren't about to attack. He would have followed that train of thought had he not been imprisoned. McGuinness was never imprisoned for such a length of time. That's the difference.

We are talking South Africa of the 60's pmsl. Mandela wasnt found fuilty of murder, or conspiracy to cause murder, he was found guilty of charges of sabotage and also plotting to cause the invasion of South Africa.(the equivalent of treason). Leading workers on an illegal strike and being a member of the ANC.

McGuinness on the other hand was found guilty of being in possession of a very large amount of explosives and a few thousand rounds of ammunition in the Irish Republic. If Mandela had of been caught with that lot back in South Africa when he was arrested he would have been hung, no ifs or buts.

And PIRA sent people to Libya and the Lebanon, they even trained alongside Hezbollah. The stickies sent people to Russia as well. At the time the USSR financed lots of organisations and offered lots of training to them too, in the hope they would spread the good word of communism.

McGuinness was responsible for a lot of deaths, believe me. He is no folk hero. Now it is politically expedient to deal with him in the political arena. Although being a murderous Ba**ard, like Adams he had the sense to realise the way to acheive their aims either partially or in full was not through bomb and bullet but through the ballet box.

[setanta]

We are talking South Africa of the 60's pmsl. Mandela wasnt found fuilty of murder, or conspiracy to cause murder, he was found guilty of charges of sabotage and also plotting to cause the invasion of South Africa.(the equivalent of treason). Leading workers on an illegal strike and being a member of the ANC.

McGuinness on the other hand was found guilty of being in possession of a very large amount of explosives and a few thousand rounds of ammunition in the irish Republic. If Mandela had of been caught with that lot back in South Africa when he was arrested he would have been hung, no ifs or buts.

And the IRA amongst others sent people to Liba, the Lebanon, they even trained alongside Hezbollah.

McGuinness was responsible for a lot of deaths, believe me. He is no folk hero. Now it is politically expedient to deal with him in the political arena. Although being a murderous Ba**ard, like Adams he had the sense to realise the way to acheive their aims either partially or in full was not through bomb and bullet but through the ballet box.

Because he wasn't actually tried for murder, which some wanted to happen at the time. He was willing to fight by means of physical force, just like McGuinness. It's naive to think that he would have become the pacifist had he been entrenched in warfare like his comrades at the time, in an organization that he created and trained. He never critized the path they had taken - in actual fact he acknowledge that an aggressive stance was needed.

[Shasown]

Because he wasn't actually tried for murder, which some wanted to happen at the time. He was willing to fight by means of physical force, just like McGuinness. It's naive to think that he would have become the pacifist had he been entrenched in warfare like his comrades at the time, in an organization that he created and trained. He never critized the path they had taken - in actual fact he acknowledge that an aggressive stance was needed.

Wrong again he did criticise the taking of life by the ANC many many times.

If they had wanted to charge him with murder they would have, if he had been found guilty, which if they had anything at all on him he would have been, he would have been executed. End of a pain in the butt for the South African government.

As for sanctioning the Church Street bombing, if thats what you were referring to, well we only have his word he did, plus if you accept his word on that you should by default also accept him saying it was this act that steered him away from violence. You cant have it both ways.

[setanta]

Wrong again he did criticise the taking of life by the ANC many many times.

If they had wanted to charge him with murder they would have, if he had been found guilty, which if they had anything at all on him he would have been, he would have been executed. End of a pain in the butt for the South African government.

As for sanctioning the Church Street bombing, if thats what you were referring to, well we only have his word he did, plus if you accept his word on that you should by default also accept him saying it was this act that steered him away from violence. You cant have it both ways.

He never flatly condemned their tactics while he was in prison, that's the bottom line. His actions are that of a crafty and astute politician as well as fighter. Divorcing Winnie was politically motivated. Adams and McGuinness have never been directly linked to any bombings that took place after a certain time - that's how these organizations exist.

[Shasown]

Adams and McGuinness have never been directly linked to any bombings that took place after a certain time - that's how these organizations exist.

LOL and what about all those bombings, shootings punishment beatings, kneecappings, toppings, drug running, post office jobs, oh the list goes on and on. There is evidence against the pair of them, maybe not enough to convict on all counts. but no doubt more than enough to bring charges against both of them.

Why weren't charges brought? Because they were both willing to reign in the more militant of their associates, if need be fatally, in order to get closer to their long term aims.

[setanta]

LOL and what about all those bombings, shootings punishment beatings, kneecappings, toppings, drug running, post office jobs, oh the list goes on and on. There is evidence against the pair of them, maybe not enough to convict on all counts. but no doubt more than enough to bring charges against both of them.

Why weren't charges brought? Because they were both willing to reign in the more militant of their associates, if need be fatally, in order to get closer to their long term aims.

All political baby, just like in S.A. And the ANC were partial to the odd bout of punishment beatings too. Actually Amnesty found it very difficult to support Mandela at times, particularly when he wasn't condemning the violence perpetrated by his organization.

Oh, and one more thing: Mandela openly admitted to signing off on the Church Street bombing in his autobiography.

[Shasown]

Oh, and one more thing: Mandela openly admitted to signing off on the Church Street bombing in his autobiography.

Yeah I know, thats why I meantioned it in a previous post, #21. :wink:

[setanta]

Yeah I know, thats why I meantioned it in a previous post, #21. :wink:

Yep, so he was involved in the deaths of individuals. End of story really. There's parrallels to be seen in their stories, as I had suggested from the outset.

[Shasown]

Yep, so he was involved in the deaths of individuals. End of story really. There's parrallels to be seen in their stories, as I had suggested from the outset.

Some similarities, yes. McGuinnes is a good negotiator. But a hell of a lot of differences. Too many. I dont think McGuinnes will achieve worldwide reknown.

[sooty]

Woww

I have to read these again later.

[setanta]

Some similarities, yes. McGuinnes is a good negotiator. But a hell of a lot of differences. Too many. I dont think McGuinnes will achieve worldwide reknown.

I don't see many to be honest with you: two individuals fighting in the name of their people by any means necessary. There's degrees of bloodletting, violence and death to you when fighting for an ideal? Not to me. Mandela has admitted to being involved with one bombing that killed many lives after you had said previously that he had no power over the organization after being imprisoned. That proves to me that he still had a huge influence on their strategies. He was their leader and founder for feck sake.

I wanted to raise the issue of Mandela just to illustrate how history is viewed differently by so many, even when these two men fought for exactly the same reasons, motivated by a need to defend their people and attack their oppressors when necessary. Whether you believe these wars were justified or not is irrelevent; their motivations and objectives were the same.

[WOMBAI]

Murder is murder - whatever the so-called political cause. No one has the right to kill others for a cause they believe in! Never justified!

I just think it is atrocious that people who murdered others (whether directly or otherwise) are allowed to become polititians and represent their party. It just makes a joke of the whole political process!

[Niamh.]

Murder is murder - whatever the so-called political cause. No one has the right to kill others for a cause they believe in! Never justified!

Your perspective changes according to where you're sitting.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Your perspective changes according to where you're sitting.

Not if you are a Christian it does not.




If you look at the vast majority of political change over the last 500 years it has come about successfully by peaceful methods. That is what works and is lasting.

[karezza]

McGuinness is a deranged psychopath.
He constantly smiles on camera but secretly co-ordinates attacks on Protestant homes.

[WOMBAI]

Not if you are a Christian it does not.




If you look at the vast majority of political change over the last 500 years it has come about successfully by peaceful methods. That is what works and is lasting.

It isn't or shouldn't be about religion. It is about normal human decency and value for the sanctity of life!

Agree that peaceful methods are the only true and lasting way of achieving political change! It is like people arguing on a chat show - who takes those that shout the loudest seriously - it is the calm, rational people that you listen to!

[Niamh.]

It isn't or shouldn't be about religion. It is about normal human decency and value for the sanctity of life!

Agree that peaceful methods are the only true and lasting way of achieving political change! It is like people arguing on a chat show - who takes those that shout the loudest seriously - it is the calm, rational people that you listen to!

It wasn't really about religion though, it was about our country being invaded and our people being murdered and forced to speak another language

[Niamh.]

Not if you are a Christian it does not.




If you look at the vast majority of political change over the last 500 years it has come about successfully by peaceful methods. That is what works and is lasting.

I do agree with you and the IRA are no more. But don't forget that the IRA were a reaction to an action not the other way around

[WOMBAI]

It wasn't really about religion though, it was about our country being invaded and our people being murdered and forced to speak another language

I didn't mean that - I was responding to LCs comment that the perspectives of Christians didn't change according to where they were sitting!

[Niamh.]

I didn't mean that - I was responding to LCs comment that the perspectives of Christians didn't change according to where they were sitting!

Apologies then. Though I have to say Christians weren't very innocent in the "not killing people" game!

[WOMBAI]

Apologies then. Though I have to say Christians weren't very innocent in the "not killing people" game!

Hence why I am not religious - more murder has been committed in the name of religion than any other cause - which makes a complete mockery of religion fullstop!

[Niamh.]

Hence why I am not religious - more murder has been committed in the name of religion than any other cause - which makes a complete mockery of religion fullstop!

Absolutely, That's the crazy thing that I can never understand, you have all these loving guidelines on the one hand and then people killing other people in the name of God on the other, it makes no sense at all

[Crimson Dynamo]

Apologies then. Though I have to say Christians weren't very innocent in the "not killing people" game!

wrong

the people to whom you refer were not Christians

they were murderers who called themselves Christians. Christianity is measured against the life and teachings of Jesus.

Do not mark Christianity against the fallen ways of man.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Hence why I am not religious - more murder has been committed in the name of religion than any other cause - which makes a complete mockery of religion fullstop!

That statement simply underscores how little you understand religion.

Many serial killers say God told them to do it but no one takes that seriously. Killing people full stop is against God's command and so if you do this (and are Christian) you are

1. Not a Christian
2. Are not doing it in the name of religion

You are doing it for evil fallen earthly reasons. The whole point of say being a Christian is the cross and why Jesus dies for us.

Killers give many reasons why they kill but rarely if at all is the real reason put forth...

[WOMBAI]

That statement simply underscores how little you understand religion.

Many serial killers say God told them to do it but no one takes that seriously. Killing people full stop is against God's command and so if you do this (and are Christian) you are

1. Not a Christian
2. Are not doing it in the name of religion

You are doing it for evil fallen earthly reasons. The whole point of say being a Christian is the cross and why Jesus dies for us.

Killers give many reasons why they kill but rarely if at all is the real reason put forth...

I am not talking about serial killers - I'm talking about all the religious conflicts in the world - past and present.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I am not talking about serial killers - I'm talking about all the religious conflicts in the world - past and present.

and neither was I

I was giving you an extreme comparable to illustrate how your claim was not correct.

Can you tell me what parts of the New testament or teachings of Jesus that one could use to justify murder?

[Niamh.]

LT You know what she means though, don't play dumb! These people may not have been "real" Christians in your eyes but they were fighting under the name of Christians in Gods name!

[Crimson Dynamo]

LT You know what she means though, don't play dumb! These people may not have been "real" Christians in your eyes but they were fighting under the name of Christians in Gods name!

Then blame the individuals and not religion. simple.

[WOMBAI]

and neither was I

I was giving you an extreme comparable to illustrate how your claim was not correct.

Can you tell me what parts of the New testament or teachings of Jesus that one could use to justify murder?

Muslims and Jews killing each other, Catholics and Protestants killing each other, Christians and Catholics killing each other etc - people of varying religious persuassions killing people of other religious persuassions - that is what I am talking about. History is full of it. It is still occuring in many parts of the world. Religion is supposed to be about peace and valuing human life - instead they kill each other because they disagree. I will never take it seriously. People just use religion to control others!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Muslims and Jews killing each other, Catholics and Protestants killing each other, Christians and Catholics killing each other etc - people of varying religious persuassions killing people of other religious persuassions - that is what I am talking about. History is full of it. It is still occuring in many parts of the world. Religion is supposed to be about peace and valuing human life - instead they kill each other because they disagree. I will never take it seriously. People just use religion to control others!

In any gathering of men you will find murder and oppression. Man's violent nature creeps into all gatherings of men under any banner.

It would be more correct to state just how many more lives have been saved by religion over the past centuries, by the teachings of Jesus.

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm


As a History Professor at a Junior college I challenge my classes to comment on the following statement:

Organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause.

Almost all the students raise their hands in agreement. I then demand that they provide dead bodies as evidence. They usually mention the Crusades and one or two other religious wars they might have heard of but in none of their examples can they come up with a million deaths. (Some scholars used to teach that the Thirty Years’ War in Germany resulted in 8 million deaths, but modern scholars have demonstrated it was more like 200 thousand and in fact the population of Germany actually increased during that war.) I then point out that most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the Twentieth Century and that most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies. I then ask them who is the “baddest” of them all. Most guess Hitler. I then tell them that he is rated #3. Some then guess Stalin and I inform them that most scholars place him at #2 with 20 million killed. Almost no one gets #1 who, of course, is Mao who starts with an estimated 40 million. I then point out that the top two were Communists and Hitler was a radical proponent of Social Darwinism. All of these ideologies are based on atheistic systems.

[Niamh.]

In any gathering of men you will find murder and oppression. Man's violent nature creeps into all gatherings of men under any banner.

It would be more correct to state just how many more lives have been saved by religion over the past centuries, by the teachings of Jesus.

And in the same way you could argue that this was because of good individuals not not down to Jesus

[Crimson Dynamo]

And in the same way you could argue that this was because of good individuals not not down to Jesus

you could if they had not done the deeds according to the teachings of Christianity and Jesus and therein lies the crucial difference.

[Niamh.]

you could if they had not done the deeds according to the teachings of Christianity and Jesus and therein lies the crucial difference.

So without those teachings they would have been at a complete lose on how to do good things then is it?

[WOMBAI]

you could if they had not done the deeds according to the teachings of Christianity and Jesus and therein lies the crucial difference.

A sense of decency and compassion comes from within - and is part of a person's genetic make-up. It cannot be taught - therefore has nothing to do with religion.

[Shasown]

I don't see many to be honest with you: two individuals fighting in the name of their people by any means necessary. There's degrees of bloodletting, violence and death to you when fighting for an ideal? Not to me. Mandela has admitted to being involved with one bombing that killed many lives after you had said previously that he had no power over the organization after being imprisoned. That proves to me that he still had a huge influence on their strategies. He was their leader and founder for feck sake.


Lets put things in perspective. Mandela sanctioned operations to take place against legitimate military targets, not the actual operation itself. The result of some operations by the South African Military against ANC targets outside of South Africa. On hearing of the outcome of the Church Street Bombing he did, as you put it "sign off" violence.

The ANC's submission said that the bombing was in response to a South African cross-border raid into Lesotho in December 1982 which killed 42 ANC supporters and civilians, and the assassination of Ruth First, an ANC activist and wife of Joe Slovo, in Maputo, Mozambique. It claimed that 11 of the casualties were SAAF personnel and hence a military target. The legal representative of some of the victims argued that as administrative staff including telephonists and typists they could not accept that they were a legitimate military target.

Ten MK operatives including Aboobaker Ismail applied for amnesty for this and other bombings. The applications were opposed on various grounds, including that it was a terrorist attack disproportionate to the political motive. The TRC (truth And Reconciliation Commission) found that the number of civilians versus military personnel killed was unclear. South African Police statistics indicated that 7 members of the SAAF were killed. The commission found that at least 84 of the injured were SAAF members or employees. Amnesty was granted by the TRC

Now lets look at McGuinness, he took part in operations in his early years with the IRA as a sniper,thats a bit different than agreeing to an operation. When promoted to command he sanctioned many operations where the targeting was indiscriminate at best.

In 1987 a bomb was targeted at a Remembrance Day parade. Eleven people were killed, sixty-three people were injured. Sinn Féin's publicity director Danny Morrison describing himself as "shattered" on hearing that the IRA was involved at all. However best was yet to come, one little incident failed to make much headlines, the other bomb in this little operation. This bomb four times larger was placed at a similar but smaller parade 20 miles (32 km) away at Tullyhommon. That parade was conducted by members of the Boys' Brigade, Girls' Brigade and "three or four members of the security forces in uniform there to lay a wreath". That bomb failed to explode.

McGuinness was the head of the IRA's Northern Command which not only sanctioned the Enniskillen bombing which left 11 civilians dead, it was in overall command of the operation, liaising with the three units involved.

In the aftermath of the attack the IRA insisted that its leadership had not sanctioned the bombing, however its Fermanagh Brigade was stood down. Then In 1997 Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams apologised for the bombing on behalf of the republican movement.

Do you see the difference?

One man sanctioned a strike back at what he believed were to be solely military targets, when he heard the results, he changed his belief in the application of violent methods.

One man not only shot people he was top sniper at one time, he liked to attend interrogations of his own people, which were very brutal. Black and decker drills, sandbags and death for the person being interrogated were a regular occurence of these interrogations.

This second man went on to sanction loads of operations involving civilian casualties, one which if one of the bombs of a dual strike operation had exploded, would have taken out a troop of girl's brigade and members of the Boys Brigade in order to possibly injure or kill up to 4 members of the UDR/RUC. The other bomb did explode and, to paraphase, "killed old-aged pensioners, their medals taken out and polished up for the day? Where's the glory in that?"

Boys brigade, Girl's Brigade and old age pensioners, legitimate military targets?

[Crimson Dynamo]

A sense of decency and compassion comes from within - and is part of a person's genetic make-up. It cannot be taught - therefore has nothing to do with religion.

So how do you explain the death toll from secular wars in the 20th century. if you blame religion for the deaths say from the crusades (small beer in comparison) are we to blame man's genetic make-up for the 20th century and if so then we have a far greater culprit on our hands according to your logic?

[WOMBAI]

So how do you explain the death toll from secular wars in the 20th century. if you blame religion for the deaths say from the crusades (small beer in comparison) are we to blame man's genetic make-up for the 20th century and if so then we have a far greater culprit on our hands according to your logic?

Most of the wars/conflicts throughout history have involved religion - which goes against what religion preaches - no small beer about it!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Most of the wars/conflicts throughout history have involved religion - which goes against what religion preaches - no small beer about it!

This is not factually correct. I think of all the wars of the last 2000 years 18% have been religiously motivated (there is a wiki page on this, I saw it on a DS answer in December).

Calculate the death toll of secular war and persecution from the 20th century and it obliterates all religious deaths over the last 2000 years. see my post about this earlier.

[WOMBAI]

I consider McGuinness and the like a bunch of cowards who should have received life sentences!

[Niamh.]

I consider McGuinness and the like a bunch of cowards who should have received life sentences!

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

[Crimson Dynamo]

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

2 enquiries have been held about this. The first cleared the soldiers and the next one has not had its findings published so you cannot legally jail the soldiers.

You do want to keep to the law here?

[Shasown]

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Yes they should be tried, in a court of law. So should their leaders and the politicians and civil servants who took the decisions to send that particular unit there at that time.

But only if all loyalist and nationalist paramilitaries own up to all their crimes and receive similar treatment.

[Niamh.]

2 enquiries have been held about this. The first cleared the soldiers and the next one has not had its findings published so you cannot legally jail the soldiers.

You do want to keep to the law here?

And I'm sure that was a proper enquiry.................. As I said before peoples perceptions of what is right and what is wrong all depends on where you are sitting.

[Niamh.]

Yes they should be tried, in a court of law. So should their leaders and the politicians and civil servants who took the decisions to send that particular unit there at that time.

Thank you Shasown, atleast you seem to try and understand other peoples point of views.

[Shasown]

Thank you Shasown, atleast you seem to try and understand other peoples point of views.

If nothing else, something along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission would provide some comfort to all the victims and relatives of all the casualties in that conflict.

[Crimson Dynamo]

And I'm sure that was a proper enquiry.................. As I said before peoples perceptions of what is right and what is wrong all depends on where you are sitting.

Are you saying that the enquiry was not legal?

Either you accept the law or you do not. Suggesting that it was improper is irrelevant when law is concerned, just as saying that you should not have gotten a speeding ticket.

hence the reason for law.

[WOMBAI]

and the soldiers involved in this should all receive life sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Maybe! Whatever the rights and wrongs of that situation - at least it wasn't planned and, therefore, pre-meditated like the bombings - which determines the difference between manslaughter and murder, to my understanding, in the eyes of the law!

[Niamh.]

lol, WOMBAI and LT, I am not a Solicitor and this is not a court of Law, It is a forum where I am expressing my opinion. The justice system has failed the Irish in regards to the North previously (Brimingham 6, Gilford 4) so you'll excuse me for not having a high regard for it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

lol, WOMBAI and LT, I am not a Solicitor and this is not a court of Law, It is a forum where I am expressing my opinion. The justice system has failed the Irish in regards to the North previously (Brimingham 6, Gilford 4) so you'll excuse me for not having a high regard for it.

But without it you have nothing. You have to agree to abide by it.


here is something to take our minds off nasty anglo-irish politics

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31e_1268133438

[Niamh.]

But without it you have nothing. You have to agree to abide by it.


here is something to take our minds off nasty anglo-irish politics

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31e_1268133438

That is one of the most revolting things I've ever seen, cheers.

[Crimson Dynamo]

That is one of the most revolting things I've ever seen, cheers.

apparently he had been going around all week saying "do you smell maggots?"

[Niamh.]

apparently he had been going around all week saying "do you smell maggots?"

I turned it of after about a second, I feel sick........

[setanta]

Lets put things in perspective. Mandela sanctioned operations to take place against legitimate military targets, not the actual operation itself. The result of some operations by the South African Military against ANC targets outside of South Africa. On hearing of the outcome of the Church Street Bombing he did, as you put it "sign off" violence.



Now lets look at McGuinness, he took part in operations in his early years with the IRA as a sniper,thats a bit different than agreeing to an operation. When promoted to command he sanctioned many operations where the targeting was indiscriminate at best.

In 1987 a bomb was targeted at a Remembrance Day parade. Eleven people were killed, sixty-three people were injured. Sinn Féin's publicity director Danny Morrison describing himself as "shattered" on hearing that the IRA was involved at all. However best was yet to come, one little incident failed to make much headlines, the other bomb in this little operation. This bomb four times larger was placed at a similar but smaller parade 20 miles (32 km) away at Tullyhommon. That parade was conducted by members of the Boys' Brigade, Girls' Brigade and "three or four members of the security forces in uniform there to lay a wreath". That bomb failed to explode.

McGuinness was the head of the IRA's Northern Command which not only sanctioned the Enniskillen bombing which left 11 civilians dead, it was in overall command of the operation, liaising with the three units involved.

In the aftermath of the attack the IRA insisted that its leadership had not sanctioned the bombing, however its Fermanagh Brigade was stood down. Then In 1997 Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams apologised for the bombing on behalf of the republican movement.

Do you see the difference?

One man sanctioned a strike back at what he believed were to be solely military targets, when he heard the results, he changed his belief in the application of violent methods.

One man not only shot people he was top sniper at one time, he liked to attend interrogations of his own people, which were very brutal. Black and decker drills, sandbags and death for the person being interrogated were a regular occurence of these interrogations.

This second man went on to sanction loads of operations involving civilian casualties, one which if one of the bombs of a dual strike operation had exploded, would have taken out a troop of girl's brigade and members of the Boys Brigade in order to possibly injure or kill up to 4 members of the UDR/RUC. The other bomb did explode and, to paraphase, "killed old-aged pensioners, their medals taken out and polished up for the day? Where's the glory in that?"

Boys brigade, Girl's Brigade and old age pensioners, legitimate military targets?

Wow, that was a long winded response and again, you've chosen to elaborate on the degrees of violence associated with both men when my objective was just to highlight that these two men were following the same path and who knows where it would have led Mandela had he not been incarcerated?

Like I said, he gave the go ahead for the Church Street bombing so he still had a huge amount of influence over that organization, a group that continued to plant bombs, landmines and kill people, however much you like to disassociate Mandela with their activities. He's a clever man who'll try to distance himself from that part of things because he's now a figurehead for peace, that's all.

The Remembrance Day bombing was a sickening act that should never have happened but again, McGuinness can't be connected to it. That's how these things work.

[sooty]

I feel like watching tennis.

My head is ,,,,,,right ,,,left,,,,right,,left,,.

[setanta]

Maybe! Whatever the rights and wrongs of that situation - at least it wasn't planned and, therefore, pre-meditated like the bombings - which determines the difference between manslaughter and murder, to my understanding, in the eyes of the law!

I have to get involved here because I've read up on the SAS's tactics when they were brought in to battle against the IRA and they ambushed and shot down many IRA members that weren't even armed at the time. I mean, every single person involved in the Troubles has blood on their hands, and don't get me started on Bloody Sunday.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I have to get involved here because I've read up on the SAS's tactics when they were brought in to battle against the IRA and they ambushed and shot down many IRA members that weren't even armed at the time. I mean, every single person involved in the Troubles has blood on their hands, and don't get me started on Bloody Sunday.


euhGPrgVZj0

[sooty]

I feel like watching tennis.

My head is ,,,,,,right ,,,left,,,,right,,left,,.



It is not joking matter.
I ddi not mean it.

I am sorry.

[Shasown]

I have to get involved here because I've read up on the SAS's tactics when they were brought in to battle against the IRA and they ambushed and shot down many IRA members that weren't even armed at the time. I mean, every single person involved in the Troubles has blood on their hands, and don't get me started on Bloody Sunday.

Yes it really was bad to send in those nasty sassmen, butchers they are, to take on those awfully nice decent terrorist people, after all whats wrong with planting a few bombs that kill and maim innocent people? They were only expressing their ideology werent they?

The SAS were formally deployed to the Province in 1974 by Harold Wilson in response to bombing campaigns on the UK mainland including the bomb that took out a gardener a Roman Catholic Priest and 5 women working in the kitchens at the home of 3 Para(by the Official IRA in response to Bloody Sunday - 1972) and the car bomb campaign led by the Price sisters(PIRA - 1973).

Some would say, if you play with fire you get burnt.

[setanta]

Yes it really was bad to send in those nasty sassmen, butchers they are, to take on those awfully nice decent terrorist people, after all whats wrong with planting a few bombs that kill and maim innocent people? They were only expressing their ideology werent they?

The SAS were formally deployed to the Province in 1974 by Harold Wilson in response to bombing campaigns on the UK mainland including the bomb that took out a gardener a Roman Catholic Priest and 5 women working in the kitchens at the home of 3 Para(by the Official IRA in response to Bloody Sunday - 1972) and the car bomb campaign led by the Price sisters(PIRA - 1973).

Some would say, if you play with fire you get burnt.

Some would also say that how the British dealt with every situation that occurred within Northern Ireland, which displayed a total bias and led to many civilians as well as prisoners' deaths (Bobby Sands etc), only furthered the Nationalists sense of isolation and frustation and fanned the flames of their hatred for the State that controlled them.

You think it's ok to ambush a target and then open fire on them at point blank range? Funny how one side views things differently to another when both have killed. You think the British didn't bomb civilians or commit heinous acts while on foreign soil? Give me a break.

[Niamh.]

Yep, exactely James, I'll say it for the 3rd time, peoples percpectives change according to where they're sitting.

[Shasown]

Some would also say that how the British dealt with every situation that occurred within Northern Ireland, which displayed a total bias and led to many civilians as well as prisoners' deaths (Bobby Sands etc), only furthered the Nationalists sense of isolation and frustation and fanned the flames of their hatred for the State that controlled them.

You think it's ok to ambush a target and then open fire on them at point blank range? Funny how one side views things differently to another when both have killed. You think the British didn't bomb civilians or commit heinous acts while on foreign soil? Give me a break.

Yeah some would say the british showed a certain bias, siding with the general population of the Province and trying to stop acts of terror being commited by both sides. Yes we know all about the claims of siding and collaberating with the loyalists etc... But what were the aims of the loyalists, what were the aims of the IRA?

Bobby Sands and co. starved themselves, whether or not that was on orders from the High Command of the IRA is open to debate. Thats for people to decide themselves.

Its a legitimate military tactic, its actually called an ambush. Funny old thing that. But its not as if the PIRA didnt use it themselves now is it? In fact in this instance werent they the ones started shooting at the troops, as opposed to the troops shooting at them? Werent they the ones planting bombs?

Or another good tactic was to take control of a house, holding the occupants at gunpoint, snipe at the passing military patrol then out the backdoor, dropping off the weapon to someone else, then attempt to escape.

Point being if you call yourself an army then attempt to engage a larger and better force at playing soldiers with real bullets, you will be amazed to find yourself taking casualties? Thats what happens when people play with guns.

You see regardless of the rights and wrongs created by history, Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the majority of the population want it to stay that way. Almost the entire population were against violence being used by either side. At times during the wee shinnanigans various people in the south also wanted it to stay that way too.

[Claymores]

Much as I like your orderly posts, I can't see that any "High Command" could order a political prisoner to starve themself to death. Think that was your British Army background talking there

[Shasown]

Much as I like your orderly posts, I can't see that any "High Command" could order a political prisoner to starve themself to death. Think that was your British Army background talking there

Read up on PIRA, they organised themselves into commands and Brigades, had an army council and a high command. Members of PIRA classed themselves as soldiers and volunteers. Also if you can get it read Richard O'Rawe - Blanketman , if you can find it, puts one persons persepective of life in the Lazy K.(Long kesh - the internment/concentration camp they were interned in)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article416033.ece

The British Army of which I was never a part hasnt had a High Command.

[setanta]

Yeah some would say the british showed a certain bias, siding with the general population of the Province and trying to stop acts of terror being commited by both sides. Yes we know all about the claims of siding and collaberating with the loyalists etc... But what were the aims of the loyalists, what were the aims of the IRA?

Bobby Sands and co. starved themselves, whether or not that was on orders from the High Command of the IRA is open to debate. Thats for people to decide themselves.

Its a legitimate military tactic, its actually called an ambush. Funny old thing that. But its not as if the PIRA didnt use it themselves now is it? In fact in this instance werent they the ones started shooting at the troops, as opposed to the troops shooting at them? Werent they the ones planting bombs?

Or another good tactic was to take control of a house, holding the occupants at gunpoint, snipe at the passing military patrol then out the backdoor, dropping off the weapon to someone else, then attempt to escape.

Point being if you call yourself an army then attempt to engage a larger and better force at playing soldiers with real bullets, you will be amazed to find yourself taking casualties? Thats what happens when people play with guns.

You see regardless of the rights and wrongs created by history, Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the majority of the population want it to stay that way. Almost the entire population were against violence being used by either side. At times during the wee shinnanigans various people in the south also wanted it to stay that way too.

Wee shinnanigans kinda highlights exactly where you're coming from in this whole thing. Very dismissive tone for a people who were initially trampled on and not protected when they had the audacity to make a peaceful protest... how dare they want some say in a land that they've lived in for generations. The IRA was a necessary evil at a time when the loyalists had already armed themselves and Nationalists were getting no support from the State.

The SAS executed many of the IRA. Just took them out in ambushes. Would they do the same to loyalists? Would it have reached that stage had they been more inclined to listen to the problems of the people of Northern Ireland? And again, you never answered about the atrocities committed by British troops in Iraq.

[Shasown]

Wee shinnanigans kinda highlights exactly where you're coming from in this whole thing. Very dismissive tone for a people who were initially trampled on and not protected when they had the audacity to make a peaceful protest... how dare they want some say in a land that they've lived in for generations. The IRA was a necessary evil at a time when the loyalists had already armed themselves and Nationalists were getting no support from the State.

The SAS executed many of the IRA. Just took them out in ambushes. Would they do the same to loyalists? Would it have reached that stage had they been more inclined to listen to the problems of the people of Northern Ireland? And again, you never answered about the atrocities committed by British troops in Iraq.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but the troops were deployed to the Six counties to protect the Catholic Communities. They were sent to aid the civil powers, now a minor little problem was both sides of the divide had decided to arm themselves. The Catholic enclaves receiving money from amongst other places the government in Eire. The right to bear arms is actually a right enshrined in the US constitution its not allowed in the UK or the republic of Ireland.

So when the troops asked for the weapons and ammunition, didnt the people with the weapons decide to send the ammunition first, through the barrels of the weapons?

Wasn't it only in the mid 80's that PIRA dropped its assertion about the illegalities of the Government of the Irish Republic and Sinn Fein dropped its abstentionist policy towards the Dáil

Incidentally in 1955 in case you didnt know internment was re-introduced in Northern Ireland and it was used on both Loyalist and Nationalist groups.

Change was taking place at the time but unfortunately not fast enough for some.

Executed the IRA? Behave PIRA and the INLA wanted to be treat as soldiers, to be the heroes of the Armed Struggle. If you are engaged in a struggle with insurgents, then you remove the insurgents. Which particular ambush are you talking about?

Loyalists were ambushed using the same tactics. Most of these ambushes were against either men already armed, in the stages of arming themselves planting bombs or moving the explosives to the point of detonation. Sorry but thats a legal and legitimate tactic. Or maybe you think they should have not opened fire at all and just let get on with it?

What atrocities in Iraq? Real or alleged, then investigated and disciplined when necessary?

[setanta]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but the troops were deployed to the Six counties to protect the Catholic Communities. They were sent to aid the civil powers, now a minor little problem was both sides of the divide had decided to arm themselves. The Catholic enclaves receiving money from amongst other places the government in Eire. The right to bear arms is actually a right enshrined in the US constitution its not allowed in the UK or the republic of Ireland.

So when the troops asked for the weapons and ammunition, didnt the people with the weapons decide to send the ammunition first, through the barrels of the weapons?

Wasn't it only in the mid 80's that PIRA dropped its assertion about the illegalities of the Government of the Irish Republic and Sinn Fein dropped its abstentionist policy towards the Dáil

Incidentally in 1955 in case you didnt know internment was re-introduced in Northern Ireland and it was used on both Loyalist and Nationalist groups.

Change was taking place at the time but unfortunately not fast enough for some.

Executed the IRA? Behave PIRA and the INLA wanted to be treat as soldiers, to be the heroes of the Armed Struggle. If you are engaged in a struggle with insurgents, then you remove the insurgents. Which particular ambush are you talking about?

Loyalists were ambushed using the same tactics. Most of these ambushes were against either men already armed, in the stages of arming themselves planting bombs or moving the explosives to the point of detonation. Sorry but thats a legal and legitimate tactic. Or maybe you think they should have not opened fire at all and just let get on with it?

What atrocities in Iraq? Real or alleged, then investigated and disciplined when necessary?

Yes, they were sent arms from Eire as well as abroad because they were being beaten by the State and looted and vandalised by Loyalists groups, who incidentally were the first to arm themselves and kill someone in the struggle.

You have to remember the scenario within Northern Ireland at the time: a sectarian regime that oppressed the Roman Catholics in many areas of their lives. And what happened when they decided to make a peaceful protest to highlight these injustices?

And don't talk to me about the British reaction to events within Northen Ireland, which always showed a complete bias in favour of the Loyalists. And yet again, you're chosing to highlight the IRA's campaign here rather than accept that every group were responsible for some terrible acts. That's what war is.

[Shasown]

Yes, they were sent arms from Eire as well as abroad because they were being beaten by the State and looted and vandalised by Loyalists groups, who incidentally were the first to arm themselves and kill someone in the struggle.

You have to remember the scenario within Northern Ireland at the time: a sectarian regime that oppressed the Roman Catholics in many areas of their lives. And what happened when they decided to make a peaceful protest to highlight these injustices?

And don't talk to me about the British reaction to events within Northen Ireland, which always showed a complete bias in favour of the Loyalists. And yet again, you're chosing to highlight the IRA's campaign here rather than accept that every group were responsible for some terrible acts. That's what war is.

I am not saying anyone is to blame, nor am i saying everyone is to blame. I am simply providing facts to counterpoint your rather open statements.

Yes the Catholics were initially the wronged party, thats why the troops went in. Because of the way the government at Stormont and all local councils were highly biaised in favour of the Protestant/loyalist community, Home rule from stormont was suspended. In the 70's it looked it could have been brought back through the Sunningdale agreement, however the Ulster Unionists dug their heels in and it remained suspended. I dont dispute any of that.

Nor have I disputed what happened on Bloody Sunday. I simply stated the reasoning that the people who made the decisions that led to those mistakes actually made them. Thats not to excuse them, I have in fact stated on these forums not only should the troops involved be held accountable but also the leaders and civil servants who took the decisions that were made leading up to the incident should also be held accountable.

I dont dispute the RUC and UDR colluded with loyalist forces, that was bound to happen given both the RUC and the UDR were mainly manned by protestants. Not only that I can give instances were UDR and RUC memners were also found to be members of loyalist paramilitary groups.

I do though dispute broad brush inflammatory statements like the SAS executed IRA members. They were engaged in counter insurgency operations where their enemy would not hesitate to take not only their lives but completely disregarded any collateral damage inflicted upon civilians. In fact by the very nature of some of their operations PIRA/RIRA/CIRA/INLA/IPLO intended to kill and maim civilians to inflict terror in order to acheieve their aims.

Consequently at times especially where explosives were involved it was necessary to ensure that those explosive could not be detonated at the time of the attempted arrest. If people moved when challenged then they got shot, simply to prevent this.

You should also remember that what you class as political prisoners from the republican side were released as part of the Good Friday Agreement. Where are the prisoners of the IRA? Some of those republican prisoners were arrested by the SAS during operations, hardly the actions of state sponsored assassins.

One of the hunger strikers, in fact the second to die was Francis Hughes he was at the time of his arrest the most wanted man in Ulster, he was arrested after a shootout with an SAS patrol, during the shootout one member of the sabre team was killed and another seriously wounded. If they were in the habit of shooting IRA members on sight, wouldnt they have just slotted him? No one would have known.

A little known fact an attempt was made on the life of a Republican MP called Bernadette (Devlin) McAliskey by loyalist paramilitaries in 1981. Although both she and her husband were shot, her life was saved by a British Army patrol, which had been tasked to the area by an SAS observation team on seeing the assassination team move into the area. The OP team couldnt stop the attempt because it would have compromised them, nor did they have the firepower. However they also tasked helicopter casualty evacuation for her. They also directed another patrol that succeeded in arresting the UFF paramilitaries who had carried out the attack.

There was no shoot to kill policy within any sector of the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I cant speak for certain self contained RUC units, but nor was there one within mainstream RUC.

[setanta]

I am not saying anyone is to blame, nor am i saying everyone is to blame. I am simply providing facts to counterpoint your rather open statements.

Yes the Catholics were initially the wronged party, thats why the troops went in. Because of the way the government at Stormont and all local councils were highly biaised in favour of the Protestant/loyalist community, Home rule from stormont was suspended. In the 70's it looked it could have been brought back through the Sunningdale agreement, however the Ulster Unionists dug their heels in and it remained suspended. I dont dispute any of that.

Nor have I disputed what happened on Bloody Sunday. I simply stated the reasoning that the people who made the decisions that led to those mistakes actually made them. Thats not to excuse them, I have in fact stated on these forums not only should the troops involved be held accountable but also the leaders and civil servants who took the decisions that were made leading up to the incident should also be held accountable.

I dont dispute the RUC and UDR colluded with loyalist forces, that was bound to happen given both the RUC and the UDR were mainly manned by protestants. Not only that I can give instances were UDR and RUC memners were also found to be members of loyalist paramilitary groups.

I do though dispute broad brush inflammatory statements like the SAS executed IRA members. They were engaged in counter insurgency operations where their enemy would not hesitate to take not only their lives but completely disregarded any collateral damage inflicted upon civilians. In fact by the very nature of some of their operations PIRA/RIRA/CIRA/INLA/IPLO intended to kill and maim civilians to inflict terror in order to acheieve their aims.

Consequently at times especially where explosives were involved it was necessary to ensure that those explosive could not be detonated at the time of the attempted arrest. If people moved when challenged then they got shot, simply to prevent this.

You should also remember that what you class as political prisoners from the republican side were released as part of the Good Friday Agreement. Where are the prisoners of the IRA? Some of those republican prisoners were arrested by the SAS during operations, hardly the actions of state sponsored assassins.

One of the hunger strikers, in fact the second to die was Francis Hughes he was at the time of his arrest the most wanted man in Ulster, he was arrested after a shootout with an SAS patrol, during the shootout one member of the sabre team was killed and another seriously wounded. If they were in the habit of shooting IRA members on sight, wouldnt they have just slotted him? No one would have known.

A little known fact an attempt was made on the life of a Republican MP called Bernadette (Devlin) McAliskey by loyalist paramilitaries in 1981. Although both she and her husband were shot, her life was saved by a British Army patrol, which had been tasked to the area by an SAS observation team on seeing the assassination team move into the area. The OP team couldnt stop the attempt because it would have compromised them, nor did they have the firepower. However they also tasked helicopter casualty evacuation for her. They also directed another patrol that succeeded in arresting the UFF paramilitaries who had carried out the attack.

There was no shoot to kill policy within any sector of the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I cant speak for certain self contained RUC units, but nor was there one within mainstream RUC.

They knew about a particular plot to bomb a local police station and instead of surrounding the vehicle intially they lay in wait until it got to the barracks and then decided to open fire, gunning down everybody on board, with many of them being unarmed at the time. Civilians have also been killed in the firestorms that the SAS initiated. I'm not suggesting that these methods were wrong or right; I'm simply stating that they decided to implement the most extreme methods in dealing with a hostile group, just like the IRA did with them when they realised that they weren't been heard.

This was a war against a State that refused to recognize a group within Northern Ireland, that's all. Britain got involved and not in the Nationalists favour. You know that they called a truce I think in the mid 70's with the IRA, telling them that they would be willing to move troops out altogether, only to abandon the whole thing halfway through the talks? It was a trick used to destabilize the Nationalist movement and it worked rather effectively. Would you trust a government that used such underhanded tactics? And don't get me started on the H Blocks and internment.

[setanta]

And sorry, about the hunger strikers: they were asking for political status and were willing to die for their cause. Just think about that for a second. To starve oneself for what you believe in. These are not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting - they're the actions of people who firmly believe in a cause that's worth fighting for. A war worth fighting for. Have you watched Hunger? Staggeringly brilliant film and directed by an Englishman.

[Shasown]

They knew about a particular plot to bomb a local police station and instead of surrounding the vehicle intially they lay in wait until it got to the barracks and then decided to open fire, gunning down everybody on board, with many of them being unarmed at the time. Civilians have also been killed in the firestorms that the SAS initiated. I'm not suggesting that these methods were wrong or right; I'm simply stating that they decided to implement the most extreme methods in dealing with a hostile group, just like the IRA did with them when they realised that they weren't been heard.

This was a war against a State that refused to recognize a group within Northern Ireland, that's all. Britain got involved and not in the Nationalists favour. You know that they called a truce I think in the mid 70's with the IRA, telling them that they would be willing to move troops out altogether, only to abandon the whole thing halfway through the talks? It was a trick used to destabilize the Nationalist movement and it worked rather effectively. Would you trust a government that used such underhanded tactics? And don't get me started on the H Blocks and internment.

Oh Loughgall, would have thought you would have went for a better bone of contention. Like Op Flavius - Gibraltar.

I would suggest you read up on accounts of it first before saying things like they were unarmed. They were driving a JCB(used to crash through the fence) with an oil drum packed with explosives, three men on the JCB and a 5 man ASU (Active Service Unit) in a toyota all were armed.

The same style attack had been used the previous year, JCB carries bomb crashes through barriers bomb is lit while others fire into the police station, bomb goes off, the team wait a few minutes to kill anyone exiting the station in a daze, they all sod off in an escape vehicle.

First off the men on and in the JCB are armed with a bomb, they also carried side arms. The 5 man team in the toyota were armed with automatic assault rifles(machine guns for want of a better term).

Do you honestly think the JCB would have stopped if an RUC constable or a soldier in uniform stepped out in the road and put up his hand. Be serious they were intent on exploding the bomb, destroying the police station and the use of assault rifles firing into the station just as the fuse on the bomb was started shows they intended to take the life of anyone exiting the station either due to the noise of the approach of the JCB, the demolition of the protective fence around the station or after the bomb had exploded, any survivors crawling out of the wreckage.

Incidentally the station was manned at the time by both RUC and other SAS blades for the three days this op was ongoing, yes thats right they didnt have the date and time.

Legally to arrest them and get a conviction you had to catch them in possession of a bomb, detonating the bomb or immediately afterwards. They were armed to the teeth. Do you really think they would have put the weapons down if challenged, go on answer, do you?

It even went to the bleeding hearts in Europe and the authorities got a slap on the wrist for failing to carry out a full investigation into the incident. Apparently this was a denial of the terrorists human rights. Nuff said eh?

[setanta]

Oh Loughgall, would have thought you would have went for a better bone of contention. Like Op Flavius - Gibraltar.

I would suggest you read up on accounts of it first before saying things like they were unarmed. They were driving a JCB(used to crash through the fence) with an oil drum packed with explosives, three men on the JCB and a 5 man ASU (Active Service Unit) in a toyota all were armed.

The same style attack had been used the previous year, JCB carries bomb crashes through barriers bomb is lit while others fire into the police station, bomb goes off, the team wait a few minutes to kill anyone exiting the station in a daze, they all sod off in an escape vehicle.

First off the men on and in the JCB are armed with a bomb, they also carried side arms. The 5 man team in the toyota were armed with automatic assault rifles(machine guns for want of a better term).

Do you honestly think the JCB would have stopped if an RUC constable or a soldier in uniform stepped out in the road and put up his hand. Be serious they were intent on exploding the bomb, destroying the police station and the use of assault rifles firing into the station just as the fuse on the bomb was started shows they intended to take the life of anyone exiting the station either due to the noise of the approach of the JCB, the demolition of the protective fence around the station or after the bomb had exploded, any survivors crawling out of the wreckage.

Incidentally the station was manned at the time by both RUC and other SAS blades for the three days this op was ongoing, yes thats right they didnt have the date and time.

Legally to arrest them and get a conviction you had to catch them in possession of a bomb, detonating the bomb or immediately afterwards. They were armed to the teeth. Do you really think they would have put the weapons down if challenged, go on answer, do you?

It even went to the bleeding hearts in Europe and the authorities got a slap on the wrist for failing to carry out a full investigation into the incident. Apparently this was a denial of the terrorists human rights. Nuff said eh?

I'm not codemning or condoning it - just saying that every single group used ultra violent methods, that's all. Sure the SAS put over 200 rounds into two lads who were hiding guns in a barn out in the middle of nowhere. Just opened fire on the two of them in a hail of bullets. That's war baby and Britain didn't do much to defuse the situation initially. They made all the wrong moves, all the time. Plus they wouldn't have listened to the Nationalists if they weren't willing to highlight what they were capable of, you know?

[Shasown]

And sorry, about the hunger strikers: they were asking for political status and were willing to die for their cause. Just think about that for a second. To starve oneself for what you believe in. These are not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting - they're the actions of people who firmly believe in a cause that's worth fighting for. A war worth fighting for. Have you watched Hunger? Staggeringly brilliant film and directed by an Englishman.

Yes one of the best films I have ever seen.

Not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting?

Bobby Sands, jailed for possession of a frirearm, charges of bombing dropped due to lack of evidence, charges for being involved in shootout with the RUC droppped through lack of evidence.
Francis Hughes - murder, attempted murder.
Raymond McCreesh - attempted murder, possession of a rifle and ammunition
Patsy O'Hara - Possessing a hand grenade.
Joe McDonnell - Possession of a firearm.
Martin Hurson - Involvement in planting landmines and other explosives offences.
Kevin Lynch - stealing shotguns, taking part in a punishment shooting and conspiring to take arms from the security forces
Kieron Doherty - possession of firearms and explosives and hijacking a car.
Thomas McElwee, murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter. Planting firebombs.
Michael Devine - possession of rifles, shotguns and possession of 3,000 rounds of ammunition.

Squeaky clean bunch eh?

Generally speaking about their convictions, when they were done for possession of, it wasnt found in their homes or sheds or anything like that, it was in their possession as they were going to use it. Attempted murder or manslaughter were dropped unless it could be proven they had actually tried to commitor committed the offences.

[setanta]

Yes one of the best films I have ever seen.

Not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting?

Bobby Sands, jailed for possession of a frirearm, charges of bombing dropped due to lack of evidence, charges for being involved in shootout with the RUC droppped through lack of evidence.
Francis Hughes - murder, attempted murder.
Raymond McCreesh - attempted murder, possession of a rifle and ammunition
Patsy O'Hara - Possessing a hand grenade.
Joe McDonnell - Possession of a firearm.
Martin Hurson - Involvement in planting landmines and other explosives offences.
Kevin Lynch - stealing shotguns, taking part in a punishment shooting and conspiring to take arms from the security forces
Kieron Doherty - possession of firearms and explosives and hijacking a car.
Thomas McElwee, murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter. Planting firebombs.
Michael Devine - possession of rifles, shotguns and possession of 3,000 rounds of ammunition.

Squeaky clean bunch eh?

Generally speaking about their convictions, when they were done for possession of, it wasnt found in their homes or sheds or anything like that, it was in their possession as they were going to use it. Attempted murder or manslaughter were dropped unless it could be proven they had actually tried to commitor committed the offences.

I never said that they didn't fight for their cause, just mentioning the sacrifices they were willing to make, that's all. Is it called murder during a war? I mean, it was a war for them.... their hunger strike proves what they were willing to give for the cause.

Yeah, Hunger is a masterpiece.

[Shasown]

Britain didn't do much to defuse the situation initially. They made all the wrong moves, all the time.

Plus they wouldn't have listened to the Nationalists if they weren't willing to highlight what they were capable of, you know?

On the first line I am in almost total agreement with you on that.

On the second, they did listen to the Nationalists, but because of Stormont being in existance at the time, the actual British Government's hands were tied, thats what most people dont get. Northern Ireland at the time technically was a dominion, it was to all intents and purposes self ruling.

There wasnt really a lot they could do. It would completely undermine the National Assembly and in some cases it would have been an internationally illegal act to interfere directly.

Consequently, they had to find occassion to find fault with the actions of Stormont in order to dissolve it. Certain Nationalist groups werent prepared to wait, certain unionist factions werent going to listen anyways.

Then when action could be taken we were well embroiled in the Troubles. in the early to mid 70's power was going to devolve back to stormont under the sunningdale but comments were made in Dublin that upset the unionists and they prevented it. McGuinness and others were in negotiations with Whitelaw.

Then mid to late 70's there were negotiations going on while there was civil war basically. Late 70's maggie wanted cessation of terrorist activities and disarmament on both sides.

[setanta]

On the first line I am in almost total agreement with you on that.

On the second, they did listen to the Nationalists, but because of Stormont being in existance at the time, the actual British Government's hands were tied, thats what most people dont get. Northern Ireland at the time technically was a dominion, it was to all intents and purposes self ruling.

There wasnt really a lot they could do. It would completely undermine the National Assembly and in some cases it would have been an internationally illegal act to interfere directly.

Consequently, they had to find occassion to find fault with the actions of Stormont in order to dissolve it. Certain Nationalist groups werent prepared to wait, certain unionist factions werent going to listen anyways.

But they disolved it for awhile and took total control of the area, right? And they didn't cover themselves in glory furing that period either. Look, it was a horrible situation but they didn't deal with as best they could really.

And Maggie was just plain silly in what she did.

[Shasown]

I never said that they didn't fight for their cause, just mentioning the sacrifices they were willing to make, that's all. Is it called murder during a war? I mean, it was a war for them.... their hunger strike proves what they were willing to give for the cause.

Yeah, Hunger is a masterpiece.

But thats the whole point of the hunger strike, it wasn't a war it was an internal security situation in the eyes of the British Government, therefore the men in the Maze/Long Kesh werent political prisoners, they were convicted criminals.

If the British had conceded to all the points the hunger strikers requested, it would have validated all the claims of the IRA. It would have made them appear to the world to be freedom fighters and not just terrorists.

Plus there were some members of the loyalist and the nationalist factions who had commited crimes like bank and post office robberies to finance the conflict, these are civil crimes. so differentiation between the real volunteers and the criminals who had lined their own pockets and put some money to their organisations coffers would have been a nightmare.

Consequently even O'Rawe admits they were willing to concede some of the points, but not all of them. But according to him he was told all or nothing, say nothing about concessions.

[setanta]

But thats the whole point of the hunger strike, it wasn't a war it was an internal security situation in the eyes of the British Government, therefore the men in the Maze/Long Kesh werent political prisoners, they were convicted criminals.

If the British had conceded to all the points the hunger strikers requested, it would have validated all the claims of the IRA. It would have made them appear to the world to be freedom fighters and not just terrorists.

Plus there were some members of the loyalist and the nationalist factions who had commited crimes like bank and post office robberies to finance the conflict, these are civil crimes. so differentiation between the real volunteers and the criminals who had lined their own pockets and put some money to their organisations coffers would have been a nightmare.

Consequently even O'Rawe admits they were willing to concede some of the points, but not all of them. But according to him he was told all or nothing, say nothing about concessions.

But I would argue that they were political prisoners as they were fighting for a cause, rather than mere self interest, you know? They were willing to die for it. That's a bold mission statement that generated so much publicity for the movement when it was actually in disarray for awhile at the time following negotiatings falling through and things like that. And don't forget that the British had been in talks with the IRA prior to this situation.

[Shasown]

But they disolved it for awhile and took total control of the area, right? And they didn't cover themselves in glory furing that period either. Look, it was a horrible situation but they didn't deal with as best they could really.

And Maggie was just plain silly in what she did.

I am not denying it, major mistakes, that in the end cost lives, were made on all sides.

Do you honestly think there isnt a politican involved in the whole episode who doesnt look back and think, if only.... That includes maggie head up her arse thatcher, If Wilson had dissolved the national assembly in 1969, just after allowing the troops to enter Derry, he may have took some flak for it, but on the other hand there may not have followed the twenty odd years of carnage that did happen.

If the Paras hadnt been sent to the province, if another less aggressive unit had gone, If the Paras had been rotated back off the line in 1972, and a proper inquiry set up, instead of the Widgery fiasco, the whole sequence of events investigated and proper criticism and charges levelled at all those responsible......

We will never really know how different it could have been.

[setanta]

I am not denying it, major mistakes, that in the end cost lives, were made on all sides.

Do you honestly think there isnt a politican involved in the whole episode who doesnt look back and think, if only.... That includes maggie head up her arse thatcher, If Wilson had dissolved the national assembly in 1969, just after allowing the troops to enter Derry, he may have took some flak for it, but on the other hand there may not have followed the twenty odd years of carnage that did happen.

If the Paras hadnt been sent to the province, if another less aggressive unit had gone, If the Paras had been rotated back off the line in 1972, and a proper inquiry set up, instead of the Widgery fiasco, the whole sequence of events investigated and proper criticism and charges levelled at all those responsible......

We will never really know how different it could have been.

It's messy stuff, that's for sure, but sometimes aggression is the only thing that an oppressed minority can use at a certain point to make a stand, you know? I don't know how I would have responded to seeing that Civil Rights group being battered about the place if I had been watching at the time.

[Shasown]

But I would argue that they were political prisoners as they were fighting for a cause, rather than mere self interest, you know? They were willing to die for it. That's a bold mission statement that generated so much publicity for the movement when it was actually in disarray for awhile at the time following negotiatings falling through and things like that. And don't forget that the British had been in talks with the IRA prior to this situation.

That was the problem though, yes they were fighting for a cause, however if they had targeted only government installations or troops, they would have had a lot more respect. It was the indiscriminate nature of some of their attacks.

Crippling the centre of Belfast and Derry, again nope its simply attacking the society they live in.

Obviously the tit for tat sectarianism did neither side any good, however the british press did play down a lot of unionist atrocities. That was totally wrong. Very few reports went in depth on things like the Shankill Butchers.

Just like the Catholic Community quickly turned against the troops, reason, they were in support of the civil power, technically an aid to the police. Who were the police? The loyalists, so they were ordered to stop civil rights marches, tear down barricades that were actually needed to defend communities from loyalist attacks. Disarm the catholic communities and ignore the loyalists, for the moment. While it seemed that the loyalists were getting away with murder(well they were literally.)

[Shasown]

And lets not forget for all the great gains that have been made there, it wouldnt take much to undermine the whole process.

I honestly dont think either side has fully decomissioned, and to be frank If I was in PIRA, I wouldnt fully trust the loyalists, their politicans yeah maybe but definately not their fighting arms. I am sorry, I just cant.

[setanta]

And lets not forget for all the great gains that have been made there, it wouldnt take much to undermine the whole process.

I honestly dont think either side has fully decomissioned, and to be frank If I was in PIRA, I wouldnt fully trust the loyalists, their politicans yeah maybe but definately not their fighting arms. I am sorry, I just cant.

Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[Shasown]

Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

PMSL Honestly, me neither.

[setanta]

That was the problem though, yes they were fighting for a cause, however if they had targeted only government installations or troops, they would have had a lot more respect. It was the indiscriminate nature of some of their attacks.

Crippling the centre of Belfast and Derry, again nope its simply attacking the society they live in.

Obviously the tit for tat sectarianism did neither side any good, however the british press did play down a lot of unionist atrocities. That was totally wrong. Very few reports went in depth on things like the Shankill Butchers.

Just like the Catholic Community quickly turned against the troops, reason, they were in support of the civil power, technically an aid to the police. Who were the police? The loyalists, so they were ordered to stop civil rights marches, tear down barricades that were actually needed to defend communities from loyalist attacks. Disarm the catholic communities and ignore the loyalists, for the moment. While it seemed that the loyalists were getting away with murder(well they were literally.)

But that society had targeted them too, you know? Looting, violence etc. They were hardly in a comfortable position and were obviously enraged.

[Shasown]

But that society had targeted them too, you know? Looting, violence etc. They were hardly in a comfortable position and were obviously enraged.

I know but thats what most people dont understand. They could have sat back and took it all, lost a decent number of lives and waited, eventually Stormont would have been dissolved, eventually the loyalist factions would have been rounded up and disarmed. But how many lives did they have to lose.

Thats why I dont really lay blame on either the troops or the IRA. In fact there are quite a few members of the IRA I hold in great respect. Certainly McGuinness has done a lot to foster peace over there. Similarly for all I dislike Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and George Bush, some credit should be given to those three as well amongst a whole host of others.