[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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.