[sooty]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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/new...icle416033.ece

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

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

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.

[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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

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.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by setanta

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.