Advertise
-
Books
-
Round up of Tuesday’s Political Studies Association conference
If you want to get a flavour of the proceedings at the Political Studies Association conference on its opening day, then the Storify collation below will bring you some of the images, tweets and sounds of the day. Particular highlights included: the Opening Plenary with David Blunkett, Peter Riddell and Matthew Flinders; and the late [...] read our review »
-
What Ireland did right (and what it needs to do)…
It is difficult to believe now that one country recently sent 19 delegations to Ireland to study how well our economy was managed. The revelation that our model of economic management featured positively in political and economic discussion in countries including Estonia, Greece and Scotland may also come as a surprise. As we survey the [...] read our review »
-
The ANC, the IRA and the rise of influence of the left within Sinn Fein…
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
-
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 4:42 pm
BIGK,
“foreign mercenaries”? Who would that be?
“a soldier of the queen of England or a soldier of Ireland”?
If you elude to British soldiers and Provisional IRA volunteers, then its hardly an apples-for-apples comparison.
However, if this is your fantasy, then for starters, how many ‘prisoners of war’ did these “soldiers of Ireland” take during the ‘Troubles’?
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 1:17 pm
tacapall,
“Was she there with Grew and McCaughey when they were shot, or was she there with the SAS, did she witness anything?”
You’ve lost me….should I ask the question again?
What has that to do with, “when a jury has to decide a verdict they hear two sides of a story, on this occasion they only heard one side”?
Karen Quinlivan was the barrister acting for the families of Grew and McCaughey.
A verdict has been reached.
If you do not agree with it then I suggest you explain why.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 12:48 pm
“when a jury has to decide a verdict they hear two sides of a story, on this occasion they only heard one side”?
Come along now….
What was Karen Quinlivan doing at the inquest then?
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 10:46 am
I think the Republican leadership need to ‘catch themselves on’ and have a quiet word with their people on this sort of thing. However, it’s a real problem for them as they’ve made an industry out of victimhood. Someone is going to have to break it to them that history is not written by the Wolfe Tones.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 10:04 am
I sympathize with all families who have lost loved ones….
….but let’s face it, these two men, “both armed with guns, wearing gloves and balaclavas”, were not on their way to a Sunday school picnic. They were tooled up with deadly intent and clearly posed a threat.
If they really want to build credibility in the eyes of the British/Unionist community the Republican movement needs properly prepare their grassroots. Basically wean themselves off these ridiculous attempts to style heavily armed masked men as victims.
Go to comment
Comment on The TUV’s disappointing victory
on 8 May 2011 at 9:22 am
Jim Allister is a barrister – so what? The leaders of the two largest and most successful parties in Northern Ireland do not even hold university degrees. For me I do not see what he can possibly hope to achieve. What does he bring to the party? Also, I simply do not buy his efficient government and voluntary coalition narrative. It is just a fig leaf to a wrecking agenda. If he could he would bring Stormont down. Sadly, comparisons with another Unionist barrister one-man-band are not apposite in this case. Robert McCartney finally got the message, Jim Allister will not.
Go to comment
Comment on IRA’s holdings built up and ruined by Celtic Tiger?
on 17 December 2010 at 4:37 pm
Mark,
It seems the last few days have slipped your mind….
“Re your last post . You initially asked me that question (three times as I recall ) and I answered it as best I could.”
I posed my question three times because you failed to answer it on the first two attempts.
“Your quick to quote the house rules and yet this thread was about IRA money / or lack of because of Celtic Tiger not IRA jails.”
All my contributions on this thread began with and are in response to your comment below concerning the Provisional IRA:
“they will remain an honourable and just army and that’s the way history will remember them”
If that is a deviation from the original thread then it is yours. I simply picked up from where you left off.
“You asked the question and got an answer.”
Yes thank-you, I did….eventually.
“You then started to whataboutery which if I’m correct is one of the unwritten house rules.”
Untrue. I dealt with your comments line by line. My responses were both apposite and to the point.
“When people wouldn’t pander to you, you became arsey (a term used to describe me a while back, apt to you now, it’s somewhere in between childish and stubborn).”
Again you’ve lost me. Who described you as “arsey”?
I requested that you answer straight questions with straight answers (instead of advancing no value comments like, “I am content and secure in my own identity . can you say the same ?”), stop speculating about motivation or the manner in which questions were posed, and generally raise your game.
“Why don’t you try an get into the festive spirit ? and stop being such an arse.”
Unlike you, I have not stooped to foul language or petty name calling. My responses have been clear, concise, and courteous. If you are offended by either their style or content, I would suggest you’ve led a sheltered life.
By the way, I have other questions posed to you that remain unanswered.
Go to comment
Comment on IRA’s holdings built up and ruined by Celtic Tiger?
on 17 December 2010 at 2:41 pm
Munsterview,
“Of course it is not and you may also be prepared to see the process regularly repeated. It is called ‘contextualization’ Old Chap, or at least I assume ‘Old Chap’ is appropriate as unlike my good self you do not seem to have filled in your profile and let sluggerites know where you are coming from. However not to quibble!”
In response to comments such as, “British Soldiers….fought IRA soldiers in a war” I posed a simple and straight question….
How many prisoners did the Provisional IRA take?
I was hoping for a straight answer.
Instead I got “contextualization” and an invitation to use the Google search engine.
Also and sadly, it appears that a person’s gender (and, by implication, their politics, religion, race, etc.) matter to you and, I assume, may be raised as issues during an exchange. To invoke an oft quoted ‘house rule’ on this site – ‘play the ball not the man’. I’ve made my contributions based on the written responses of others without reference to any profile. It is enlightening though not a little disappointing that you seem either unwilling or unable to extend to me the same courtesy.
So, what’s it to be?
Straight answers or more games?
Go to comment
Comment on IRA’s holdings built up and ruined by Celtic Tiger?
on 16 December 2010 at 5:20 pm
Munsterview,
I posed a simple question….
How many prisoners did the Provisional IRA take?
In response, and for reasons best known to yourself, you seem to have felt the need to fill the screen with what is clearly a shabby cut-and-paste from some other discussion you’d much rather be having. Sadly it’s not the first time I’ve seen you do this.
I agree with Reader, “….your technique of drifting off into incoherent rambling at the point where you ought to get really tight and specific is undermining your efforts.”
Go to comment
Comment on IRA’s holdings built up and ruined by Celtic Tiger?
on 16 December 2010 at 5:03 pm
Mark,
Again, let’s deal with some of your comments, point by point….
“You got a good laugh when you started quoting Bono to me. It’s funny because their recording studio was beside my office for 10 years . There was graffiti on the wall at the end of the road which read ” Hey Bono , thanks for bringing peace to the North haha ”.”
This seems to be some sort of anecdote about Bono. Does it mean you agree or disagree with his analysis?
“Thanks for your thanks this morning regarding my answering your loaded rather silly question about IRA jails.”
I give up….what was loaded or silly about my question? Just wondering but should I always expect to ask 3 times before receiving a response?
“Do you understand the difference between a conventional war and a guerilla war?”
Yes, I do.
“If so, could you differentiate between the two?”
Certainly. Conventional war (e.g. the World Wars) involves the forces of nation states that openly engage each other on land, at sea, or in the air. For signatory countries the rules outlined in the Geneva Convention are observed and adhered to. Guerrilla war is a form of warfare by which a strategically weaker side assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places against a militarily superior opponent. Guerilla groups can and often do fight according to conventions of war, taking and exchanging prisoners and respecting the rights of non-combatants. A more appropriate question would be….does either term apply to the Provisional IRA’s 30+ year campaign?
“You mention loughall and Sinn Fein’s reaction to it . From what I know ( not what I’ve read ) the IRA while reeling from the loss , understood the theatre of war and all it’s ramifications . Sinn Fein obviously tried to garner sympathy because that’s what a political wing does . Are you still with me Niccolo?”
Once again, you have not answered a direct question.
Would you please explain why the killing of armed “IRA soldiers” at Loughall in 1987 was a “shoot-to-kill” incident whilst the killing of British paratroops at Warrenpoint in 1979 was a legitimate military operation?
“You say that IRA soldiers ” when apprehended were tried in open courts , givin full and free access to the British legal system ” . Are you being serious ? We both know that at the time the IRA didn’t recognise the courts ( the diplock courts ) . Are these the same courts that convicted the Guilford 4 , Birmingham 6 or the Maguire’s . When the IRA decided to play the court system , the British govt / British army killed their legal reps.”
All captured “IRA soldiers” were tried in open courts, given full and free access to the British legal system, afforded rights of appeal, and, if convicted, sent to prison. Unlike their British counterparts, these “soldiers” were not routinely executed. This is a matter of historical fact. Recognition of the courts has nothing to do with one side taking prisoners and the other dispensing summary ‘justice’. The Diplock court system was brought into being as a result of IRA intimidation of juries. Also, Diplock courts were not involved in the cases you site. Where mistakes were made or injustice later brought to light, the state apologised, acknowledged its shortcomings, and appropriate compensation was paid to those involved. As, by your own admission, the Provisional IRA did not take prisoners shamefully this was not and never will be a problem for them.
Would you please name, outlining your proof, the legal representatives killed by the British Government or British Army?
“You reference to the Good Friday Agreement ( Belfast ) and your presumpation that I would be influenced by Bono sheds light on how you see southern irish people . Your old school unionist views seem desperate to me . Niccolo , if / when there is a United Ireland , I will be very happy .If it doesn’t happen in my lifetime , it’s not the end of the world for me as I am content and secure in my own identity . can you say the same ?”
I simply stated a fact about the principle of consent enshrined in both the Belfast and St. Andrews’ Agreements. As for the rest of this paragraph well, you just relax back into playing the man and not the ball.
Lastly, I do wish you’d get to the point in the future.
Speculating about motivation or the manner in which questions were posed is transparent and juvenile behaviour and, for me, is in the same category as foul language and threats. Please try to raise your game.
Go to comment