Desecration

The grave of David Caldwell, a civilian killed in a Real IRA attack on a Territorial Army base in Londonderry, has been desecrated.

  • [i]”Also, I find his belief that bombing campaigns in civilian areas of my country are justifiable and the fact that he has to make judgement calls on the deaths of civilians somewhat disturbing.”[/i]

    I find far more disturbing your acceptance of and approval of the murder campaign carried out by YOUR government. Note that this campaign with which you seem to have no problem killed almost 10 times the number of civilians as the PIRA’s bombing campaign, and more than twice as many civilians as the PIRA in all of its activities.

    Further note: of the 363 people directly killed by the security forces, 191 or almost 53% were civilians. Of the 1,020 people killed by the death squads. 873 or over 85% were civilians. You seem to have no problem with these facts.

    But, 516 of the 1,706 people killed by the PIRA were civilians — about 30% and you focus on this and ignore the far worse record of HMG.

    Why do you continue to ignore the terrorism of HMG while you attempt to demonize the PIRA at every opportunity? Do explain why killings by HMG are morally justified and killings by the PIRA are not. Especially when 715 of the killings by the death squads are identified as sectarian and are, therefore, murder.

    Waiting for your ecxplanation and some mild “I conmemn all violence” is really not enough.

    BTW, these figures blow you self-defense argument out of the water. BTW, I suggest you check the moral and legal standards which justify self-defense by bpth individuals and communities.

  • The World’s Gone Mad

    Bob,

    As with most things you’ve said on this thread you operate double-standards and an incredible level of hypocrisy

    “I find far more disturbing your acceptance of and approval of the murder campaign carried out by YOUR government.” Please give me the quote where I stated that I accepted and approved of ANY murder campaign. Please provide it Bob, or else rather than try and read into something I didn’t say, why not just accept that there are some people who find the murder campaigns carried out by all as unacceptable.

    “Why do you continue to ignore the terrorism of HMG while you attempt to demonize the PIRA at every opportunity? Do explain why killings by HMG are morally justified and killings by the PIRA are not.” Please explain exactly how in any of my posts I ignored HMG terrorism or where exactly I stated that killings by HMG are morally justified.

    Now, I don’t wish to treat the deaths of people as statistics like some American Football commentator quoting a quarter-back’s success rate, but as it appears to be the only language you understand…

    “Especially when 715 of the killings by the death squads are identified as sectarian and are, therefore, murder.” According to you, in this thread, ‘intentional homicide’ is ‘murder’ – this means that not only are all these 715 kllings ‘murder’ but the vast, vast majority of killings in NI are murder. This, by your definition, would then include many of the other 1191 killings attributed to PIRA (according to CAIN).

    As for the figures you quote – you lump all the loyalist paramilitaries into one grouping and call them ‘the death squads’ yet you only quote figures for the IRA. Don’t the INLA, IPLO, and various other organisations that represent Paramilitary Republicanism merit a mention in your headcounts? Another example of double-standards. British security forces killed 190 civilians, Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians and Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians. So the difference between the ‘real terrorists’ and the ‘rebel forces’ is not nearly as great as you would make out.

    All in all Republican paramilitaries killed 2056 people, Loyalist Paramlitaries killed 1020 and the Security Forces killed 362 – by your own definition of murder (‘intentional homicide’) please provide percentages of how many from each grouping ‘murdered’ people during the Troubles. Please also explain the moral or legal justification for murder (as defined by yourself).

  • There was a war on, World, and, in a war combatants sign on to do battle with the enemy and kill and be killed. That’s what the deal is. The PIRA staged an armed rebellion, a civil war and that means war rules applied. Sorry about that, but there is a BIG difference between killing combatants and killing civilians. Directly attacking civilians is terrorism,

    The only party you are trying to exclude is Sinn Fein which you claim is linked to the PIRA. And, for that reason, I look at them alone. The rest of the republican paramilitary groups are, IMHO, pretty much the same as the death squads — except that they didn’t have the British Army, RUC and HMG as allies.

    BTW, personal attacks such as you just posted with the invective and false accusations are not playing the ball. Do try to play the ball.

  • The World’s Gone Mad

    Bob – apologies for not playing the ball. However, the false accusations did come from you when you say that I approve of murder campaigns or that I morally justified HMG killings. I never once said that (nor do I believe it), so please don’t say that I did.

    Its also disingenuous to quote statistics on ALL loyalist paramilitaries without doing the same for ALL republican paramilitaries. You claim that loyalist paramilitaries represent Unionism/Loyalism, well with that argument the PIRA alone does not represent Nationalism/Republicanism – you have to include all the other paramilitary groups.

    All I ask for is some balance when you quote CAIN, and that you tell the whole story rather than half-truths to fit in with your argument.

    Cheers…

  • [i]”However, the false accusations did come from you when you say that I approve of murder campaigns or that I morally justified HMG killings. I never once said that (nor do I believe it), so please don’t say that I did.”[/i]

    By and large, the unionist community has not raised a finger nor even a voice to stop the terror campaign by the death squads with a helluva lot of help from Special Branch and MI5. To this day, there is no call from unionism to address the criminal behavior of HMG’s forces in NI, and of HMG itself for failing to stop the criminality. This is not smuggling nor thievery but cold-blooded murder that was done by thugs in the name of and with, at least, the tacit consent of the unionist community.

    So, I’m afraid all the “I condemn”s don’t mean all that much until the unionist community turns on and turns out the political leaders and their lackeys who orchestrated the sectarian terror campaign.

    Now, as far as using only the PIRA numbers, it is obvious that the nationalist/republican community has no use for any of the other groups and that none of these groups will have any significant political input.

    The immediate problem is the unionist perception that Sinn Fein, the majority voice of nationalism, is unfit to sit in government. So, the other figures are really meaningless.

    On the other hand, the linkages between the two unionist parties and the death squads are there and, even more important, the links between HMG and the death squads are still there.

    The real question unionists have to face — and the statistics confirm this — is whether HMG is fit to govern NI, not whether SF is fit to serve in a devolved government with no real power.

    I suggest that, on the basis of the 80 year history of Btitish governance in NI, that HMG is not fit to govern NI.

    Nationalists and republicans have already come to that obvious conclusion. Time and long past time for unionists to take a good, hard look at the government they favor.

  • sevenmagpies

    “there was a war on”

    If more people are killed in road accidents during the same period as your “struggle”, then it wasn’t a “war”.

    “in a war combatants sign on to do battle with the enemy and kill and be killed. That’s what the deal is. The PIRA staged an armed rebellion, a civil war and that means war rules applied.”

    In order to exercise “combatants’ privilege” i.e. the right to kill in combat, combatants are required to clearly identify themselves as such. Clear identification has the added bonus of protecting civilians from accidental attack. Do you truly believe that the pira protected civilians by ensuring that their operations were conducted by ‘volunteers’ clearly identified by way of uniforms, part uniforms or fixed distinctive signs? Do you believe that failure to clearly dress as combatants might cause the accidental death of civilians?

    “Directly attacking civilians is terrorism”

    No relevant or applicable piece of legislation provides this as the sole definition of ‘terrorism’. What law are you claiming was in force at the time?

    “Time and long past time for unionists to take a good, hard look at the government they favor.”

    But can they bomb supermarkets and chemists to get rid of a government they don’t like, bob. Would that slaughter of innocents meet with your approval?

  • Congal Claen

    Hi Bob,

    Just checking the thread after a few days off…

    I’m still curious to know whether you think the troubles constituted a war or not. Initially, I believe you claimed it was a war. You also claimed that during wartime the Gibraltar 3 killings would be fair enough. However, you then claim these were murders. Logically, that would suggest you were then considering the campaign not to be a war. So, which one is it?

  • [i]”However, you then claim these were murders. Logically, that would suggest you were then considering the campaign not to be a war.”[/i]

    Actually, the Court said they were murders — because HMG claimed it was a police action. Nothing new there, the Brits claimed all along that it was not a war. Too bad they were wrong.

    The logic is quite correct.

    BTW, IIRC, you were telling us all about how the British regarded the Colonials as honorable foes because they invited them to dinner after the surrender at Yorktown. Nonsense, of course, but you seem unaware of the actions of the British (not Cornwallis) officer charged with carrying out the formal surrender. He tried to present the sword to the French general instead of General Washington who was the Commander of the Allied armies at Yorktown. The French officer waved him away and pointed to Washington. Says a lot more about the British attitude tham the dinner invitation, sez I/

  • Congal Claen

    Hi Bob,

    “the Court said they were murders”

    Untrue and you know it. As does everybody else who has read the thread.

    “The logic is quite correct.”

    Forgive me as I can’t work out your logic. For simplicity, was it a war? Yes or No.

    I can’t remember if I described that the British would have considered the Colonials as “honorable”. I said that they wouldn’t have considered them terrorist. I take it that you haven’t come up with any quote from the time where they were so described?

    Interesting sword fact tho…

  • DK

    Sword fact clarification. This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

    “A formal surrender ceremony took place on the morning following the battle. Cornwallis refused to attend out of pure embarrassment, claiming illness. According to legend, the British forces marched to the fife tune of “The World Turned Upside Down,” though no real evidence of this exists. Cornwallis’ deputy at first attempted to surrender to the French General Rochambeau, who is reputed to have said, “Vous vous trompez le général en chef de notre armée est à la droite; puis il le conduisit”[1] (“you are mistaken, the general of our army is to the right,” pointing to George Washington, “so he’s in charge.”). The lieutenant then attempted to surrender to Washington, who refused because it was not Cornwallis himself, and indicated that the subordinate should surrender to General Lincoln, Washington’s least favorite general because he had botched the southern campaign. Cornwallis’ lieutenant ceremonially offered his sword to Lincoln, which was ironically refused.”

  • DK

    Cornwallis’ deputy was called Charles O’Hara, so there is an Irish connection. He went on to fight against the French revolution and was taken prisoner by the then obscure Napoleon. He ended up as Govenor of Gibralter.

  • Congal Claen

    Cheers for the info DK.