It’s their fault

The Chairman of Antrim County GAA, John McSporran, has confirmed that the Hunger Strike rally will go ahead despite the Central Council ruling. John McSporran argues that the event is not only non-party political but would be viewed by:

“…the vast majority of clubs, if asked, would consider this a non-political event…In order to try to ensure that no dissent within the association in general, we brought it to Central Council’s attention. We also made it clear that before any decision was taken that they needed to be aware of what the opinion in the six counties would have been, and due cognisance of that should have been taken into consideration.”He blames the central GAA authorities for the situation as they had since February to decide on the event but only did so two weeks ago. They sought permission because of controversy over the 20th annversary rally. This too was held at Casement and the Irish News at the time claimed that the Antrim Board may have been fined £15,000 for that event. Meanwhile, Nationalist commentator, Tom Kelly adds his voice of criticism to the event.

  • willowfield

    Something wrong with the hyperlinking. Here’s the address anyway:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4789097.stm

  • lib2016

    BBC mentions hundreds of people attending, UTV doesn’t give any numbers and RTE says there were thousands of people at the rally. Not too subtle about where they are coming from, are they?

  • Keith M

    A shameful day for the GAA. Now lets see what the repercussions are.

  • Occasional Commentator

    willowfield,
    What is the basis for your concern about the GAA and the Antrim Board? Is it because the GAA’s rules might have been broken, or is it because you don’t believe the hunger strikers should be commemorated even if it was in accordance with the GAA rules? I’d be surprised if it was concern for the GAA’s rules, it’s be like the GAA getting angry about a misapplication of the offside rule in a soccer game.

  • willowfield

    Is it because the GAA’s rules might have been broken, or is it because you don’t believe the hunger strikers should be commemorated even if it was in accordance with the GAA rules?

    Both. But the former concern follows from the latter. The rules have been broken, so let’s see what the Central Council is going to do about it. This is possibly a watershed moment for GAA.

    it’s be like the GAA getting angry about a misapplication of the offside rule in a soccer game.

    The above doesn’t make sense.

  • Occasional Commentator

    lib2016,
    There were definitely thousands there. There were probably 500 at a minimum involved simply in the main parades with the bands and so on, never mind the spectators.

  • willowfield

    A ghoulish spectacle.

  • Occasional Commentator

    willowfield,
    Were you there yourself?

  • seanniee

    All sport is political.Just like when England saluted Adolf Hitler.Or when the MCC used to play South Africa.
    If the GAA in Dublin think they can punish Antrim then think again.Those 10 men wether you support or do support them,who the courage of their convictions.They were very brave,which deep down even the British admit.

  • willowfield

    So mere “bravery” is the reason why the commemoration was held?

    Why no commemoration of the brave victims of the PIRA?

    Why no commemoration of “brave” “loyalists”?

    Of course GAA Central Council can punish Antrim. It is not a question of “can” – it is a question of “will”. We’ll see if they have the bottle. This is a potential watershed.

  • seanniee

    No loyalists died on hunger strike,that is why they have no hunger strike commemorations,daaaaaaaaaaa.

  • Harry

    Unionists must be very scared of the power of the hunger strikes (in itself a non-violent act of pure will) that they seek to quash any expression or memory of it at every turn.

  • willowfield

    Commemorating those who so unjustly inflicted misery, pain and hatred on society must always be opposed.

    Nationalist terrorists murdered 2,000 people. They should be rejected and consigned to our dreadful past – not rehabilitated so that future generations grow up with the same sectarian division and hate.

  • harry

    “Commemorating those who so unjustly inflicted misery, pain and hatred on society must always be opposed.”

    So don’t wear a poppy and stop commemorating mass murderers

  • [i]”Nationalist terrorists murdered 2,000 people. They should be rejected and consigned to our dreadful past – not rehabilitated so that future generations grow up with the same sectarian division and hate.”[/i]

    The statement is entirely and totally false. Another thread discusses the unwillingness of too many unionists to take a hard look at themselves and their “culture”. Here’s a good example. Comments like this are a prime example of what happens as a result of that unwillingness, IMO.

    First of all, if the PIRA were terrorists, then the security forces and the unionist death squads they supported are also terrorists.

    Secondly, no matter how unionist try to deny it, the PIRA campaign was an armed rebellion, i.e. a war and killing combatants in war is not murder.

    Thirdly, if there was no war, the security forces and the death squads are even greater criminals than they are in the case of a war and HMG is, without doubt, a terrorist state.

    It’s too bad that this poster and too many others refuse to open their eyes and really look at the facts. Until they do, I greatly fear there is little chance of real peace in NI.

  • I checked out the citation given by Nevin a few days ago as the “Definition of Terrorism” and I extracted this:

    [i]”3.For the purposes of this Common Position, ‘terrorist act’ shall mean one of the following intentional acts, which, given its nature or its context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation, as defined as an offence under national law, where committed with the aim of:
    (i)seriously intimidating a population, or
    (ii)unduly compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
    (iii)seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental polit¬ical, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation:
    (a)attacks upon a person’s life which may cause death;
    (b)attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
    (c)kidnapping or hostage taking;
    (d)causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed plat¬form located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
    (e)seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
    (1) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
    (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, explosions or floods the effect of which is to endanger human life;
    (h)interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life;
    (i)threatening to commit any of the acts listed under (a) to (h);
    (j)directing a terrorist group;
    [b](k)participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.[/b][/i]

    Looks like the Army, RUC and HMG are terrorists. And, it soesn’t matter what the PIRA did or did not do.

  • willowfield

    BOB McGOWAN

    The statement is entirely and totally false.

    It’s not: on the contrary, it’s true.

    First of all, if the PIRA were terrorists, then the security forces and the unionist death squads they supported are also terrorists.

    That doesn’t follow, although in the case of “loyalist” terrorists, obviously it is true.

    Secondly, no matter how unionist try to deny it, the PIRA campaign was an armed rebellion, i.e. a war and killing combatants in war is not murder.

    It wasn’t a “war”. And “armed rebellion” has no legal or relevant meaning. And, anyway, an “armed rebellion” can employ terrorism and be executed by terrorists, so claiming it is an “armed rebellion” has no bearing on the question of whether it was a terrorist rebellion.

    Your obsession with the word “terrorism” in any case is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that the PIRA campaign – whether you use the word “terrorist” or not – was WRONG and entirely UNJUSTIFIABLE. Changing the word used to describe it does not alter that plain truth that the vast majority of people in Ireland understand.

    Thirdly, if there was no war, the security forces and the death squads are even greater criminals than they are in the case of a war and HMG is, without doubt, a terrorist state.

    The loyalist death squads were heinous criminals. I’m unaware of anyone who has claimed otherwise. Equally, any criminal activity by members of the security forces was, by definition, criminal. No-one has denied that, either! It does not follow, however, that because the security forces carried out some illegal acts, that the PIRA was not criminal, nor that the security forces were “terrorists”, nor that the security forces per se were criminal.

    As for your definition, it is of a “terrorist act”, and applies “to persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and listed in the Annex”. Unsurprisingly, the annex does not include any police forces or state armed forces!

    If some members of a police force supply information to terrorists, they have committed a “terrorist act” according to this definition, but that does not make the entire police force or the entire Army a terrorist group by this definition!

    You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Try to be objective and stop twisting the truth to fit in with your prejudices and obsession with supporting murder and violence.

  • bertie

    “And, it soesn’t matter what the PIRA did or did not do.”

    It’s quite clear that the atrocities committed by the IRA don’t matter in the least to Bob.

    Willowfield
    I don’t often say this but Good Post!

  • [i]”That doesn’t follow, although in the case of “loyalist” terrorists, obviously it is true.”[/i]

    But, the “loyalist” terrorists were, in fact, unionists who used a gun. No real difference and the collusion of the securuty forces with the death squads , Army and RUC, and the silence of the leadership of the unionist community about the activiities of both the security forces and the death squads makes them responsible also.

    [i]”It wasn’t a “war”. And “armed rebellion” has no legal or relevant meaning. And, anyway, an “armed rebellion” can employ terrorism and be executed by terrorists, so claiming it is an “armed rebellion” has no bearing on the question of whether it was a terrorist rebellion.”[/i]

    Sorry, w, wrong again and still. “internal conflicts” are recognized as wars under the GC and :wars of national liberation” are recognized as wars under the UN Charter. And the citation you posted above clearly identifies the conflict as a war. Continued denial on your part is dishonest at this point, it seems to me.

    [i]”Your obsession with the word “terrorism” in any case is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that the PIRA campaign – whether you use the word “terrorist” or not – was WRONG and entirely UNJUSTIFIABLE. Changing the word used to describe it does not alter that plain truth that the vast majority of people in Ireland understand.”[/i]

    Sorry, according to the standards for a just war, the PIRA was completely justified in resorting to armed rebellion. Now, you are perfectly welcome to disagree but, so far, you have not shown that my opinion is wrong. Nor have you shown that yours is correct. Purple prose and invective do not convince.

    [i]”It does not follow, however, that because the security forces carried out some illegal acts, that the PIRA was not criminal, nor that the security forces were “terrorists”, nor that the security forces per se were criminal.[/i]

    The fact that the security forces carried out illegal acts and the government did nothing to correct the forces provides justification for the PIRA’s resort to rebellion. Sorry, w, but that is exactly the situation that justifies a “just war.” So, by your own admission, the PIRA were NOT criminal.

    Secondly, it is becoming increasingly evident that those illegal acts by the security forces were a regular part of their operations, not a few isolated incidents. Sorry, that makes the security forces terrorists under the bolded section of my citation. Too bad, seems you’re wrong again.

    And, since the security forces regularly committed terrorist acts, that makes them criminals.

    [i]”If some members of a police force supply information to terrorists, they have committed a “terrorist act” according to this definition, but that does not make the entire police force or the entire Army a terrorist group by this definition!”[/i]

    But, senior management did nothing to stop the criminal activity, at the very least. And very well may have encouraged and supported that activity. In fact, it appears that the situation was known right up the line to the Prime Minister as far back as 1975 and nothing was done to stop the criminal activities.

    [i]”Try to be objective and stop twisting the truth to fit in with your prejudices and obsession with supporting murder and violence.”[/i]

    You have yet to show where I have twisted the truth. In point of fact, you have yet to provide any evidence that your opinions are supported by anything but your own fantasies and, I fear, ignorance.

  • willowfield

    Bob

    You’re obviously new to this site, and are unfamiliar with how to engage in argument. Let me offer you some advice.

    If you have a thesis that you want to argue, you need to construct an argument in support of it. Simply making an assertion, and repeating the assertion proves nothing other than the inability of the person making the assertion to prove it.

    You claim the PIRA was legally a “war”, yet have offered nothing by way of argument to back up your claim. Nonetheless, I provided the legal definition for you – which demonstrates that it wasn’t legally a war. Now you simply state that this definition proves it was a war – yes, a mere assertion – not one shred of argument. That’s pathetic, Bob.

    It wasn’t a legal war and nobody ever claimed that it was – not even the Provos themselves. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    The same goes for your claims that the PIRA campaign was a just war. Again, simply asserting that you think it was just rather than offering an argument as to why you think it was just, with reference to JWT, is truly, truly pathetic.

  • Hidden Gem

    bob,

    “…according to the standards for a just war, the PIRA was completely justified in resorting to armed rebellion…

    Now what standards would those be and where might I find them?

  • [i]”You claim the PIRA was legally a “war”, yet have offered nothing by way of argument to back up your claim. Nonetheless, I provided the legal definition for you – which demonstrates that it wasn’t legally a war.”[/i]

    Wrong again. w. YOUR definition says the rebellion was a war. Too bad.

    [i]”The same goes for your claims that the PIRA campaign was a just war. Again, simply asserting that you think it was just rather than offering an argument as to why you think it was just, with reference to JWT, is truly, truly pathetic.”[/i]

    Ooops, you proved that it was a just war when you admitted the criminal activity of the security forces. HMG knew about it and did nothing about it. That’s far more than what’s needed to justify an armed rebellion, i.e. a war.

    You seem to have some trouble following facts and logic.

    Let me point out to you that the terrorism that HMG ignored and even subsidized is an even greater crime if there was no war.

    But, there was a war, an armed rebellion. We here in the US know well what a rebellion is since we have had at least two of them and both are recognized aw wars. Too bad.

  • willowfield

    BOB McGOWAN

    You’re doing it again: simply making assertions without any kind of evidence or reasoning to back them up.

    Don’t you realise how pointless that is?

    Simply saying the the “rebellion” was a “war” does not make it so. Nor does adding on the expression “too bad”.

    The legal definition shows that it was not, yet you simply claim the opposite without explaining how you come to that fanciful position.

    If you want to argue that the PIRA campaign was legally a war, you are at liberty to do so. Go right ahead. The onus is on you to back up your wild claims.

    Your failure to offer an argument merely reinforces the perception that you find yourself greatly out of your depth when trying to engage in rational discussion.

    Ooops, you proved that it was a just war when you admitted the criminal activity of the security forces.

    Nonsense. The fact that security forces carried out criminal actitivity does not justify a 30-year terror campaign, according to just war theory or any other theory. It wouldn’t be justified in the United States in response to criminal activity by the police, and nor was it in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else. You’re desperately clutching at straws, especially when we consider that the criminal activity in question actually occurred IN RESPONSE TO the terror campaign that you are claiming was justified by it! So your “argument” is nonsensical.

    Again, however, if you really do think that the PIRA campaign was a just war, you are at liberty to put forward such an argument (note – this would involve reasoning).

    But we’re not holding our breath, as you have so far shown yourself to be incapable of constructing or articulating a rational argument.

  • [i]”The legal definition shows that it was not, yet you simply claim the opposite without explaining how you come to that fanciful position.'[/i]

    So, let’s take a look at your legal definition:
    [i[b]]”Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.”[/b][/i]

    Now, the PIRA campaign was certainly an Armed Conflict which took place in the territory of a High Contracting Party and it was certainly between the armed forces of that Party and an organized armed group, under responsible command which exercised such control over enough of terrirory to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations.

    So, the conflict between the PIRA and the Security forces and their hired mercenaries was a war.

    QED.

    [i]”The fact that security forces carried out criminal actitivity does not justify a 30-year terror campaign, according to just war theory or any other theory.”[/i]

    When that criminal activity went on for over 30 years and continues to this day, it most certainly does provide a justification for resorting to war, especially since the government did nothing to stop the criminal activity from 1969 to this day. So, the PIRA campaign was a just war and all those “murders” become wartime killings of combatants, i.e. NOT murders.

    As I said, you seem to have very little understanding of the terms “murder’ and “terrorist” since you throw them around rather carelessly ii cases where they simply do not apply.

  • willowfield

    BOB

    Now, the PIRA campaign was certainly an Armed Conflict which took place in the territory of a High Contracting Party and it was certainly between the armed forces of that Party and an organized armed group, under responsible command which exercised such control over enough of terrirory to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations.

    It wasn’t: the PIRA did not control enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained and military operations and to implement the Protocol. It didn’t control any territory.

    No-one ever attempted to argue that the PIRA campaign was a legal “war” before. You’re on your own.

    And I note you’ve given up with your meaningless references to “armed rebellion”.

    When that criminal activity went on for over 30 years and continues to this day, it most certainly does provide a justification for resorting to war

    Ignoring the fact that your premise is false [the criminal activity did not go on for over 30 years, nor does it continue to this day], tell us how it justifies the PIRA campaign? Go on … try to construct an argument! Simply making such an assertion is not an argument.

    I note you still fail to offer an argument as to why you think the PIRA campaign was justified according to just war theory. You’re not doing very well, Bob!

    As I said, you seem to have very little understanding of the terms “murder’ and “terrorist” since you throw them around rather carelessly ii cases where they simply do not apply.

    I understand both words quite adequately, and use them in cases where they do apply.

  • [i]”It wasn’t: the PIRA did not control enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained and military operations and to implement the Protocol. It didn’t control any territory.”[/i]

    Since the PIRA did carry out sustained and military operations for some 30 years, it certainly did control enough territory to do so. Now, exactly in what ways did it fail to implement the Protocol.

    It’s your job to show us that the PIRA did not implement the Protocol. Go to it, instead of claiming that they didn’t.

    They obviously did carry out sustained military operations for 30 years.

    [i]”Ignoring the fact that your premise is false [the criminal activity did not go on for over 30 years, nor does it continue to this day], tell us how it justifies the PIRA campaign? Go on … try to construct an argument! Simply making such an assertion is not an argument.”[/i]

    When the government sits back and allows its agents — cops and police — to not only stand by while death squads kill over 1,000 innocent civilians (715 of those killings were murders, remember) but also to provide the death squads with arms, training, intelligence information, cover and immunity, that justifies a resort to war under the just war theory. Simple.
    QED

    Obviously, w, you are not aware of the facts:
    FACT: the security forces and the death squads killed over 1,000 civilians — at least 715 of which were murders.
    FACT: HMG took little or no action to stop this murder campaign, even to the hampering of all investigations of the criminal actions of cops and troopers– and is continuing to block all investigation to this day.
    FACT: the death squads remain armed and violent to this day.

    When the governmment allows its agents to aid in a murder campaign against innocent civilians — that’justifies armed rebellion, i.e. war.

  • Realist

    “HMG took little or no action to stop this murder campaign”

    Apart from arrest and imprison hundreds of loyalist paramiltarists.

    How many lives did that save?

  • [i]”Apart from arrest and imprison hundreds of loyalist paramiltarists.”[/i]

    Ummm, Realist, please address the issue if you want to comment. If you had, you would have noticed that I was talking about the criminal activity of the cops and soldiers.

  • POL

    Could you imagine the reaction if Loayists held something like this at Windsor or the Oval, The GAA was and is a quasi-political organisation.
    Posted by BarringtonBlue on Aug 08, 2006 @ 10:04 A

    Personally i couldnt care one iota what event is held at windsor park cos it`ll never be on my priority list as a place i intend visiting.

  • Realist

    “Ummm, Realist, please address the issue if you want to comment. If you had, you would have noticed that I was talking about the criminal activity of the cops and soldiers”

    Bob McGowan,

    I am well aware of the criminal activities of some members of the RUC/PSNI & HMF.

    Those guilty of such activities should face the full rigours of the law.

    I also know that it wasn’t for the brave efforts of members of the security forces, many hundreds more lives would have been lost in Northern Ireland and beyond during the conflict.

    They caught people guilty of crime (loyalist and republican), arrested them and ultimately led to their imprisonment.

    You still refuse to answer why PIRA took no prisoners (unlike HMG) during the conflict.

    If HMG had of took no prisoners, like PIRA, your fantasy “war” statistics would have looked somewhat differently, I would respectfully suggest.

    PS> I will comment and and when I see fit , and in a manner which I see appropriate. Thank you.

  • [i]”I am well aware of the criminal activities of some members of the RUC/PSNI & HMF.”[/i]

    I see we’re back with the “few rotten apples” theory. Now, that theory is being thoroughly discredited by an ever-increasing pile of hard evidence which indicates that the collusion between the security forces and the death squads was widespread and long lasting.

    Obviously, our “realist” prefers his fantasies to reality.

  • Realist

    Bob McGowan,

    Will you ever ger around to answering the question put to you regarding prisoners, or not?

    I have never once denied that there was collusion between elements within HMF and loyalist paramilitarists. I would have been extremely surprised if there had not.

    However, if it had of been as widespread as you suggest, I believe HMG intelligence was such that much more information would have found it’s way into the hands loyalist paramilitaries.

    The hard evidence of the large number of leading loyalist paramilitaries arrested, charged and imprisoned would dispel your simplified worldview somewhat.

    How many prisoners did PIRA take Bob?

  • [i]”Will you ever ger around to answering the question put to you regarding prisoners, or not?”[/i]

    Because it is immaterial and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    [i]”I have never once denied that there was collusion between elements within HMF and loyalist paramilitarists. I would have been extremely surprised if there had not.”[/i]

    ANY collusion — which was far more widespread than you seem to think — is criminal and should have been prosecuted fully and with full publicity. Collusion was, by and large, not punished at all.

    [i]”However, if it had of been as widespread as you suggest, I believe HMG intelligence was such that much more information would have found it’s way into the hands loyalist paramilitaries.”[/i]

    Just the files stored in Orange Order halls was more than enough. Doesn’t natter what the death squads did with the information. What is criminal is giving them the information along with the guns, the training, the cover and the immunity — as long as they did as they were told..

    [i]”The hard evidence of the large number of leading loyalist paramilitaries arrested, charged and imprisoned would dispel your simplified worldview somewhat.”[/i]

    Irrelevant and illogical. Irrelevant because we are talking about the security forcwes providing arms, training, intelligence, cover and immunity to those paramilitaries that did as they were told. Those arrested did not do as they were told.

    Illogical because the arrests, charging, etc. still makes the provision of war materiel, etc. a criminal act on the part of the soldiers or cops.

  • barnshee

    what evidence??

  • Realist

    Bob McGowan,

    “Because it is immaterial and irrelevant to the matter at hand”

    On the contrary, it’s very relevant to the matter at hand.

    Your inability to answer is noted.

    “ANY collusion…is criminal and should have been prosecuted fully and with full publicity”

    I totally agree.

    “Those arrested did not do as they were told”

    That’s a hell of lot who didn’t do as they were told then.

    “Illogical because the arrests, charging, etc. still makes the provision of war materiel, etc. a criminal act on the part of the soldiers or cops.”

    Indeed.

    Those in HMF who actively engaged in assisting loyalist paramilitaries should be brought face the rigours of the law.

    They were a blight on the honour of thousands of brave men and women who did their job faithfully and honestly in order to PROTECT human life, not destroy it, as was the objective of the republican/loyalist death squads.

  • [i]”On the contrary, it’s very relevant to the matter at hand.

    Your inability to answer is noted.”[/i]

    Nope. Take it to the right board but this isn’t it. I am trying to get you to address the serious crimes carried out by the security forces — and which you refuse to look at.

    Whether the PIRA took or killed prisoners is immaterial to what the British Army, RUC and the death squads did.

    [i]”They were a blight on the honour of thousands of brave men and women who did their job faithfully and honestly in order to PROTECT human life, not destroy it, as was the objective of the republican/loyalist death squads.”[/i]

    Hip, hip, hooray! Widespread collusion was known about at the highest levels of HMG and HMG chose to do nothing about it. And both the collusion and the failure to stop it are crimes — not by the PIRA — but by the very goverbnment you want to rule in NI.

    BTW, your death squads killed 1,064 civilians, i.e. innocent bystanders. The PIRA killed 516 civilians. So who are the death squads. And, of those 1,064, over 700 were murdered because of their religious belief. And YOU defend those who enabled and encouraged them to murder.

  • bertie

    Reaist

    I didn’t realise that you had your own death squads. I suspect that it is news to you too 😉

  • Realist

    Bob McGowan,

    “Take it to the right board but this isn’t it”.

    What is the “right board”?

    “I am trying to get you to address the serious crimes carried out by the security forces”

    I have repeatedly acknowledged and denounced them.

    “and which you refuse to look at”

    By acknowledging and denouncing them, it is clearly obvious that I have looked at them.

    “Whether the PIRA took or killed prisoners is immaterial”

    No, on the contrary, it’s not “immaterial”.

    “And both the collusion and the failure to stop it are crimes”

    Agreed.

    “BTW, your death squads killed 1,064 civilians, i.e. innocent bystanders. The PIRA killed 516 civilians. So who are the death squads.”

    They are not MY death squads. Death squads included republican paramilitarists who slaughtered 516 (at least) civilians, ie. innocent bystanders.

    “And, of those 1,064, over 700 were murdered because of their religious belief.”

    I don’t think so. I believe many of those were murdered (wrongly) because of their political beliefs. It’s suits some to paint a picture that it was all to do with religion. It wasn’t.

    “And YOU defend those who enabled and encouraged them to murder.”

    No, I don’t. On the contrary, I reject those who facilitated their murder totally.

    Now, once you’ve stopped assuming things about me, I’ll be happy to continue engaging with you.

    I would like you to justify the murder of over 500 innocent civilians by PIRA thugs, if you can.

    I would also like you to explain to me why PIRA took no prisoners and why HMF did.

    Do you agree that if HMF had taken no prisoners, all members of PIRA imprisoned were dead men?

    Thanks.

  • nothere

    How about we just let Bob be.

    His postings illustrate his own hypocrisy. He has shown that he can not or will not provide evidence to back up his assertions.

    What is the point in arguing with someone who does this? It’s like arguing with a 3 year old. The basis of his arguments are more or less “because i say so”. I see no more substance to them than this.

    His arguments have zero grounding in the reality of modern ireland.

    It is obvious that he has neither the ability nor the inclination to see that there is more than one side to any story. All he can see is the chuckie propoganda tinted view of Ireland.

    Lets let this one slip by.

  • [i]”His arguments have zero grounding in the reality of modern ireland.”[/i]

    Nope, I am pointing out facts, i.e. part of the reality of modern Ireland which far too many unionists are desperately trying to ignore.

    [i]”It is obvious that he has neither the ability nor the inclination to see that there is more than one side to any story”[/i]

    Au contraire, I am pointing to a shameful campaign on the part of HMG and its agents to murder innocent civiliana.

    Do try posting some facts instead of purple prose and invective.

  • [i]”I have repeatedly acknowledged and denounced them.

    “and which you refuse to look at”

    By acknowledging and denouncing them, it is clearly obvious that I have looked at them.”[/i]

    And you still support continued governance by HMG which ignored the criminal activity of its agents for 30+ years and still blocks every effort to get at the truth. Do you want to continue to be governed by those who enabled and encouraged their agents to murder your neighbors for the sole reason that they were Catholics?

    [i]”They are not MY death squads”[/i]

    They killed to support your political beliefs, didn’t they? That makes them YOURS.

    [i]”Death squads included republican paramilitarists who slaughtered 516 (at least) civilians, ie. innocent bystanders.”[/i]

    “Deah squads” is a term used to descrbe groups who kill civilians to terrorize those who oppose a current government and do so with the aid of soldiers and cops and the approval of the political authorities. Originally coined to describe groups in Argentina and later appled to similar groups in a number of South and Central American nations. So, no, the PIRA had no death squads.

    Secondly, yu tippy-toe around the 1,064 civilians killed by the security forces and the death squads and then comp[lain about the 516 SLAUGHTERED by the PIRA. I.m afraid your language displays a distinct bias there.

    [i]”I don’t think so. I believe many of those were murdered (wrongly) because of their political beliefs. It’s suits some to paint a picture that it was all to do with religion. It wasn’t.”[/i]

    Take it up with Sutton who identifies the motive as religious, not political.

    But, either way, you continued attempts to ignore or downplay the terror campaign waged by the security forces and their death squads os both shameful and dishonest, IMHO.

    [i]”“And YOU defend those who enabled and encouraged them to murder.”

    No, I don’t. On the contrary, I reject those who facilitated their murder totally.”[/i]

    Then, I expect you will vote to dissolve the Union if it ever comes to a referendum and I expect you will vote against the UUP and DUP who ignored the criminal campaign for some 30 years and continue to ignore it today.

  • bertie

    nothere

    very sensible = don’t feed the trolls.

    I do have to say that

    “”They are not MY death squads”

    They killed to support your political beliefs, didn’t they? That makes them YOURS. ”

    Has got to be the most mind boggling stupid thing that I have ever read on Slugger

  • willowfield

    BOB McGOWAN

    Since the PIRA did carry out sustained and military operations for some 30 years, it certainly did control enough territory to do so.

    That doesn’t follow. It is possible to carry out “military operations” without controlling territory. For example, Islamist terrorists don’t control any territory, yet are carrying out “military operations”. PIRA, INLA, UDA, UCF, etc, all carried out “military operations”, yet none controlled territory. The territory of Northern Ireland remained under the control of the Government.

    Enough of your fantasies.

    Now, exactly in what ways did it fail to implement the Protocol.

    Is this a serious question?

    The Protocol applies in civil war situations in which armies are in actual, de facto control of territories: not situations in which, by and large, life goes on as normal, the Government maintains control, but in which paramilitaries operate in secret and clandestine manner.

    If you want to claim that PIRA implemented the Geneva conventions, go right ahead!

    When the government sits back and allows its agents—cops and police—to not only stand by while death squads kill over 1,000 innocent civilians (715 of those killings were murders, remember) but also to provide the death squads with arms, training, intelligence information, cover and immunity, that justifies a resort to war under the just war theory. Simple.

    1. They didn’t stand by while “death squads killed over 1,000 innocent civilians”. On the contrary, they sought out, arrested and charged members of the death squads.

    2. Yet again, I must point out to you that simply asserting that something is justified does not make it so. If you want to argue that the PIRA campaign was justified by just war theory, go ahead. I note, however, that you have so far failed to do so, after several prompts. That leads to the reasonable conclusion that you are unable to put forward such an argument, and that your claim is a lot of nonsense.

  • [i]”The Protocol applies in civil war situations in which armies are in actual, de facto control of territories: not situations in which, by and large, life goes on as normal, the Government maintains control, but in which paramilitaries operate in secret and clandestine manner.”[/i]

    They did carry out ,ilitary operations — not a terrorist campaign — for over 30 years. Therefore, they did control enough territory to satisfy the Protocol. QED.

    [i]”If you want to claim that PIRA implemented the Geneva conventions, go right ahead!”[/i]

    The PIRA was not bound by the Convention since they were not signatories to it. HMG had voluntarily signed the Convention and so were bound by it. And, when you look at the actual facts of the matter, the PIRA did a far better job of observing the Convention than HMG. For the simple fact of the matter is that HMG was responsible for over 1,000 civilian deaths and the PIRA for only 500.

    [i]”1. They didn’t stand by while “death squads killed over 1,000 innocent civilians”. On the contrary, they sought out, arrested and charged members of the death squads.”[/i]

    Once again, let me point out that we are talking about criminality on the part of the Army and the RUC, not the death squads. And while the arrests and convictions were done, the flow of arms, ammunition, training courses, information went on and on and cover and immunity continued to the obedient thugs. Sorry, w, those are the facts.

    As far as the just war is concerned, I’ve already answered you but”
    Were there legitimate grievances? Yes.
    Were they ignored and state violence directed at those who brought the grievances forward? Yes.
    Did the state resort to illegal imprisonment and illegal violence instead of addressing the grievances? Yes
    Was there any reasonable hope that continued non-violent protest would persuade the government to address those grievances? No and the proof of that is that some of them have not been addressed to this day even after 30 years of violence and 10 years of truce.
    QED

  • willowfield

    They did carry out ,ilitary operations—not a terrorist campaign—for over 30 years. Therefore, they did control enough territory to satisfy the Protocol. QED.

    That doesn’t follow. It is possible to carry out “military operations” without controlling territory. For example, Islamist terrorists don’t control any territory, yet are carrying out “military operations”. PIRA, INLA, UDA, UCF, etc, all carried out “military operations”, yet none controlled territory. The territory of Northern Ireland remained under the control of the Government.

    Enough of your fantasies.

    The PIRA was not bound by the Convention since they were not signatories to it.

    So you’re trying to use the Conventions to claim that the PIRA was engaged in a legally-recognisable “war”, yet at the same time are dismissing the Conventions as irrelevant because the PIRA was not a signatory?

    Right.

    The Conventions, in any case, are customary law.

    And, when you look at the actual facts of the matter, the PIRA did a far better job of observing the Convention than HMG. For the simple fact of the matter is that HMG was responsible for over 1,000 civilian deaths and the PIRA for only 500.

    1. The PIRA didn’t observe the Conventions. For example, it took no prisoners and targeted civilians.

    2. The Government wasn’t responsible for over 1,000 civilian deaths.

    3. The PIRA murdered 1,700, less than half of whom were military victims.

    Once again, let me point out that we are talking about criminality on the part of the Army and the RUC, not the death squads.

    Then why did you refer to death squads? Say what you mean, instead of writing nonsense.

    And while the arrests and convictions were done, the flow of arms, ammunition, training courses, information went on and on and cover and immunity continued to the obedient thugs. Sorry, w, those are the facts.

    So you accept that the terrorists were arrested, charged and convicted and that therefore you were wrong to state that they “stood by”? You’re acknowleding the fact that you lied.

    As far as the just war is concerned, I’ve already answered you but”

    You haven’t. You have merely asserted that you think the PIRA campaign was just. You have yet even to attempt to construct an argument!

    Were there legitimate grievances? Yes.

    The existence of “legitimate grievances” does not necessarily justify a war. And I note your failure even to attempt such an argument.

    Were they ignored and state violence directed at those who brought the grievances forward? Yes.

    Actually, they weren’t ignored. On the contrary, they were largely conceded.

    Did the state resort to illegal imprisonment and illegal violence instead of addressing the grievances? Yes

    Wrong again. First, the grievances were addressed. Second, there was no illegal imprisonment. Third, if you refer to internment, it was only introduced AFTER the PIRA campaign had begun.

    Three irrelevant points.

    Was there any reasonable hope that continued non-violent protest would persuade the government to address those grievances? No and the proof of that is that some of them have not been addressed to this day even after 30 years of violence and 10 years of truce.

    Wrong again, since the grievances were addressed as a result of non-violent protest!

    Your knowledge of this area would appear to be wanting.

    And I note again your abandonment of your ridiculous claims about “armed rebellion”, which you now realise is a meaningless term and a meaningless concept. This is an example of your ignorance.

  • [i]”That doesn’t follow. It is possible to carry out “military operations” without controlling territory. For example, Islamist terrorists don’t control any territory, yet are carrying out “military operations”. PIRA, INLA, UDA, UCF, etc, all carried out “military operations”, yet none controlled territory. The territory of Northern Ireland remained under the control of the Government.”[/i]

    Sorry, w, your repetitio9n of a falsehood does not make it trye. The PIRA did control enough territory to carry out military operations and they DID unlike HMG carry out MILITARY operations as the distribution of their victims clearly shows. HMG carried out a terrorist operation as the distribution of their victims clearly shows.

    [i]”So you’re trying to use the Conventions to claim that the PIRA was engaged in a legally-recognisable “war”, yet at the same time are dismissing the Conventions as irrelevant because the PIRA was not a signatory?”[/i]

    Do try to address the issues, w. YOU cited the definition under the GC, not I. All I did was show that under YOUR definition the armed rebellion of the PIRA was a war, and a just war at that. You’re grasping at straws and making less and less sense, it seems to me.

    [i]”The Conventions, in any case, are customary law.”[/i]

    A good deal of the Convention is an encoding of the ethical standards that have been around for centuries. BUT, there are parts that were put in that apply only to nation-states and which were included to preserve their [i]bona fides[/i] because there is simply no ethical reason for their inclusion. The territorial requirement is, I suggest, one of thos since there is absolutly no reason why absolute control of any territory is needed to wage war, a guerrilla war. But, nation-states don’t like guerrilla forces — except when they use them for their own purposes as the British did with the [i]maquis[/i] and [i]parisani[/i] in WW2 and with the death squads in NI. Sorry, w, wrong again.

    [i]”Then why did you refer to death squads? Say what you mean, instead of writing nonsense.”[/i]

    Nobody really disagrees with the statement that the loyalist paramilitaries were criminals, but what YOU refuse to address is that the security forces which provided the death squads with the wherewithal to murder the innocent are also criminally guilty.

    [i]”So you accept that the terrorists were arrested, charged and convicted and that therefore you were wrong to state that they “stood by”? You’re acknowleding the fact that you lied.”[/i]

    uhh, willowfield, the murders didn’t stop so the death squads were still in business and the flow of materiel and information and the provision of cover and immunity didn’t stop either. THAT is the point.

  • [i]”The existence of “legitimate grievances” does not necessarily justify a war. And I note your failure even to attempt such an argument.”[/i]

    Interesting, if pointless, since I never said that they did.

    [i]”Actually, they weren’t ignored. On the contrary, they were largely conceded.”[/i]

    Wrong since the needed reforms of the police and the justice system have not been implemented and a functiioning civil government has not been put in place. Largely because the unionist are blocking such moves and the Brits kowtowing to them.

    [i]”Wrong again. First, the grievances were addressed. Second, there was no illegal imprisonment. Third, if you refer to internment, it was only introduced AFTER the PIRA campaign had begun.[/i]

    First, the grievances were NOT addressed until long after the PIRA armed rebellion was undertaken. Second, internment is hardly a legal response. Third, the state-sponsored violence against those seeking redress of legitimate grievances began long before internment.

    [i]”Wrong again, since the grievances were addressed as a result of non-violent protest!”[/i]

    Whoever told you that? The grievances were not addressed until after the violence started and after the Stormont tyranny was put out of business. Quite some time after the violence had started. And the point you ignore totally is that some of the reforms are still not in place despite 30 years of violence and 10 years of truce.

  • [i]”1. The PIRA didn’t observe the Conventions. For example, it took no prisoners and targeted civilians.

    2. The Government wasn’t responsible for over 1,000 civilian deaths.

    3. The PIRA murdered 1,700, less than half of whom were military victims.”[/i]

    1 On what basis do you cliam that the PIRA took no prisoners? Secondly, given the distribution of victims and the inevitable killing of some civilians during military operations in an urban setting, the numbers clearly show that the PIRA did NOT target civilians as a matter of course.

    2. When the agents of the government provide all the wherewithal needed for the death squads to go out and murder innocent bystanders, those agents are equally guilty and also the government for doing nothing to stop the collusion between their agents and the death squads.

    3. Again, you misuse language. Killings of combatants in a war — even an unjust war — are NOT murder except in unusual circumstances. Of the 1,706 killed by the PIRA, 516 or 30% were civilians. So your statment is false.

  • willowfield

    Sorry, w, your repetitio9n of a falsehood does not make it trye.

    It wasn’t a falsehood.

    The PIRA did control enough territory to carry out military operations and they DID unlike HMG carry out MILITARY operations as the distribution of their victims clearly shows.

    They didn’t control any territory. Northern Ireland remained under the control of the Government. Life went on. People went about their business.

    Do try to address the issues, w. YOU cited the definition under the GC, not I. All I did was show that under YOUR definition the armed rebellion of the PIRA was a war, and a just war at that.

    1. The definition doesn’t show the PIRA campaign to be a “war”.

    2. Just war theory is irrelevant to the definition. Indeed, the definition is jus in bello, which is entirely separate from jus ad bellum.

    Once more, you’re exposing your ignorance.

    Nobody really disagrees with the statement that the loyalist paramilitaries were criminals, but what YOU refuse to address is that the security forces which provided the death squads with the wherewithal to murder the innocent are also criminally guilty.

    On the contrary, I have explicitly acknowledged that criminal activity by the armed forces was … criminal. That doesn’t alter the fact that you claimed that the security forces “stood by” while the loyalist terrorists murdered, and then had to acknowledge that they didn’t.

    uhh, willowfield, the murders didn’t stop so the death squads were still in business and the flow of materiel and information and the provision of cover and immunity didn’t stop either. THAT is the point.

    Just because the murders didn’t stop doesn’t mean that the security forces “stood by”. False logic.

    Interesting, if pointless, since I never said that they did.

    Good. So you accept that the existence of “legitimate grievances” don’t necessarily justify a violent campaign. That’s good.

    Wrong since the needed reforms of the police and the justice system have not been implemented and a functiioning civil government has not been put in place. Largely because the unionist are blocking such moves and the Brits kowtowing to them.

    The civil rights grievances included neither of the “grievances” that you cite. And there is a functioning civil government. And police reforms have been implemented. And, even if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t justify a violent campaign.

    First, the grievances were NOT addressed until long after the PIRA armed rebellion was undertaken.

    Wrong. They were addressed before the PIRA campaign began. Stop lying.

    Second, internment is hardly a legal response.

    It was legal. You might not have agreed with it, but that didn’t make it illegal.

    Third, the state-sponsored violence against those seeking redress of legitimate grievances began long before internment.

    So you accept that internment wasn’t introduced until after the PIRA campaign, but you just don’t have the integrity to admit that you were wrong? Nice.

    Whoever told you that? The grievances were not addressed until after the violence started and after the Stormont tyranny was put out of business.

    They weren’t. They were nearly all addressed before the PIRA campaign began. There’s no point in denying the facts.

    1 On what basis do you cliam that the PIRA took no prisoners?

    On the basis that they took no prisoners.

    Secondly, given the distribution of victims and the inevitable killing of some civilians during military operations in an urban setting, the numbers clearly show that the PIRA did NOT target civilians as a matter of course.

    Whether they targeted them as a matter of course or only occasionally is irrelevant. They still targeted them.

    2. When the agents of the government provide all the wherewithal needed for the death squads to go out and murder innocent bystanders, those agents are equally guilty and also the government for doing nothing to stop the collusion between their agents and the death squads.

    Maybe so, but then “the agents of the government” didn’t provide “all the wherewithal needed …”, so you point is irrelevant.

    3. Again, you misuse language. Killings of combatants in a war—even an unjust war—are NOT murder except in unusual circumstances.

    It wasn’t a war, therefore the language is accurate.

    Enough of your fantasies.

    And I note you’ve failed yet again to offer an argument that the PIRA campaign was just. We’ll put that down as a concession and further ignorance on your part. We’ll note it down beside the “armed rebellion” nonsense, and the unsupported laughable claims about the Government being responsible for every single loyalist murder. And your lack of understanding of the conventions of argument (e.g. making assertions without offering evidence or reasoning; making assertions and demanding that others prove them to be false, etc.)