Victology

I don’t know if this one will work, but we’ll see. I am going to update this thread periodically. Go with gut reactions and try not to double guess what I’ll post next.

****UPDATE 4 *****

A man is shot dead in his home front of his wife and two children by loyalist paramilitaries.

Who are the victims?

Update1:

The man is active in the IRA. Does this change how you feel, and why?

Update2:

His wife wasn’t involved directly, but certainly knew and occasion helped him to conceal weapons. his children were young enough to know nothing.

Update3:

One of the loyalists was tipped off by an RUC man which led directly to the killing. Another one was an informer.

Update4:

One of the children grows up angry and joins the IRA.

  • slug it out

    You?

  • the ship’s cat

    They are all victims.

  • eranu

    is victology the study of the art of twisting things to make it seem the criminal is the victim? someone committing a crime is not only blameless, they are somehow a victim and its all society’s fault?
    Without any background on the people involved in the example, I would pick the wife and 2 children as the victims.

  • Rory

    Well o.k. I’ll play. The murdered man is clearly the immediate victim and his terrified, traumatised wife and children are collateral victims.

  • Kensie, the murdered man and his family are the victims of this particular event. I suppose it’s possible that the aggressors have been victims of other events and that the murdered man or his wife had themselves been aggressors or had facilitated aggressors. It’s a complex mess.

  • Kensei

    eranu

    There is no intention to twist anything, simply the intention of seeing what people think given certain facts.

    Nevin

    As I said, don’t double guess. Just reaction given the facts in front of you.

  • TwilightoftheProds

    If its stripped down in this way – then its the man and his family who are the victims. Its the same in the eyes of the law.

    However, we have often filtered and selected information in this part of the world, and the moral position of the deceased will become utterly cloudy if he turns out to be, say, a member of the IPLO. 99% of us have hierarchies of the dead, and if we are honest we have all put people on a sliding scale of culpability.

  • Kensei

    Twilight.

    It is unlikely everyone’s hierarchies are the same, so I’m interested in the responses. Just run with what’s there. Most of what I’ll put up is fairly obvious anyway, but jumping to the end will break this a bit.

  • blinding

    Are the loyalist paramilitaries friendly with a certain victims campaigner?

  • Jer

    Interesting,

    you say go with your gut reactions and I was about to but then I read the posts as I went down to the comment box and as a result changed the way I thought about it went I saw your comment on hierarchy of victims. I had not thought of it in the need to rank or order but thats a natural way to do it so no influencing down.

    so consciously now going with my initial impressions I would say:
    The man killed,
    his family,
    the community/area/locals who might feel victimised,
    The fellows who did it having been forced into that situation.

    My inclusion of the last few is fair I think because while you may also be a victim you may also be a actor.

    I think the case where a combatant kills another combatant would generate the same hierarchy of victims even though the context would be different from that painted above.

  • Intelligence Insider

    In pira/sfspeak surely the paramilitaries carrying out the murder are also victims?

  • Kensei, it seems I’ve already answered the second question: he’s both aggressor and victim, in that order.

  • Kensei

    II

    I didn’t ask SF speak, I asked your opinion.

    Nevin

    Why that order?

  • The Devil

    Okay so

    A man is shot dead in his home front of his wife and two children by loyalist paramilitaries.

    okay so it is his wife but doesn’t say whether or not she herself is alive or dead, or whether or not she was deaf or blind.
    It does not say the two children were his children just that they were of child age.

    So is he a paedophile? was he shot because he was interfering with kids? did the wife not know because she was deaf and blind, which means while still a victim herself, she is now less of a victim of the actions because she did not witness them.

    If the wife was dead it didn’t matter to her that she was in the statement and therefore the crime is lessened by the fact that there is now one less victim.
    Unless he was a necrophilic in which case the wife is a victim again but as a victim of the victim and not a victim of the perpetrators actions against the victim.

    Loyalist Paramilitaries? loyal to whom or what? a forign crown or head of state or corrupt government?

    The man was active in the IRA
    (so at least we now know the victims name wasn’t Gerry Adams)
    IRA is a tax revenue allowance in the states which participants are active in

    *****************************************

    So we could surmise that a paedophile yank tax dodger who was cheating on his deaf blind wife was shot by ex Thai police officers in Thailand

  • Driftwood

    Yes the update makes a difference, in my eyes, because, he knew the risks, nobody made him become a terrorist. Also a pretty stupid one if he didn’t have any security at his house.

  • 100%

    Borrrrriiiinnnngggg….

    It is bad enough that you only post a thread once a month, but even this isn’t original.

    So tell us, what website are you copying and pasting this from?

    Seriously slugger is going downhill… and fast.

  • He’s a dead victim, Kensei, so that provides the order I gave. Of course, he may well have been the victim of a previous act of aggression.

  • Blue Hammer

    The man killed is clearly a victim of this crime. His family’s loss of a father/husband/etc make them victims too. Being a provo maybe makes him not a very upstanding citizen, but not deserving of death in this manner. To argue otherwise seeks to justify acts of terrorist violence and is thus flawed.

    The murderers are not victims in this scenario, and never could be regardless of their previous life experiences. In killing this man, they acted outside the law and brought on whatever suffering they subsequently encounter themselves. Thus, some previous wrongs against them may make them victims in that scenario, but in this one, they are simply killers.

  • ggn

    Ken,

    Has this thread got something to do with Frazerism?

  • Kensei

    100%

    Given the terrible nature of my posts, you should be happy at my low post rate. Else you may be bored to death.

    The Devil

    At least try to be coherent in ranting.

  • Kensei

    ggn

    Nope. I am merely trying to have people have a think o this. Absolute positions tend to get chucked around here with depressing regularity. Where is Turgon when you need him?

    Blue

    Hold that thought.

  • delta omega

    Ken

    OK – playing along with your request the initial gut reaction is that the victim in the first instance is the man himself. Secondary victims are the wife and kids, and tertiary victims are everyone else who will be affected by this death.

    Knowing that the man was an active paramilitary doesn’t lessen the fact that he is a victim, but does raise the issue of whether or not he deserved what he got, and therefore if his own actions led to his eventual status as a primary victim. If his wife and family knew of his activities and didn’t try to stop it then they can hardly be surprised that they also end up as victims. Again it doesn’t lessen their status as victims, but does lessen the amount of pity they deserve.

  • TwilightoftheProds

    Are the IRA man’s handlers also victims in that they have to go to the trouble of finding a new intelligence source?

    Is one of the Loyalists a victim when he is extrajudicially executed after being knocked down by a ‘passing’ undercover surveillance unit?

    So it was often a dirty war with multiple frames of reference – and no easy moral compass.

    But equally there were instances when the casual brutality was stark and victimhood clearcut.

    I’m sceptical about there being anything new in being walked through these scenarios. I’ll juke in on the developing serial soap opera cos I’m curious as to how it turns out, but I think most of us who lived through this made very fluid calculations about guilt, innocence and necessity, and know it.

  • Earnan

    The loyalist is a freedom fighter who was only striking down fascism. He probably should have shot the rest of the family for good measure. 3 less votes for Sinn Fein

  • Kensei

    Twilight

    I’m young enough to be curious about these things. But when you say “fluid calculations abut guilt, innocence and necessity”, what do you mean and are you favouring your own particular narrative here? You “necessity” might be someone else’s monstrosity.

    delta

    Does anyone deserve being shot dead in front of their kids?

  • Blue Hammer

    Kensei

    No change. The murdered man is the primary victim, and his family etc remain victims due to their loss at the hands of the lawless. Their unrelated debatable behaviour impacts on this not one iota. Sympathy for them is another story.

    The murderers remain as before, that is without the right to claim victim status as their actions were, presumably, planned and in any reality, unjustifiable.

  • veritas

    the guilty person is off course, the one directing operations from behind the picket fence.

    In Dallas 1963!

  • delta omega

    Hi Kensei

    It isn’t about whether or not he deserved to be shot in front of his wife and kids, but as an active paramilitary the thought that it might happen must have at least crossed his mind.

    Let me put it another way: If a man drives at 70mph up the motorway and has an unavoidable accident which results in his death, then I can have pity for him. If however he suicidially drives the wrong way up a motorway at 70mph and has an accident and gets killed then my pity for him is somewhat diminished as it is tempered by my reaction that he got what he deserved.

    Similarly if an innocent man is shot in front of his wife and kids then I have sympathy for him, but if his actions can precipitate such a reaction and he has knowingly placed his family in a position where this is at least a possible scenario, then again my pity for him is somewhat tempered.

  • delta omega

    Hi Kensei

    It isn’t about whether or not he deserved to be shot in front of his wife and kids, but as an active paramilitary the thought that it might happen must have at least crossed his mind.

    Let me put it another way: If a man drives at 70mph up the motorway and has an unavoidable accident which results in his death, then I can have pity for him. If however he suicidially drives the wrong way up a motorway at 70mph and has an accident and gets killed then my pity for him is somewhat diminished as it is tempered by my reaction that he got what he deserved.

    Similarly if an innocent man is shot in front of his wife and kids then I have sympathy for him, but if his actions can precipitate such a reaction and he has knowingly placed his family in a position where this is at least a possible scenario, then again my pity for him is somewhat tempered.

  • Kensei

    delta

    The grief of that family is not diminished regardless of circumstance. I appreciate the impulse, and it is a undoubtedly natural reaction. But I am wary of “he got what he deserved” sentiments. It lacks a certain compassion and empathy. Can we push past our own prejudices to touch, briefly someone else’s suffering?

    Christianity is also a tough religion on these points if followed the letter.

    But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

  • TwilightoftheProds

    Hi Ken

    You’ve missed my point a little – many peoples narratives allowed for fluid conceptions of guilt, and innocence, they could be highly contingent concepts at times. ‘No smoke without fire’ was a common hushed refrain – usually screened behind the more public’That was terrible last night wasn’t it?’ Another was ‘its not pretty but you’ve got to hit them back or they’ll keep doing what they’re doing’ People would sometimes sniff out the background or context before committing to full disapproval. And yes, sometimes one persons ‘necessity’ was a monstrosity for another. And sometimes people thought the ‘necessity’ was a ‘monstrosity’ at one and the same time. And I’ve heard people with a university ‘education’, and people in mixed marriages, say these things. Not just the usual scapegoats in sink estates.

  • Ri Na Deise

    Scenario 1: The man, his wife and children are the victims.

    Scenario 2: wife and children are victims. The man is a combatant and the manner of death was in line with the general terms of engagement between combatants in that war.

    Scenario 3: wife and children still victims. Knowledge/support of a position regardless, they are still non-combatants directly affected by the act.

  • delta omega

    Ken

    Compassion and empathy are tempered by justice. My feelings towards the wife and kids are that it would have been better if this never happened and that they didn’t have to go through the suffering, but they must have realised that they brought a little of it on themselves. It in no way reduces the grief, but it should at least go someway in answering the question of why it happened.

    With regards to Christian love you need to distinguish that love is not a feeling, it is an act of will.

  • delta omega

    Ri Na Deise

    If the wife helped her husband to hide arms can she really justify herself as a non combatant?

  • Kensei

    Twilight

    So are you saying that when republicans accuse Unionists of being raging hypocrites on the high horse they had a bit of a point? Cos that’s what that one sounds like.

  • Kensei

    delta

    With regards to Christian love you need to distinguish that love is not a feeling, it is an act of will.

    Precisely. You have to will the “they brought them on themselves” from your mind.

  • delta omega

    Hi Kensei

    I disagree, because each of us will be judged by our own actions and if our actions lead others to condemn us, then their view is justified.

    That is distinguishable from Christian love, where I can hate what this man did, and I can hate what was done to him, and I can hate the pain and suffering that has been brought on his wife and kids, but yet love each if them as an individual soul that my belief tells me Christ died for.

  • Kensei

    delta

    I have always been slightly sceptical you can make such distinctions on more than an intellectual level. It strikes me as lip service against the hard task of trying to find compassion for someone who has done some great wrong.

    Moreover, while you can find particular acts abhorrent and yet embrace an individual, the line of “he brought it on himself” always strikes me in measure vindictive, and thus incompatible for Christian love. And I think you stated that yourself when you said that it would lessen your pity and compassion. How could that be reconciled?

  • TwilightoftheProds

    Kensei

    Yes, I am saying that there were plenty of hypocrites about. No monopoly on that. You seem surprised.

    But I wasn’t singling out Unionists in particular. I’ve heard people excuse or justify the mass killings of civilians by both Republicans or Loyalists. Again, not a track suit in sight.

    Now why would one think that only unionists can be hypocrites about this sort of thing?

  • Driftwood

    Is Christian “Love” the one where the eldest son in every family is struck dead by God?
    Moses announced, “Tonight at midnight the Lord will send an angel throughout the land. The oldest son in each home will die, from the oldest son of Pharaoh, to the oldest son of his lowliest slave. There will be loud cries from all the Egyptian households. However, it will be so peaceful among the Israelites that not even a dog will bark. This way, you will know the Lord distinguishes between the Egyptians and the Israelites.”
    Exodus 11 I believe. great stuff

  • Kensei

    Twilight

    Now why would one think that only unionists can be hypocrites about this sort of thing?

    Oh, there is absolutely no monopoly on hypocrisy, but from a few years here Unionists seem to be more reluctant to admit it.

    Drift

    New Testament.

  • Jimmy Sands

    1. Murder is wrong

    2. The fact that a victim may have been himself a murderer, or even a sympathiser, inevitably diminishes my sympathy but does not affect the principle that murder is wrong.

    3. Murder by or with the connivance of the state or its operatives is even worse.

  • delta omega

    Kensei
    the line of “he brought it on himself” always strikes me in measure vindictive

    I know where you are coming from, but I don’t take as hard a line as that. If someone is dereserving of punishment then let the punishment be given. I totally agree with your thought though if you are speaking about revenge – that is vindictive and not compatible with Christian love, but in my mind I distinguish between revenge and deserved punishment.

  • delta omega

    Driftwood

    Believe it or not but your quote explains my position very well – God judged the Egyptians for their wrongdoing, but left all of them with a means of escape by sheding the blood of a lamb and sprinkling it on their doors, thereby showing his love.

  • Blue Hammer

    Update 3:

    No change. The fact that the murderers were assisted in their crime does not diminish or change the nature of the victims. Just adds to the perpetrators.

    On one level i would have supported these actions given the situation as described for update 3, but in the cold light of day would have to concede that the man’s murder was still wrong, and that he, his wife and family are the victims of the scenario.

  • eranu

    now the facts are out i suppose the man is the technical victim, he is the subject that got shot. i had a feeling he was going to be mixed up with the paramilitaries. the woman and kids and the mans family and friends etc are victims by having lost a loved one. but only the kids are actual innocent victims. the man and woman got what they deserved. ive no sympathy for any terrorists and anyone who helps them.

  • Damian O’Loan

    I’d like to respond with more questions. Who are the victims of what?

    If it is the shooting, the man is the only direct victim. Those present are certainly indirect victims, possibly among unmentioned others.

    The assailants are also victims of sorts. We have to agree on what ‘sorts’ though.

    It isn’t clear that part 3 is related to the previous two.

    As I understand it, we judge whether an act is criminal or not through the justice system, whether an act is wrong subjectively, and attribute victim status dependent also on subjective criteria. But discussion is impossible unless you begin with either of two questions?

    What is a victim? Or, who are victims of…?

    You may be interested in this, from the online etymology dictionary:

    victim

    1497, “living creature killed and offered as a sacrifice to a deity or supernatural power,” from L. victima “person or animal killed as a sacrifice.” Perhaps distantly connected to O.E. wig “idol,” Goth. weihs “holy,” Ger. weihen “consecrate” (cf. Weihnachten “Christmas”) on notion of “a consecrated animal.” Sense of “person who is hurt, tortured, or killed by another” is first recorded 1660; meaning “person oppressed by some power or situation” is from 1718. Weaker sense of “person taken advantage of” is recorded from 1781. Victimize is from 1830.

    Merry Christmas.

  • Driftwood

    Of course if you are working for Sandline or Blackwater abroad, or an Apache or A-10 pilot, there are NO victims at all. Just Collateral Damage.
    There are only victims in Western Societies. i.e.9/11

    Am I kicking the ball into the long grass here?

  • Greenflag

    We are dealing with human beings here, so throw some ratomorphism into the scenario . By this measure only killing the male is poor form indeed . A proper rat would have killed the children and wife first , being the weakest members . Then the rest of the rat pack would have turned on the male rat and killed him .

    These loyalists come across as almost ‘gentlemanly ‘ in their conduct leaving just a couple of traumatised kids and a woman behind in their wake . I’m sure there are thousands like them from both tribes across NI and not a few in Britain and some in the rest of Ireland equally traumatised.

    ‘Does anyone deserve being shot dead in front of their kids? ‘

    If you were an escaped Jew from Belsen and you came face to face with Hitler .Assume the latter had sired one child now sitting beside him at table ?. What would you do having seen your entire family , wife , children and parents marched naked into a gas chamber ? Would you feel an ounce of pity for Hitler ?

    You are a half starved Matabele in Zimbabwe and you know that Mugabe’s Fifth Brigade were responsible for the rape and murder of three of your sisters and the murder of both your parents . And now you stand armed in front of Mugabe who is sitting at table with his children /nephews ?

    The problem with absolutist views is that they do not take account of the messy contraption that is humankind . The person who can march you into the gas chamber today could probably have a pleasant chat with you over a beer in past peaceful times . In the former case he’s following orders or he gets shot himself . In the latter he’s on his own time and the boss can go to hell for all he cares . Eichman was a real nice dad they say . Jews did’nt think so which is why they hanged him and even went through a ‘judicial ‘ process .

    Some of what happened in the Yugolavian inter ethnic strife makes what happened in Northern Ireland sound like conflict by queensberry rules .

    The winners always determine the ‘morality’ of the killings . The problem in Northern Ireland is that there are no winners – just two sets of losers and that is why they will dig themselves in ever deeper ruts around the same circles ad infinitum looking for absolute affirmation that their side was right and the other wrong , from a ‘moral’ perspective which is paramount apparently on gaining entry to the best seats in the next life or so they say .

    But then they would would’nt they ? meanwhile the blood just runs away into the gutters like it always has 🙁

  • OC

    Update4:

    The dead IRA man was suspected of being a tout by his superiors, who hired some UFF contract assassins to make an example of him.

  • 6countyprod

    IRA Man is a soldier in a war. Dying is part of the job of being a soldier. IRA Man brings his work home with him. His wife is his accomplice/quartermaster. Neither are victims, they are casualties in a war of their own making.

    IRA Man and Wife invited warfare into their home/armoury. The children are the victims and need to be taken from their irresponsible parents before they too become ensnared in one of the most ill-advised and ultimately least successful wars of attrition of the 20th century.

  • kensei

    Greenflag

    A Jew killing Hitler was certainly understandable, but if there is another option to bring him to justice, is it right? That is a difficult question.

    Damian

    Who is a victim? What is a victim? That is part of the question I’m throwing out

    6county

    I didn’t mean to imply that the wide regularly supplied or hid weapons. Simply that on occasion she was faced with the choice of concealing weapons or allowing her husband to go to jail and her children be deprived of a father. I know the inevitable response would be “well, what about the families he has deprived” but can you honestly say if faced with a decision between family and a stranger, you’d pick the morally correct option and not the emotional one?

    Blue

    What about the informer? He had the power to influence the outcome, but didn’t to protect himself. Is he still culpable?

    What about the RUC man – is he culpable? In the event of the crime ever being prosecuted, should he be held to account?

  • Hbf

    I think who is a victim here depends on whether you mean a victim of this one event, or a victim of other things too.

    Clearly if what is meant is “who is the victim in this single event,” then it will be the guy who’s been shot and his family (possibly more or less depending on the exact background). Their history doesn’t stop them being victims (although it should not be forgotten).

    If what is meant is more “who would be a victim in life” then you could argue that everyone who ever had something bad enough happen to them is a victim. Whether you consider somebody to be a victim then depends on what you consider bad enough – and that involves moral relativism, which is always flawed.

    There won’t be a satisfactory answer found to this question, ever.

    It doesn’t help that people don’t want to admit that people who have done very bad things have also had bad things happen to them, or that people like to be contrary and disagree and find their own opinion, or that it can be seen as unbalanced or unfair to give someone the status of a victim while somebody on an opposing side gets nothing.

    That’s why in Northern Ireland, our politicians love to shout at each other about this.

    I want to end by saying that when a crime or attack is committed, the severity of the crime is not altered by whether or not the perpatrator is a victim (of some other thing) themselves.

  • Greenflag

    kensei ,

    ‘but if there is another option to bring him to justice, is it right? ‘

    Justice is not guaranteed anywhere . It’s an ideal and a measure of our attempts to see that what’s right is upheld . Of course under nazi law it was ‘right’ to force jewish people to wear yellow stars etc . Given the circumstances of the time with the war still going on if I were the Jew in question I’d plug the bugger and let others worry about ‘justice ‘. After several years in a concentration camp I’d say one’s perspective of achieving any justice in the world as well as one’s faith in common humanity as the ultimate protection would have taken more than a severe knock . I’d like to think I’d refrain from shooting the kid but who knows ? . There are very few Gordon Wilsons or Mr McGoldricks around . Think Pinochet , Stalin etc . In 2008 think Mugabe . Would that benighted country of formerly 14 million , now down to 10 million with 4 million having fled and half of the remaining 10 million now facing mass starvation , have benefited if somebody had had ‘removed ‘ this power mad tyrant 15 years ago ?

    I recoil from ‘moral relativism ‘ instinctively just like anybody else. We can carry forever the ball of guilt back to Eve and her forbidden fruit . It seems more than a little harsh or unjust for the great Deus to condemn his entire sapiens creation simply because a woman decided to do the opposite of what she was supposed to do 😉

    I mean you did’nt have to be an all knowing God not to have figured that one out in advance . No shit Sherlock as they say 🙁

    I tend to agree with hbf’s line .

    ‘There won’t be a satisfactory answer found to this question, ever. ‘

    With the add on of – as long as the human species remains as it is . We all have to live as humans as best we can for as sure as Sol rises on the horizon there ain’t anyone else out there who gives a s**t about this young 150,000 year old big brained relatively hairless biped species.

  • Danny O’Connor

    Victims of who? who made them victims ,who endangered their wife and children,was it the cop was it the provo himself or was it the loyalist gunman and with the youngster joining up the cycle goes on.
    We all have choices and responsibility ,burn your arse – sit on the blister.
    The only people who did not have a choice was the children.One child subsequently made a bad choice to keep the hamster wheel going round.Once a victim now a victim maker.His/Her choice.

  • joeCanuck

    Does anyone deserve being shot dead in front of their kids?

    Absolutely not.

    Our society as a whole is victimized by an event such as this. There can be no excuse for vigilantism in any society which has a functioning law and order system.

  • Dave

    “The man is active in the IRA. Does this change how you feel, and why?”

    Yes, while it is good that there is one less sectarian murderer to inflict misery on others, that doesn’t give other sectarian murderers a right to kill.

    “His wife wasn’t involved directly, but certainly knew and occasion helped him to conceal weapons. his children were young enough to know nothing.”

    If his wife knew that her partner was engaged in a sectarian murder campaign and conceal his weapons, then she deserves a long prison sentence. It’s a shame that her kids would then be deprived of both parents, but alas that happens when both parents are moral and criminal degenerates and are held accountable for their behaviour (by legal and illegal means).

    “One of the loyalists was tipped off by an RUC man which led directly to the killing. Another one was an informer.”

    Again, others deserve a long prison sentence.

    “One of the children grows up angry and joins the IRA.”

    I blame the parents.

    Plus, of course, the godfathers who organised and controlled the activities of the stupid and the amoral for the selfish purposes of the godfathers, i.e. vast wealth from organised crime under the pretext of raising money for ‘the cause’ and touting cash payments and finally powerful jobs for themselves for collaborating with British intelligence in selling out said stupid and the amoral foot soldiers.

  • Dave

    “Who are the victims?”

    I missed this one.

    The direct victims are those who were unlawfully deprived of their lives. The indirect victims are the friends and family of the direct victims.

    If you are implying that the son of a murdered member of sectarian murder gang (PIRA) who decided to join that sectarian murder gang and thereby murder others is ‘the victim’ in the story rather than another villain then you are mistaken in your customary morally obfuscating manner. He may have been a victim as a child, but as an adult possessed of his own free will, he chose to become a victim and to inflict the suffering on others that he himself experienced. It might be true that most paedophiles were also victims of paedophilia but defence lawyers rarely have much luck using that dubious defence in mitigation. Most indirect victims of violent acts, however, do not become violent.

    Most of these acts of violence in Northern Ireland resulted from a very small number of highly organised murder gangs who orchestrated and controlled the violence. The degree to which the State also controlled those murder gangs is debatable. So, you can either say that the organised murder gangs served the purpose of controlling the violence and preventing it from spreading to a civil war or you can say that if those gangs were not established for the purpose of murder, very few acts of violence would have occurred. Another thing that would not have occurred is that the northern Irish nationalists would not have been brought to a situation wherein they accepted the constitutional legitimacy of the state. As Margaret Thatcher wrote, “the minority should be led to support or at least acquiesce in the constitutional framework of the state in which they live.”

  • Dave

    Typo: “… he chose to become a [b]victimizer[/b] and to inflict the suffering on others that he himself experienced.”

  • If dancing on pinheads is fun, then creating a hierarchy of victims will be your cup of tea.

    But isn’t the reality that victims are all those involved, and more. The people around them, their family, their friends, their street, their community. They’re all tinged with the action taken or the action received.

    Better to let people define themselves as victims if they want too. It’s not a club that can have too many members. And it’s the consequences of being a victim, or being victimised, that are worth studying. Not who is, and who isn’t.

  • kensei

    Dave

    If his wife knew that her partner was engaged in a sectarian murder campaign and conceal his weapons, then she deserves a long prison sentence. It’s a shame that her kids would then be deprived of both parents, but alas that happens when both parents are moral and criminal degenerates and are held accountable for their behaviour (by legal and illegal means).

    You’d shop your wife? Just like that, without any degree of difficulty?

  • MM

    I think anybody reading this drivel is the true victim.

  • kensei

    MM

    The thing about this one is that the interest isn’t in the post. The interest is entirely in the comments. Which means the level of interest is entirely up to you.

    Thanks for your contribution!!!!!!!

  • delta omega

    Kensei

    I think the most disturbing thing on this thread is update 4 where one of the children grows up angry and joins the IRA. It is that mentality that needs to be broken in our society. If the children don’t learn from the mistakes of the fathers then the potential is there for an ever deepening downward spiral of murder and mayhem. Surely the wish for these children is that they see the cruel death of their father and work for a more peaceful society so that no one else has to go through the same grief that they went through. If update 4 had said that one of these kids grew up to be a peace activist then there may be some hope for our society.

  • Blue Hammer

    Kensei

    Update 4:

    The child’s status expands from victim, with my sympathy, to perpetrator, with my contempt.

    Such a reaction (joining an illegal organisation to seek to wreak revenge) is never acceptable and as someone above says, leaves us all in a spiral of hate and destruction.

  • Dewi

    “I think the most disturbing thing on this thread is update 4 where one of the children grows up angry and joins the IRA.”

    That’s the pattern. It’s exactly what happened in many cases.

  • kensei

    Blue

    That is somewhat easily dispassionate. Can you feel his anger? Is pity not an appropriate response also?

    Also, you missed a question on the informer.

  • Blue Hammer

    Kensei

    It’s dispassionate but far from easily so. i lost friends and relatives to the IRA’s campaign, but did not feel an urge to inflict my pain on others through joining a paramilitary organisation. Maybe i am lucky to be able to be dispassionate – i hate and despise the IRA for what they have done, but they should face the law, not the barrel of my gun for doing so. The same applies to the loyalists – who died and made them my representatives? Scum to a man.

    As for the missed questions, the informer had a duty to prevent the death and didnt. For that he should face justice. Likewise the RUC handler broke the law and should feel the full force of it in return.

    You can’t shoot your parents and seek sympathy for being an orphan.

  • delta omega

    Kensei

    Just for completeness re update 3, imo the RUC man should be convicted as an accessory to murder, and the other informer should not get any leniency for being an informer – if he was invloved in crime, then he should reap the judicial consequences.

  • Rory

    Well one thing at least is clear, the one certain victim in all of this is muggins here for being naive enough to participate in such a bloody daft exercise as this in the first place. At least I had the good sense to bail out quickly when I realised that this was going nowhere but downhill – fast.

  • Kensei

    delta

    Just for completeness re update 3, imo the RUC man should be convicted as an accessory to murder, and the other informer should not get any leniency for being an informer – if he was invloved in crime, then he should reap the judicial consequences.

    If he isn’t, he blows his cover and maybe gets himself killed. He has perhaps saved other lives by passing on information and may do so in the future. No leniency?

    Rory

    Once again — the quality of this one is largely down to the quality of the comments. Which you have direct control over. If you have any suggestions happy to hear them.

  • Yvette

    “One of the children grows up angry and joins the IRA.”

    He is sent to one of the most dangerous parts of Ireland, he feels hunted, it is a world of predators, betrayal, a sudden death culture, eventually he phones his boss and tells him he doesn’t like LImerick.

  • delta omega

    Kensei

    Based on the fact that he was present at this killing, then it is relatively safe to say that he was involved in crime. As such i believe that he should face the consequences for that.

    How many lives would his information need to save to justify being involved in one killing?

    Rory
    I have to back Kensei up on the need for this thread. There have been 4 victims commissioners appointed at an awful waste of tax payers money, but what use are they if the definition of a victim is so vague that everybody in NI, ROI and beyond will be covered by the definition.

  • Yvette

    When the V weapons were hitting London, they tried to shift them to suburbs and thereby killing people, who not have died.

    It was less, but a moral issue. It had to be done without cabinet sanction. The govt. didn’t feel it was in the V ewapon targeting business.

    Some had radio trackers, one couldn’t send them to the back of beyond. It had to be a modest adjustment or the Germans would have worked out their agent was turned.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Update5. The IRA man was also a solicitor famed for representing his fellow IRA members????

  • 6countyprod

    While we recall possible scenarios from the past, should we not consider current victims of terror.

    Among the many scores killed in Bombay, six people, including a five-months pregnant woman, specifically targeted and slaughtered, and their holy book desecrated, all because they are not the right religion. All victims. But who cares?, they are only Jews!

  • Essentialist

    I am the victim. I had no part to play in the affair but have had to live with the expensive consequences. Will Ken Bloomfield look after me?

  • @Essentialist – exactly. As I stated earlier in this slightly bizarre thread:

    > Better to let people define themselves as
    > victims if they want too. It’s not a club
    > that can have too many members.

  • kensei

    6county

    It is almost impossible not feel sorry for the Jews, even with Israeli mentalism. There is apparently no extremist grouping on the planet who can’t find something to target them for.