[Flair91]

Martin McGuiness deserves to be in prison for his crimes..

[IRSP044]

(Original post by nmccann)
Killing Civilians? - Loyalist death squads and British Army - something your "heroes" continue to do today.

Loyalists death squads had no legitimate political agenda.

Sinn Fein are left wing and were the political wing of the IRA.

I would call sf centre left but not left.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by nmccann)
Killing Civilians? - Loyalist death squads and British Army - something your "heroes" continue to do today.

Loyalists death squads had no legitimate political agenda.

Sinn Fein are left wing and were the political wing of the IRA.

Apart from their numerous bombings of various pubs and places where lots of people congregate, they are also responsible for trying to kill Baroness Thatcher.

[nmccann]

(Original post by IRSP044)
I would call sf centre left but not left.

Yeah you're right, was just trying to make they point they werent far right wingers to some other person

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by IRSP044)
Don't try too twist my words. You know I mean the UVF, UDA etc when said loyalists.

In what way am I trying to "twist" your words? I merely quoted what you said. In fact, you even went so far as to specify who you want vegence upon:

That includes politicians, spooks, soldiers, cops and loyalists!
Well any army, police, loyalist, or those who helped them where legitimate targets.

"Those who helped them". There is no way that you can suggest that that isn't going to include a lot of wives and girlfriends, mothers and daughters that you want to see suffer.

It's not about revenge it's about justice!

Surely the best justice you can offer to this and subsequent generations is the guarantee of peace. I ask you again: How is your attitude going to get anybody anywhere closer to peace?

[nmccann]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Apart from their numerous bombings of various pubs and places where lots of people congregate, they are also responsible for trying to kill Baroness Thatcher.

Baroness Thatcher would have been considered a political target and why not , she refused to help for an ELECTED MP who was on hunger strike in prison.

Of course many cowardly acts were committed which where totally wrong, but it was a war, and horrific things happen.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by nmccann)
Baroness Thatcher would have been considered a political target and why not , she refused to help for an ELECTED MP who was on hunger strike in prison.

Of course many cowardly acts were committed which where totally wrong, but it was a war, and horrific things happen.

What does him being an elected MP have to do with anything?

[nmccann]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
What does him being an elected MP have to do with anything?

It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death , and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted. How does it not? It was a defining moment within the conflict here which sparked worlwide hostility towards the British Gvt, and and resulted in a huge increase in IRA membership. Honestly, your ignorance is embarrassing.

[L i b]

(Original post by IRSP044)
Uncoils pull up many accounts from various sources supporting the collusion claim. However I am too lazy. Plus I don't see the point in it anyway as the chances are you won't be swayed anyway.

Did they serve in Ireland or was it somewhere else that they went to murder and plunder on orders from auld lizzie?

You're hardly making a sound case for why people like you shouldn't have been strung up as traitors. Whilst I generally favour being a tad more liberal about things, it never ceases to startle me just how disgusted I can be with some members of the Irish Republican movement.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by nmccann)
It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death , and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted. How does it not? It was a defining moment within the conflict here which sparked worlwide hostility towards the British Gvt, and and resulted in a huge increase in IRA membership. Honestly, your ignorance is embarrassing.

Whether or not convicted IRA members should be treated as political prisoners or not is completely irrelevant. I was questioning your opinion that someone should be treated differently in prison because they are an MP.

[L i b]

(Original post by nmccann)
What I find utterly laughable is your conservative views on this , and they have absolutely no support here as seen in their complete lack of any representatives in local government. Of course the violence was necessary , otherwise we would still be suffering from the same conditions, if there was no resistance, why else would the sectarian government change?

NI government deliberately changed the system from proportional representation from to first past the post making it impossible for Catholics to gain seats, especially seen in Derry which is overwhelmingly catholic yet the city council was completely unionist so Gerrymandering was a much greater problem then your niche "Germany France border " example implies

It was inevitable that violence would ensue and it was about civil rights not "nationalism". Research Ivan Cooper, a protestant man protesting about the discrimination against catholics.

Imagine - a Conservative with conservative views. I'm sure you're surprised.

Again, I repeat my point: there were plenty of minority groups in Britain which faced discrimination even within living memory. Only one of them started militarised violence which, even when those problems were fixed, continued. Why? Because it wasn't a campaign against discrimination, but a politicised campaign of nationalism.

I don't have a problem with a first past the post electoral system. Indeed, that's what we have here. Each system has its benefits and its flaws, and I could argue each for either side.

[L i b]

(Original post by nmccann)
It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death

The Government tried force-feeding hungerstrikers on occasion. Not only is this extremely dangerous and unpleasant, it's also - to my mind - a complete abuse of their human rights. If they want to commit suicide, and are of (relatively) sound mind, then I have absolutely no moral problem with that.

and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted.

I don't think there should have been such a status. But if there was then I think they should, if anything, have received worse treatment than your average criminal, seeing as their crimes were greater. This, of course, I apply to Loyalist paramilitaries as well as Republican ones.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by nmccann)
It highlights the fact that the British Gvt would not prevent a democratically elected member of Parliament from death , and all republican prisoners demanded political status which should of been granted. How does it not? It was a defining moment within the conflict here which sparked worlwide hostility towards the British Gvt, and and resulted in a huge increase in IRA membership. Honestly, your ignorance is embarrassing.

As is your bigotry. You're not looking for any sort of progress towards peace, you think that peace is weakness. One reason you would have liked the granting of political status to the prisoners is that it would have prolonged the fight. Granted, it would have given the UVF and the UDA the motivation to become more militaristic and more violent leading to the deaths of more Republicans but it would have continued the fight.

[nmccann]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Whether or not convicted IRA members should be treated as political prisoners or not is completely irrelevant. I was questioning your opinion that someone should be treated differently in prison because they are an MP.

He was elected an MP after his imprisonment. Not before. So his demands were not based on him being an MP, as he was elected MP after he was imprisoned. They were political prisoners because this was a war whether you like it or not, why else were the Army involved?

His election highlighted the support he had, had it been any other non republican MP in this circumstance the consequences may have been different.

[nmccann]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
As is your bigotry. You're not looking for any sort of progress towards peace, you think that peace is weakness. One reason you would have liked the granting of political status to the prisoners is that it would have prolonged the fight. Granted, it would have given the UVF and the UDA the motivation to become more militaristic and more violent leading to the deaths of more Republicans but it would have continued the fight.

Bigotry? Im passing a rational commentary from a republican viewpoint on past events, that does not necessarily mean I agree with them.

They were political prisoners, this wasnt endless random violence in order to put their faces in the news. So why shouldn't it be granted? Sinn Fein were becoming a growing party which were being elected therefore if the Gvt could not accept violence then they should have accepted democratic means, yet they failed to do that also. Let's not get carried away, they believed that the British Gvt + security forces had no right to occupy 6 counties on this Ireland, and they were willing to do what they felt was necessary. It was always going to be an uphill struggle against a corrupt and discriminate government yet it is understandable how the violence ensued.

[nmccann]

(Original post by L i b)
Imagine - a Conservative with conservative views. I'm sure you're surprised.

Again, I repeat my point: there were plenty of minority groups in Britain which faced discrimination even within living memory. Only one of them started militarised violence which, even when those problems were fixed, continued. Why? Because it wasn't a campaign against discrimination, but a politicised campaign of nationalism.

I don't have a problem with a first past the post electoral system. Indeed, that's what we have here. Each system has its benefits and its flaws, and I could argue each for either side.

During the 50's and 60's Catholics were 45% of the population hardly a small a minority, infact a very significant minority, just under half the population. Northern Ireland did not have the same vast ranges of ethnic minorities as England had, so the concept of minority groups in Britain cannot be transposed to Northern Ireland as barely anyone migrated to here. When 45% of the public is discriminated against well something horrible is going on and you know it.

[nmccann]

(Original post by L i b)
The Government tried force-feeding hungerstrikers on occasion. Not only is this extremely dangerous and unpleasant, it's also - to my mind - a complete abuse of their human rights. If they want to commit suicide, and are of (relatively) sound mind, then I have absolutely no moral problem with that.



I don't think there should have been such a status. But if there was then I think they should, if anything, have received worse treatment than your average criminal, seeing as their crimes were greater. This, of course, I apply to Loyalist paramilitaries as well as Republican ones.

The death penalty did not exist here, so it would of been absurd to create different legal procedures in order to punish Loyalist and Republican in a "worse" way.

For eg

You would beleive that an IRA/UDA/UVF member who murdered someone should receive a greater punishment for an ordinary member of the public who had murdered another person?

That is an obscure measure to take.

[Suetonius]

It must take balls for an Irish nationalist to meet the unelected head-of-state of a de facto occupying power.

[IRSP044]

(Original post by L i b)
You're hardly making a sound case for why people like you shouldn't have been strung up as traitors. Whilst I generally favour being a tad more liberal about things, it never ceases to startle me just how disgusted I can be with some members of the Irish Republican movement.

Traitors to what?

[chrislpp]

(Original post by meenu89)
It's going to be difficult for the Queen but I am glad it is being done.

The Queen wouldn't think twice about offing someone in her own family if they became an embarassment, nevermind a political target.

She doesn't care.

Seriously if you kids are going to point the finger at IRA members take a look at the attacks your own military did on civilians on numerous occasions.