Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Are you insane?

    Firstly: The ANC is a political party, not a military movement. The MK is equaivalent to the IRA; the ANC is equivalent to Sinn Fein.

    Now we've cleared that up: The MK did attack non-combatants. They bombed more indiscriminately than the IRA! They let off huge car bombs in the middle of towns, as well as bombing industrial centres and general "white" areas. You're hopelessly deluded if you think they didn't attack civilians.




    The IRA was fighting for the very act of political recognition for the Republican movement. The SDLP wasn't even founded until the 70's. There wasn't any kind of political option - let alone political alternatives - until the IRA campaigns were well underway.




    That's not a valid comparison, by any means. In fact, here's a counterexample: Blacks in South Africa weren't recognised at all until the MK whipped out their armalites. It wasn't as if they could have marched around for a bit and got people's sympathy.
    Thank you for the definition.
    Over a sub continent the MK killed a few hundred people, in the province of northern ireland with a population slightly bigger than birmigham the IRA killed serveral thosands, including i might add over 600 catholics more than the British Army, UDA or RUC. The atrocities of certain small fractions the MK did not help their cause and they are equally unjustfiable if they targetted civillians.


    Also peaceful alternatives to sinn fein existed before the SDLP in fact they became the SDLP. The republican Labour party and the national democrats for instance.

    If the IRA were necessary then what have they achieved? Only to become a peaceful nationalist left wing party after giving up on armed struggle after failing to bomb the british out. They are just the SDLP for slow learners.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Same with Mandela, I suppose?
    Aye, he should have been hanged as well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    Thank you for the definition.
    Over a sub continent the MK killed a few hundred people, in the province of northern ireland with a population slightly bigger than birmigham the IRA killed serveral thosands, including i might add over 600 catholics more than the British Army, UDA or RUC. The atrocities of certain small fractions the MK did not help their cause and they are equally unjustfiable if they targetted civillians.
    According to wikipedia, the IRA killed just over 600 civilians, not "several thousands".

    In any case, the scale is largely irrelevant; you either support them all, or condemn them all. If you want to condemn the IRA, you have to condemn the MK. Do you?

    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    Also peaceful alternatives to sinn fein existed before the SDLP in fact they became the SDLP. The republican Labour party and the national democrats for instance.

    If the IRA were necessary then what have they achieved? Only to become a peaceful nationalist left wing party after giving up on armed struggle after failing to bomb the british out. They are just the SDLP for slow learners.
    The IRA is not a political party. The IRA haven't "become a peaceful nationalist left wing party". Sinn Fein have.

    You're distracting the discussion. Do you or don't you condemn the ANC and the MK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    According to wikipedia, the IRA killed just over 600 civilians, not "several thousands".

    In any case, the scale is largely irrelevant; you either support them all, or condemn them all. If you want to condemn the IRA, you have to condemn the MK. Do you?



    The IRA is not a political party. The IRA haven't "become a peaceful nationalist left wing party". Sinn Fein have.

    You're distracting the discussion. Do you or don't you condemn the ANC and the MK?
    read your wiki. "According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, [91] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,821 people during the Troubles up to 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...997#Casualties

    Sinn Fein is the Political wing of the IRA.

    I condemn the any act of terrorism against civillians without a doubt. Both by the MK and the IRA. However scale does matter, you will note that no attacks on civillians were supported by mandella where as they were by Adams. I have no issues with the acts of sabotage that madella suggested in his "an ideal for which i am prepared to die speech" but to pretend he played as implicit a role in murder is untrue.

    Do not attempt to dirty the name of the anti-apartied movement of south africa by comparing it romantised voilence of IRA. The Majority of the anti-apartied movement was not supportive of attacks against civillians, the IRA and sinn Fein were.

    The IRA/Sinn Fein are a disgrace to Nationalism, Catholicism and all of the 32 counties of ireland.

    Why do you believe it justifiable to attack civillians? Would you become an IRA "volunteer"?
    OR do you just wish to attack Nelson Mandella?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    According to wikipedia, the IRA killed just over 600 civilians, not "several thousands".

    In any case, the scale is largely irrelevant; you either support them all, or condemn them all. If you want to condemn the IRA, you have to condemn the MK. Do you?



    The IRA is not a political party. The IRA haven't "become a peaceful nationalist left wing party". Sinn Fein have.

    You're distracting the discussion. Do you or don't you condemn the ANC and the MK?
    Or would you just like to attempt to attack one of the greatest peace makers in history?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    Or would you just like to attempt to attack one of the greatest peace makers in history?
    Peace maker? War mongorer more like
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tamora)
    I have already said it will be interesting to read the findings of the Saville Inquiry (the longest and most expensive in British legal history) when it reports. But do do you think it’s OK for someone to accuse the army of committing an 'atrocity' on Bloody Sunday without waiting for these findings?
    Since one of the highest ranking British Army Generals has declared the killings of 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday as "murder", then yes, 'atrocity' is a very apt accusation.




    The inquiry which dealt with the collusion affair has already reported its findings. It has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against member of the army. See?
    No, no, no. Cory's findings and recommendations have yet to be acted upon.

    http://www.nio.gov.uk/cory_collusion...t_finucane.pdf
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Since one of the highest ranking British Army Generals has declared the killings of 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday as "murder", then yes, 'atrocity' is a very apt accusation.
    The IRA murdered those people as surely as if they'd pulled the triggers themselves.

    I'm still trying to work out what your agenda is, other than being a fundamentalist, terrorist apologising whackjob.

    I noticed you've stopped trying to make threats, by the way. Did you ever reply to that, or did I trounce you too severely?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by FiveFiveSix)
    The IRA murdered those people as surely as if they'd pulled the triggers themselves.

    I'm still trying to work out what your agenda is, other than being a fundamentalist, terrorist apologising whackjob.

    I noticed you've stopped trying to make threats, by the way. Did you ever reply to that, or did I trounce you too severely?
    Go away...you have nothing considered or mature to add to the debate. Your place is back in the playground. Try polishing your rifle instead of acting the braggart..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Go away...you have nothing considered or mature to add to the debate. Your place is back in the playground.
    Aye, but the parents keep giving me funny looks when I edge nearer to their 12 year old daughters...

    All my statements are considered, although what you find mature about a topic praising those who offer aid and comfort to Her Majesties enemies is beyond me.

    Aiding, comforting, abetting and attempting to justify mass murder, torture and terrorism is never going to be a subject which I take the proponents of seriously.

    You however, still have not replied to my previous. You threatened me in an attempt to quieten me, yet won't answer my rebuttal? You might want to cover up that giant yellow streak running the length of your frame.

    Edited to answer yours: Because I'm too busy polishing my collection of Irish skulls, obviously. I'd rather be a braggart than a terrorist sympathiser.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What happened to Kentwill? She started this thing
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    She got well and truly trounced by Zippy RN and this callsign, that's what happened.

    Or mebbe she took a wrong turning off the Falls Road...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    read your wiki. "According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, [91] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,821 people during the Troubles up to 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...997#Casualties

    Sinn Fein is the Political wing of the IRA.

    I condemn the any act of terrorism against civillians without a doubt. Both by the MK and the IRA. However scale does matter, you will note that no attacks on civillians were supported by mandella where as they were by Adams. I have no issues with the acts of sabotage that madella suggested in his "an ideal for which i am prepared to die speech" but to pretend he played as implicit a role in murder is untrue.

    Do not attempt to dirty the name of the anti-apartied movement of south africa by comparing it romantised voilence of IRA. The Majority of the anti-apartied movement was not supportive of attacks against civillians, the IRA and sinn Fein were.

    The IRA/Sinn Fein are a disgrace to Nationalism, Catholicism and all of the 32 counties of ireland.

    Why do you believe it justifiable to attack civillians? Would you become an IRA "volunteer"?
    OR do you just wish to attack Nelson Mandella?
    I'm not condoning or condemning anything; I'm just trying to get you to see through your brazen hypocrisy.

    You're just making an idiot of yourself. Your double-standards are utterly pathetic. Nelson Mandela founded the MK, yet, somehow, he didn't condone any of their violence. So he's a hero. The IRA, despite the fact that they almost always gave warnings and very rarely attacked non-military targets, according to you just went around massacring women and children out of depraved blood lust. They just wanted to kill loads of people, whereas the MK were, of course, wholly angelic in their campaign, and didn't draw blood from any civilian target.

    Give me a ******* break.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    I'm not condoning or condemning anything; I'm just trying to get you to see through your brazen hypocrisy.

    You're just making an idiot of yourself. Your double-standards are utterly pathetic. Nelson Mandela founded the MK, yet, somehow, he didn't condone any of their violence. So he's a hero. The IRA, despite the fact that they almost always gave warnings and very rarely attacked non-military targets, according to you just went around massacring women and children out of depraved blood lust. They just wanted to kill loads of people, whereas the MK were, of course, wholly angelic in their campaign, and didn't draw blood from any civilian target.

    Give me a ******* break.
    Nelson Mandela used force to bring about civil rights, the IRA used force for nationalistic purposes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    I'm not condoning or condemning anything; I'm just trying to get you to see through your brazen hypocrisy.

    You're just making an idiot of yourself. Your double-standards are utterly pathetic. Nelson Mandela founded the MK, yet, somehow, he didn't condone any of their violence. So he's a hero. The IRA, despite the fact that they almost always gave warnings and very rarely attacked non-military targets, according to you just went around massacring women and children out of depraved blood lust. They just wanted to kill loads of people, whereas the MK were, of course, wholly angelic in their campaign, and didn't draw blood from any civilian target.

    Give me a ******* break.

    attacks on civillians and non-combatants are no justifiable. they never are. what more would you like me to say?

    i condemn the IRA because they did activly target civillians, they did not have the balls to attack on duty soliders, they rather would go for remeberence day services.

    A minority of the MK did commit a far smaller amount of acts of terrorism against civillians as part of a civil righst campaign far bigger than that in northern ireland. Those actions were not supported by Mandella or many other leading ANC members. Adams and Sinn Fein fully endorsed the murders of the IRA.
    That is the difference.

    There is a very good reason why it is the moderates of northern ireland (hume and trimble) who got the Nobel Peace Prize and NOT adams.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by TomGeorge)

    There is a very good reason why it is the moderates of northern ireland (hume and trimble) who got the Nobel Peace Prize and NOT adams.
    Actually, Tom...


    ...
    Mr. Adams was almost certainly on the list of 139 nominees, the most ever, because the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee today implied strongly that it had considered him for the prize but decided to limit it to Mr. Hume and Mr. Trimble.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/17/wo...pagewanted=all
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Actually, Tom...


    ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/17/wo...pagewanted=all
    He didnt get it? what is your point? im sure even Ian Paisley might make it onto the list one day but he certainly wouldnt deserve it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    He didnt get it? what is your point? im sure even Ian Paisley might make it onto the list one day but he certainly wouldnt deserve it.
    He didn't get it because the prize-winners had to be limited, so it was limited to John Hume (a nationalist) and Peter Trimble (a unionist)

    John Hume was chosen because he was the one who paved the way for the talks between the Tory government and elected members of Sinn Fein long before the cease-fire was called.

    Peter Trimble was chosen because he persuaded his members to accept the Good Friday Agreement and carried on working towards peace despite the instansigence of some of those members.

    They were both chosen to represent each side of the divide.

    Truth is not subject to your opinion, since the individual has a tendency to be subjective rather than objective particularly when it comes to a matter with which they are closely involved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    I find it odd that you dispell republican versions events as "claims and counter claims" when you then go on to make the superious accusations that there "petrol and acid bombs and snipers" aimed at british forces. These are equally unproven untill THEY are proved by the Saville Inquiry. If we are to look at what might be percieved as facts then british soliders shot dead 11 civilillians, regardless of anything else this would to me indicate that it is the british forces on trail with the SI and that this is more than a lack of "hindsight".

    I said the claims and counter claims came from BOTH sides. No one can ever prove what happened on Bloody Sunday. The only people who know were the people who were there. It’s a question of which side, and how much of each side’s account, you trust. I don't believe that the paras discipline broke down to anything like the extent that would have been necessary for them to murder. You are obviously free to believe otherwise.

    I think we at least agree that neither side's case has yet been proven?

    As for the protest being illegal, this protest organised by the non-sectarian Northern Irish Civil Rights Association was no risk to the peace and was banned by the Northern Irish Parliament which im sure you will not disagree underepresented catholic community through gerrymandering and lead by a unionist party famed for its links with anti-catholic Orange Order. It was partly because of Bloody Sunday and then after the NIP's reluctance to hand over power to westminster that lead to it being dissolved. The banning of the NICRA march was an act of sectarianism.
    It was a banned protest. The authorities felt there was a risk to peace, and they were proved right. The Catholic community was underepresented and had genuine grievances, but they did break the law nevertheless.

    We might then consider that even the Stevens Inquiry which as a british enquiry which as you said would still be "politically motivated" towards the british concluded that "members of the RUC and Army colluded with the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), to murder Catholics". It also notes that evidence was destoyed, that would have lead to prosecution, by members of the police forces. This is why catholics were perfectly justified in feeling oppressed rejecting the RUC and the british goverment is culpable for not controlling its own police force.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
    Sorry, unless those accused are given the chance to answer their accusers in court, these allegations remain just that ... allegations. I think this was a politically motivated inquiry, which was extremely unfortunate, given that there were allegations to be answered. And if the findings of the Saville Inquiry come down on the side of the army, how likely are they to be published? It would probably set the peace process back for months, if not years.

    (Original post by yawn)
    Since one of the highest ranking British Army Generals has declared the killings of 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday as "murder", then yes, 'atrocity' is a very apt accusation.
    So you don’t have to wait for the Saville Inquiry to report before making your accusations, but I do? How does that work?? One wonders if the Inquiry will ever publish its findings. It finished sitting more than 4 years ago! And I can find a host of quotes from others, including Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who hold different views to that general. Who is or was he incidentally?

    No, no, no. Cory's findings and recommendations have yet to be acted upon.
    Thanks for bringing that up. It doesn't look as if they will be acted upon, as in the Stevens Inquiry.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tamora)

    So you don’t have to wait for the Saville Inquiry to report before making your accusations, but I do? How does that work?? One wonders if the Inquiry will ever publish its findings. It finished sitting more than 4 years ago! And I can find a host of quotes from others, including Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who hold different views to that general. Who is or was he incidentally?
    The official coroner for the City of Derry/Londonderry, retired British army Major Hubert O'Neill, who issued a statement on August 21, 1973, at the completion of the inquest into the people killed. He declared:
    It strikes me that the Army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people. These people may have been taking part in a march that was banned but that does not justify the troops coming in and firing live rounds indiscriminately. I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder.



    I have already referenced his comments on this Forum, although I'm not sure it was on this thread. You can do a TSR search if you wish. It makes for sorry reading, and difficult to defend what appears to be the indefensible, doesn't it?




    Thanks for bringing that up. It doesn't look as if they will be acted upon, as in the Stevens Inquiry.
    All these enquiry outcomes that evidence collusion at the highest levels might very well have to be acted upon, if and when the Truth & Reconcilation process starts.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.