The IRA

[johnmc]

Its wrong that no one was prosecuted and its equally wrong that both republican and loyalist terrorists were released early/ not prosecuted as part of the good friday agreements, do you not agree

you say you dont use the actions to justify the actions of the IRA but then spend two paragraphs doing exactly that.

No, I don't justify it by any means - I understand why some people joined. No where do I justify it but I am saying I probably would have done the same in similar circumstances if my family was under threat.

Were black people in America right to protest against slavery and to campaign for equal rights? Were Africans right to march against Apartheid.

If you read some of the views on here when the student protests were on a lot of posters said that nothing is ever acheived by peaceful protest - so if people think that then would you expect the same people to react peacefully if there kids were getting beaten by the supposed police?

Edit: I agree it was wrong that terrorist were released on both sides but it was necessary to advance the peace process - you have to remember these people consider themselves Prisoners of War

 

[pirate]

Its wrong that no one was prosecuted and its equally wrong that both republican and loyalist terrorists were released early/ not prosecuted as part of the good friday agreements, do you not agree

you say you dont use the actions to justify the actions of the IRA but then spend two paragraphs doing exactly that.

No, I don't justify it by any means - I understand why some people joined. No where do I justify it but I am saying I probably would have done the same in similar circumstances if my family was under threat.

Were black people in America right to protest against slavery and to campaign for equal rights? Were Africans right to march against Apartheid.

If you read some of the views on here when the student protests were on a lot of posters said that nothing is ever acheived by peaceful protest - so if people think that then would you expect the same people to react peacefully if there kids were getting beaten by the supposed police?

saying you would do the same in similar circumstances IS justifying it.
Unless you are saying its how you would react but you are wrong to do so. Are you sure you want to admit acting in a way you know is wrong.

yes black people were right to protest against slavery. In that case the use of arms is justified because they had no peaceful legitimate means available to them. They had no vote and they were not even recognised as humnan beings in some cases.

yes Africans were right to protest against aprtheid and bare arms for the same reasons stated in the paragraph above.

as for your final paragraph, just because its how lots of people react doesnt mean thats the right way to react.

 

[johnmc]

saying you would do the same in similar circumstances IS justifying it.

yes black people were right to protest against slavery. In that case the use of arms is justified because they had no peaceful legitimate means available to them. They had no vote and they were not even recognised as humnan beings in some cases.

yes Africans were right to protest against aprtheid and bare arms for the same reasons stated in the paragraph above.

as for your final paragraph, just because its how lots of people react doesnt mean thats the right way to react.

No it isnt justifying it - I know I would be doing wrong but would deem it necessary. Id still know I was breaking the law. The catholics effectively had no vote in Northern Ireland though - can you not see that? They were the minority - any vote they had was useless. Any peaceful process they made fell on deaf ears. There are numerous accounts of Catholics not being treated as human being in there own country if you read about it.

Question - what would you do if a soldier butted your wife. Then came back a week later and did it again? Now personally i would want to hurt the guy - i know that its not necessirily the right way to react in the eyes of the law but id like to see how many men wouldnt react that way if it happened in front of their eyes. You are telling me you would accept it, take doen the soldiers number, tell his boss who would do nothing and that would satisfy you?

 

[pirate]

Its wrong that no one was prosecuted and its equally wrong that both republican and loyalist terrorists were released early/ not prosecuted as part of the good friday agreements, do you not agree

you say you dont use the actions to justify the actions of the IRA but then spend two paragraphs doing exactly that.

No, I don't justify it by any means - I understand why some people joined. No where do I justify it but I am saying I probably would have done the same in similar circumstances if my family was under threat.

Were black people in America right to protest against slavery and to campaign for equal rights? Were Africans right to march against Apartheid.

If you read some of the views on here when the student protests were on a lot of posters said that nothing is ever acheived by peaceful protest - so if people think that then would you expect the same people to react peacefully if there kids were getting beaten by the supposed police?

Edit: I agree it was wrong that terrorist were released on both sides but it was necessary to advance the peace process - you have to remember these people consider themselves Prisoners of War

so you agree its wrong that tthe terrorists were released.
could not a similar argument be made for soldiers not prosecuted before the good friday agreement and if not why not?

 

[BlueKingEll]

when proven the offenders should face the harshest penalties available under the law.

I am assuming you are discussing bloody sunday etc.
Yes awful, yes probably covered up by the government, but at no point was the right to vote organise and protest taken away.
Are you saying that such acts by the british establishment justify the actions of the IRA? because there are two main problems with that
1)An eye for an eye leads to everyone being blind.
2) bloody sunday happened years after the start of the troubles.

When proven? It has been and no one was prosecuted. As for the countless other incidents they were swept under the carpet years ago. Torture was in widespread use.

I am nit trying to justify the actions of the IRA and I dont believe I have tried to as you cannot defend the undefensible.

However, if you put yourself in the shoes of a 16 year old lad in the 1970's in Northern Ireland, possibly seeing your mum get raped and your dad beaten by soldiers, your house raided several times a week for no reason, being arrested and held for no reason, not having anywhere to turn to as the authorities were as guilty as anyone, basically living as a second class citizen in your own country due to the rule of another then I can understand why some did. Thats not saying it was the right thing to do as two wrongs never make a right.

Imagine we lived under German rule and the soldiers battered your wife week in week out and there was nothing you could do, how would you feel. Would you want to injure the germans for doing so? You wouldnt be right retaliating but if anyone harms my family I want to harm theirs back - thats my nature and Im sure it is plenty of others on here as well.

So if someone beat your wife you'd happily go and blow up a load of innocent women and kids from that persons country?

 

[johnmc]

so you agree its wrong that the terrorists were released.
could not a similar argument be made for soldiers not prosecuted before the good friday agreement and if not why not?

Yes - if they murdered someone then they should complete the full sentence. Again, putting myself in somebody else shoes, I would be horrified if the murderer of a family member was released at all, nevermind having there sentences culled significantly.

I see your argument and its not something ive considered before but it is a fair enough suggestion. How many soldiers have been imprisoned for acts committed in Northern Ireland?

 

[Anonymous]

A dirty, dirty war with neither side covered in glory. A devolved assembly now in place but still the beatings, sectarian attacks, flags, parades and "memorials" continue.

In amongst the grizzly facts and stories, people talk about "community" but only as a substitute for territorialism. Both sides still suspicious of the other, both sides still deeply resentful of the other.

The fighting continues with latest battlefield being the courts and demands for justice and inquiries. Neither side is yet ready to truly move on and the long suffering populous of the North face at least another generation of this shit.

Yes, the IRA were an efficient and effective fighting force; but at what cost?

Plus ca change...

 

[johnmc]

So if someone beat your wife you'd happily go and blow up a load of innocent women and kids from that persons country?

No, you have jumped in head first here.

 

[Dubai Blue]

But when you look clearly at the IRA as a fighting force, it's hard not to have some respect.

They didn't show my dad any respect when they carjacked him at machine gun point in the late 70s so they can go and get fucked. And what is respectable about planting bombs in areas populated by civilians and then running away to hide before unleashing hell? You describe them as a 'fighting force', but when did any fighting actually take place? Because I certainly don't view the above as 'fighting', I view it as a bunch of shithouse cowards who aren't brave enough to truly fight for what they believe in.

As there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the IRA's 'fighting' prowess, I can't understand why you rate them so highly as a skilled fighting force.

 

[pirate]

saying you would do the same in similar circumstances IS justifying it.

yes black people were right to protest against slavery. In that case the use of arms is justified because they had no peaceful legitimate means available to them. They had no vote and they were not even recognised as humnan beings in some cases.

yes Africans were right to protest against aprtheid and bare arms for the same reasons stated in the paragraph above.

as for your final paragraph, just because its how lots of people react doesnt mean thats the right way to react.

No it isnt justifying it - I know I would be doing wrong but would deem it necessary. Id still know I was breaking the law. The catholics effectively had no vote in Northern Ireland though - can you not see that? They were the minority - any vote they had was useless. Any peaceful process they made fell on deaf ears. There are numerous accounts of Catholics not being treated as human being in there own country if you read about it.

Question - what would you do if a soldier butted your wife. Then came back a week later and did it again? Now personally i would want to hurt the guy - i know that its not necessirily the right way to react in the eyes of the law but id like to see how many men wouldnt react that way if it happened in front of their eyes. You are telling me you would accept it, take doen the soldiers number, tell his boss who would do nothing and that would satisfy you?

taking each paragraph in turn
it is justifying it
there is either right or wrong. There is nothing that is wrong but necessary. If its necessary, that makes it the right thing to do. you are claiming its necessary and therefore right and therefore justifying it.
In what way did the catholics effectively have no vote in northern ireland? were they stopped from putting up candidates? were they barred from the polls? were their votes not counted? were their votes worth less than other peoples votes? were they stopped from taking up their seats when in the majority? the answer as far as I know is no, unless you can supply some specific evidence to the contrary.

your second paragraph
if a soldier butted my wife and I was present I would try to stop him and it would involve violence as my wife is in immediate danger and is under the law self defence as long as I use reasonable force. Then I would report him and push for him to be prosecuted.
if he came back again same thing would apply.
If action wasnt taken by the police (its a police matter not an army matter as it occurs in the UK against a civilian) then i would campaign for action to be taken.
What I wouldnt do is form a secret paramilitary organisation and harm and kill indiscriminate civilians including men women and children .