Compensation Madness?

[Mr Shoe]

I think that for the sake of reconciliation and simplicity the bombers would be treated as victims. Both sides would argue over who were terrorists and who were innocent victims and in a few cases it probably isn't clear to the authorities. Given the need for some sort of compensation this seems to be the best option and another step towards permanent peace however much such a decision would make some people queezy.

 

Well said.

 

 

The IRA lost any chance of being called freedom fighters when the fuckers started using civilains as "legal" targets. Fuck the lot of them.

 

Asshole.

 

 

The troubles go back a 100 years. If some good man somewhere lost his sons and brothers to murder and then he becomes a vicious murderer seeking revenge, then I think the poor suffering wife/mother/sister deserves a little respect.

 

 

I don't know who here has a Northern Irish or Armed Forces background (on any side), but if you haven't - STFU - you know nothing.

 

Everyone should step away from this one until, in a couple of generations, nobody has lost a loved one to the troubles and we can all get over it.

[John Wright]

The troubles and their causes go back 800 years

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I really was under the impression that the Manchester Street Bombing injured nobody considering the efforts made to evacuate Cross and Market, I was wrong.

 

But...you said it was not war. What I said was that it was. They saw the armed forces, the RUD, and UDR, and the B Specials as representing an illegitimate presence in the province. Their desire was to rid Northern Ireland of the British presence by conducting attritional warfare against all symbols of that presence. Primarily, this meant attacks on security forces and economic infrastructure and such conduct indicates guerilla and insurgent warfare. Simply because it was not a case of state army against state army does not mean it was not war. And you can't just lump the killings of security forces into terrorism without leading to questions over what is meant by the term. Shall we also look at the Chinese Communists in Malaya, late 50s early 60s, as being JUST terrrorists because they killed informers and those who assisted the state? No, course not, because their primary objective and strategy was to rid Malaya of the British and prevent a liberal, 'democratic' government. And then there was the war between the loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA.

 

How am I being an apologist?

 

I have already said that the PIRA was a terrorist organisation. I have not stated otherwise. They killed INNOCENT civilians, as well as many other civilians. I only qualified this by looking at the fact that their killings were not in the main indiscriminate and that the PIRA was not driven by the goal of making as many sectarian killings as possible. Nor were the mainland bombings aimed simply aimed at killing civilians. The Manchester bomb was placed there because it best demonstrated the damage that the IRA could do to the heart of British cities, the death of civilians were incidental but the IRA didn't care about them. PIRA policy was inform of the existence of a bomb some time before it exploded, as too many deaths would lose them much support and be counter productive. They also wanted to cause damage to economic infrastructure and to obviously cause terror.

 

I have no focused on talking about the terrorism aspect, as opposed to arguing against your perspective on war because the terrorism is so utterly obvious. But the idea that the PIRA were just a bunch of people who murdered first but then decided to just randomly kill civilians under the excuse of removing the British presence is rather simplistic and very silly.

[manshimajin]

The troubles and their causes go back 800 years

 

...to the time that an Irish Prince invited the Normans in to help in a feud with another Prince. Shame the Anglo-Saxons lost out to the Normans - William the Bastard and co were a generally unpleasant lot as people in England found out to their cost. Never invite the Normans in.

 

It is one of the puzzles of history that the Anglo-Saxons these days take the rap for the Normans.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The troubles and their causes go back 800 years

 

...to the time that an Irish Prince invited the Normans in to help in a feud with another Prince. Shame the Anglo-Saxons lost out to the Normans - William the Bastard and co were a generally unpleasant lot as people in England found out to their cost. Never invite the Normans in.

 

It is one of the puzzles of history that the Anglo-Saxons these days take the rap for the Normans.

 

I don't think the 'issue' goes back this far, however. Norman Lords did take over large parts of the Island, but their position of power became more and more independent of England and certainly of Normandy. It has been said that became more Irish than some of the Irish chiefs in their conduct.

[Freggyragh]

I don't know who here has a Northern Irish or Armed Forces background (on any side), but if you haven't - STFU - you know nothing.

 

So, Arndale Centre shoppers, Harrods shoppers, Australian lawyers on holiday in Belgium, pub drinkers in Birmingham and Guildford, UK train passengers, tax contributors to UK defence, etc, etc you've been told - the conflict didn't concern you and you are not entitled to an opinion.

[jimbms]

I don't know who here has a Northern Irish or Armed Forces background (on any side), but if you haven't - STFU - you know nothing.

Oh good so I have your permission to continue then as I fall quite deeply into that group, I shall sleep easy tonight now.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well said.

 

Why?

 

And the PIRA can hardly be seen to be freedom fighters. I understand that they protected their community, at first.

I can also recognise that from their perspective they were trying to eradicate the British presence which they believed should be there. But they are not freedom fighters. If the PIRA removed the British presence it would have been to a victory for the republicans but it would have been the denial of self-determination for the unionists. And it was rather stupid of the PIRA to think that the loyalists would come around and realise that they were Irish.

And the term freedom fighters is too positive a term to be used for those who killed innocents, and who were terrorists.

 

The troubles go back a 100 years. If some good man somewhere lost his sons and brothers to murder and then he becomes a vicious murderer seeking revenge, then I think the poor suffering wife/mother/sister deserves a little respect.

 

I can understand that. I can understand the idea of what drove so many people to seek revenge. I do not for one minute believe that most of the PIRA and most loyalist paramilitary members were just mindless killers and are utter monsters. This is just too convenient a way for people to try to conceive of something so horrible. But money?

Is that how we respect people?

 

I don't know who here has a Northern Irish or Armed Forces background (on any side), but if you haven't - STFU - you know nothing.

 

Everyone should step away from this one until, in a couple of generations, nobody has lost a loved one to the troubles and we can all get over it.

 

I don't think so. It isn't too difficult to understand what was going, why it was going on, etc.

[MilitantDogOwner]

I think that for the sake of reconciliation and simplicity the bombers would be treated as victims. Both sides would argue over who were terrorists and who were innocent victims and in a few cases it probably isn't clear to the authorities. Given the need for some sort of compensation this seems to be the best option and another step towards permanent peace however much such a decision would make some people queezy.

 

Well said.

 

 

The IRA lost any chance of being called freedom fighters when the fuckers started using civilains as "legal" targets. Fuck the lot of them.

 

Asshole.

 

 

The troubles go back a 100 years. If some good man somewhere lost his sons and brothers to murder and then he becomes a vicious murderer seeking revenge, then I think the poor suffering wife/mother/sister deserves a little respect.

 

 

I don't know who here has a Northern Irish or Armed Forces background (on any side), but if you haven't - STFU - you know nothing.

 

Everyone should step away from this one until, in a couple of generations, nobody has lost a loved one to the troubles and we can all get over it.

 

 

Mr Shoe, sorry to piss on your chips but I spent 10 years in the Armed Forces, and known good lads who were killed by your so called fucking heroes. Good men who used road side bombs, nail bombs, IED's and sniper weapons. Good men who willing put the lives of innocent men, women and children. Like I said to LDV, what ever you say all I've got to say is Manchester Bombing. I myself was involved in a potential shooting on UK soil so you might say my experience is a little more relative than yours.

 

"If some good man somewhere lost his sons and brothers to murder and then he becomes a vicious murderer seeking revenge, then I think the poor suffering wife/mother/sister deserves a little respect" And what of the wives, mothers, sons and daughters of the service men and women, killed off by the IRA "Soldiers"? DO they not deserve respect or does wearing a uniform and not a balclava make you the bad man, not the guy planting the bomb in pubs?? And what of the civilians? How many of them died for your heroes cause?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Mr Shoe, sorry to piss on your chips but I spent 10 years in the Armed Forces, and known good lads who were killed by your so called fucking heroes. Good men who used road side bombs, nail bombs, IED's and sniper weapons. Good men who willing put the lives of innocent men, women and children. Like I said to LDV, what ever you say all I've got to say is Manchester Bombing. I myself was involved in a potential shooting on UK soil so you might say my experience is a little more relative than yours.

 

"If some good man somewhere lost his sons and brothers to murder and then he becomes a vicious murderer seeking revenge, then I think the poor suffering wife/mother/sister deserves a little respect" And what of the wives, mothers, sons and daughters of the service men and women, killed off by the IRA "Soldiers"? DO they not deserve respect or does wearing a uniform and not a balclava make you the bad man, not the guy planting the bomb in pubs?? And what of the civilians? How many of them died for your heroes cause?

 

Well wait a second here MilitantDogOwner, you are beginning to make a contrast between the British Army and the IRA in terms of good and bad. The British is not intrinsically some force for good in the world regardless of the intentions and personalities of the men who comprised it. And British people can be just as mistaken in calling British soldiers heroes as much as the IRA. The IRA were seen to be heroes at many times during the Troubles just as much as the British soldiers are seen to be heroes in Iraq. Yet I don't think the issue is about one of contrasting the conduct of the British Army and the IRA in this case. What point is trying to be proved?

 

And what is your experience more relevant for? Commenting on compensation, the IRA, terrorism? You don't necessarily have to have experience of being involved in the Troubles to comment on it, or have more authority.

 

It really doesn't make any difference what weapons were used to kill security forces, in respect of what is ok and what is not. It's war and the republicans were the weaker side, it therefore relied on the forms of weapons that worked best. It is no reflection of good and bad.

[jimbms]

It really doesn't make any difference what weapons were used to kill security forces, in respect of what is ok and what is not. It's war and the republicans were the weaker side, it therefore relied on the forms of weapons that worked best. It is no reflection of good and bad.

So what you are saying is that torturing a squaddie using a blow torch acid and a stanley knife isn't a bad weapon get fucking real as MDO said if you havn;t experienced the situation there first hand or seen the results of your so called murdering scums fair fight then STFU you have no grounds to comment

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It really doesn't make any difference what weapons were used to kill security forces, in respect of what is ok and what is not. It's war and the republicans were the weaker side, it therefore relied on the forms of weapons that worked best. It is no reflection of good and bad.

So what you are saying is that torturing a squaddie using a blow torch acid and a stanley knife isn't a bad weapon get fucking real as MDO said if you havn;t experienced the situation there first hand or seen the results of your so called murdering scums fair fight then STFU you have no grounds to comment

 

No, no, no. I am referring to attacks made on security forces using IEDs, road side bombs, nail bombs aimed at the security forces. Not the implements of torture (of which cannot be condoned).

 

I don't need to see to know what was going on so no I won't shut up. The fact that MDO or yourself were in the armed forces doesn't give him nor you the experience to comment on what were appropriate or wrongful tactics anymore than my experience gives me that ability. Why is that some military men seem to think that matters involving the military cannot be understood by the civilian or that they have some better understanding? Tosh.

[immortalpuppet]

Why is that some military men seem to think that matters involving the military cannot be understood by the civilian or that they have some better understanding? Tosh.

 

No, you are totally right. A trained soldier who has been in the thick of these situations does not have the same understanding compared to someone who uses google or reads a couple of books.

 

I can back up alot of stuff that is not in your history books or on the web but i would like to forget about the troubles in NI and i feel the only way all parties are going to see a lasting peace is to use radical solutions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why is that some military men seem to think that matters involving the military cannot be understood by the civilian or that they have some better understanding? Tosh.

 

No, you are totally right. A trained soldier who has been in the thick of these situations does not have the same understanding compared to someone who uses google or reads a couple of books.

 

I can back up alot of stuff that is not in your history books or on the web but i would like to forget about the troubles in NI and i feel the only way all parties are going to see a lasting peace is to use radical solutions.

 

And I think vice versa for the civilian who were involved in the Troubles, a politician, or someone studying it, etc. There would be a lot of issues that the soldier would have been oblivious to.

 

I think Chinahand's non-financial ideas sound very interesting.

[immortalpuppet]

I must admit i stopped following events after i left but at that time the punishment beatings and self policing were still rife within both communities. If the organisations still have control of the estates through fear or even the drug trade then it means they are still very much active but out of the worlds media gaze.

 

Until these organisations are defunded and disarmed i dont think there will be rest within the population. Its a fucking shame too because the Country is fantastic and really does have some of the nicest people i have ever met.