Compensation Madness?

[sausage]

Think thats a fair enough statement Mr Shoe.

 

Whilst I think there could be better ways of moving on than giving lump sums of cash to families of bombers, I dont think its reasonable to see this in simply black and white, good vs evil terms.

 

Let us not forget the crimes committed in Abu Gharaib or the illegal torture treatments undertaken in the recent past by British and US soldiers respectively As in most cases there are two sides to this story

[immortalpuppet]

I have alot of Irish family who were not best pleased whan i told them i was going to NI, they were even less pleased when i got a specialist job out there. Coming from the IOM and trying to apply the situation to my upbringing i did change my view from a Soldier to a neutral and once i did that I saw things less black and white and for what the voilence was about.

 

I despise terrorism of any form but I also despise the idea of an army policing a nation because it does not work. There were huge errors on all sides and although the presence of soldiers made good sence to the people in whitehall it made a negative impact to the general population.

 

Giving cash to undeserving people is not a new concept in NI but the fact that people in power are willing to think outside the box and come up with mental concepts gives me hope in terms of this not being looked at as a black and white situation.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I disagree, military matters are not the preserve of those who have served in the military, far from it. A soldier at Arnhem, a grunt in Viietnam, a pilot in the Falklands, or a squaddie in Northern Ireland are not necessarily going to know more about the conflicts they fought in than someone who read a book. Nor may they have appreciation in any way of particular matters that have a bearing on those conflicts.

 

Your opinion on the weapons used is from your disgust at the indiscriminate nature of bombs. That is understandable. What I am trying to say is that in conducting an insurgency campaign the IRA were not going to resort to conventional tactics, so using bombs made sense in attacking the army. It was the only manner they could have conducted a military campaign. And someone from the armed forces cannot sit in a position of rightfulness in respect of their manner of response to incients and set a contrast with the evil of another form of killing that was indiscriminate in the specific people it killed. And I was talking purely about instances where the soldiers were targets, such as attacks on barracks.

 

How can you understand anythign to do with the military and life in the military without ever having been in it?

 

Your just a typical arm chair General who wouldnt cope fives minutes in the real world where the bullet meets the meat. If it was in my power I would drag your arse to the field hospitals in Iraq and Afganistan and have you spout your horseshit to the men and women (from both sides of the conflict) in the beds there and see how long you'll last.

 

In terms of tactics, army strategy, strategy of the enemy, the course of events in other areas, etc., you can know a lot. Certainly more than a soldier in many cases. I mean, simply because a soldier was stuck in there in a specific place for some and was witness or involved in emotional, intense situations does not mean that military matters relating to that campaign or the larger conflict can be commented on with authority by him and not civilians.

 

As I am sure you are aware, being a military man, the General would plan strategy. And not the tactics we are talking about. I don't really understand your point , however. I do not see what my horse shit, especially in respect of Afghanistan or Iraq. The same would be true. They have a particular experience from where they have been and what they have done but they are not necessarily an authority on strategy, the rightfulness of their mission, the chances of success, whether their tactics are wise, or even whether they should be there. I recognise that they have a specific experience.

[immortalpuppet]

I disagree, military matters are not the preserve of those who have served in the military, far from it. A soldier at Arnhem, a grunt in Viietnam, a pilot in the Falklands, or a squaddie in Northern Ireland are not necessarily going to know more about the conflicts they fought in than someone who read a book. Nor may they have appreciation in any way of particular matters that have a bearing on those conflicts.

 

Suprisingly enough soldiers can read books and use the intarweb aswell.

 

edit: and just to add there is a hell of alot that does not get put into books.

 

I am trying to remain neutral in this thread (well more neutral than usual.) but you cannot take away the fact that people living/working/serving there know what it is like and have a far better understanding that someone who has read about it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am trying to remain neutral in this thread (well more neutral than usual.) but you cannot take away the fact that people living/working/serving there know what it is like and have a far better understanding that someone who has read about it.

 

Yes they can read books. And they will have a better understanding of matters, but ONLY OF PARTICULAR ASPECTS. And certainly their particular analysis of what is happening is from a particular point of view, from a military perspective, from a British perspective and from their own individual interpretation of matters. And this is the same for all conflicts and many matters relating to the military. Now if the military man/woman has done other reading, has other roles it adds to their authority to speak on matters in a broad way. Yet to simply say that because someone is a military person they understand Northern Ireland, The Falklands, or other conflicts, to a much better degree is wrong.

 

And yes there is a hell of a lot that does not go into books, which in many respects is unfortunate when paiting a picture of what happened.

 

I despise terrorism of any form but I also despise the idea of an army policing a nation because it does not work. There were huge errors on all sides and although the presence of soldiers made good sence to the people in whitehall it made a negative impact to the general population.

 

I would agree about what you say about policing, a constabularly role is not one that troops are trained for and there are legal difficulties. Nevertheless, I have to say that British army did well in respect of the fact that it was under severe contraints in a quasi-constabularly role.

 

I was necessary to bring in the army. The province was on the verge of civil war and the RUC were ineffective and at too much risk of attack. I agree with what you say about its presence overall.

[immortalpuppet]

If someone has read the same books you have and googled the same sites for info and have lived/worked/served there then they will have a better all round understanding regardless of their own feelings or agenda.

[P.K.]

I mean JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST LDV ARE YOU THAT RETARDED?!?!?

 

Have you ever seen a gun shot wound? Or the remains of limbs and bodies after a nail bomb? Ever held a dying mate in your arms? How can you understand anythign to do with the military and life in the military without ever having been in it? I can read a book and suddenly become an expert on Hydron Colliders but a book is nothing compared to actually designing, building and maintaining a Hydron Collider.

 

Your just a typical arm chair General who wouldnt cope fives minutes in the real world where the bullet meets the meat. If it was in my power I would drag your arse to the field hospitals in Iraq and Afganistan and have you spout your horseshit to the men and women (from both sides of the conflict) in the beds there and see how long you'll last.

So according to you I can't criticise Gerrard's diving because I've never played in the Premiership?

 

You really are talking bollocks here. You do not need to have any experience of being in the shit to get a good understanding of the history and the politics of the festering sore that was, and in some ways still is, NI. If someone concludes the planks shouldn't have gone in then that's not a criticism of how they performed their duties once they were there you tunnel-visioned pillock. It's just a conclusion they have reached. Personally I'm sure the initial deployment was the right thing to do. I'm also pretty sure that it was the politics of positive discrimination that lead to the whole lot kicking off again when it could have been avoided. I'm also sure some units didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.

 

Incidentally you can design, build and maintain a Hydron Collider in complete ignorance of the politics that funded and located it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If someone has read the same books you have and googled the same sites for info and have lived/worked/served there then they will have a better all round understanding regardless of their own feelings or agenda.

 

Maybe, but maybe that other person did not really understand what they were reading, or made different conclusions from what they have read. Judgements will also have been formed based on their political background or how the information in the books interacts with their own experience, etc. etc. You can't disconnected agenda and feelings because the form part of how ones comes to make an understanding of matters.

 

But on those terms that you mentioned the answer I think would have to be yes. Though I think you recognise the point I am making, certainly to the extent that I need not be told to shut up but some former military person.

[manshimajin]

In the end the decision about reconciliation is nothing to do with the Army - it is a decision for UK politicians and the citizens of Northern Ireland.

[MilitantDogOwner]

In the end the decision about reconciliation is nothing to do with the Army - it is a decision for UK politicians and the citizens of Northern Ireland.

 

And what of the UK citizens?

 

I think an easier route would have involved just drawing a line in the whole thing and moving on. Bitching and moaning about wanting compensation is only going to pour petrol on the situation.

[MilitantDogOwner]

If someone has read the same books you have and googled the same sites for info and have lived/worked/served there then they will have a better all round understanding regardless of their own feelings or agenda.

 

Maybe, but maybe that other person did not really understand what they were reading, or made different conclusions from what they have read. Judgements will also have been formed based on their political background or how the information in the books interacts with their own experience, etc. etc. You can't disconnected agenda and feelings because the form part of how ones comes to make an understanding of matters.

 

But on those terms that you mentioned the answer I think would have to be yes. Though I think you recognise the point I am making, certainly to the extent that I need not be told to shut up but some former military person.

 

But the point you have been making is that people who have actually been somewhere and done something are somehow less placed to make comment on something that someone else has never experience and never been to the place in question?

 

I'm telling you to shut up because you say that terror weapons and tactics were justified because so the poor IRA not being able to stand upto the Security Forces. And your trying to pass off the IRAs tactic of targetting civilians on the UK main land. The IRA of the troubles (and their splinter organisations) where not fighting for some noble cause. Do you think there would have been the same troop numbers in NI or any for that matter if troops weren't being killed and bombs being set of on the UK main land? I'm guessing the whole thing would have been over alot sooner.

 

But hey what do I know, I was only under threat from terrorist action for 10 years, not cosing up in my comfy armchair with a bigs boys first book on all things military and anarchism monthly.

[MilitantDogOwner]

I mean JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST LDV ARE YOU THAT RETARDED?!?!?

 

Have you ever seen a gun shot wound? Or the remains of limbs and bodies after a nail bomb? Ever held a dying mate in your arms? How can you understand anythign to do with the military and life in the military without ever having been in it? I can read a book and suddenly become an expert on Hydron Colliders but a book is nothing compared to actually designing, building and maintaining a Hydron Collider.

 

Your just a typical arm chair General who wouldnt cope fives minutes in the real world where the bullet meets the meat. If it was in my power I would drag your arse to the field hospitals in Iraq and Afganistan and have you spout your horseshit to the men and women (from both sides of the conflict) in the beds there and see how long you'll last.

So according to you I can't criticise Gerrard's diving because I've never played in the Premiership?

 

You really are talking bollocks here. You do not need to have any experience of being in the shit to get a good understanding of the history and the politics of the festering sore that was, and in some ways still is, NI. If someone concludes the planks shouldn't have gone in then that's not a criticism of how they performed their duties once they were there you tunnel-visioned pillock. It's just a conclusion they have reached. Personally I'm sure the initial deployment was the right thing to do. I'm also pretty sure that it was the politics of positive discrimination that lead to the whole lot kicking off again when it could have been avoided. I'm also sure some units didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.

 

Incidentally you can design, build and maintain a Hydron Collider in complete ignorance of the politics that funded and located it.

 

1. Not really. You can criticise all you like. But then again thats based on your knowledge of premiership football watching it on telly and reading about it in the newspaper and maybe a bit of sunday league. Without actually taking to the field in a premiership game surrounded by high class footballers all your doing is making assumption not experience.

 

Or using Formula one as another example. You watch it on telly, read about it and even drive a car. But until you drive a extreme super car at almost unimaginable speeds successfully your "criticism" is weightless. Its your assumptions not your experience.

 

2. Your missing the point I was making about the Super Collider. LDV was discussing the effects and use of weapon with only the knowledge he has gained from books and the internet. I was pointing out that for all the information he thinks he has on weapons, their effects and use is conjecture. Saying nail bombs were justified without knowing how truley awful they are is naive and dangerous.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Your opinion on the weapons used is from your disgust at the indiscriminate nature of bombs. That is understandable. What I am trying to say is that in conducting an insurgency campaign the IRA were not going to resort to conventional tactics, so using bombs made sense in attacking the army.

 

What were they fighting for exactly? Freedom from British oppresion? I can imagine that chat down the Shamrock Arms....

 

(In hushed Irish accent)

"Right lads I've had enough of those British bastards. To show them we don;t like them and we want them to leave, we're gonna shoot a load of them and plant bombs in pubs and cars killing loads of them. And we'll shoot up and bomb a load of our own countrymen as well. That show the bastards. They will be leaving in droves after that."

 

Oh wait, no, no it didn;t. When you start shooting and bombing British Soldiers more will show up. And more. And more.

 

I wonder if the IRA (before they turned into drug smuggling, protection racket gangsters) actually figured out at some point that the sooner we stop killing people the quicker things will get sorted out?

 

And before any more of you get on your high horse about me making out like the Security Forces were the good guys and the IRA were the bad guys, ponder this. Yes the Sec Forces did sometimes use some dubious methods. I wish they hadn;t but they did. They didn't how ever target civilains on a regular basis. Not just one or two but many, many people whos only crime was being in the UK.

 

1815 civilians were killed during the Troubles. 90% all the deaths during the three decades were caused by paramilitary groups.

 

If were start "compensating" the families of TERRORISTS we are saying its okay to commit terrorist acts against the UK and you'll rewarded for it. I can see Al'Queda filling in the claim forms now. "Blew up a school did he, aww poor you heres £12000."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201738.stm very interesting.

 

"In 1993, the IRA detonated the Warrington bomb which killed three-year-old Jonathan Ball and 12-year-old Tim Parry as they shopped with family and friends.

 

A different attack on Warrington targeted gasometers.

 

The IRA also shifted its focus more and more onto "economic targets", the most important being the City of London.

 

Little over a month after Warrington, a bomb at Bishopsgate in the City killed one, injured 44 and caused at least £350m of damage. In propaganda terms, it was a massive boost to republican morale."

 

But what they achieve? Did they bring peace and unity to the Irish people? Did they end nearly 20 years of violence? No they blew stuff up, killed some people and injured more. Heroes to a man.

[manshimajin]

In the end the decision about reconciliation is nothing to do with the Army - it is a decision for UK politicians and the citizens of Northern Ireland.

And what of the UK citizens?

 

I think an easier route would have involved just drawing a line in the whole thing and moving on. Bitching and moaning about wanting compensation is only going to pour petrol on the situation.

MDO - I agree with you about drawing a line under it. I am personally not at all sure how payments help and the matter has re-opened wounds all round. I think it has also drawn attention away from the Bradley Eames proposal for a Legacy Commission:

 

On the basis of its consultation, the Group does not believe that the present legal processes are fully meeting society’s needs. There is a tendency to re-fight the conflict through the courts; to pursue truth through litigation; to deal with the past without a perspective for the future. Public inquiries have proved protracted and expensive with a narrow focus on a very few cases.

As I understand it from reading the relevant section of the report this Commission would have a 5 year time limit and would enquire in private into matters such as paramilitary activities and alleged collusion. It appears that Bradley and Eames feel the present drip drip of public enquiries just keeps the tensions festering.

 

Who should decide how to proceed? Ultimately it falls into the UK Government's court. My comment about NI citizens is simply that they are the ones who have been most directly affected by the situation over 40 years - and the ones who need to learn to live together! My impression has been for a long time that the vast majority of other UK citizens couldn't frankly give a damn about Northern Ireland's problems - they just wish people there would learn to live in peace, if not harmony. Much the same view is also held in the rest of Ireland.

[MilitantDogOwner]

In the end the decision about reconciliation is nothing to do with the Army - it is a decision for UK politicians and the citizens of Northern Ireland.

And what of the UK citizens?

 

I think an easier route would have involved just drawing a line in the whole thing and moving on. Bitching and moaning about wanting compensation is only going to pour petrol on the situation.

MDO - I agree with you about drawing a line under it. I am personally not at all sure how payments help and the matter has re-opened wounds all round. I think it has also drawn attention away from the Bradley Eames proposal for a Legacy Commission:

 

On the basis of its consultation, the Group does not believe that the present legal processes are fully meeting society’s needs. There is a tendency to re-fight the conflict through the courts; to pursue truth through litigation; to deal with the past without a perspective for the future. Public inquiries have proved protracted and expensive with a narrow focus on a very few cases.

As I understand it from reading the relevant section of the report this Commission would have a 5 year time limit and would enquire in private into matters such as paramilitary activities and alleged collusion. It appears that Bradley and Eames feel the present drip drip of public enquiries just keeps the tensions festering.

 

Who should decide how to proceed? Ultimately it falls into the UK Government's court. My comment about NI citizens is simply that they are the ones who have been most directly affected by the situation over 40 years - and the ones who need to learn to live together! My impression has been for a long time that the vast majority of other UK citizens couldn't frankly give a damn about Northern Ireland's problems - they just wish people there would learn to live in peace, if not harmony. Much the same view is also held in the rest of Ireland.

 

Like you say a line under all this would be the best case scenario. But there are hurt feelings on both sides, and we all know that best case scenarios never happen. Grudges laid down 20 years ago are to this day being taken up by kids today and for no other reason than "thats what my daddy used to do".