Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:43 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Yes I do.....Rather than exposing my moral compass, it probably highlights the absurd idea of a posh bird living in a palace, supposedly ruling a country??

Surely you can't enjoy the luxury of being head of the Armed Forces, without bearing some responsibility for their occasional barbaric actions??

Do you understand the difference between a toothless figurehead and an actual policy/decision maker? And you do understand the Queen doesn't 'rule' the country, even 'supposedly'?

But, carry on referring to people "legitimate targets", it clearly helps you feel 'right-on' about what was nothing more than cold-blooded murder, very often of civilians, by gangs of criminals over a few decades. Many Provos and certainly most of the 'Real' simply used the Troubles as a means of gaining criminal power, that's the truth of it. Just have a look at who runs most of the drugs and other criminal gangs in NI these days.

Sorry, but I can't look at McGuinness without seeing a murdering b4stard. Yes, the British carried out some questionable acts and made mistakes, but at least they learned from their mistakes and introduced rules of engagement. In the meantime your hero was still planting bombs and killing men, women and children in town centres. A fine role model.

I'm not blind to the cause of the Republicans but to legitimise their methods is laughable. What he's achieved as a politician is positive but as a paramilitary leader he was nothing but a murderer, and that's why I find his involvement distasteful.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

That said, the figures show for the Troubles, 363 killed by the British Military.....1016 by Protestant Paramilitaries......and 2060 by Republicans. I think we can allow the Brit Army a bit of leeway for having a bad day at the Londonderry office, way back then in 1972.

However, back to Martin. If I (and here I include that fine upstanding terrorist Gerry Adams) was on the IRA Army Council, only to be told that of the total number of catholics killed (1523) over 25% were by Republicans! You can see why the man is peeved. Even by bog trotting standards that is embarrassing, and is it any wonder he took himself, and Gerry off to Stormont?

And you have to give them credit for the excellent PR reinvention of themselves...

In one bound, Paramilitaries to Parliamentarian.

Nice language BTW! Even using your own source of information you can see the majority of civilians killed in the troubles were by Loyalist paramilitaries. They also accounted for twice as many of their own as they did Republican paramilitaries and even a smattering of British security forces. Hardly sustainable was it?

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:00 am  

ryano wrote:

Nice language BTW! Even using your own source of information you can see the majority of civilians killed in the troubles were by Loyalist paramilitaries. They also accounted for twice as many of their own as they did Republican paramilitaries and even a smattering of British security forces. Hardly sustainable was it?

The reason that the army were there in the first place was to protect the Catholics from loyalist gangs, you could say they were the real start of the troubles. Also the UVF and UFF weren't as well organised or as well equiped as the Provos due to not having thousands of plastic paddy yanks and a certain, recently deceased African dictator proping them up.

[Kosh]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:14 am  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Yes I do.....Rather than exposing my moral compass, it probably highlights the absurd idea of a posh bird living in a palace, supposedly ruling a country??

Surely you can't enjoy the luxury of being head of the Armed Forces, without bearing some responsibility for their occasional barbaric actions??

Look - I realise that you're just trying to be 'edgy' and 'cool' but stop and think about what you're posting. Then have a word with yourself.

Deary me.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:20 am  

It only works one way with Republicans, just think of the stink they still kick up about Loughgall.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:43 am  

Cronus wrote:

Do you understand the difference between a toothless figurehead and an actual policy/decision maker? And you do understand the Queen doesn't 'rule' the country, even 'supposedly'?

But, carry on referring to people "legitimate targets", it clearly helps you feel 'right-on' about what was nothing more than cold-blooded murder, very often of civilians, by gangs of criminals over a few decades. Many Provos and certainly most of the 'Real' simply used the Troubles as a means of gaining criminal power, that's the truth of it. Just have a look at who runs most of the drugs and other criminal gangs in NI these days.

Sorry, but I can't look at McGuinness without seeing a murdering b4stard. Yes, the British carried out some questionable acts and made mistakes, but at least they learned from their mistakes and introduced rules of engagement. In the meantime your hero was still planting bombs and killing men, women and children in town centres. A fine role model.

I'm not blind to the cause of the Republicans but to legitimise their methods is laughable. What he's achieved as a politician is positive but as a paramilitary leader he was nothing but a murderer, and that's why I find his involvement distasteful.

The issue of legitimate targets is very simple it is about what they represent , it is about the propaganda value, morale and the symbolism.

If you cannot see mebers of the royal family as meeting these criteria you are completely blind.
Even now the issue of symbols is hugely important to people in NI. Argements about the name of the Police RUC or PSNI, having a crown on the police badge, the name of N. Irelands second biggest city Derry are or have been huge issues which slowed down the peace process.

In Ireland they even had a civil war after the war of independence not about whether Ireland should be partitioned but about whether Irish leaders should swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.

Your simplistic arguements do not add up and just show your prejudices.

You are also wrong about the criminal element to the IRA they actually tried to prevent drugs etc becoming a problem as it undermined the cohesiveness of their support. You are mixing up the roles of other organisations and British propaganda. One day you will learn to think for yourself.

[Kosh]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:48 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

The issue of legitimate targets is very simple it is about what they represent , it is about the propaganda value, morale and the symbolism.

No. No it isn't.

Someone else too busy being right-on to think about what they're suggesting.

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:03 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

The issue of legitimate targets is very simple it is about what they represent , it is about the propaganda value, morale and the symbolism.

If you cannot see mebers of the royal family as meeting these criteria you are completely blind.
Even now the issue of symbils is hugely important to people in NI. Argements about the name of the Police RUC or PSNI, having a crown on the police badge, the name of N. Irelands second biggest city Derry are or have been huge issues which slowed down the peace process.

In Ireland they even had a civil war after the war of independence not about whether Ireland should be partitioned but about whether Irish leaders should swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.

Your simplistic arguements do not add up and just show your prejudices.

You are also wrong about the criminal element to the IRA they actually tried to prevent drugs etc becoming a problem as it undermined the cohesiveness of their support. You are mixing up the roles of other organisations and British propaganda. One day you will learn to think for yourself.

I didn't say they weren't 'legitimate targets', did I? No. But listening to plastic paddies like you banging on about them in order to feel hip and right-on is a bit tiresome. It may be trendy to side against the British establishment and use British scandals as some flawed argument, but you don't half come across as prat.

Read this carefully: Classifying someone as a legitimate target does not legitimise the attack.

I assume you obey British law? You don't drive too fast? Deal drugs? Rape small children? No? Yet for some reason it seems to be ok in your mind for Irish Republicans to blow up and shoot people and property, including innocent civilians, for the simple fact that they have a cause?

And you don't think former Provos/Real IRA are running criminal gangs, including the drugs rings? You're very sadly deluded. I have many ties over in Belfast, including family. I've stayed on the Falls Rd at the home of a man who's run one of the infamous Catholic taxi firms for 30 years and know his daughter well. Oh, there was some propaganda about them keeping drugs out of the estates but that was actually about keeping control of the trade. You're well wide of the mark. But carry pretending you know what you're talking about.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:32 am  

Cronus wrote:

I didn't say they weren't 'legitimate targets', did I? No. But listening to plastic paddies like you banging on about them in order to feel hip and right-on is a bit tiresome. It may be trendy to side against the British establishment and use British scandals as some flawed argument, but you don't half come across as prat.

Read this carefully: Classifying someone as a legitimate target does not legitimise the attack.

I assume you obey British law? You don't drive too fast? Deal drugs? Rape small children? No? Yet for some reason it seems to be ok in your mind for Irish Republicans to blow up and shoot people and property, including innocent civilians, for the simple fact that they have a cause?

And you don't think former Provos/Real IRA are running criminal gangs, including the drugs rings? You're very sadly deluded. I have many ties over in Belfast, including family. I've stayed on the Falls Rd at the home of a man who's run one of the infamous Catholic taxi firms for 30 years and know his daughter well. Oh, there was some propaganda about them keeping drugs out of the estates but that was actually about keeping control of the trade. You're well wide of the mark. But carry pretending you know what you're talking about.

Yes it does.

It was a war . In a war targets are legitimate. It all depends on which side you are on.

Was Saddam Hussein a legitimate target, was Gaddafi a legitimate target

You saw Republicans as legitimate targets i saw their opponents as legitimate targets. simple. I supported Irish Freedom fighters, You supported British interests. In the same way i would support Palestinians, ANC, Tamil Tigers Iranian Fedayeen or the french resistance

And as for your rubbish about being trendy and right on, give your head a shake.

100 stitches in my face being stabbed twice and shot at suggests i was a bit more than trendy and right on.

. Your just a Plastic limey who sound like a Sun editorial.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Queen and Martin McGuinness : Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:47 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote: The reason that the army were there in the first place was to protect the Catholics from loyalist gangs, you could say they were the real start of the troubles. Also the UVF and UFF weren't as well organised or as well equiped as the Provos due to not having thousands of plastic paddy yanks and a certain, recently deceased African dictator proping them up. You ought to read a little more. The army went in because the Police could not cope with the civil unrest. They may have been initially seen as neutral arbiters but very quickly showed their real role and that was to maintain the status quo in Ireland. They did not protect Catholics at all. As for the Loyalist paramilitaries not being organised you should check out their history. Many of them were armed and supported by the British establishment from the RUC, Special branch, Army intelligence the UDR etc. Most of this was part of British counter insurgency strategy developed in Malaya and Kenya. The main tenet of this was to support anti insurgent groupings you should read Frank Kitsons books ( he was the founder of British Insurgent policy) particularly his approach to Pseudo gangs. Here is a link. http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09 ... itson.html. Fascinating stuff about arming pseudo gangs to do the dirty work and then allow the official State forces to present themselves as neutral.

wigan_rlfc wrote: The reason that the army were there in the first place was to protect the Catholics from loyalist gangs, you could say they were the real start of the troubles. Also the UVF and UFF weren't as well organised or as well equiped as the Provos due to not having thousands of plastic paddy yanks and a certain, recently deceased African dictator proping them up. You ought to read a little more. The army went in because the Police could not cope with the civil unrest. They may have been initially seen as neutral arbiters but very quickly showed their real role and that was to maintain the status quo in Ireland. They did not protect Catholics at all. As for the Loyalist paramilitaries not being organised you should check out their history. Many of them were armed and supported by the British establishment from the RUC, Special branch, Army intelligence the UDR etc. Most of this was part of British counter insurgency strategy developed in Malaya and Kenya. The main tenet of this was to support anti insurgent groupings you should read Frank Kitsons books ( he was the founder of British Insurgent policy) particularly his approach to Pseudo gangs. Here is a link. http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09 ... itson.html. Fascinating stuff about arming pseudo gangs to do the dirty work and then allow the official State forces to present themselves as neutral.