Equating the Royal British Legion with a bunch of murdering republican terrorists demonstrates how suited Dr. Coulter is for that weighty journal - the Irish Daily Star. I wonder what might feature in his next momentous column - "How Child killer can create a new life for themselves by founding a nursery?" Please spare us this man's folly.

On the other Hand David, I just watched a superb program about Cllr Tom Hartley and David Ervine visiting the Somme and coming to terms with the implications of events 1916 and 1917 for the communities in Ireland then and now. Well done BBC.

The IRA can't survive the move into constitutional politics by Sinn Fein. That is the first lesson of the history of Irish republicanism. The second lesson is that there will be another IRA to take its place untainted by constitutionalism and remaining loyal to the traditional ideology.

That's just the way it goes. They will be about as big and as relevent as the IRA were in 1967.

Well said David I was looking foward to seeing how unionists would find a way of condeming the IRA disbanding.

my recollection may be faulty,. but I don't recall too many RBL punishment squads, or gangs of Chelsea Pensioners stealing cigarettes from warehouses. It's possible that ex Royal marines control the traffic of contraband through the port of London, but unlikely.

The trouble with this latest howler from the fevered imagination of Coulter is his failure to understand the true nature of the Provos. Obviously sitting at Stormont drinking cafe lattes with Provo spin doctors dulls the appreciation of the continuing victims of Ireland's most ruthless criminal gang.Or is this the latest Trimble wheeze to help his provo mates?

Protestant bigots will always see events in through (very) Orange tinted glasses but the fact remains that the IRA must be allowed to retire with dignity if a sustainable peace is to be enjoyed. This may appear abhorrent to people who have abided the law all of their lives and who may have suffered for that honesty but no one is asking people to like it. It is just political sense.

davidbrew

You should also be aware that former IRA members who have taken the constitutional path in the past wereresponsible for the formation of the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. And the leader of the Labour Party came from a party which travelled the same road.

The issue is how many will be left behind to plan the next phase of the struggle. I think it is in all our interests that unionists bear that question in mind. But I don't think they will have the wisdom to do so.

Any chance the two Davids could have misunderstood something here?



It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, the IRA form their little Comrades Association* and retire gracefully and importantly for us they no longer exist as any kind of a threat allowing us to focus on the next threat, loyalist terrorists.

*Of course no point forming their little club until there is complete and final disarmament.

I fear Henry might be right, we won't be witnessing the end of the IRA, just the end of the road for an IRA.

Take a look at the history of schisms of which we're all too familiar with. What always emerges is a 'true' Republican Movement in the monarchist spirit of continuity. Sing after me, The king is dead, long live the king or should I be substituting that with the IRA is dead, long live the IRA?

The 'purist' residue left behind will be the 'true' inheritors of the 1916 proclamation, unless the Provisional Republican Movement succeed in pulling off an almighty Night of the Long Knives against the 'dissident' terror thugs.

The Provos undertook the task in the early 1990s, when the IPLO was disbanded, after its leader Sammy Ward was gunned down, and a number of its members blasted in the knees. The Provos might be forced to deal with the Cokes this time round.

Is this a great thing? Well that is all dependent on your politics isn't it now. The revisionists seem to be the true revolutionaries these days.

The second lesson is that there will be another IRA to take its place untainted by constitutionalism and remaining loyal to the traditional ideology.

They already exist, don’t they? CIRA/RIRA.

willowfield

They are there. I would bet on the CIRA to become the actual IRA and the RIRA to disappear. They have the ideological purity market cornered.

Nathan

The Provos might be forced to deal with the Cokes this time round.

I don't see that as an option. The only way to deal with them is to make the Agreement and Policing work. That will keep them small and irrelevent but pure.

I don't begrudge them their purity once them remain small and irrelevent.

SF poised to take SDLP westminster seats? what rubbish. the facts speak for themselves

Henry

I don't see that as an option. The only way to deal with them is to make the Agreement and Policing work. That will keep them small and irrelevent but pure.

Hasn't it already been considered as an option - earlier this year PIRA leaders had put on hold plans to stage a night of the long knives against the RIRA, all because of the controversy surrounding the alleged PIRA abduction of Bobby Tohill. This is all according to a Republican source leaked to a Northern newspaper.

As for the Cokes, they will either they face the wrath of the Provisionals or the current Provisional Republican leadership will simply intern the next generation of IRA men through control of the state police. They will need to be locked up as quick as legislation can be rushed through. This will be nothing new, the then Workers Party supported state internment with great vigour.

However post-socialist this may sound, the state's response would be more humane, more than they deserve, more than the 28 dead and 200 injured in the Omagh massacre were afforded by them!

"I don't begrudge them their purity once them remain small and irrelevent."

Well what do you have to say about the way Provisional Sinn Fein begrudged the Officials once they started to denounce the inhumane aspects of sectarian ethnic nationalism all them years ago?

The same Provisional Republican Movement that so vehemently attacked working class Protestant and RC republicans for degenerating the holy grail of republicanism are now metaphorising into hypocritical revisionists themselves and, as the argument goes, have been lead into a similar cul-de-sac.

Dr Coulter needs to see a shrink. He equates a bunch of murdering low life scum in the IRA with those brave heros in the Royal British Legion.

The IRA were defeated in the 1990s. They should now disband and apologise to all their victims.

Does Coulter really think that the IRA is worthy of any respect. We were told always that the vast majority of the Irish people never supported the IRA. Now the likes of Coulter want to give them respect.

Get a grip.

No Surrender.

God Save The Queen.

ulsterman

I'm sure British and Irish governments would have already seriously discussed the formation of an old comrades association.

Granting official recognition to such a hardcore veteran organisation disguised as a harmless Dad's Army grouplet would be an essential pre-requisite to any deal aimed at PIRA disbandment.

Such a move will in effect be a 'legitimate' recognition of the PIRA by the back door.

Nathan

The Officials? I don't take seriously any organisation that aligned itself with the Soviet Union. It is and was irrelevent to Irish political life.

What credibility they took with them when they left the republican cause they bet it all on red and lost everything.

Someone should write a history of OSF/SFWP/WP/New Agenda/Democratic Left before they fade away. It would have an interesting cast. Smullen & Garland the Stalinists, Goulding their dupe, Harris & Gregg the entryists in RTE and all the opportunists who are now Labour TD's and MEPs

This suggestion was always bound to result in a silly knee-jerk reaction from some.

They might do well to remember that the UDA is a 'legal' organisation. Or is that fine and dandy by their standards?

They might do well to remember that the RBL undoubtedly includes members that shot dead innocent civilians in Derry. That participated (for a wage packet) in all of the shot-to-kill incidents and all of the incidents of collusion!

Or do they believe that the paid killers of the British army were 'gentlemen killers' and that their actions were somehow more righteous?

This process requires leaps of imagination on all sides. If the process is genuine and irreversible then a suggestion of this nature is not even a leap of imagination - it's a necessity and an inevitability!

maybe the DUPes will tell us when Martin Mcguinness, who could be DFM in a DUP/SF coalitoin, will cease to be an IRA commander.

Maybe they can tell us when Gerry Adams, Godfather of Terrorism according to IAN jr, cease to hold this postion?

When will the IRA disband, now "Fade away" or become an old soldiers association\?

Would the DUP find it easier to work with Sinn Fein if they broke off all links with the IRA and the IRA ended political activity to concentrate on the cigarette industry.

Surely an old comrades association linked to SF is the only way of ensuring some electoral accountability to the IRA.

Henry

Your failure to respond to my question has been duly noted.

The Officials? I don't take seriously any organisation that aligned itself with the Soviet Union. It is and was irrelevent to Irish political life.

Can you substantiate that latter sentence? Considering that it was Goulding who directed Republicans into grass-roots political action - housing action campaigns in the south and the generation of a civil rights movement in the north.

But I suppose it does annoy you that the Officials had in Goulding a political leader who eventually came to loathe ethnic nationalism doesn't it?

It was a good job that when he was alive he made it a point of principle to prevent the rosary bead merchants as far as he possibly could from lethally intoxicating the workers with its sectarian blood lust.

"What credibility they took with them when they left the republican cause they bet it all on red and lost everything."

That’s rich considering you’ve already conceded that your own party has abandoned republicanism in the strict sense of the word. You know, a futile republicanism which did everything in its power - as in the Shankill bomb - to drive working class communities apart. Provisional Sinn Fein only breathes in credibility because it cannabilised SDLP ideas.

To adapt Marx, in a pluralist United Ireland it will be the Provos who will wither away and not the state, mark my words.

Coming onto the Workers Party, well that shower missed its defining moment in history back in 1990, when Eoghan Harris had what we’d now call a Blairite vision for that party, and had taken the trouble to write a pamphlet entitled The Necessity of Social Democracy. It subjected the fatal flaws of communism to the severest critical scrutiny.

Frank Ross and Pat Rabbitte (wrongly) pandered to the sensitivities of the Stalinist wing of the party, suppressed its publication and when Smollen published the pamphlet privately for Harris he was given a humiliating dressing down in front of everyone and Smollen’s rank in the party was downgraded.

The so-called opportunists did the sensible thing though when they formed a coalition with Fine Gael. Apart from the occasional lapse (Goulding’s funeral) loyalists to Ross were generally well braced for the ritual abuse reserved for those who sever the biblical cord with Communist parties.

If the Workers Party withered on the vine, then it was because they failed to slaughter some of their sacred cows. Those who stayed after the special ard fheis in Feb 1992 only stayed because they were foolish enough to have hallucinations about some militarist adventure waiting in stall for them.

Such hoary old stalinists really do occupy a place in my pantheon of naff politics. Deadly Dudley always comes in handy, that woman really does sum it all up for me.

Sean Garland ...any relation to Roy ?

I don't see what's wrong with Dr Coulter's suggestion. For eg. the old UVF was more or less co-opted into the forces of the new NI state, a move which sowed the seeds of instability in NI from the word go. Asking the IRA to become a British Legion type organisation isn't a bad idea, or would people prefer them to enlist en masse into the PSNI? Anyone who attacks a heavily armed barracks or a convey has to be a bit of a headcase, precisely what the new police service was looking I would have thought

For eg. the old UVF was more or less co-opted into the forces of the new NI state, a move which sowed the seeds of instability in NI from the word go.

Could you justify those claims please.

Anyone who attacks a heavily armed barracks or a convey has to be a bit of a headcase,

Rewriting history ? The vast majority of IRA casualties were NOT caused by attacks on heavily armed Barracks or convoys.
They were civilians
Kids like Bernard Teggart.
Women like Joanne Mathers and Jean McConville.

....And we could talk about some of the 1,441 deaths or the 247 children killed by the actions of Loyalist and British forces groups.

We could mention that while Republicans served a total of 150,000 years in prison, that only 4 members of the British army ever received sentences. All were reinstated in their regiments and 2 were promoted.

We could mention that while cheating on 'who wants to be a millionaire' merits immediate dismissal, killing children in Ireland has never been a bar to promotion in the British Army.

But we are trying to look forward.....trying very hard! Very trying, very hard!!

Liam, that is disingenuous. Millie made a deliberate misrepresentation which has to be challenged.
You CAN talk to your hearts content about the other casualties - none of which affect the dishonesty of misrepresenting the IRA campaign.

It is a LIE to represent the IRA as consisting of people who attacked heavily armed barracks or Convoys. Of the THOUSANDS of casualties they caused VERY FEW were as a result of those kind of attacks.

It's hardly disingenuous Davros - it is actually a statement of hard facts.

It is a LIE to represent the IRA as consisting of people who attacked heavily armed barracks or Convoys

As a matter of fact the IRA carried out countless attacks on 'heavily armed barracks' and even a few on 'convoys' but this argument serves no real purpose.

As a matter of fact the IRA carried out countless attacks on 'heavily armed barracks' and even a few on 'convoys' but this argument serves no real purpose.

No Liam. It's hyperbolic twaddle whitewashing the reality of the IRA. An Organisation that Killed more RCs than the Loyalists and Security forces combined.

I won't allow that to pass unchallenged.

The majority of deaths and casualties were caused by attacks that were not aimed at "heavily armed barracks" whatever THAT means and convoys.
The majority of attacks were bombs and shootings away from convoys and police stations or army bases.

The IRA were NOT heroic soldiers. They were the same as the UVF, UDA, RHC and all the other squalid terrorist organisations.

Their idea of heroism was proxy bombing. Remember how they worked that one Liam ? Women and children held at gunpoint while civilians were forced to deliver bombs.

The IRA were NOT heroic soldiers. They were the same as the UVF, UDA, RHC and all the other squalid terrorist organisations.

Couldn't fail to notice the way you left out the B Specials, UDR, RIR, RUC, FRU, SAS, British Army?

Or were those somewhat less 'squalid' in your own view?

The Status of those are irrelevent to Millie's attempts to sanitise the IRA Liam.

Davros

I can easily understand that you will never regard the IRA as 'heroic soldiers'. But then if you regard any soldiers, in any army, in any war as 'heroic' then it is only possible to make that judgement in a political context.

Either you are a pacifist and regard all soldiers as 'unheroic' and all killings as wrong or else in your own view some are judged to be heroic and some killings are deemed acceptable. Either way it's a political judgement.

You should notice and accept that I did not claim 'heroism' for anybody.

My judgements are of course informed by my own experiences and my own politics.

I am as unlikely to condemn the IRA as you are to condemn the Chelsea Pensioners. Which kind of brings us back on topic.

I have my own view of the IRA. I also hold a view on all of the other armed groups.

But I am for the Peace Process and my politics are just as valid and legitimate as your own.

Think about it?

Liam that you resort to implying that I am somehow claiming that your politics are invalid is sad.

You should notice and accept that I did not claim 'heroism' for anybody.

I HAVE noticed that you have done your damnedest to move the discussion way from Millie's attempt to misrepresent the IRA.

You are both entitled to your views.

Neither of you is entitled to present the IRA as an organisation that concentrated on attacking "heavily armed barracks" or convoys.

I don't think anyone with any credibility can deny the the IRA killed many Catholics.

But one also cannot deny that there were also many attacks on both barracks and the armed security forces. To suggest that they did not is just as ludicrous as claiming they did not kill Catholics.

The problem I have is with the attempt to scapegoat the IRA for *all* the violence in the North. The unspoken strategy seems to have to do with an attempt to prove that everyone else is somehow "cleaner," less violent, etc. It is borne of a desire to constantly deflect attention away from other atrocities carried out by each and every para/military outfit in the North. The hilarity lies in trying to sound either serious, sane or credible when condemning others who do similar things without looking like a fool.

I also want to comment on Liam's post above regarding the political contexts and condemnations of violence: well said.

If one is a pacifist then one should condemn the actions of all members of all para/military organizations. There aren't too many of these about, and they are perhaps the worst sort of passive observers.

If one does not do this, then one clearly has a bias which sees murder and violence as a powerful political necessary tool - call it "security," "protection," or by any other euphemism you wish - to serve your interests. Violence is everywhere, and, to a degree necessary. And it is surely time for people to be honest about this. No one side is clean. Blood is on the hands of all. Only if this is acknowledged can steps be taken to ensure that violence is seen to be directed in a "fairer" manner - one that is not nakedly sectarian (adequate representation of *all* facets of the community, etc.). This is a prerequisite for creating a situation that where there is a chance for politicising the conflict.

But one also cannot deny that there were also many attacks on both barracks and the armed security forces.

What is a "heavily-armed Barracks" ?
one with minefileds around it and automated flamethrowers and automated Heavy calibre machine guns on the walls ?

Shooting a lone copper(who is carrying a holstered gun )in the back does NOT constitute attacking a "convoy", Planting a bomb under a car used by a UDR man or Copper outside his house durning the night does NOT constitute attacking a "convoy"

The problem I have is with the attempt to scapegoat the IRA for *all* the violence in the North. The unspoken strategy seems to have to do with an attempt to prove that everyone else is somehow "cleaner," less violent, etc.

I would suggest you have that the wrong way round. Nobody here defends loyalist paramilitaries. The unionists here insist that they are JUST as scummy as the IRA. The dissent comes from IRA apologists who want to portray the IRA as being cleaner than the equivalent Loyalist scumbags.

Here we go again Davros - you absolve yourself by stating that you condemn equally Unionist violence. But at the same time you are constantly perpetuating your own hierarchy of victims.

Many Republicans were 'shot in the back' by security forces you know. We had a war situation here, thankfully we now have a peace process. But it is a process and it requires that the process keeps moving.

If we are going to have a review of the conflict, fine, I'm for that. Let's initiate an agreed and truly independent truth commission.

But we have got to keep this process moving forward. It was the failure of politics that led to the conflict in the first place. We should be more concerned with the ongoing failure of politics and not spending all of our time looking backwards.

We all have our stories to tell, but don't lets become too absorbed in the past. We need to reconcile that and move forward together.

No Liam ,we are not going anywhere - YOU are trying to take me with you into whataboutery and I'm not going.
I'm addressing dishonest claims about IRA "heroics" made by Millie.

I would be JUST as blunt if anybody here tried to portray Loyalists as heroic soldiers in the way you (plural) try to present those responsible for la Mon as attackers of "heavily armed barracks or a convey".

You say you want to move forward ? Fine. You can start by acknowledging the crimes of the IRA. And do it because it's honest - NOT in a choreographed "you say that loyalists did this or Brits did that and then I'll admit" ....

Liam

I am as unlikely to condemn the IRA as you are to condemn the Chelsea Pensioners.

That is disgraceful.

JD

If one is a pacifist then one should condemn the actions of all members of all para/military organizations. There aren't too many of these about, and they are perhaps the worst sort of passive observers. If one does not do this, then one clearly has a bias which sees murder and violence as a powerful political necessary tool - call it "security," "protection," or by any other euphemism you wish - to serve your interests.

I am not a pacifist, but nor do I see murder as a powerful political necessary tool. So your logic fails.

Willowfield

That is disgraceful.

Actually you're making a judgement there. It's not 'disgraceful' it is simply a reality. You may not like it but that's the truth of how it is. There is much that I don't like in your politics but I recognise the reality of your politics.

Davros

You say you want to move forward ? Fine. You can start by acknowledging the crimes of the IRA. And do it because it's honest - NOT in a choreographed "you say that loyalists did this or Brits did that and then I'll admit" ....

You need to get something into your head and deal with it. There are a great many who do not for one moment perceive the IRA as 'criminals'. Do not forget that that was what the hunger strikes were all about. The refusal of Republicans to be criminalised.

I do not come on here to be dishonest. I recognise your politics, even though I oppose them. I am entitled to. You are entitled to oppose mine also and that's fine.

But recognise them first. Then try debate them.

Two simple questions for you -

was la Mon a crime ?

was the murder of Bernard Teggart a crime ?

The IRA were NOT merely criminals. They were Terrorists . Terrorism is a crime. Therefore they were criminals.

I recognise your politics and will happily debate them - but drop the false history and move away from justifying the IRA. I don't and won't attempt to Justify or defend the wrongs done by loyalists, Unionist Politicians and wrong-doers in the security forces. I'll ask you to do the same in respect of the IRA.Past and Present.

Willowfield: "I am not a pacifist, but nor do I see murder as a powerful political necessary tool. So your logic fails."

So, you're telling me that you have never, ever seen the necessity for a social grouping to kill certain parties to protect something that you hold dear? Never even said that "terrorists" got what they "deserved"? Ever? Never, ever? Come now.

To Davros:

But, you fail to see the point I was making.

The *way* things are said is just as, if not moreso, important. Condemning one para/military group by pointing out their "criminal" nature is not a neutral statement in the North. The history of the so-called policy of "Ulsterization" can never make it so.

An appeal to "the Law" as the final arbiter of the "moral rectitude" of certain actions, is complicated by the fact that it is subject to more meanings - produced by, say, historical contexts and interpretative communities that are beyond the control of any one individual - than the one intended.

Further, "the Law" when it is either not applied, or not seen to be applied, equally to all, fails as a principle. Appealing to it over and over again doesn't change anything, or go anywhere.

JD- If we go down your path then we end up excusing the horrors perpretrated on innocent people by Loyalist paramilitaries. That's a path I won't take.

Davros: Odd that you think that it's "my" path. I was merely pointing out how murder and violence is part and parcel of every so-called "healthy" society. It's the "path" pretty much every society is on, whether you want to admit it or not.

Also interesting that you interpret what I said in terms of excusing Loyalist para/military activity. I "excused" nothing. To ignore the role violence plays in society is wilful blindness.

Nobody is waiting for you to go down any "path."

Some may say that the DUP are the unofficial political wing of the UDA but if you read the The Ulster Star then you shall read that Jeffrey Donaldson is expecting to become councillor of a ward that is controlled by a person whose sister is also Jeffrey’s running mate. This is not really surprising in itself when you consider the cunning of the MP but the complete blinkered approach of the newspaper’s reporting is.

Davros

It is very telling that while you regularly bring up specific incidents, you tend to go back to 1972,73,78. And constantly promote your own version of history, where in your version, the IRA are the biggest bogeymen.

Of course it is more comfortable for some to try to 'criminalise' the Republican struggle. For then they don't need to honestly examine the very real causes of conflict.

But if people cannot examine the conflict honestly and in its full context, then they are simply engaging in name-calling and are just perpetuating division.

If we are going to examine the history of the IRA, then we cannot examine it in isolation, we must examine it in the context of the political situation, in the context of the actions of the british government in denying peoples rights, the actions of the security forces, the Loyalist paramiltaries, etc etc.

You can pose your 'simple questions' but then I could pose many many more. But are these questions really so 'simple'? Of course they are not. The peace process challenges all of us to try rise above all of the whataboutery. But it is obviously very easy to slip back into all of that.

For example, this topic is about the IRA in the present context, but what is offered from Unionists - except the old clichés and the old biases. Unionism really does have difficulty in looking forward, perhaps because they are unsure of where the future is leading us and are not up to the challenge of a new society. They know that there has to be change, but are afraid to debate that and keep avoiding it. And what do their political leaders do but reinforce that mindset by refusing to talk to the political leaders of Nationalism.

I don't need to justify the Republican struggle, I am proud of that struggle and confident in my politics. That does not mean that I am not mindful of the horror of war, in fact quite the opposite. But I don't ask you to justify all of the actions of the Brits or to justify the wrongs that have been performed by 'your side', because I know that you will never do that satisfactorily.

What I do challenge you to do, is to look forward.

Can you do that?

JD

So, you're telling me that you have never, ever seen the necessity for a social grouping to kill certain parties to protect something that you hold dear? Never even said that "terrorists" got what they "deserved"? Ever? Never, ever? Come now.

I said I have never and would never support murder. No matter who the perpetrator or who the victim.

Liam

Of course it is more comfortable for some to try to 'criminalise' the Republican struggle.

Liam, the "republican struggle" criminalised itself. Murder is a crime. Planting bombs is a crime. Shooting people is a crime.

I don't need to justify the Republican struggle, I am proud of that struggle

That is shameful.

Liam, that's a lot of waffle to justify Hundreds of civilians killed by the IRA.

Davros

Okay then, stay in your own wee comfort zone and don't even attempt to think outside of the box. You will add nothing.

Willowfield

Murder is a crime. Planting bombs is a crime. Shooting people is a crime.

Of course these are terrible things, but tell that to Tony Blair and George Bush - oh but then in your book, maybe all of these things are 'sometimes' justified - i.e. you personally agree with the politics of the perpetrators?

I oppose the Iraq war, Liam. And I have no problem condemning it. Unlike your problem with condemning IRA murders.

Disgrace.

Liam - in my comfort zone all murders are abhorrent and to be condemned.
In your comfort zone - rather different. You seek to excuse and justify some of the most bestial crimes and atrocities.

You are the one with the problem.

Exactly what I was talking about - Unionism when challenged to look forward will bury their heads in the sand and resort to looking backwards and to all of the old catchphrases and clichés!

Is really is so difficult for you isn't it?

Nice attempt to deflect attention away from your support for murder.

Unionism

I'm NOT a Unionist Liam - wake up!

Go Davros!

There's an important point here - Liam's party bases it's demands upon a claimed victimhood. They will happily bang on and on and on and on and on about collusion, justice and restitution BUT the second anybody challenges their version of history or suggests that THEY move on or offer restitution - that person is vilified for being stuck in the past and is told to move on!
SF maintains that the peace process must address old wrongs - BUT ONLY WRONGS THAT SUIT.
SF maintains that the peace process must address present problems within the loyalist and unionist community - but God help anybody who DARES ask them to look at present problems in THEIR community.

Hacks me off.

They're a despicable lot.

Davros

You would do better not to misquote me - if you claim that I have justified/excused/supported any specific 'atrocity' then go find the quote - you won't, because I have not. So your claim is a nonsense and a failure to even try to understand.

What I have done is recognise the context in which the conflict occured. Something that many others find very difficult to do. Why is that?

You say that you are not a Unionist. Well fair enough, I am unsure then of your politics, except that your favourite pastime seems to be to focus mainly on wild criticism of Republicans, to the exclusion of all other parties.

There's an important point here - Liam's party bases it's demands upon a claimed victimhood.

Incorrect - SF bases its demands on the fundamental right to Equality. Something that Unionism by its nature has great difficulty with.

They will happily bang on and on and on and on and on about collusion, justice and restitution

"bang on"? So these things are unimportant to you then?

BUT the second anybody challenges their version of history or suggests that THEY move on or offer restitution - that person is vilified for being stuck in the past and is told to move on!

Incorrect again - I have no problem honestly debating history. But I do have a problem with those who cannot honestly debate the causes and context of the conflict and who cannot be prepared to honestly examine their entrenched positions. I also have a problem with those who want to stay stuck in the past and never move on.

SF maintains that the peace process must address old wrongs - BUT ONLY WRONGS THAT SUIT.

Incorrect again - You have obviously not examined Sinn Féin's proposals for a Truth Recovery Process.

SF maintains that the peace process must address present problems within the loyalist and unionist community

Well seeing as the loyalist and unionist community are maintaining their entrenched positions and that all of the violence is emanating from that community - is that so unreasonable?

- but God help anybody who DARES ask them to look at present problems in THEIR community.

We should all be examining problems in our communities and in the wider community. God help us all if we can't do that!

Liam

You would do better not to misquote me - if you claim that I have justified/excused/supported any specific 'atrocity' then go find the quote - you won't, because I have not.

No, but you refuse to condemn them.

What I have done is recognise the context in which the conflict occured.

The context did not justify murders, bombings, maimings, torturings, exilings, beatings ...

Incorrect - SF bases its demands on the fundamental right to Equality.

Well they've got it, so why are they still around?

SF bases its demands on the fundamental right to Equality.

Easily disproved. SF does NOT want equality of treatment for Victims of Collusion and Victims of the IRA.

You would do better not to misquote me - if you claim that I have justified/excused/supported any specific 'atrocity' then go find the quote - you won't, because I have not.

Talking of misquoting - where have I said that you justify/excuse/support any specific atrocity? THAT would be impossible as You run from commenting on specifics and hide behind waffle Liam.

However you DID say that you are proud of the "republican struggle" - and being proud of 1800 odd Murders and countless thousands of injuries shouls make you an object of disgust in the eyes of all decent Irish People.

Willowfield - you really need to try removing the blinkers.

What would you like me to condemn? All actions? Some actions? The IRA? The Brits? The Loyalists? Some of them? All of them?

The context did not justify murders, bombings, maimings, torturings, exilings, beatings ...

Whose "murders, bombings, maimings, torturings, exilings, beatings"? Whose actions were most particularly unjustified in your book? All actions? Some actions? The IRA? The Brits? The Loyalists? Some of them? All of them?

Davros

Easily disproved. SF does NOT want equality of treatment for Victims of Collusion and Victims of the IRA.

Not so easily disproved - you obviously still haven't bothered reading Sinn Féin's proposals on Truth Recovery. You shouldn't invent SF policy Davros, try reading it!?

You run from commenting on specifics and hide behind waffle Liam.

No. But I won't fall for commenting on incidents of your choosing from the 70's or any other period. Precisely because I will not engage in the game of creating a hierarchy of victims.

Yes, I am proud of the Republican struggle, from 1798 through to the present day. Why would I not be? Again, you entirely fail to understand this.

We have had a period of conflict. Now we are engaged in a peace process. This process has a real chance, but it challenges all of us.

It particularly challenges us to get out of our entrenched positions.

I know that Republicans are up to this challenge. But your responses make me less confident that Unionism can deal with the challenges that they face.

But your responses make me less confident that Unionism

Why ? I'm NOT a Unionist :)

God almighty, Seamus Mallon was right about slow learners!

Davros

I don't know what your poltics are besides being anti-Republican. If you'd like to say what you're pro, then go right ahead?

Btw - I have no difficulty with anybodys politics, even when they differ from mine, they are legitimate. If you were willing to enquire a little deeper instead of name calling, we all just might learn something?

Liam

What would you like me to condemn? All actions? Some actions? The IRA? The Brits? The Loyalists? Some of them? All of them?

How about condemning all murders for a start. Then you can start condemning all bombings.

Whose "murders, bombings, maimings, torturings, exilings, beatings"?

Er, all of them. No matter who did it.

Whose actions were most particularly unjustified in your book? All actions? Some actions? The IRA? The Brits? The Loyalists? Some of them? All of them?

All illegal and unjust actions.

Yes, I am proud of the Republican struggle, from 1798 through to the present day. Why would I not be?

Because it involves thousands of murders, massive destruction and misery.

Btw - I have no difficulty with anybodys politics, even when they differ from mine, they are legitimate.

So BNP racism is legitimate politics? Johnny Adair's "any taig will do" politics are legitimate?

Willowfield:[i]I said I have never and would never support murder. No matter who the perpetrator or who the victim.[/i]

Okay, so what about WWI and WWII? You wouldn't support a side based on murders carried out by either side? Were all participants "wrong"? Any historical war? What about the ANC? The "war" in Iraq? How do you feel about abortion?

I really think you are being disingenuous. Or maybe just naive.

Liam-asking difficult questions isn't name-calling:)
Neither is disputing the dishonest history on which a spurious morality or justification is claimed for
vile crimes. Labelling someone who has already pointed out that he isn't one a Unionist IS namecalling!

I'm not anti-republican. I incline to a secular republic of Europe based on regionalism. My favourite figure from history helped START the whole European Republican movement.... Oliver Cromwell.

Back to differences Liam. I'm opposed to people who try to excuse terrorist crimes on the grounds that the ends justify the means - be it followers of Gerry Adams for his republic or Johnny Adair for maintenance of the Union. They defile honourable causes and BOTH lots have greatly damaged their respective causes.

I'm prepared to listen to republicans. Just don't dare try to blackmail people like me into conceding ANY form of validation or retrospective santitisation for the IRA or the UDA or the UVF Or the INLA etc etc as a necessary part of the peace process. If you want to make progress YOU will have to accept that there was NO justification for what the IRA did to our communities. That is NOT negotiable.

Dav

For eg. the old UVF was more or less co-opted into the forces of the new NI state, a move which sowed the seeds of instability in NI from the word go.

'Could you justify those claims please.'

The UVF was 'reactivated' in 1920 but the problem with this was that raising an extra governmental militia in Ireland was illegal. To get around this the British govt hit upon the brilliant idea of creating a new Special Constabulary, realising full well that whole units of the UVF would simply be co-pted into this force. And that's exactly what happened. So the bulk of the A, B & C Specials were made up of the UVF. The A's were disbanded, the part-time B's were retained, and the C's disbanded but allowed to keep their arms, a measure that goes a long way to explaining the historically high incidence of gun ownership amongst the Protestant community.

And a few mistakes mentioned as regards IRA violence. The majority of IRA victims were not civilians but the security forces. Ask any member of the British Army who's done a tour in NI and they'd very much tell you that the IRA certainly did attack barracks. In fact anyone's who's ever lived near one could attest to that.

The IRA killed more Catholics than the security forces but not more than the loyalist paramilitaries (not sure how anyone reached that conclusion seeing as loyalists killed nearly 700 Catholics). Check out the CAIN website for all the stats and figures, makes interesting reading.

The UVF was 'reactivated' in 1920

SO the OLD UVF WASN'T Co-opted into the forces of the new NI state........

Davros: "SO the OLD UVF WASN'T Co-opted into the forces of the new NI state......."

Oh please.

Millie, dear Millie - what % of the IRA casualties were caused in attacks on police stations and army Barracks ? You know as well as I do that the IRA killed more of their own members as suspected informers and in accidents than they ever lost in attacks on police stations and army bases :)

Facts do upset people like you, don't they JD.

"people like me"? What do you know about me?

Anyway, it is plainly and simply a fact that an illegal militia became part and parcel of the security forces. Your attempts at trying to prove otherwise are hysterical.

Thanks for the laugh.

Cromwell was no republican - a puritanical religious bigot would be a better description.

Lord Protector ... hmmm not a very republican label.

Difficult to describe old Ollie as secular.

As for terrorist atrocities - he invented a few...

No facts have been produced by Millie :)
She's uncomforatble with them as seen by her inability to acknowledge the subsidies paid to the Notting Hill Carnival.
What she does is regurgitate propaganda.

Davros - you're unbelievable! You talk about 'vile crimes' then tell us that your favourite figure from history is ....Oliver Cromwell!!??

So slaughtering half the population of Wexford and Drogheda, including women and children, makes him your hero? Talk about double standards....unbelievable!

If you want to make progress YOU will have to accept that there was NO justification for what the IRA did to our communities. That is NOT negotiable.

I repeat: "I am as unlikely to condemn the IRA as you are to condemn the Chelsea Pensioners."

That's just how it is for myself and many others, and YOU will just need to get used to that and to live with it.

That's not negotiable!

Shaypaul - I worded my post carefully.

My favourite figure from history helped START the whole European Republican movement.... Oliver Cromwell.

So slaughtering half the population of Wexford and Drogheda,

LOL :) Herds of sacred cows are driven into the parlour to be milked !

Say what you like about the Chelsea pensioners - it makes you look appropriately foolish Liam. But if and when people like you or Millie try to sanitise or glorify the activities of the IRA there will be a response.

Davros - OK for that phrase but I read it with the two lines before which when combined give a serious slant towards declaring Cromwell a republican.

I don't agree that he helped start the european republican movement. That he weakened the grip of the monarchy is incontestable, but that is not the same thing.

Always amazes me to think that the english put the monarchy back into power, having been the first to create the parliamentary model.

How do you square your secular republic with an admiration for Cromwell ?

Shay - he was part of a movement that included the diggers and the levellers whose influence extended to the USA and France.

The USC (Ulster Special Constabulary, not the later Ulster Service Corps, the paramilitary group which was made up of former members, and numbered Paisley in its ranks), or "B Specials," were drawn, with the help of people like Colonel Wilfred Spender and Fred Crawford, architect of the Larne gun-running episode, from the ranks of the UVF (formed 1912) in 1920. WWI drew members from the UVF's ranks, and is widely regarded as being what prevented armed conflict over the Third Home Rule Bill.

In 1970, the USC was re-named as the UDR. The UDR was often thought to have links with loyalist paramilitary groups. The Stevens inquiry indicted ten members as having materials of benefit to paramilitaries.

This is all widely available material, and not "propaganda."

The Levellers as I remember were founded after a leader was expelled from the parliamentary army for refusing to take the oath which implied support for presbyterianism. They were libertarians and hardly close friends of Cromwell, that they walked a while the same road in opposing the royalists is another thing.

As for the Diggers, never heard of cromwell supporting them either, the fact that they were born at the same time hardly makes Cromwell the father of communism?

Davros

Have not got a clue what you find so amusing about Cromwells massacres in Wexford and Drogheda?

I presume in your mind that you have 'sanitised' these?

Talk about double standards and looking foolish!

'But if and when people like you or Millie try to sanitise or glorify the activities of the IRA there will be a response.'

Davros, I wasn't sanitizing or glorifying anything, merely pointing out the schoolboy errors normally associated with English people, Americans and Dubliners. If Slugger's going to be a credible and informative site then we might as well as get our facts, uncomfortable for some though they may be.

Facts such as claims that the Old UVF were co-opted ?
Right missus :)

Have not got a clue what you find so amusing about Cromwells massacres in Wexford and Drogheda?

Oh dear, am I going to have to explain every post ?
I was laughing at you driving the herd of sacred cows into this debatingforum Liam :)

Davros: "Facts such as claims that the Old UVF were co-opted ?"

One more time again. Oh please.

Davros,

The integration of the UVF into the special constabulary is well documented by Chris Ryder in "Fateful split - cathloics and the RUC."

Millie, Propaganda is at it's most effective when based on a tiny fragment of truth :)

Nobody is denying that there were some ex-UVF members - the propaganda is implying that the survivors of the pre-war UVF were co-opted en masse into the USC and RUC ....

What % of the RUC and USC were pre-war members of the UVF millie ?

Here's what you said Millie -

For eg. the old UVF was more or less co-opted into the forces of the new NI state

Possibly you can tell me what % of the RUC and what % of the USC had been members of the pre-war UVF Shay ? And what % of the UVF survivors of WWI became members of the RUC and USC ?

Oh dear, am I going to have to explain every post ?
I was laughing at you driving the herd of sacred cows into this debatingforum Liam :)

Is this an attempt to avoid embarassment over your 'hero' Oliver Cromwell being a mass murderer? Your double standards are blatant and make all of your above comments about 'atrocities' meaningless!

JD

Okay, so what about WWI and WWII? You wouldn't support a side based on murders carried out by either side? Were all participants "wrong"? Any historical war? What about the ANC? The "war" in Iraq? How do you feel about abortion?

I was really talking about Northern Ireland. But in a war, killings generally are not murders. It is lawful to kill in a war, within certain parameters laid down by the law of armed conflict.

I really think you are being disingenuous. Or maybe just naive.

It is neither disingenuous, nor naive to oppose murder.

Millie

And a few mistakes mentioned as regards IRA violence. The majority of IRA victims were not civilians but the security forces.

Policemen are civilians. And murdering non-civilians is wrong, just as murdering civilians is.

The IRA killed more Catholics than the security forces but not more than the loyalist paramilitaries (not sure how anyone reached that conclusion seeing as loyalists killed nearly 700 Catholics). Check out the CAIN website for all the stats and figures, makes interesting reading.

Murdering Catholics is also wrong. Murdering someone of any religion is wrong.

Davros,

You have improted the reference to the RUC: no-one has been debating it.

Your hairplitting is also an attempt to divert the issue. The Specials came to be in 1920 as an illegal/ paramilitary outfit raised from the ranks of the existing UVF who were alive after the war, and new recruits who had grown to maturity during the war. The whole thing was put together by key figures from the pre-war UVF for Carson and Craig. Even a cursory glance at some of the correspondence from Westminister in the day suggests that all concerned were well aware of the links, and that some were disturbed by the links. Given the often "spiritual" conception of lineage and of ideals to fight for, trying to say they were different outfits is silly.

It's not hair splitting JD. Millie implied that all the UVF survivors were co-0pted . That's Bunkum :)

Willowfield

I was really talking about Northern Ireland. But in a war, killings generally are not murders. It is lawful to kill in a war, within certain parameters laid down by the law of armed conflict.

Hypocrisy in abundance here - so killing is 'lawful' when you agree with the politics of the killers?

You can't have it every way - some killings are 'atrocities' yet some are less so and in fact are 'lawful'.

Willowfield,

So you support "killings" for a political purpose, but are opposed to "murder" because it has not sanctioned by a state power?

What happens when that state power is actively persecuting a section of the population, or is corrupt and is rebelled against? Rising up would be "murder"; putting down the rebellion is "killing."

What you call "law" is a matter for interpretation, and cannot be invoked as an absolute.

You have improted the reference to the RUC: no-one has been debating it.

Really ? So, of what did the the forces of the new NI state consist apart from the USC and the RUC ?

Is this an attempt to avoid embarassment over your 'hero' Oliver Cromwell being a mass murderer?

You seem to be trying to move the goal posts Liam :)
It won't be long before you start on about an gorta mor !

Davros,

I may be wrong, but I don't believe Millie mentioned the RUC. I was under the impression we were talking about the USC/ UDR.

The RUC is another matter for another thread perhaps.

Liam

Hypocrisy in abundance here - so killing is 'lawful' when you agree with the politics of the killers?

Sorry? That's nonsense.

You can't have it every way - some killings are 'atrocities' yet some are less so and in fact are 'lawful'.

Some killings are lawful, yes, of course. Are you trying to claim that all killings are unlawful?

JD

So you support "killings" for a political purpose, but are opposed to "murder" because it has not sanctioned by a state power?

I don't "support" any killings, but I recognise that not all killings are murder. Do you think all killings are murder? When the RAF were shooting down Luftwaffe planes over Great Britain, were they "murdering" the pilots? Don't be so stupid! When Soviet soldiers killed advancing Germans at Stalingrad were they murdering them? Absurd!

What happens when that state power is actively persecuting a section of the population, or is corrupt and is rebelled against? Rising up would be "murder"; putting down the rebellion is "killing."

Without knowing the details of the situation, it is impossible to comment.

What you call "law" is a matter for interpretation, and cannot be invoked as an absolute.

Obviously law is a matter for interpretation. That is a truism. But that doesn't justify murders in Northern Ireland, no matter what casuistry you try to use.

Willowfield: "I don't "support" any killings, but I recognise that not all killings are murder. Do you think all killings are murder? When the RAF were shooting down Luftwaffe planes over Great Britain, were they "murdering" the pilots? Don't be so stupid! When Soviet soldiers killed advancing Germans at Stalingrad were they murdering them? Absurd!"

Not absurd at all. Of course the pilots/ soldiers were murdered. Dress it up in whatever semantics you choose (and this has everything to do with the point I made earlier about the *way* in which things are said having meanings beyond the one the speaker intends). I'm not sorry the Germans lost, but they were murdered for a political end. Simple.

Remembrance Day honours murderers. I have no problem with a people commemorating those who murdered for them.

Funny that I'm absurd when I call your lawful war-"killings" murder, when you also tell me in practically the same breath that it is a truism that law is a matter of interpretation.

Now that's absurd.

Willowfield

Your double standards are blatant. You cannot claim that killings in war are lawful when they are fought abroad - but this logic did not apply to the war situation in Ireland. Although perhaps you regarded the killings of the SAS, RUC and British Army as somehow lawful, while at the same time condemned all actions of the IRA?

Either way, its a clear double standard.

Davros

You can twist and turn all you wish now, but you have rendered all of your previous comments about 'atrocities' completely meaningless as soon as you declared that your hero is Oliver Cromwell the mass murderer!

Bought of you need to examine your own logic.

Am closed on this discussion now, unless the thread gets back on topic!

Davros,

I may be wrong, but I don't believe Millie mentioned the RUC.

You are wrong JD, sorry :)

the forces of the new NI consisted of the USC and The RUC :)

The UDR ???? There weren't any members of the Pre-war UVF in the UDR JD.

Jesus Christ, the guy's unable to distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing, justified and unjustified killing.

No courts in your world, then. If someone is killed the killer is automatically guilty. The woman who stabs the rapist in self-defence is as guilty as the man who beats his wife to death.

Funny that I'm absurd when I call your lawful war-"killings" murder, when you also tell me in practically the same breath that it is a truism that law is a matter of interpretation. Now that's absurd

What? Law is a matter of interpretation: so we interpret it. Law says combat killings in a war are not murder: a pilot shoots down an enemy aircraft in a war - the interpretation? Lawful killing.

How do you interpret the law of war in respect of the pilot shooting down the enemy aircraft?

You can twist and turn all you wish now, but you have rendered all of your previous comments about 'atrocities' completely meaningless as soon as you declared that your hero is Oliver Cromwell the mass murderer!

Run away Liam :) It's what your lot do best ;)

Davros,

If you're still interested, here are a few figures that might help you arrive at a possible % of UVF in USC. There were over 85,000 (some put it as high as 100,000) UVF prewar. By the nd of WWI, some 27,000 people from *all* of Ireland were dead.

Bear in mind these numbers are rough. I'm not sure how many from NI specifically died.

The B-Specials in 1921 numbered about 16,000; this rose to 48,000 in 1922.

Theoretically, all of the Specials could have been raised from the UVF, with ten thousand (at least) to spare.

Liam

Your double standards are blatant.

I don't have any double standards, blatant or not. My standards are applied consistently.

You cannot claim that killings in war are lawful when they are fought abroad

Killings in any war or lawful - home or abroad - provided they fall within parameters set by the law of armed conflict.

- but this logic did not apply to the war situation in Ireland.

There is no war situation in Ireland.

Although perhaps you regarded the killings of the SAS, RUC and British Army as somehow lawful, while at the same time condemned all actions of the IRA?

What a ridiculously simplistic premise. You can't simply say that all the killings of the security forces are lawful, or they're all unlawful. Some were lawful, others were not. Some actions were right, others were wrong.

As for the IRA, all their actions were wrong, of course. There was no justification for them at all.

Either way, its a clear double standard.

What is a double standard?

Theoretically, all of the Specials could have been raised from the UVF, with ten thousand (at least) to spare.

As that is utterly irrelevent to millie's claim that all the UVF survivors of WWI were co-opted into the forces of the new NI I'm not even going to bother checking your figures JD.

As for the IRA, all their actions were wrong, of course. There was no justification for them at all.

Of course there was a 'justification' - the British occupation, the Unionist domination, the attacks on Civil Rights demonstrators, the Pogroms, the burning of Bombay Street.... and the complete failure of politics spring immediately to mind!

But ok, in your logic ALL of the actions of the IRA were 'wrong'. But is this just from 1969 or did it also apply in 1916? 1922? Were all of the actions of the United Irishmen 'wrong' in your book? Were ALL of the actions of the ANC 'wrong'? The PLO? The East Timorese? In fact the borders of almost every single nation have been drawn by conflict - were ALL of these conflicts 'wrong'? Or is it just those particular conflict situations that you select from your own political bias?

You see, just because you state that somebodies politics or actions are 'wrong' doesn't make it so!

Davros

I had thought you were capable of some mature debate - seems that I was certainly wrong on that score!

Willowfield,

Charming as your apoplectic responses are, I am merely pointing out that you are finessing the deaths of human beings. Simple. The fact that you do so with the benefit of a particular interpretation of a code of laws that are borne of the interests of powerful political groups, does not change that. The interpretations may differ, but the human being is dead.

Even though the law may seem natural and universal (and hence beyond question) to you, it is written/ repealed by powerful groups and interpreted in different ways by different groups every day.

The problems you seem to be having stem from your belief that "killing" and "murder" are somehow inherently different because of how one interprets a law. I'm saying that one person's murder is another's justifiable homicide, is another rebellion. It's still murder though.

But the law is not justice. It is used all the time to justify all sorts of sickening stuff, however.

Davros,

If that's what Millie said, then she may have been thinking about the relation between the Specials and the RIC. You'll have to ask her. As I said, another day's argument.

As you well know, the USC was re-named the UDR in 1970.

Davros: "As that is utterly irrelevent to millie's claim that all the UVF survivors of WWI were co-opted into the forces of the new NI I'm not even going to bother checking your figures JD."

I'm not arguing for Millie. I'm sure she can do that herself.

Although I now see that your beef is with her word "co-opt." Very clever way to avoid the substantive issue.

I really don't care if you "check" my figures. No skin off mine.

JD - I'm not disputing that some UVF men joined the USC. The implication that the UVF en masse were co-opted is my complaint about Millies post.
The UDR has nothing to do with events of the 1920's and has been mentioned to muddy the waters.

We are back to the republican propaganda machine that grinds out the nonsensical history of a consistent 'resistance' to give moral support to and sanitise the dreadful crimes of the IRA of McGuinness, Kelly et al.

As I wrote elsewhere - the IRA of the early 20th century would have had this lot up against a wall faster than the Black and Tans ... and Wolfe Tone would have abhorred both versions.

Davros,

Fair enough. But the UDR was found to be guilty of collusion by Stevens. It was part of the reason for the latest name-change as well.

Liam

Of course there was a 'justification' - the British occupation, the Unionist domination, the attacks on Civil Rights demonstrators, the Pogroms, the burning of Bombay Street.... and the complete failure of politics spring immediately to mind!

First, there was no "British occupation", nor were there any "pogroms". Second, Unionist domination, attacks on civil rights demonstrators and "the burning of Bombay Street" did not justify murdering 1800 people. Indeed, they didn't justify murdering anyone.

Please stop justifying murder.

But ok, in your logic ALL of the actions of the IRA were 'wrong'. But is this just from 1969 or did it also apply in 1916? 1922? Were all of the actions of the United Irishmen 'wrong' in your book? Were ALL of the actions of the ANC 'wrong'? The PLO? The East Timorese? In fact the borders of almost every single nation have been drawn by conflict - were ALL of these conflicts 'wrong'? Or is it just those particular conflict situations that you select from your own political bias?

You need to examine each situation and apply the same ethical standards to each one. Very quickly: IRA 1916 wrong? - yes; IRA 1922 wrong? - yes; all the actions of the United Irishmen wrong - probably no; ALL the actions of the ANC 'wrong' - no? All the actions of the PLO wrong - no? All the actions of the East Timorese wrong - no? All conflicts wrong? - no.

You see, just because you state that somebodies politics or actions are 'wrong' doesn't make it so!

Of course the very fact of stating something doesn't make it so. That is an inane comment.

JD

Charming as your apoplectic responses are, I am merely pointing out that you are finessing the deaths of human beings.

I'm not "finessing" the deaths of human beings (not sure what it means, but I'm confident I'm not doing it).

The fact that you do so with the benefit of a particular interpretation of a code of laws that are borne of the interests of powerful political groups, does not change that.

Well you interpret the law of armed conflict and tell me what conclusion you draw about a pilot shooting down an enemy aircraft in a war.

The interpretations may differ, but the human being is dead.

Care to say something that's not completely obvious and pointless?

Even though the law may seem natural and universal (and hence beyond question) to you, it is written/ repealed by powerful groups and interpreted in different ways by different groups every day.

Well you interpret the law of armed conflict and tell me what conclusion you draw about a pilot shooting down an enemy aircraft in a war.

The problems you seem to be having stem from your belief that "killing" and "murder" are somehow inherently different because of how one interprets a law.

They're not different because of how one interprets the law. Killing may or may not be lawful. Murder, by definition, is always unlawful. The implicit assumption when I use the term murder is that I am referring to actual murder, as defined by the law, and not a killing which may or may not be murder.

I'm saying that one person's murder is another's justifiable homicide, is another rebellion. It's still murder though.

No. A justifiable homicide is, by definition, not murder.

But the law is not justice. It is used all the time to justify all sorts of sickening stuff, however.

In Northern Ireland, the law of murder is quite clear, and is not in question.

As you well know, the USC was re-named the UDR in 1970.

It wasn't. It was disbanded and its policing functions were taken over by the RUC Reserve, with the UDR being formed as a part-time military force.

Posted by: JD at November 5, 2004 10:09 PM

But the UDR was found to be guilty of collusion by Stevens.

Collusion was a disgrace and those found guilty should be in cells.

As an aside ... was the UDR "found to be guilty" or were individual members within the UDR found to be guilty ? There's a huge difference and one that is relevent to discussions about a lot of Organisations.

Davros,

Would you extend that distinction to the IRA?

I don't understand the question JD.

Willowfield: "It was disbanded and its policing functions were taken over by the RUC Reserve, with the UDR being formed as a part-time military force."

Quite right. But where did the members go?

The IRA was/is an illegal organisation.

Davros,

Sorry, I meant the distinction between the "members" and the "organization" of the IRA.

It was a crime to be a member of the IRA.

Sorry to be a pain here , but are we talking about PIRA ? It's best to be precise.

PIRA

JD

I'm waiting for you to interpret the law of armed conflict and tell me what conclusion you draw about a pilot shooting down an enemy aircraft in a war.

Or what about a woman being raped who stabs her assailant with a pair of scissors. She a murderer? Lock her away?

Thanks.

Individual members of the IRA committed actions for which they should be held to account. Their actions were sanctioned by a command structure- which should also be held to account. eg those who sanctioned Magee's bombing at Brighton should be held to account. Similarly any security force members who took part in collusion or who sanctioned collusion or who covered up acts of collusion should be held to account.
The difference is that illegal acts by members of the security forces were against the ethos of the organisation in which they served. The ethos of PIRA WAS illegality. ALL PIRA members were criminals by virtue of their membership of an illegal organisation whose members were EXPECTED to commit or facilitate crimes.

Now - could you address the rather important question -was the UDR "found to be guilty" or were individual members within the UDR found to be guilty ?

I would point out that if you argue there is no difference you join those who damn all Members of the RC Ċlergy and all GAA members because of of actions of an unrepresentative minority in THEIR ranks.

Willowfield,

If murder is always "unlawful," and codes of law are different, then definitions of murder will differ. Since laws are written by people, what is or is not murder is decided by a powerful group of people who have certain political interests that they draw up their codes of law in accordance with. These laws may not be applied equally to all: for instance, in the case of perceived "political enemies" or "enemies of society." These laws can be used to remove "troublesome" members of society in a perfectly lawful manner that is still murder.

Also what may have been a reason for a "lawful" killing in the past may not be one now: being a "witch," for instance. The definition of "lawful" is always being renegotiated/ rewritten. It is not set in stone o