You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.Gosh ,Onq, ... so, ... we are in no doubt that the Britain killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent nationalists by passing on the names of these innocent Catholics to Loyalist murder squads....
Do you believe that ? Really?
You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.
J118 anyone?A lot of people are wondering how many of these British agents are now in senior positions within Sinn Fein, and if any of them are standing for President.
You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.
Why any of this is relevant is that McGuinness & other senior leaders have a lot to answer for, ok he was eventually cajoled into the peace process, but a couple of decades (at least) of pointless killing and then lying about your role in it are hardly the credentials you'd be looking for in your ideal candidate.
Oh come on. The Glennane gang operated from 1972 onwards. Their first killing was with a British army issued grenade. Miami Showband attacks and Dublin/Monaghan bombings amongst their other 'successes'.collusion came in the 80's
Banríon Eilís a Dó.
They all know what the sticky red stuff is on their hands.
Oh come on. The Glennane gang operated from 1972 onwards. Their first killing was with a British army issued grenade. Miami Showband attacks and Dublin/Monaghan bombings amongst their other 'successes'.
no doubt there was collusion, but looking at it from start to finish from 1969 riots, RUC in Derry, burning out of catholics, Operation Motorman/Rape of the Falls, Internment, Bloody Sunday its fair to say that there were some compelling reasons as to why the IRA emerged and had support - it hardly having existed around 1969.
However from around the mid 70's it was fairly clear that there was going to be no military victories on either side, and the IRA 'long war' was pointless and blood thirsty. So you got Kingsmill massacre (pick out the 1 catholic & shoot the 12 protestants), Le Mons (firebombing ordinary punters), Bloody Friday (spate of bombings across Belfast in civilian areas), Pub bombings in UK (maybe a suggestion these werent "official jobs"), Mountbatten, Hyde Park (famous for the horses....), Enniskillen and I'm sure another 10 or 12 that had no 'military' justification (and thats presuming you accept all military targets were justifiable in a "war"). Then there was The Dissappeared, torture, community control and punishment beatings, one could go on. So basically there was total disregard for civilian life and collusion came in the 80's - not that it was justifiable but its clear no-one was adopting Queensbury Rules, so to speak.....
Why any of this is relevant is that McGuinness & other senior leaders have a lot to answer for, ok he was eventually cajoled into the peace process, but a couple of decades (at least) of pointless killing and then lying about your role in it are hardly the credentials you'd be looking for in your ideal candidate.
Collusion did not 'come in the 80's', it was there long before. That is my point. What you think was a catalyst and what wasn't is your opinion. The notion that loyalists operated as a reaction to republican violence is wrong in my opinion. The birth of 'the troubles' and the increase in loyalist killings after the ceasefire show that.The stuff you were talking about, if I'm not mistaken, was in the 1980's, but the general point is that collusion wasnt a catalyst to the whole problem - there were enough clearer reasons.
Collusion did not 'come in the 80's', it was there long before. That is my point. Fair Enough. What you think was a catalyst and what wasn't is your opinion. Indeed. The notion that loyalists operated as a reaction to republican violence is wrong in my opinion. I'd be inclined to agree, but dont know who's arguing. The birth of 'the troubles' and the increase in loyalist killings after the ceasefire show that.
Anyway, back to the topic, would you concur with the view that Marty & the lads knocked 2 decades more out of it than were "necessary", commiting some awful deeds along the way,?
Dunno about that. How do we measure unsuitability? As has been said before, Bush and Blair have the blood of many times more innocents on their hands.and as a result of that Marty is unsuitable for the role?
I'm a firm believer that no political cause can justify the taking of human life.
Different duckNot wanting to be too picky Duke but isn't Daffi spelt Daffy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?