Troubles legacy..

[tibilicus]

Well as if the UK tax payers didn't have to pay enough money here is the scheme put forward to the government..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7855035.stm

You can't seriously be telling me that government money is to be spent giving pay outs to convicted terrorists? I completely understand giving money to the innocent victims and their families but to the IRA and UDA scum who slaughtered and killed innocence? To men who would drive up the falls road at night abducting Catholics at will and then take them away to be butchered and cut into pieces? What about Omagh? Where on earth is the justice?

I find it astonishing that all this is to supposedly help put the troubles in the past, why on earth do those paramilitaries which were killed and their families deserve a single penny? Do they really deserve that money to put their mind at ease and help convince themselves that their loved one was nothing more than a low life murderer?

I'm actually bemused, and all that time Gerry Adams, a former IRA war council leader sat there in the Northern Ireland assembly smirking at the protesters.

Maybe the people who put forward this scheme should think about the insult they are causing to those families who lost loved ones to this disgusting a pointless conflict, as well as seeing that this is a deal which is on far greater terms with the Nationalist communities than it is with the unionist ones.

One word, disgusted.

[Furunculus]

agreed. the compensation money is an admission of partial responsibility by the gov't for not protecting its citizens, people who die in the act of commiting terror acts are not due compensation from anybody.

[naut]

Agreed. But Britain's a mess currently.

[Tribesman]

Since a lot of the terrorists on both sides were working for the British government then its only right that the British government should pay .

What about Omagh?
Indeed , what about Omagh ?
It isn't included , its past the cut off date and it was offerd to be included anyway but the families of the victims didn't want to accept the offer to be involved .
One thing that does piss me off is the blocking of still unstarted public inquiruies , they will continue with the two already in place but not start any of the outstanding ones .

[tibilicus]

Since a lot of the terrorists on both sides were working for the British government then its only right that the British government should pay .

pay for the victims, not the perpetrators though.

I can't think of any thing more disgusting than the shankill butchers getting a nice cash pay out or those IRA members who would abduct innocent RUC members for doing their job.

Also which terrorists do you mean were working for the British government? I know the UDA and other loyalist groups were supplied weapons from some members of the armed forces and RUC who had sympathy's with their cause but I never heard of any senior figures endorsing or supporting the two groups.

[Tribesman]

pay for the victims, not the perpetrators though.

Thats the problem with an amnesty , everyone gets a clean sheet so they are all victims now .


Also which terrorists do you mean were working for the British government?
Well if Britain says it had a couple of thousand people working inside the IRA and the IRA is a small group how many of them were not working for the British ?

I know the UDA and other loyalist groups were supplied weapons from some members of the armed forces and RUC who had sympathy's with their cause but I never heard of any senior figures endorsing or supporting the two groups.
Do you remember the little bit of trouble thatcher had with the people at GCHQ in Cheltenham ?
She changed the official secrets act to remove the public interest clause so that people working there couldn't go public again about arms shipments to the IRA .

[Fisherking]

Thats the problem with an amnesty , everyone gets a clean sheet so they are all victims now .


Well if Britain says it had a couple of thousand people working inside the IRA and the IRA is a small group how many of them were not working for the British ?

Do you remember the little bit of trouble thatcher had with the people at GCHQ in Cheltenham ?
She changed the official secrets act to remove the public interest clause so that people working there couldn't go public again about arms shipments to the IRA .
:skull:

I am sure you have some source for those assertions.

Can you share it?

[Tribesman]

I am sure you have some source for those assertions.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes .
Don't you ever follow the news as they were all big stories ?:idea2:
Ever heard of the Stephens reports ? What about that earlier Mancheste policeman who got so screwed over his investigations that he ended up selling windows in TV ads .
Roger Cook and Panorama both did programs on the Britsih agents in the IRA , and the French sparked a small controversy when they boarded the stranded arms boat .
So one thing this consultative paper that has been produced does is block all further public inquiries into the shit that was really going on , now it will have to be seen if it is adopted and if it is adopted does it also block all parliamentary inquiries too .
I mean seriously Fisher ,surely you can remember as recently as the suspension of the assembly because of the "republican spy ring" operating there ....that actyually turned out to be working for the British .

[Fisherking]

Not those Tribesman!

I was in the field a great deal at the time and didn’t get any newspapers or TV.

The current things I am not too much up on because it is all in German and I don’t get the full picture….

So help me see where you are coming from. It isn’t that I doubt you, I only want to be better informed.

[KukriKhan]

So, this Truth and Reconciliation method of settling conflicts has spread to Britain. No more Nuremberg's, eh?

Will those seeking amnesty have to testify, detailing their sins - and will it be on TV?

[Tribesman]

Will those seeking amnesty have to testify, detailing their sins - and will it be on TV?
The issue of crimes committed was in the main already dealt with in the peace agreement .
As for publicity

During the consultation many expressed the wish that the legacy of the past should
be kept out of the courts and that society should be allowed a breathing space from
the constant disclosures that result from court and inquiry proceedings.
And of course on the pursuit of justice angle .....

A long and determined pursuit of penal justice could be viewed as a means of continuing the conflict rather than enabling healing.
Because of course some people want justice , but only for their side as it was only the other side that was wrong .

[Vladimir]

Well if Britain says it had a couple of thousand people working inside the IRA and the IRA is a small group how many of them were not working for the British ?

Here, again you're not trying to add anything to the discussion, but take away from it.


Roger Cook and Panorama both did programs on the Britsih agents in the IRA , and the French sparked a small controversy when they boarded the stranded arms boat .

I hope you're not saying that paid informants and agents were "working for" MI-5 et. al. and therefore the UK government bears some responsibility for the terrorism. Because you are so intentionally vague one can only infer your true meaning.

[Fisherking]

The roots of the problem stretch back near 500 years and it was started by Government.

Attempts at finger pointing and more us vs. them in any regard is not going to help alleviate strife.

At this point all that can be done is address what happened in the past and attempt to move on.

Neither side is ever going to admit that they did anything wrong and will always feel that they were justified in their actions while condemning the others and any discussion is only going to bring about more of the same.

It would seem that this is doing the best they can with the least amount of blame being focused.

It is a mess. What more can be said.

[LittleGrizzly]

Thinking on it im probably in agreement with the goverment here... its not nice certainly but better to have some hurt feelings and terrorism finally put to bad than allow hatred to take over once again...

I was thinking maybe some clause could be put in specifying murder'ers familys not be compensated... but then you get into technical deatils like a police officer wrongly killing a suspect and thus murdering them or appropriate force in the line of duty.... the problem i see is that any clauses to deny some people compensation would more likely affect IRA people than the Unionists... and the last thing we need is for one side to feel hard done by... better people on both left a bit angry...

[InsaneApache]

Why pay them at all?

I have a better idea. Bill the bombers families for the reconstruction costs.

What's the next government wheeze? Free rucksacks for failed suicide bombers! I despair, I really do. :wall:

[Tribesman]

Here, again you're not trying to add anything to the discussion, but take away from it.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually Vlad it adds a hell of a lot to the discussion as it gets to the core of it .


I hope you're not saying that paid informants and agents were "working for" MI-5 et. al. and therefore the UK government bears some responsibility for the terrorism. Because you are so intentionally vague one can only infer your true meaning.

Vague ?
If someone is paying someone to do a job and in the course of that job the employee has to kill someone then the employer is responsible as well as the employee , if the employee also does his job by killing someone when the guns or explosives have been shipped from Czechoslovaki via libya to Ireland by the employer then the employer and employee are both responsible .
So Vlad would you like to try and argue that the employer was not responsible ?

So back to the core of the issue , the compensation , do you want public enquiries and lots of muck raking to determine case by case all the details of all the killings and who played what role in each of them ?

Or to put it in terms for the fiscally conservative , given the vast amount that a few inquiries have so far cost the taxpayer isn't it prudent to brush it under the carpet and go for the cheap option which is a snip at only £300 million .

[Furunculus]

why hold an inquiry? if we can brush an inquiry under the carpet by agreeing to pay every victim and their murderer a compensation payment then HMG can brush aside the question of whether an ira terrorist tangentially involved in a terror atrocity was in fact a SB/MI5 agent.

I can accept that agents of HMG had to do dirty things to infiltrate the loyalist and republican gangs, and i am perfectly happy with HMG unoffically sanctioning assassinations of republican terrorists, what i cannot accept is republican terrorists or their families receiving compensation because the idiot died as a terrorist.

compensation is recognition of the failure of a Gov't to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, not recognition that it did its job competantly by knocking off terrorists.

[Vladimir]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: and etc

You're also then saying that every intelligence and law enforcement agency around the world is a criminal organization.

[Furunculus]

he is saying that every british intelligence agency involved in NI got up to stuff that was technically illegal, i am saying; so what?

[Incongruous]

You're also then saying that every intelligence and law enforcement agency around the world is a criminal organization.

Not hard to imagine is it?

Lets say that, while they were performing these acts it was not criminal, but after the far reaching consequences have been felt, it is criminal. This is standard in the world of idiotic and short sighted government.

[Tribesman]

You're also then saying that every intelligence and law enforcement agency around the world is a criminal organization.
Errrr...No , not if they operate within the law .


he is saying that every british intelligence agency involved in NI got up to stuff that was technically illegal
There are no real legal technicalities when it comes to outright plain and simple murder .


if we can brush an inquiry under the carpet by agreeing to pay every victim and their murderer a compensation payment then HMG can brush aside the question of whether an ira terrorist tangentially involved in a terror atrocity was in fact a SB/MI5 agent.

The proposal makes no provision for payment to people for being murderers .
Didn't you read it before you went off on one about it ?:dizzy2:

[Furunculus]

agreed. the compensation money is an admission of partial responsibility by the gov't for not protecting its citizens, people who die in the act of commiting terror acts (i.e their living relatives)are not due compensation from anybody.


I can accept that agents of HMG had to do dirty things to infiltrate the loyalist and republican gangs, and i am perfectly happy with HMG unoffically sanctioning assassinations of republican terrorists, what i cannot accept is republican terrorists or their families receiving compensation because the idiot died as a terrorist.


already clarified.

[Furunculus]

There are no real legal technicalities when it comes to outright plain and simple murder .



i can cope with what HMG did, i respect the necessity of what was necessary in a dirty war.

[Tribesman]

i can cope with what HMG did
Then you can cope with the after affects ...like paying for it , after all if you can cope with killing people why worry about a little bit of money .

[Furunculus]

wrong. i don't accept that giving the families of terrorists compensation money for being the family of terrorists is just.

the compensation is recognition of partial responsibility by HMG for not protecting her citizens from things such as terrorist attacks.

[Tribesman]

wrong. i don't accept that giving the families of terrorists compensation money for being the family of terrorists is just.

Well in that case the other option is for the expensive case by case hearings , and since you know that HMG were often operating outside the law that means lots of court verdicts of unlawful killing and bigger payouts to terrorists families.

So you are faced with two options really .
Go for the cheap keep it quiet option or go for the very very expensive publicly drag your country through the mud before paying more option .
Such is the price of the peace process .

[KukriKhan]

Isn't the truth and reconciliation process about trying to stop the cycle of retribution and blood-feud, by recognizing the hurt suffered by those who've survived the conflict?

Maybe I'm wrong there.

But, if I'm right, the empasis has to be on paying the survivors of the conflict for the loss of their loved-one/kinsman a symbolic amount, NOT linked to his/her affiliations or atrocities, but to the premature loss of that member's services to the family.

In that sense, t&r resembles an insurance company. With the (hopeful) side-effect that the dead guys' kin are tired of the conflict, and mererly seek validation of THEIR sacrifice, promising to forget or forgive or both, the issues both sides fought for.

The only question remaining: who pays?

[InsaneApache]

The only question remaining: who pays?

The UK taxpayer.

I watched This Week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm) last night and there is a very good analysis about the problems in Ulster from Denis Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Murray) who is from there and still lives there. The analogy with Sud Afrika is misplaced. Although the political leaders have achieved impressive things, unheard of just ten years ago, the 'people' still have a lot of bitterness and resentment.

The money thing is just one of a whole raft of measures floated to help heal over old wounds. (I like me mixed metaphors me :beam:)

[Tribesman]

Maybe I'm wrong there.

No you are spot on .


But, if I'm right, the empasis has to be on paying the survivors of the conflict for the loss of their loved-one/kinsman a symbolic amount, NOT linked to his/her affiliations or atrocities, but to the premature loss of that member's services to the family.

Exactly .

So while for example you have Furunculus saying I don't care if what was done was wrong or illegal because my side was right so it doesn't matter if they did bad stuff becuse the other side was really wrong .
You will have people on the other sides saying exactly the same from the opposite perspectives .

Which means the easiet way out is to say all sides were wrong but it must be put in the past .
Yes it isn't pleasant , but life often isn't .

[Fisherking]

Siding with Tribesman at this point,


Is seems like the Government is trying to lance the Boil.

Screaming that one side or the other was right is just being part of the Infection.

Making one side more Right than the other is just going to make a new Abscess.

Both sides lost people and have deep hurt. Both sides are people who have hopes and dreams of a better future.

Address the pain as best you can and move on.

Baring that your patient is going to die from this Ulster disease…

[KukriKhan]

The UK taxpayer.

I watched This Week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm) last night and there is a very good analysis about the problems in Ulster from Denis Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Murray) who is from there and still lives there. The analogy with Sud Afrika is misplaced. Although the political leaders have achieved impressive things, unheard of just ten years ago, the 'people' still have a lot of bitterness and resentment.

The money thing is just one of a whole raft of measures floated to help heal over old wounds. (I like me mixed metaphors me :beam:)

The first t&r thingee was 1995, right? So, we're really just crossing our fingers and hoping this way of resolving conflict can "stick", for at least a generation. If it doesn't stick, then we're back to the old victor's-justice way. I don't mind saying I'm a little uncomfortable with truth-and-reconciliation, because it looks and feels like it rewards 'bad' behavior.

BUT, if it stops or reduces the rate of killing, by removing some of the motivations for it, from all sides, I'll learn to embrace it.

[Tribesman]

I don't mind saying I'm a little uncomfortable with truth-and-reconciliation
People are not supposed to feel comfortable with it , it isn't a nice comfortable choice .
But are the other choices worse ?
Personally I am not happy with this , I would want every bastard involved in this fully exposed in public for every despicable action they did.....but would that help the situation much ?
So while these proposals are a bitter pill to swallow , maybe they are the best medicine for the long running sickness that is the six counties .

[Incongruous]

People are not supposed to feel comfortable with it , it isn't a nice comfortable choice .
But are the other choices worse ?
Personally I am not happy with this , I would want every bastard involved in this fully exposed in public for every despicable action they did.....but would that help the situation much ?


Wouldn't it?
I don't understand how these scum can still have such a hold on British society, I'm perplexed...

Jesus the UK Govt. is drowning in crap over its dodging of dodginess, why not just name and shame this time?

I mean, there were good guys and bastards on both sides right? Why not differenciate based oin that?
I am guessing soem men with mates might be embarrassed?

[Tribesman]

I don't understand how these scum can still have such a hold on British society, I'm perplexed...

Because they are British society , people at all levels of politics , civil service , judiciary , military and police were involved in some very nasty illegal stuff . Full disclosure would not be very pleasant for a freedom loving democracy would it . On the other hand full disclosure would also expose all the nasty terrorists for what they did , but they are terrorists so they don't really have much of a reputation to damage do they ?

[Incongruous]

Because they are British society , people at all levels of politics , civil service , judiciary , military and police were involved in some very nasty illegal stuff . Full disclosure would not be very pleasant for a freedom loving democracy would it . On the other hand full disclosure would also expose all the nasty terrorists for what they did , but they are terrorists so they don't really have much of a reputation to damage do they ?

:laugh4:
Yeah, the UK, a freedom loving democracy, You just have to love the intrigue and double standards of British ideology.
I would just love to see some establishment monkeys getting a shock to their systems, I wonder how hard the PM would work to "perogative" that court ruling:yes:
I'm sure some of those terrorists have a following somehwere, I wonder if you could update me on the perception of the in Ireland?

Say, do you know what would be good? We have statue of Ghandi right? One of the leaders of the Indian independance movement, we should also erect one of Micheal Collins, don't ya think?

[tibilicus]

:laugh4:

I'm sure some of those terrorists have a following somehwere, I wonder if you could update me on the perception of the in Ireland?




I take it you meant them in Ireland.

Basically the loyalist community still worship the UDA, republicans still worship the IRA.

The peace walls are still there, the orange order still march through Derry, including "free Derry" and the loyalist communities still yell no surrender and the republican communities go home Brits.


basically despite what the media tries to display tensions are still high, you wouldn't catch a catholic up the shankill or a protestant up the falls road put it that way.

[InsaneApache]

Because they are British society , people at all levels of politics , civil service , judiciary , military and police were involved in some very nasty illegal stuff . Full disclosure would not be very pleasant for a freedom loving democracy would it . On the other hand full disclosure would also expose all the nasty terrorists for what they did , but they are terrorists so they don't really have much of a reputation to damage do they ?

Care to substantiate that?

[Tribesman]

Care to substantiate that?
Would you care to attempt to deny it ?
Take an easy one , the military .
Show that the military did not commit murder , did not try to cover up murders , did not plant evidence to attempt to justify murders and did operate within the law .

Honestly IA I didn't think you were silly enough to challenge that .
So which are you going to start with , maybe a simple one like the Guards or Paras and then go onto a harder one like the SAS and finish with a real challenge like the UDR before attemting the impossible with the FRU .

[KukriKhan]

^^This^^, then, is why t&r is getting tried. It "worked" in Africa - maybe. Will it fly across the channel? Or over the Persian Gulf? Or the Atlantic? Nobody knows.

There's always the same troubling question: who pays? And: how willingly?

If we don our accountant's green, non-political eyeshade, t&r actually makes fiscal sense. Without digging up numbers to show what it costs to investigate, arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate (if not kill) political perps/terrorist/terrorist-backers, etc., I suspect t&r payments to survivors are cheaper - and you get confessions to boot.

The only thing not satisfied is vengence.

[Furunculus]

Care to substantiate that?

it is without doubt the truth.

there were intelligence units that sabatoaged arms caches, to maim and kill - strictly illegal
there were intelligence agents that ambushed terror cells on the way to a terrorist operation, to kill them - strictly illegal
there were army intelligence agents that fed ira target details to loyalist assassination squads - strictly illegal
there were army intelligence agents that committed crimes to cover up the actions mentioned above - strictly illegal
there were spies within the IRA that were involved in killing and torturing members 'thought' to be informers - strictly illegal

the difference is that i fully support those actions, as the only way to fight a dirty war.

[Tribesman]

the difference is that i fully support those actions, as the only way to fight a dirty war.
So do you support blowing up a shopping centre to cause financial damage to put pressure on reaching a settlement ?
Ok some people will die and its illegal , buy hey its a dirty war isn't it and its the only way to fight a dirty war .:idea2:

So Furunculus , whats it like being terrorist supporter and seeing nothing wrong with the killing of innocent people ?

[Furunculus]

So do you support blowing up a shopping centre to cause financial damage to put pressure on reaching a settlement ?
Ok some people will die and its illegal , buy hey its a dirty war isn't it and its the only way to fight a dirty war .:idea2:

So Furunculus , whats it like being terrorist supporter and seeing nothing wrong with the killing of innocent people ?
Inventing a statement that i never said and attributing them to events that have not proven to be true. That would seem to conform to the third Tribesman debating technique.


the first is to launch a barrage of laughing smileys to create the impression that whatever was said was so ridiculous that no one else need trouble themselves with looking at the facts themselves, for fear that they might reach a dissenting opinion.

the second is to immediately google a contrary source in search of a piece of 'dirt', which is then advertised across the forum with magnificent disdain in an attempt to whitewash the entire issue to the majority who have not heard of the source.

and the third is to bring obtuse to an art form by arguing around every central theme with the aim of creating a cloud of negative conjecture that completely obscures the position that tribesman wishes to suppress.

Neither you nor I know how much was really known about that bombing, and it is likely we will never know and certainly not anytime soon.

What has been said officially so far is that there was no intelligence that would have allowed the prevention of that bombing, and I am not in a position to gainsay them, nor are you.

I would not support the blowing up of a shopping centre, and i question whether anyone involved in the British authorities would sanction such an operation.

As the official report into Operation Banner stated, the British army could never destroy the IRA but it totally prevented any possibility of a military victory by the IRA, and it did so without putting intolerable stress on the civic population of NI.

So they kept the option of a political settlement alive between the two communities, at the same time forcing the IRA into a political settlement, and in doing so they sabotaged, infiltrated and assassinated their way through the IRA ranks. i can cope with that.

[tibilicus]

So we should give a nice cash payment to terrorists who still choose to plant bombs? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7862438.stm


I'm sure they could buy a truck load of semtex with the 12 grand they're going to receive for the death of their buddy..

[Strike For The South]

Why can't we all just get along?

[KukriKhan]

Ummm, their dead buddy's family get the 12K. These current yay-huu's only get comp'd if they blew themselves up, then their Mum might get some cash. Or so a quick scan of the pdf report (link in your OP) reveals.

[KukriKhan]

Why can't we all just get along?

"I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

We all have an Inigo Montoya in us. If we want our kids and grandkids to live in peace with their neighbors, whose grandfathers fought our grandfathers, we have to suppress Señor Montoya, and find another way.

[Strike For The South]

"I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

We all have an Inigo Montoya in us. If we want our kids and grandkids to live in peace with their neighbors, whose grandfathers fought our grandfathers, we have to suppress Señor Montoya, and find another way.

The last I heard all irishmen moved to America when the potato failed. They were welcomed with open arms IIRC.

[Kralizec]

I'm not particulary bothered by it, to be honest. The fact that some people undeservedly receive a relatively small sum doesn't seem like a valid reason to toss aside the stability achieved over the past years.

[tibilicus]

I'm not particulary bothered by it, to be honest. The fact that some people undeservedly receive a relatively small sum doesn't seem like a valid reason to toss aside the stability achieved over the past years.


A small sum, but a sum non the less which will be paid for by UK tax payers money.

As far as I'm concerned I don't want any of the relatives of the paramilitaries getting a penny of UK tax payers money. There sons might of died for being part of a terrorist organization but congratulations they almost certainly deserved it.

To put it into perspective Lenny Murphy, a man who would kill innocent Catholics on a whim and quite rightly deserved the shooting which happened to him, under this payout scheme his relatives will be entitled to a 12K payment should they choose to accept it. Here's what im struggling to get around.

The fact is this schemes flawed anyway, the people proposing it seem to think that the problems fixed when in reality it's just the violence which is over. Tensions are still extremely high between the two communities and what will this cash payout actually do to help put the troubles in the past other than smear the names of those innocent people killed by giving the same vermin which committed atrocities against them or their relatives at least the same form of compensation?

Due to the fact the unionist communities and political parties are also staunchly opposed to the scheme this suggests to me more than anything that if this scheme goes ahead it will actually raise tensions not resolve any issues which are outstanding.

[Tribesman]

Inventing a statement that i never said and attributing them to events that have not proven to be true.
errrrr...you support the unlawful killing of often innocent people for political gain Furunculus and see nothing wrong with it , that is supporting terrorism , plain and simple .
Which means you are no different to the :daisy: fenians or loyalists.


I would not support the blowing up of a shopping centre, and i question whether anyone involved in the British authorities would sanction such an operation.


Ever heard of a little place called Dublin ? or a smaller place called Monaghan ? Perhaps you have heard of the Keys Tavern ?
Funny how the paper trail and forensics for all those head one way doesn't it , perhaps when it goes finally to the European court Britain will have to hand over the rest of the details that it so far has refused to .
Though of course one outcome of the proposals put forward is that such nasty little details would be left in the past .



As the official report into Operation Banner stated,
Operation banner :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Thats the overall military deployment for decades , it doesn't cover all the illegal :daisy: does it :dizzy2:
The reports into the illegal stuff said it had a negative effect , prolonged the conflict and caused more deep rooted problems that will probably never be resolved . In fact didn't they decide that the FRUs claims about it achievements were exagerated by about 100 times and that most of the terrorists they examined were actually British agents...and they managed to decide that despite having their British government office attacked by the bloody British agents .


So we should give a nice cash payment to terrorists who still choose to plant bombs?
Did you read the proposals ?
Obviously not :yes:



Or so a quick scan of the pdf report (link in your OP) reveals.
Kukri do a more thorough scan

[Furunculus]

errrrr...you support the unlawful killing of often innocent people for political gain Furunculus and see nothing wrong with it , that is supporting terrorism , plain and simple .
Which means you are no different to the fenians or loyalists.

Ever heard of a little place called Dublin ? or a smaller place called Monaghan ? Perhaps you have heard of the Keys Tavern ?
Funny how the paper trail and forensics for all those head one way doesn't it , perhaps when it goes finally to the European court Britain will have to hand over the rest of the details that it so far has refused to .
Though of course one outcome of the proposals put forward is that such nasty little details would be left in the past .

Operation banner :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Thats the overall military deployment for decades , it doesn't cover all the illegal :daisy: does it :dizzy2:
The reports into the illegal stuff said it had a negative effect , prolonged the conflict and caused more deep rooted problems that will probably never be resolved . In fact didn't they decide that the FRUs claims about it achievements were exagerated by about 100 times and that most of the terrorists they examined were actually British agents...and they managed to decide that despite having their British government office attacked by the bloody British agents .


I never said i support the killing of innocent people.
The British Gov't did not allow major bombings to go ahead that any of us know, and even then i never justified bombings in the first place.

There will be a paper trail that leads into every fetid republican and loyalist rathole in NI as a result of thirty years of police/military/intelligence attempts to infiltrate and subvert the gangs, and there will have been innumerable occasions when difficult questions will have been asked as to whether enough was known about a threat to challenge it, whether some agents cover was worth blowing over the possibility of a threat. That detail is subjective and will never appear objectively in official reports.

The purpose of mentioning the OpBanner report was to highlight its recognition that rooting out a determined terrorist organisation is a delicate balance between fighting effectively and not trampling the civic community to the point where the grievance that harbours the group grows as a result of attempts to fight the group.
The Armed Forces think they got that balance right, which i am happy to agree with even when i am aware of all the illegal things done to aid that fight.
I do not believe a the British Gov't could have fought the IRA successfully without the use of illegal means, and I am happy that the use of illegal means was limited and moderate in my opinion.

[Tribesman]

I never said i support the killing of innocent people.

But you did .
You said you accept what they did , were happy with what they did , didn't have any problems with it and said so what if it was illegal .
So either you are supporting the killing of innocent people or you are completely ignorant on the issue and think that they only killed terrorists .


The purpose of mentioning the OpBanner report was to highlight its recognition that rooting out a determined terrorist organisation is a delicate balance between fighting effectively and not trampling the civic community to the point where the grievance that harbours the group grows as a result of attempts to fight the group.
and the purpose of mentioning that the Stephens report is that the illegal stuff was counterproductive , extended the conflict , was trampling the civic community and made the grievances grow ....oh and of course the funny bit about most of the terrorists actually working for the British .


I am happy that the use of illegal means was limited and moderate in my opinion.
limited ? moderate ? you really havn't got a clue have you .

[Furunculus]

But you did .
You said you accept what they did , were happy with what they did , didn't have any problems with it and said so what if it was illegal .
So either you are supporting the killing of innocent people or you are completely ignorant on the issue and think that they only killed terrorists .


and the purpose of mentioning that the Stephens report is that the illegal stuff was counterproductive , extended the conflict , was trampling the civic community and made the grievances grow ....oh and of course the funny bit about most of the terrorists actually working for the British .


limited ? moderate ? you really havn't got a clue have you .

I am happy with the idea of knocking off terrorists, i realise there are grey areas like pat finuncane who should never have been targeted if only because there was grey area.

The stevens report says nothing in its conclusion or recommendations to support what you say about the effectiveness of intelligence activities in NI.

What is limited or moderate when dealing with a determined sectarian terrorist group with secessionist ambitions? Russia flattened Grozny, we infiltrated groups and subverted/sabotaged/betrayed their operations. It is a value judgement, and i can understand someone holding the viewpoint that a Gov't must ALWAYS uphold and obey the laws its imposes on its citzens, but i do not believe that is realistic in all circumstances.

[tibilicus]

I am happy with the idea of knocking off terrorists, i realise there are grey areas like pat finuncane who should never have been targeted if only because there was grey area.

The stevens report says nothing in its conclusion or recommendations to support what you say about the effectiveness of intelligence activities in NI.

What is limited or moderate when dealing with a determined sectarian terrorist group with secessionist ambitions? Russia flattened Grozny, we infiltrated groups and subverted/sabotaged/betrayed their operations. It is a value judgement, and i can understand someone holding the viewpoint that a Gov't must ALWAYS uphold and obey the laws its imposes on its citzens, but i do not believe that is realistic in all circumstances.

Although you can understand why he might of been targeted due to his links with republican paramilitaries. He was an extremely grey area and his death was nothing but a tragic mistake.

Shame the same can't be said for his brothers....

[Tribesman]

we infiltrated groups and subverted/sabotaged/betrayed their operations.
And that would not be so bad if its all that was done , but as they killed innocent people to maintain those operations the arguement justifying it falls apart .



The stevens report says nothing in its conclusion or recommendations to support what you say about the effectiveness of intelligence activities in NI.

so you are saying that he didn't say most of the arrested terrorists questioned by the inquiry turned out to be working for the British , he didn't say that the claim of having saved 200 lives turned out to be 2 lives , and he didn't say that Nelson who murdered around 30 people managed to kill mainly innocent people who were not in any way involved in terrorism .:dizzy2:


Shame the same can't be said for his brothers....
True , but then again with one of the brothers woman wasn't it ruled in the courts that she had been unlawfully killed

[Furunculus]

And that would not be so bad if its all that was done , but as they killed innocent people to maintain those operations the arguement justifying it falls apart .

so you are saying that he didn't say most of the arrested terrorists questioned by the inquiry turned out to be working for the British , he didn't say that the claim of having saved 200 lives turned out to be 2 lives , and he didn't say that Nelson who murdered around 30 people managed to kill mainly innocent people who were not in any way involved in terrorism .:dizzy2:


I don't know about that, a tragedy no doubt, but the end result was a civilian populace that had not been entirely estranged from its other half by sectarian conflict (preventing civil conflict that would tear NI apart), and an IRA that could never hope for a military victory (thus forcing a political solution on a terrorist organisation).

I certainly saw no sign of "The reports into the illegal stuff said it had a negative effect , prolonged the conflict and caused more deep rooted problems that will probably never be resolved." You would think an important statement like that would have hit the conclusion somewhere if it was meant to have any weight..............

[Tribesman]

I don't know about that, a tragedy no doubt, but the end result was a civilian populace that had not been entirely estranged from its other half by sectarian conflict
Perhaps we have different definitions of estranged , because for me when junior school children are attacked for being the wrong religion to be allowed to walk down the road its kinda suggestive of the civilian population being estranged .

[Furunculus]

perhaps we do. i see that it could have been a lot worse.

[CountArach]

Damn... wrong thread.