web analytics

BLOODY FRIDAY REMEMBERED

By David Vance On July 20th, 2012

EXPLOSIONS: BELFAST: BLOODY FRIDAY. 21ST JULY 1972.The IRA set off 26 explosions in Belfast, which killed 11 people and injured

There was a rather good programme on the BBC concerning “Bloody Friday” last evening. A lot of people have been talking about it, some seem genuinely shocked by the scale of the carnage that took place all those years ago.

“In Belfast on 21 July 1972, 22 bombs exploded in the space of eighty minutes, killing nine people, including two British soldiers, and injuring 130.”

I remember it well, although the media seems rather less exercised by such unbelievable savagery ..until now. I have a friend who was there on that day and who helped shovel body bits into bin bags. Well, I mean the victims had it coming after 800 years of oppression, right? Still, better late than never, right? So, I wonder WHO was the IRA leader in Belfast who gave the go ahead for this atrocity and where might he be today? Hell, would seem ideal, but some may fear that he and his chums have managed to avoid being apprehended and who know…they may even be rewarded.

Naturally, to the peace processors out there, it would unthinkable that the scum responsible for the slaughter on that day are brought to public justice. This shows the toxic corruption of the corrupt peace.

94 Responses to “BLOODY FRIDAY REMEMBERED”

  1. ‘So, I wonder WHO was the IRA leader in Belfast who gave the go ahead for this atrocity and where might he be today?’

    Seamus Twomey, I believe, and he’s dead now.

  2. I remember it well, although the media seems rather less exercised by such unbelievable savagery

    Really? You think so? I’ve been on both local medis sites and they’re both covering it as are the local newspapers I’ve looked at.

  3. Seimi

    Really? He was the guy in charge? No one else?

    Paul

    Yes,almost 40 years later. Round about 97, can’t find too much talk of it.

  4. He was O/C in Belfast at the time, so that would put him in charge, no?

  5. ‘In the 1970s early Provo strategy was dominated in large part by the politico-psychotic fantasies of Seamus Twomey. It was the old IRA veteran who pioneered the car bomb blitz of central Belfast.

    Thanks to this rosary-bead rattling republican of the old school we had such glorious chapters of Irish history as Bloody Friday and Claudy. Twomey’s logic was crude if deadly in its effect: prove by bomb and bullet that Northern Ireland was a failed political and social entity. Blast out the commercial heart of the city, bomb factories, scare away investors, wage economic warfare, all to undermine the tenability of the northern state.

    Or, to put it into Twomey’s own words (I am paraphrasing here from memory): ‘It doesn’t matter if there is grass growing in Royal Avenue as long as there is a tricolour flying over the City Hall.’ ‘

    Henry McDonald
    The Observer, Sunday 15 June 2003

  6. Yes,almost 40 years later. Round about 97, can’t find too much talk of it

    Yeah, because it has never been covered by the media before. Sheesh.

  7. bead rattler? really? Besides, wasnt much of a bead rattler if he is blowing peeps up now was he

  8. Lets all just be thankful that those days are gone.

  9. Oh, and before anyone starts let me state the Bloody Friday was a disgusting atrocity and I personally would have no problems supporting an inquiry into events on that horrific day.

  10. “Really? He was the guy in charge? No one else?”

    Bloody Friday was ordered by the Chief of Staff Seán Mac Stíofáin (who is dead) and the OC of the Belfast Brigade Seamus Twomey (who is dead) and was principally organised by Brendan Hughes (who is dead).

    While Gerry Adams was involved he wasn’t one of the main organisers of it and didn’t gain the leadership of the Belfast Brigade until after the event. It was actually Bloody Friday (and the British retaliation in Operation Motorman) that caused Seamus Twomey to resign from his post.

  11. And was principally organised by Brendan Hughes (who is dead)

    I’ve never heard that claimed before.

  12. ‘Oh, and before anyone starts let me state the Bloody Friday was a disgusting atrocity and I personally would have no problems supporting an inquiry into events on that horrific day.’

    Likewise.

  13. He said it to Ed Moloney during Boston College’s Belfast Project, who then reported it in Voices From the Grave.

  14. I’ve read ‘Voice from the grave’ and can’t remember that.

    (Not saying that it’s not true just that I’ve never heard the claim before)

  15. “Well, I was one of the key figures involved in organising ‘Bloody Friday’, It wasn’t directly my decision to do it but I was the person who organised it from the First, Second and Third Battalions. I was the operational commander of the ‘Bloody Friday’ oepration.”

    Brandan Hughes

    Moloney, Ed, (2010), Voices from the Grave (London: Faber and Faber)

  16. Fair enough.

  17. “One of….”

  18. “One of….”

    Yeah. Most of it seemed to be Mac Stíofáin and Twomey who wanted to prove a point to the British Government. Only a few weeks before they had meet the British Governemnt (with Dáithí Ó Conaill, the IRA’s top political strategist, Martin McGuinness, the Adjutant in Derry, and Gerry Adams, the Adjutant in Belfast). They felt that in those talks the British refused to take them seriously and so Mac Stíofáin and Twomey wanted to have a major event (Bloody Friday) to show the British that they were to be taken seriously.

    Was Gerry Adams involved in Bloody Friday? Probably at some level. Was he centrally involved? Probably not in that he was probably too close to the talks to have an operational role in it.

  19. A dreadful day. I know the daughter of one of those murdered.
    RIP

  20. I was less than half a mile from the bomb on the Cavehill Road that day. We were listening to the radio and realising that major slaughter was happening. The Provos most successful day ever, by their own perverted standards.

  21. A terrible day, and if there wasn’t a peace process there would be many more of them.

  22. Mahlons

    You appear to think that the peace process was the only option in dealing with the situation. The other option considered was a one-off security/military operation; one bloody night that would have eradicated the PIRA. If such an operation had been undertaken many more lives would have been saved than the the long peace process in which many civilians were killed or maimed until PIRA finally surrender.

  23. The Constable was later told by Special Branch colleagues that Gerry Adams was second in command of the IRA’s Belfast ‘brigade’ and had planned the complex operation which involved 22 bombs detonated within 80 minutes.

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/carnage-at-oxford-street-haunts-exruc-man-16187585.html#ixzz21FS4jzpr

    The appeasement process is responsible for the protection of sfira, they should be in jail, not in government of the very place they tried so dilligently to destroy.

    I am heartened to read the comments from republicans on here that they would support any inquiry, but perhaps can I suggest that desisting from voting for sfira would be a better start?

  24. New Yorker

    Bloody Sunday was thegreatest recruiting tool the IRA ever had, A second bloody night of the long knives would have clearly marked the brits as a rogue nation and landed them everlasting infamy. Not to mention increasing the IRA membership by a 1,000%. Who ever decided not to go ahead with this operation did themselves the biggest favour

  25. LU can I suggest that desisting from voting for sfira would be a better start?

    As soon as you take your own advice and quit voting for the DUP and the UUP

  26. EP,

    I do not vote for terrorists, responsible for the mass murder of thousands.

    I vote for democrats who want to build for the future, and actually, neither of the parties you refer to, so I already have taken my advice, please do the same forthwith.

  27. I am pleased David mentioned this. Not living in N.I. I wasn’t aware of the programme being broadcast, but I have now downloaded it from the BBC I Player and will watch it later.

  28. Emerald Pimpernel

    People cannot be recruited if there is no one to recruit them. There would have been PR challenge but the 1970s were a different time. Effective diplomacy and PR at the time might have mitigated the adverse reaction.

    How many people would be alive if the military/security option were taken?

    There is no comparison to Bloody Sunday which resulted in the death of civilians. The military/security operation would have targeted only terrorists using very detailed profiles on the few hundred which would have essentially wiped out PIRA in one comprehensive operation.

    It will be an interesting issue for historians as to which option would have been the better.

  29. NY,

    One week would have been plenty of time…

  30. My comments seem to be disappearing. I’ll try this again.

    You really think that a military scorched earth policy would have eradicated the IRA? very naive. EP is correct it would have increased the IRA’s, (or some other physical force movement), appeal a thousand fold. Stories and songs would have been told and re – told and individuals in groups like the Official IRA and People’s Democracy would have been galvanised.

    The military/security operation would have targeted only terrorists

    Yes, perhaps the could’ve used the same intelligence that they used the year previously for internment. Look at how much of a success that was.

    There is no comparison to Bloody Sunday which resulted in the death of civilians

    No? I can think of at least two.

  31. New Yorker – One night? They had centuries and couldn’t destroy Irish nationalism. Next suggestion please.

  32. A week would have been plenty of time, but the poor catholics would have no terrorists to vote for now, and that would never do…

  33. Firstly, after Bloody Sunday and before the restructuring of the IRA in the late 70s IRA membership would have been in the thousands not the hundreds.

    Additionally British Intelligence in the early 1970s was grossly inaccurate (some suggestions that as many as 75% of all people interned weren’t involved in the IRA). So if they were shot instead of interned then there would have been the mass slaughter of civilians.

    So it wouldn’t have killed a few hundred IRA volunteers. It would have had to kill thousands of them and to fully wipe the IRA out it would have resulted in the deaths of as many if not more civilians. The result would have been all out civil war.

  34. New Yorker do you really believe that the British army could have wiped out the IRA in one night. Given that the command structure was based in Dublin as were a lot of Provos.Were the Brits going to invade the south to get them. It would have been as others have said a bigger disaster than internment with the woeful intelligence used in that fiasco.What were they going to do with the Loyalist terrorists who were also murdering all round them,in fact the UVF had only seven months previously committed what was the largest single act of mass murder of the troubles until the Omagh bomb when they slaughtered 15 civilians in McGurks bar on 4th December 1971. Funnily enough the 40th anniversary of that attack was last December but it must have slipped Davids mind as i can see no reference to it on ATW. But then again.

  35. In the eighties it would have been much easier with the structures well known and their informers singin’ like wee birds.
    Sub, quite simple, one week would have been ample, and then a zero tolerance policy would have been installed and the border sealed and watched meticulously for any provos coming in.

    Meantime, the loyalists would have been appeased and stood down as their excuse of defending or retaliatory stance would be pointless.
    You have to ask why many in the ira higher ranks are protected today…

    Think about it.

  36. Meantime, the loyalists would have been appeased and stood down as their excuse of defending or retaliatory stance would be pointless.

    Bulls##t The loyalists were not retaliatory. It was the Loyalists who carried out the first sectarian murders of the troubles in Malvern street in 1966 the UVF also carried out a bombing campaign in early1969.What were they reacting to?. What were they reacting to when they murdered the first RUC officer killed in the Troubles Constable Victor Arbuckle. Try reading a bloody history book rather than peddling a loyalist/Unionist myth that the Loyalists were reactionary.

  37. their excuse of defending or retaliatory stance would be pointless.’

    try bloody reading sub, in the context.

    You misunderstood me and are off on an ill-informed rant to someone with a degree in Irish History.

    (ps, there were other murders pre 1966…obviously.)

  38. “…an ill-informed rant to someone with a degree in Irish History.”

    Judging by the nonsense you regularly spout, that degree is probably as meaningful as Ian Paisley’s doctorate.

  39. Thank you Sarah for your most informative contribution.

    I hope you are able to read and educate yourself from my knowledge.

  40. Well, if i can at least scan over your contributions without my IQ plummeting, I’ll count myself lucky 🙂

  41. Bittersweet. Beautiful and poignant, a pleasure to read.

  42. Oops! Wrong thread!

  43. oh, the irony lol

  44. LOL, I guess I didn’t escape unscathed.

    Too many tabs open, ahem…

  45. You knw the lesson to learn Sarah..

    Always keep your tabs shut 😉

  46. LOL Colm, indeed. 🙂

  47. That’ll teach you! 😉

    Tabs shut, but mind open…ahem!

  48. “That’ll teach you!”

    Well we can only hope. 🙂 Sometimes, after innumerable repetitions, some things still never sink in, right LU? 😉

  49. Depends how ignorant one is to begin with, and as important is the ability to disseminate information and understand it’s relevance.

    Morals are another thing, but an open mind is a definite necessity to a better understanding.

  50. Submariner,you are wrong David did do a thread on McGurks Bar a couple of years ago,shame it was an attack on the victims,LU always thought you were a UVF supporter and now its being confirmed

  51. Martin,

    I am a great admirer of the 36th Ulster Division, and their courage.

    Unlike you and your community, I stand against ALL terror.

  52. LU,I have NEVER voted SF in my life and never will nor have I ever supported the scum of the IRA,you on the other hand on this very thread praised the modern UVF by saying it was only a re-action to IRA

  53. British intelligence by the mid 1970s was far superior to the RUC’s poor information used in 1971 for internment. There were only a couple of hundred Provos of any consequence, but there were many dumb foot soldiers who could be dealt with after the major operation. If you knew the profiles of the couple of hundred of consequence, exact locations and expected movements of individuals based on communication intercepts, squealers, etc., you would have no doubt the mop-up would be completed in one night.

    Mahons

    The subject is not Irish nationalism. The subject is a gang of criminal terrorists who appropriated the words of the long history of violent republicanism in order to give themselves cover and to fire up dumb foot soldiers. Daniel O’Connell was an Irish nationalists, the people we are speaking of should not be in any way be mentioned in the same breath. O’Connell would have considered them dangerous, money-grubbing fools.

  54. British intelligence by the mid 1970s was far superior to the RUC’s poor information used in 1971 for internment.

    Apart from the fact that Bloody Friday was the year after internment, (when the security opperation was allegedly proposed), the above is supposition and conjecture. However, it’s largely academic as it ignores the central argument of what would have happened in the wake of such an operation. Individuals in groups like the OIRA and PD would have galvanised to ensure that physical force would have been renewed. It also would have been a massive propoganda gift internationally.

    O’Connell would have considered them dangerous, money-grubbing fools

    As you’re able to give us an authoritive opinion on how a man dead over 150 years would have thought today perhaps you could also tell us how Robert Emmet or even Wolfe Tone would have considered them?

  55. //O’Connell would have considered them dangerous, money-grubbing fools.//

    And they would have considered O’Connell a Castle Catholic whose aim was more jobs for his boys and who licked up to the wretched George IV and even more obnoxious persons just so that twopence ha’penny could look down on twopence.
    And they would be right.

    You don’t understand Irish Republicanism or the Troubles, NewYorker. There was no way the British forces could have destroyed the “IRA” in the mid 70’s, even if they had resorted to mass murder.

    The IRA was not essentially a conspiracy. Groups sprung up in various places separately more or less as a spontaneous reaction to the local situation. They called themselves the IRA because that was an organisation with form and one that could help them obtain weapons. If there had been no IRA tradition to continue, some other group or groups would have emerged.
    As long as the conditions were as they were, there would always have been more than enough young men ready to get arms and fight the British state.
    British intelligence also realised this. The only thing that could have stopped it was the Peace Process. Even the much-vaunted Sunningdale initiatve wasn’t sufficient, and wouldnt have worked even if Unionists hadn’t destroyed it.

    It was either never-ending conflict or the “appeasement” that seems to bother LU so much.
    Everybody involved in the end took the right decision.

    Now for your homework read “From Civil Rights to Armalites” by Niall Ó Dochartaigh.
    It focuses on Derry, but similar developments took place in S. Derry, E. Tyrone, S. Armagh and the different parts of Belfast and various other places.

  56. Paul McMahon

    I did not specify a date for such an operation, you made a sloppy assumption. You dreamily think others would step up and take the places of those removed, but the others were small time crooks with peashooters or nutters..

    I can say what O’Connell would think of 20th century violent republicans because we know what he thought of the Young Irelanders when they tried to enlist his support. He said he was firmly anti-violent and besides they were crazy if they thought they could defeat the British Army. Same situation as late 20th century – violent fools end up forced to surrender, the only difference being we don’t hang such people these days.

    Noel Cunningham

    Why is O’Connell called the Liberator? He achieved great things for the Irish people and did it without killing anyone or shaking down local shopkeepers.

    The IRA was and is a mafia operation. The top dogs get rich and don’t believe the rubbish they spout to fire up the foot soldiers. Mafia organizations are usually regional because they know the lay of the ground and local opportunities for criminal gain. At times regional mafia groups worked together, but I agree it was mostly a regional organization.

    I don’t buy the argument that other guys would have taken over if the heads guys in various areas were removed. How would they procure weapons – Dunne’s Stores? You romanticize the quality of the people you refer to. They were mostly poorly educated, not internationally connected, often unemployed, not militarily trained. These type of guys were going to take on British forces? That is a good joke.

    The military/intelligence option was vetoed by the politicians not intelligence services.
    The question remains: How many people would be alive today if the robust option were taken?

  57. You appear to think that the peace process was the only option in dealing with the situation. The other option considered was a one-off security/military operation; one bloody night that would have eradicated the PIRA

    That’s what you said NY’er. When was this option considered then?

    I don’t buy the argument that other guys would have taken over if the heads guys in various areas were removed. How would they procure weapons – Dunne’s Stores? You romanticize the quality of the people you refer to. They were mostly poorly educated, not internationally connected, often unemployed, not militarily trained. These type of guys were going to take on British forces? That is a good joke

    I believe that this guy is a bit of an expert in such matters?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

  58. “I don’t buy the argument that other guys would have taken over if the heads guys in various areas were removed.”

    New people would have come along afterwards. The major leadership in Belfast at that time was Gerry Adams, Ivor Bell and Brendan Hughes. While Bell had been part of the border campaign he had subsequently left the IRA and rejoined the Provisionals in 1970. There other two only joined in and around 69/70. So the leadership was relatively young and relatively new. So you take them out what is to stop them creating more.

    Do you also think the Irish Government would have sat calmly by while the British engaged in a mass slaughter in the North? And do you think they wouldn’t have made any moves to help a new Republican movement in the aftermath of that slaughter?

    As such the answer to your question of how many people would be alive if they had done that is that there would have been a lot more killed not less. It would have deepened the conflict to the extent that there would be no endgame. There would be no room for the sort of discussions that ended the Troubles and neither side were able to defeat the other. The result would have been endless conflict.

  59. Paul McMahon

    You believe statements by British generals because you want to. I’m more skeptical.

    Seamus

    There were other leaders at the time you refer to in addition to the names you mention. As stated above, I don’t think there were people capable of replacing those removed, and I include more than the three you cite.

    I believe the British would have conducted a diplomatic and PR campaign before and after. They really only had to get the US on board and in the 1970s that might have been possible if assurances were given that once they dealt with this problem they would improve governance for all in NI. As to the reaction of Dublin, what could they do other than issue statements, Dublin was not too happy with the Provos and consider their history dealing with violent republicans.

    I think people tend to forget how small the support was for the Provos before the hunger strikes.

  60. It is a loyalist fantasy to pretend that there was a military option to solve the IRA. There never was. They had to be beaten by other means.

  61. You believe statements by British generals because you want to. I’m more skeptical

    That’s what he said. It’s absolutely contrary you the scenario you raise and I’m sure that he had a lot more insight into the situation than you.

    I believe the British would have conducted a diplomatic and PR campaign before and after

    Yes, look how well the British international PR campaign regarding Ireland went. Imagine how worse it would have been with the scorched earth policy you advocate.

    I think people tend to forget how small the support was for the Provos before the hunger strikes

    Very clever. What quantifiable method of measuring support for the IRA’s campaign do you use in making this assertion?

  62. Seamus;

    Do you also think the Irish Government would have sat calmly by while the British engaged in a mass slaughter in the North? And do you think they wouldn’t have made any moves to help a new Republican movement in the aftermath of that slaughter?

    first of all, they did exactly that, and secondly, if the British Army were allowed off the leash and pursued the terrorists, they would and could have cleared them out within a very short time. However, the policy was one of infiltrate and break down, which in the end succeeded, due to the lack of discipline in the sfira ranks.

    New Yorker, you are correct in that the politicans vetoed the action you are advocating; it is irrelevant now, but hypothetically it could have saved a lot of misery, and grief.
    Paul,

    I see you are in ira apologist mood again…the mask slips.

  63. “I believe the British would have conducted a diplomatic and PR campaign before and after. They really only had to get the US on board and in the 1970s that might have been possible if assurances were given that once they dealt with this problem they would improve governance for all in NI”

    It wasn’t the US government they needed to convince. It was the people of the United States. And some certain sections of the American public (the begorrah bejesus types) were more extreme in their support of armed republicansism than most of the Irish. And everyone, republican or otherwise, would have realised that their diplomatic and PR campaign would have been the biggest load of bollocks ever said.

    Your scenario wouldn’t have been successful without significant civilian casualties which would have increased and hardened support for militant republicanism. It would have increased support for armed action both at home and abroad and we would have had an actual civil war on our hands.

    “As to the reaction of Dublin, what could they do other than issue statements, Dublin was not too happy with the Provos and consider their history dealing with violent republicans.”

    The opposition from the South largely speaking came from the Blueshirts. While they were in government between 73 and 77 the would have to respond to a massacre of hundreds if not thousands of republicans and a similar number if not more civilians. There would have been demands from the Irish people. Even at the time certain sections of the Irish public and the Irish newspapers (including former Unionist papers such as the Irish Times) were critical of the government’s actions against republicanism (they really went after David’s mate Conor Cruise O’Brien). So if the government suffered quite large amounts of criticism for curtailing the freedom of speech of the IRA what do you think they would suffer if they failed to act following the killing of thousands of Irish people in a night/week? Support in the South for the IRA was generally quite high and it was only later events (Enniskillen etc) that removed that support.

    “I think people tend to forget how small the support was for the Provos before the hunger strikes.”

    Not at the time that you are talking about. At the sort of period of time you were talking about the support for the IRA was through the rough. In 1972 they didn’t have enough guns to arm all their volunteers. It was things like Bloody Friday, accusations (rightly or wrongly) of being involved in Claudy, an increase in sectarian murders culminating in Kingsmill that caused the decline in the support of the IRA by the end of the 1970s. In the early to mid 70s that support was significant. There was only a small window after Kingsmill and before the Hunger Strikes (roughly 76-81) where the IRA support wasn’t significant.

  64. And in spite of all the barbaric and heinous mass murder, the majority of catholics reward them repeatedly and constantly for their slaughter at the polls.

  65. If the British Army were allowed off the leash and pursued the terrorists, they would and could have cleared them out within a very short time. However, the policy was one of infiltrate and break down, which in the end succeeded.

    Strange that you, as a supposed ex military man, would think that while your big boss would have a directly opposing view, mabe you’re one of those foot soldiers being fed a line by the leadership that NY’er alludes to above? And, if the IRA have been defeated then let’s have no more whinging about terrorists in government.

    I see you are in ira apologist mood again…the mask slips.

    Really? It seems that you are in talking cobblers mood again.

  66. Paul,

    See that little word at the start of my quote? (It begins with I and ends with F.)

    I was debating the issue, hypothetically, as I posted :

    New Yorker, you are correct in that the politicans vetoed the action you are advocating; it is irrelevant now, but hypothetically it could have saved a lot of misery, and grief.

    The ira have been defeated militarily, but unfortunately not politically, as the armalites have been surrendered, but the other half of their strategy, the ballot box remains their most potent weapon, aided and abetted by your community.

    Must make you proud…

  67. //The ira have been defeated militarily, but unfortunately not politically, as the armalites have been surrendered, but the other half of their strategy, the ballot box remains their most potent weapon, aided and abetted by your community.//

    LU, No Armalites were ever surrendered.

    BTW, is that sentence taken from your latest “published writing”? 🙂

  68. LU,still being a UVF/UDA apologist I see

  69. Noel,

    armalites amongst other munitions were surrendered to De Chastelain and his colleagues, or if you want to be exact, ‘put beyond use’.

    Unfortunately, as I said, the ballot box strategy continues to be supported by a majority of catholics.

    Afternoon Martin,

    no apology here for terrorist scum, unlike you and your community.

  70. //armalites amongst other munitions were surrendered to De Chastelain and his colleagues//

    You’re still wrong. They never got into the hands of De Chastelain or his colleagues.

  71. Noel,

    can you read, son?

    or if you want to be exact, ‘put beyond use’.

  72. I’m sure you’ll forgive my overlookng your conditional when you realise that I read it in the conext of your absolutist

    One week would have been plenty of time…

    Comment above. One week? It seems that there’s a bit of a difference of opinion between you and your top brass.

    The IRA have been defeated militarily, but unfortunately not politically

    Great piece of Orwellian doublespeak

    If the IRA haven’t been defeated politically then they haven’t been defeated. Look, there’s some here would argue, (not an opinion I would subscribe to personally), that the sporadic shootings, bombings etc that have occurred is the work of the IRA. Either the IRA have been defeated or they haven’t. If they have then let’s have no more moaning about terrorists being in government and making decisions on your children’s educatMust make you proud…ion etc, prisoner releases, ongoing violence etc.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    That there’s a peace process, the Orange state no longer exists and that Nationalists have a real say in government?

    Absolutely!

  73. Sorry, bad editing. Should read

    *Must make you proud

    That there’s a peace process, the Orange state no longer exists and that Nationalists have a real say in government?
    Absolutely!

  74. Paul,

    do you understand what hypothetically means?

    One week in my opinion would have been enough time to systematically remove the command structure of the ira, either militarily, or by qualified internment.

    Now, onto your rather foolish post;

    If the IRA haven’t been defeated politically then they haven’t been defeated

    As the ira had a dual strategy, with sinn fein and the ira pursuing respectively, the ballot box and the armalite, the latter has been quashed, but the former remain in play thanks to your community’s constant and unwavering support.

    I will always oppose any terrorist in government from any hue, as they have no place in society other than behind bars where they belong.

  75. So the current sporadic bomb and gun attacks are not the work of the IRA then? Good I’m glad that we’ve cleared that up.

    If the IRA have their prisoners released and are in political power, (as you would see it), I’d imagine that that’s a ‘defeat’ any army or organisation would be happy to accept.

  76. Paul,

    I do not know who are carrying out the sporadic attacks, neither do you, so nothing is cleared up in that regard at all.

    The ira have been defeated militarily, ie, they cannot win by those means. They have thus failed in their military objective of ‘removing the British from NI’, and are continuing with their other half of the strategy, thanks to you and your community’s support for them, despite their horrific past.

  77. You don’t know who’s carrying out the attacks? Good I’ll remember that the next time you go off on one about them.

    LU, even if I had never voted SF before I would, just for the sheer entertainment value it give me seeing intransigents working themselve into a state of apoplexy.

    Despite their horrific past

    For a guy who’s constatntly banging on about wanting to move into the future you really do have a deep obsession with the past.

  78. Of course I do not know who is carrying out the attacks, you buffoon. How could I or you know?

    The obsession with the past is with your community…inquiry for this, that and the other.

    It only changes to moving on when mass murder is mentioned.

    Funny that, eh?

  79. You buffoon?

    Tut, tut. You’re beginning to revert to your old insulting ways again.

    The obsession with the past is with your community…inquiry for this, that and the other

    Does that include the inquiry into Bloody Friday that I supported above?

    Paul McMahon, on July 22nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm Said:
    You buffoon?

  80. Paul,

    do you KNOW who carried out sporadic shootings, or any shootings?

  81. No, not 100% and neither do you or the OO Grand Dragon Wizard Knight. So maybe all should stop making assumptions?

    Do you think that there should be an inquiry into Bloody Friday or should it be forgotten about?

    Glad to see that you’ve ceased with the insults.

  82. Paul,

    I wrote;

    Logical Unionist, on July 22nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm Said:

    Paul,

    I do not know who are carrying out the sporadic attacks, neither do you, so nothing is cleared up in that regard at all.

    As for Bloody Friday, the case is always open, and will always be until the Police come across new evidence, like any other tragedy.

    The sickening thing is weasel words from nationalists is one thing, but voting for the same organisation responsible does take away from their ‘sincerity’.

  83. Except that it’s not the same organisation. I’ve had family members who were members of SF and others who were members of the IRA. There was an overlap in membership in some instances, (a bit like the UDA, who were legal until ’92 and the UDR), but to say that they were the same organisation is simply not true not matter how much unionism wish it were.

    “Weasel words?” Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    Despite their horrific past

    Once again, for someone who’s so concerned about moving into the future you seem to have an unhealthy obsession for talking about the past at every available opportunity.

  84. Paul,

    yeah…selective justice is as your wont.

    Weasel words are what they are in light of the reluctance, nay, refusal to admit the past and stand like men and face justice and give some peace for the families of the murdered.

  85. yeah…selective justice is as your wont.

    Yeah? wanna give me some examples of that?

    I want justice and peace for all victims.

  86. course you Paul, just like Adams and the rest who can’t even admit being in the organisation.

    Good day to you, I have better things to do than waste time with weasel words.

  87. I can only speak for myself LU and not Adams et al.

    So do you wanna give me examples where I advocate “selective justice” or not?

  88. The other day when you would only support an inquiry into mcguinness on the condition that Brigadier Kerr was, and others.

    That’s one for starters.

    Your community are steeped in the victimhood culture, and will call for all sorts of truth commissions and so on, all whilst being represented by murdering coawrds, involved in the mass murder of innocent people.

    Hypocrites and not worth my time.

    Off to watch the golf and cheer on G Mac.

    Have a good moping day.

  89. The other day when you would only support an inquiry into mcguinness on the condition that Brigadier Kerr was, and others

    That’s not selective, that’s inclusive. An inquiry for all victims. Perhaps you have trouble understanding the difference between inclusive and exclusive?

    Your community are steeped in the victimhood culture, and will call for all sorts of truth commissions and so on, all whilst being represented by murdering coawrds, involved in the mass murder of innocent people

    I can’s speak for my community, (as you seem to be constantly able to do), I call for justice, peace and transparency for all innocent victims and have supported inquiries for the same.

    Can you say the same?

  90. Seamus

    Why would there be civilian casualties? One night of targeted assinations of a couple of hundred worthless criminals conducted by highly trained SAS types would not involve civilians just terrorists. You speak of the death of thousands when, as stated, it would have been a couple of hundred society would be better without.

    Paul McMahon

    Pull a five pound note out of your pocket. Who is that an image of? Your political and military sovreign. QED

  91. catholics vote for the IRA…

    SHAME.

  92. In the early stages of the Troubles the success rate of British Intelligence was quite poor. So there was a major likelihood your plan would have resulted in mass civilian casualties (which is the principle reason the British didn’t do it).

    How would they have gone about doing it? Would they have gone into republican areas and shot them? Do you also not think that the IRA wouldn’t have known about it? The IRA were aware of almost every major operation the British planned (which is why they were able to avoid a lot of it). Do you not think there wouldn’t have been a response? A riot? A gun battle? Do you think ordinary nationalists would have stood by and let them do it?

    Also the majority of the central IRA leadership at the time was based in the South. So while the Army may have been able to take the middlemen the leadership would have been largely intact.

    “Pull a five pound note out of your pocket. Who is that an image of? Your political and military sovreign”

    I know Irish people are accused of liking drink a bit too much but Bushmills distillery is not our political and military sovereign.

  93. seamy…you vote for ira.

    shame…

  94. gift…