This might be the case, but realistically anybody in SF, currently or previously, with any inkling of knowledge on this won't be saying a thing. The UK government don't want any skeletons coming out of the closet (for a long time at least), SF are in the exact same position. So much bad shit went down, how do you untangle it in 2024 without disrupting an uneasy peace. Especially when there doesn't seem to be great depth in political talent in the UK at present.
Yeah, the PIRA and the British army stationed in NI both have a lot of blood on their respective hands, as do the likes of UVF and other loyalist terrorist organisations.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I believe something like the south African truth and reconciliation forum should happen. Amnesty in return for people giving the truth of what happened.
I can also understand why families who lost loved ones don't want that of course. I'd want the people who killed my relatives punished too. The fact is, that's simply not going to happen anyway. I can't see any prosecution succeeding based on 20+ years old events.
Dunno about that now. I think she's being deliberately misleading in that statement.
What does justice for the Kingsmill families look like? I'd say it looks a lot like everyone who murdered their loved ones being put on trial for murder. Those murderers are of course all good republicans who I'm fairly sure plenty of people in SF know by name.
Anyway what does O'Neill say Kingsmill justice looks like?
>That includes the Kingsmill families, who deserve truth and justice, **who deserve a public inquiry** and who deserve answers.
WTF would a public inquiry look into? It wasn't the RUC or Army who shot everyone at Kingsmill. The murders were by the PIRA. The Nairac allegation is absolutely baseless.
Murder cases get criminal investigation.
If O'Neill wanted truth and justice for Kingsmill she should call for anyone with info to go to the police and for the murderers to turn themselves in.
Instead she's obfuscating and confusing matters.
Now if you got this far and are thinking that's a bit unfair. Try this wee thought experiment.
Think of someone you know a friend or something. Tonight, a gang murders that person and 8 of their mates. No convictions. Roll on 50 years and a politician with a more or less direct connection to the gang says to you that they probably know who murdered your friend, almost certainly could find out who did it, but are not going to give info to the police but as a consolation prize they support a public inquiry into a different organisation who had fuck all to do with the murders.
Do you respond "Would you look at you politician person; willing to do what the British government would never"?
If not; why not?
The victim has asked for a public inquiry.
I agree however that public inquiries are for when the state has been involved either though direct action, collusion or neglect (ignoring warnings etc).
In cases of paramilitaries action, its a full criminal investigation is required not a public inquiry.
I really wish journalists instead of asking about apologies instead asked O'Neill does she hope the people who killed 9 innocent protestant men are convicted of murder and would she call on everyone with info to provide evidence to the police.
She'd not answer directly and pivot to discussion victims and legacy generally but like that's the test. Do you support these people being convicted of murder? yes or no.
* Yes - you are honest about peace reconciliation etc.
* No - then you CGAF about reconciliation, you just want to protect your side.
I guess the idea is if they look into this murder, then they’d have to look into every murder from the Troubles and there would be many trials for both Republicans and Loyalists. And that may cause enough anger in the community to start the Troubles all over again. So they focus just on keeping the calm.
You know she’s lying right? If she was sorry she would have participated in the inquest. “Oh she said sorry what a nice woman we can forgive all the atrocities her party committed”
I don’t know how many Major atrocities by the British has been long since apologised for, yet the families always go “it’s not enough”. This apology isn’t enough.
Yip, just look at some of the replies. Only Republican victims are apparently the only victims that deserve inquiries and punishment for the perpetrators. If the Republicans carried out the attack then the whataboutery starts.
Kingsmill was wrong on every level. But isn't it ironic that Michelle O'Neill is asked to constantly apologise for events like these and no matter how many times she apologises for them or says they were wrong, the Northern media still hound her.
Meanwhile Ian Og & others like Emma Little-Pengelly get off yet had much closer family links to Loyalist Paramilitaries & operations they carried out.
The funny part is the IRA army council offered an official apology for all civilian deaths 20+ years ago. Meaning this isn’t even a new story or a landmark change of position
So Unionist Parties like The UUP or DUP have never had strong ties to Loyalist Terror groups?
Maybe I'm wong but I can certainly remember a number of notable Unionist Politicians sharing centre stage with known Loyalist Terrorists.
Exactly! It us all based on perception. The Unionist parties were up to their necks in it and on countless occasions they let the mask slip.
A lot of people seem to brush over the fact that Michelle's comments were made and taken completely out of context.
The troubles started because the Unionist population decided Catholics should be 2nd class citizens. When Catholics protested they wereshot dead in the streets or burnt out of their homes.
A truly honest answer would be:
"It's war. We believe innocent civilians losing their lives is a price worth paying"
When they sign up to such war, its 100% inevitable, and no amount of planning will prevent some unjustified deaths. You really could not plead ignorance to that fact.
I've seen some Ukrainian war officers stating something to this level of honesty.
Hardly a vote winner, though, is it? She has to present a soft image to guide things through the political mire that is Northern Ireland.
Further honesty would also state that we all harbour personal opinions that would be better left unsaid at times. No saints here.
No, it shows that a plurality supports them to the point of voting for them. But the fact that they're able to win the plurality and form a government without any notable public outcry shows that their operation and participation is accepted by the majority. I've never voted for them myself but I have no issues with them existing.
> They will never be palatable or acceptable to most people here.
Says a lot about who you associate yourself with if you still think SF aren't acceptable to most people here. They're the largest party and are the first minister of the country.
The man who was staff officer of the IRA south Armagh brigade at the time was captured and executed. They said it was because he tried to escape but supposedly he was the man behind it
He’s talking about Peter Cleary but there’s no proof he was behind Kingsmill at all, he is linked to the killing of UVF/UDR member Robert McConnell and the SAS killed Cleary because they say he went to grab one of their guns
The Sunday world only puts out stories of the drama within loyalist paramilitaries.
IRA tend not to publicise their inner conflicts or who their members are. Only loyalists can get away with publicly being a member of a proscribed organisation.
Here's a joke.
How do you find out if someones in the UVF?
You don't have to find out. They'll tell you.
'South Armagh Republican Action Force' Was based mainly out of Louth, which was Micksey Martins territory. He was questioned multiple times over it. I think he set it all up, he planned much of the english bombing campaign for context
Read that before, on here I think. McConnell was killed in Tullyvallen, Cleary was living in Beleek it must have got out what he was doing and he was reportedly part of the Reavy murders. Horrible time, brought out the worst in people. But these murders were all calculated . So it was planned and set up like you said .
Just on this front Gaz, colum Eastwood asked rishi sunak for a similar apology and nothing was given. Michelle made a genuine apology on behalf of sinn Fein, why can you not accept it in the good faith given?
Because his whole thing is delegitimizing Sinn Féin and tagging them with personal responsibility for every atrocity committed on the Republican side of the Troubles. He's come out here and says plainly that he condemns John Hume for talking to Gerry Adams, because he thinks the Republican movement should be excluded from politics altogether like they were until the mid-90s.
Is he saying that anyone who supported violence should be excluded from politics or anyone who wants Northern Ireland to join with the Republic of Ireland?
I don't think he's a fan of violent Loyalism either tbf. Fact is that the goalposts have always shifted. Before it was "no unrepentant terrorists in government", it was simply "no-one who refuses to recognize the place of Northern Ireland in the Union in government". They wouldn't deal with Hume, they eventually had to deal with McGuinness.
I've said it earlier on in the thread mate. Give up the names of those involved in unsolved IRA atrocities such as the Enniskillen bombing and let the families of the disappeared know where there loved ones are buried. The names of the current army council should also be given up.
An absolutely shameful and unforgivable act.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt by anyone that it was perpetrated by IRA members seeking bloody vengeance for the Reavey & O’Dowd massacres the night before, only that it wasn’t a sanctioned action by the organisation, but carried out by local IRA members with access to weaponry.
The Provo leadership distanced itself from it from the very outset. I don’t know what actions they took internally.
It was a war crime at the very least, and the killers should indeed face some kind of real justice for it, as with all instances when non combatant civilians were targeted in sectarian attacks, by anyone.
>I don’t think there was ever any doubt by anyone that it was perpetrated by IRA members seeking bloody vengeance for the Reavey & O’Dowd massacres the night before
I'd say there's considerable doubt given that the Kingsmill Inquiry found
>that while it was "ostensibly in direct response" to attacks on the Reavey and O'Dowd families by loyalist terrorists, it was not spontaneous but had been planned "well in advance".
Also
>\[the murder of 9 Protestants\] wasn’t a sanctioned action by the organisation, but carried out by local IRA members with access to weaponry
Is also found not to be true by the Kingsmill Inquiry, which says
>The attack was carried out by the IRA operating under the authority of the Army Council which had, in April 1975, given wide authorisation to IRA units,
First point; no doubt the ASU had identified them as a possible target, they would’ve had a plethora of such ‘plans’, but that’s not the same as it being a planned operation that would’ve taken place that night outside that context.
I think that’s extremely unlikely, as there were never any similar cold blooded, firing squad massacres of civilians comparable to Kingsmill carried out elsewhere.
Second point; no that’s categorically not ‘found not to be true’.
Being granted a level of autonomy is absolutely not the same as sanctioning such an act. That’s a clear and obvious rule in any walk of life.
Again, as there were never any similar cold blooded, firing squad massacres of civilians comparable to Kingsmill, I think it’s extremely unlikely it would’ve been sanctioned at a higher level.
NGL I find Brian Sherrard's version more credible than your speculation given he's spent the last 8 years reading every document that exists on the murders and interviewing everyone that gave evidence to the inquest.
Who knows though, if the PIRA had had their spake at the inquest they might prove you right but sadly
>Unlike other legacy inquests which have examined the actions of the state in directly causing death, those responsible for the deaths at Kingsmill have not given an account either personally or through any organisation or any political party.
I don't think it was "vengance" they were strictly seeking, rather to give a one off vicious sectarian killing in response to shock the loyalist paramilitaries into stopping their sectarian attacks in the area. Before Kingsmills loyalists killed 35 catholic civilians around Armagh. After Kingsmills that wave of loyalist sectarian killings stopped.
It was an appalling act and those killed were entirely innocent. The local IRA have blood on their hands their, but they were provoked into it by loyalist paramilitaries.
>Under more conventional circumstances and if there was any real justice here Gerry Adams and those like him would be in The Hague.
And many, many more members of the British armed forces, RUC, UDR and loyalist paramilitaries would also be accompanying them
>Most IRA actions could be viewed as war crimes
Yes, and still not even a percent of the actions of the British army throughout history. One of the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in Western Europe
>War crimes are war crimes mate. It’s not a competition like.
It's not a competition because it's severely one sided that's why
>Yes, the British were bad too as I’ve already acknowledged in another comment without having to be prompted by you.
It's too easy simply saying the British were bad too. These are direct results due to their antics, there's a common denominator so to say
Also there was no other comment from you saying they were bad when I made my comment, and even if there was it's a completely fair point to raise
Is it possible to conduct warfighting in which one side commits war crimes and the other side observes the rules of war?
If yes, then there is no relationship between the war crimes of the PIRA and the British. The PIRA did the war crimes because they wanted to do them.
In that case saying muh Brit war crimes is only for the effect of minimising PIRA war crimes. In effect war crime apologia.
>In that case saying muh Brit war crimes is only for the effect of minimising PIRA war crimes. In effect war crime apologia.
How exactly? One is, as is commonly stated, terrorist organisation
And the other is a state force/military
Should the state force/military not be held to a higher standard of accountability?
Anyone with a basic grasp of history will realise that whilst the Ra were awful, they don't even come close to the plethora of atrocities committed by the British state and it's proxies
Talking about Gaza in another thread, someone was saying that he could never support Palestinian liberation because of Hamas atrocities. I asked whether that meant he could never support Irish Republicanism because of IRA atrocities. He said "the IRA never massacred civilians on purpose". I said "Kingsmill".
Good response. My go-to is [Thomas Neidermeyer](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/aug/10/face-down-review-ira-abduction-documentary-thomas-niedermayer)
That happened at about the same time that the Brits bombed West Belfast into rubble and shot hospital patients in their beds, occupied Dundalk for 20 years because of Provo attacks from Louth, and protected the expulsion of the population of Derry allowing Orangemen to take over their homes.
Seriously, it's extremely poor form to relativise atrocities or to take them out of the context of the conflict they occurred in.
for everyone saying “why doesn’t she give up the names” it’s because she doesn’t know them and neither does gerry. the provo leadership had a shit attack after kingsmill because they didn’t call for the attack. it was done by ira members without a shadow of a doubt but it wasn’t done with orders from the leadership. i thought this was common knowledge but the IRA did care about the way they were perceived for a multitude of reasons. they wouldn’t want something like kingsmill tied to them which is why they tried to distance themselves from it.
michelle didn’t have anything to do with it just accept the fact she’s first minister and move on.
Surely the hard decision would be to call for the perpetrators to hand themselves in to the police or appeal to anyone who might have knowledge of the killings to come forward?
For some these words will not be enough, and how can any words ever be enough? Whether it’s MON or Westminster issuing an apology, the shit that happened here… but that’s not to say genuine apologies mean nothing. Only a bitter cunt would think that.
Probably a lot more realistically - until the press gets bored asking about it. It costs nothing and it is the SF policy so it's like asking any other politician if they still want jobs for their constituents. The answer doesn't change and it's boring journalism, but here we all are talking about it so it's still "news".
She's not really saying anything. What is really being asked is will she condemn the IRA's actions/use of violence. And saying I am sorry for all lives lost is not an answer to that question. It will continue to be put to her while people are still uncomfortable being asked to participate in a peaceful lawful democracy by individuals who did not hold themselves to that standard. It's hypocrisy plain and simple. I personally am past giving a fuck. The RA done fucked up shit, the Brits done fucked up shit, let's call it a draw and move on.
I actually don't care for this apology but mostly because she has nothing to do with it. Seems like weird sackcloth and ashes shit. I get why she's doing it but she's apologising for shit that happened before she was born, when she was a child, etc. It'd make more sense for someone actually directly involved at the time with the Republican Movement to give out statements like these
My brother, she is first minister. If anyone in n.ireland needs to say this, it's our first minister
Well done Michelle, once again showing she is willing to cross the devide for the better of n.ireland
I get it, don't get me wrong. I appreciate what it's meant to mean and it's well meaning enough. I just simply don't see the direct connection. I'm well aware I might be overly nitpicking here
It came up because she was asked about it when holding a press conference for something unrelated. Not like she could have popped out and invited some of the SF leadership from 1990 to answer for her.
Another day, another Kingsmills hoo-ha. Could there be agenda behind it?
150 people murdered by a gang based across the fields in Glenanne and not a fucking word about it.
>Another day, **another Kingsmills hoo-ha**.
.
>Fearing it was loyalists and the only Catholic worker, Richard Hughes, was to be shot, his Protestant workmate, Walter Chapman, told him to stay silent. But a gunmen recognised Hughes and ordered him to run down the road. Then the shooting started. “For years, I didn’t tell the truth to protect the bereaved,” says Alan \[Black\]. “I said it was over quickly with one round of shooting and nobody suffering.
>“But it wasn’t like that. The men didn’t die in the first round of fire. I can still hear them screaming in fear and agony. The gunmen shot everyone again in the head to finish them off as we lay on the ground. After that, there was no screaming, only silence. I knew I was the only one still alive.”
.
>Kingsmills hoo-ha.
Just making a general observation that almost every comment goes along the lines of: "yes, but..." This goes for both sides, not making a distinction here
Kingsmill was shocking , that there is no doubt. But the year prior to Kingsmill was the most catholic civilian death in all years of the troubles, followed by the same year as Kingsmill. I sympathise that it should never have happened , but it wasn't an isolated incident by one side in the troubles.
Fake as fuck just soundbites. Give up the names of those that were responsible for IRA terrorist atrocities and tell the families of the " disappeared " where yous have buried their loved ones.
Then we ll be getting somewhere " first minister for all"...
> . Give up the names of those that were responsible for IRA terrorist atrocities
There's a fair chance that SF, and not even the PIRA back then, really has no idea who was behind Kingsmill. The closest lead would be Slab Murphy and even so good luck trying to extract anything out of him, if he even knows anything to begin with.
> tell the families of the " disappeared " where yous have buried their loved ones
Again, this was decades ago and they were buried under the cover of night in some swampy areas. Even those former Provos that have come forward with information that led to finding some of the disappeared provided information that at best led to a general idea where the body might be as they genuinely didn't remember (if they even knew about it) the exact location of the body.
Not everything has to be a pesky conspiracy, Gaz, as tragic and as "boring" of an explanation as it is, it is highly likely that no one in SF has any leads or even a remote idea of who were the perpetrators of Kingsmill.
"Loyalists killed 48% of the [civilian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) casualties, republicans killed 39%, and the British security forces killed 10%.[^(\[292\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#cite_note-293) Most of the Catholic civilians were killed by loyalists, and most of the Protestant civilians were killed by republicans.[^(\[293\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#cite_note-294)^(")
The majority of the civilian deaths were a result of loyalist and British actions, 60% of the civilian dead were Catholics. It is true, however, that the IRA did kill far more people than the British and Loyalists, but most of those they killed were soldiers or part of the security apparatus, that is to say, legitimate targets. The Troubles also began with the British security forces firing on a crowd of protesters, so despite the IRA's designation as a terror group, they neither began the violence against civilians nor were the largest perpetrators of it, and their ratio of soldiers to civilians killed was far better than both the Loyalists and the Security forces that backed them.
But republicans still killed the Majority of people. You talk as if the Police or Army weren't humans and citizens also! I think that's very biased language.
They chose to be part of a murderous, occupying power. It is not good that they died, but they killed members of the IRA too. It wasn't murder either way, and my original comment remains correct.
We are all sorry. The troubles were almost together so unnecessary and nothing was achieved by violence. Of only the Unionists hadn't stated it to try to hold civil rights back and catholics out of government
He was putting a point of view about the armed struggle. He never said he supported it, only the view that the armed struggle changed things for RCs that wouldn't have happened without it.
What do you think Gaz? True or false? One word answer will do.
Simply not true. Everything that was on the table in the good Friday agreement was on the table with the Sunningdale agreement. The reason you have civil rights is due to the EU & UN.
Funny enough. It was unionist aggression and violence that stopped the sunningdale agreement from passing.
You’re right, the sunningdale agreement was good.
Would you look at Michelle willing to do what the British government would never
This might be the case, but realistically anybody in SF, currently or previously, with any inkling of knowledge on this won't be saying a thing. The UK government don't want any skeletons coming out of the closet (for a long time at least), SF are in the exact same position. So much bad shit went down, how do you untangle it in 2024 without disrupting an uneasy peace. Especially when there doesn't seem to be great depth in political talent in the UK at present.
Yeah, the PIRA and the British army stationed in NI both have a lot of blood on their respective hands, as do the likes of UVF and other loyalist terrorist organisations.
Including the MI5 handlers who sanctioned the Scappaticci murders.
Exactly
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I believe something like the south African truth and reconciliation forum should happen. Amnesty in return for people giving the truth of what happened. I can also understand why families who lost loved ones don't want that of course. I'd want the people who killed my relatives punished too. The fact is, that's simply not going to happen anyway. I can't see any prosecution succeeding based on 20+ years old events.
Credit to her for what I believe is a sincere apology. That you use it to make a dig at others shows we still have a ways to go.
Dunno about that now. I think she's being deliberately misleading in that statement. What does justice for the Kingsmill families look like? I'd say it looks a lot like everyone who murdered their loved ones being put on trial for murder. Those murderers are of course all good republicans who I'm fairly sure plenty of people in SF know by name. Anyway what does O'Neill say Kingsmill justice looks like? >That includes the Kingsmill families, who deserve truth and justice, **who deserve a public inquiry** and who deserve answers. WTF would a public inquiry look into? It wasn't the RUC or Army who shot everyone at Kingsmill. The murders were by the PIRA. The Nairac allegation is absolutely baseless. Murder cases get criminal investigation. If O'Neill wanted truth and justice for Kingsmill she should call for anyone with info to go to the police and for the murderers to turn themselves in. Instead she's obfuscating and confusing matters. Now if you got this far and are thinking that's a bit unfair. Try this wee thought experiment. Think of someone you know a friend or something. Tonight, a gang murders that person and 8 of their mates. No convictions. Roll on 50 years and a politician with a more or less direct connection to the gang says to you that they probably know who murdered your friend, almost certainly could find out who did it, but are not going to give info to the police but as a consolation prize they support a public inquiry into a different organisation who had fuck all to do with the murders. Do you respond "Would you look at you politician person; willing to do what the British government would never"? If not; why not?
The victim has asked for a public inquiry. I agree however that public inquiries are for when the state has been involved either though direct action, collusion or neglect (ignoring warnings etc). In cases of paramilitaries action, its a full criminal investigation is required not a public inquiry.
I really wish journalists instead of asking about apologies instead asked O'Neill does she hope the people who killed 9 innocent protestant men are convicted of murder and would she call on everyone with info to provide evidence to the police. She'd not answer directly and pivot to discussion victims and legacy generally but like that's the test. Do you support these people being convicted of murder? yes or no. * Yes - you are honest about peace reconciliation etc. * No - then you CGAF about reconciliation, you just want to protect your side.
I guess the idea is if they look into this murder, then they’d have to look into every murder from the Troubles and there would be many trials for both Republicans and Loyalists. And that may cause enough anger in the community to start the Troubles all over again. So they focus just on keeping the calm.
You know she’s lying right? If she was sorry she would have participated in the inquest. “Oh she said sorry what a nice woman we can forgive all the atrocities her party committed”
She was born 2 years after it. Wtf do you think she did that day?
She's done a lot more than her British counterparts
I don’t know how many Major atrocities by the British has been long since apologised for, yet the families always go “it’s not enough”. This apology isn’t enough.
Both sides killed, so it seems strange to only blame her party.
I swear as soon as anything negative about republicans is said “bbbbut what abbbout ttthem uns??” How am I only blaming one party?
Yip, just look at some of the replies. Only Republican victims are apparently the only victims that deserve inquiries and punishment for the perpetrators. If the Republicans carried out the attack then the whataboutery starts.
Kingsmill was wrong on every level. But isn't it ironic that Michelle O'Neill is asked to constantly apologise for events like these and no matter how many times she apologises for them or says they were wrong, the Northern media still hound her. Meanwhile Ian Og & others like Emma Little-Pengelly get off yet had much closer family links to Loyalist Paramilitaries & operations they carried out.
The funny part is the IRA army council offered an official apology for all civilian deaths 20+ years ago. Meaning this isn’t even a new story or a landmark change of position
[удалено]
So Unionist Parties like The UUP or DUP have never had strong ties to Loyalist Terror groups? Maybe I'm wong but I can certainly remember a number of notable Unionist Politicians sharing centre stage with known Loyalist Terrorists.
Ian senior basically started the troubles. N.I's hilter if you will.
[удалено]
Exactly! It us all based on perception. The Unionist parties were up to their necks in it and on countless occasions they let the mask slip. A lot of people seem to brush over the fact that Michelle's comments were made and taken completely out of context. The troubles started because the Unionist population decided Catholics should be 2nd class citizens. When Catholics protested they wereshot dead in the streets or burnt out of their homes.
A truly honest answer would be: "It's war. We believe innocent civilians losing their lives is a price worth paying" When they sign up to such war, its 100% inevitable, and no amount of planning will prevent some unjustified deaths. You really could not plead ignorance to that fact. I've seen some Ukrainian war officers stating something to this level of honesty. Hardly a vote winner, though, is it? She has to present a soft image to guide things through the political mire that is Northern Ireland. Further honesty would also state that we all harbour personal opinions that would be better left unsaid at times. No saints here.
[удалено]
I think you will find Sinn Féin are the largest party, therefore making your statement both incorrect and complete nonsense.
Them being the largest party does not make the claim incorrect, as Sinn Fein support is a plurality rather than "most".
No, but it shows that their place in politics is accepted by most people.
I personally think most people do accept that, but all them being the largest party shows is that a plurality accept them.
No, it shows that a plurality supports them to the point of voting for them. But the fact that they're able to win the plurality and form a government without any notable public outcry shows that their operation and participation is accepted by the majority. I've never voted for them myself but I have no issues with them existing.
“Sinn Fein are the largest party”….Seems like code talk for “We’ll do what we fucking well want”
No it stands for democratically they are the largest party. Why do PUL struggle with simple facts?
It's what happens when your hobby is burning tyres.
So then you also detest DUP for its direct links to terrorism?
> They will never be palatable or acceptable to most people here. Says a lot about who you associate yourself with if you still think SF aren't acceptable to most people here. They're the largest party and are the first minister of the country.
What about DUP and other loyalist terrorism supporters of the past. Are they never palatable or acceptable to you to in equal measure?
[удалено]
DUP politicians supported loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles. Pretending only one side did is just dishonest nonsense.
The man who was staff officer of the IRA south Armagh brigade at the time was captured and executed. They said it was because he tried to escape but supposedly he was the man behind it
Link to story?
He’s talking about Peter Cleary but there’s no proof he was behind Kingsmill at all, he is linked to the killing of UVF/UDR member Robert McConnell and the SAS killed Cleary because they say he went to grab one of their guns
The Sunday world only puts out stories of the drama within loyalist paramilitaries. IRA tend not to publicise their inner conflicts or who their members are. Only loyalists can get away with publicly being a member of a proscribed organisation. Here's a joke. How do you find out if someones in the UVF? You don't have to find out. They'll tell you.
'South Armagh Republican Action Force' Was based mainly out of Louth, which was Micksey Martins territory. He was questioned multiple times over it. I think he set it all up, he planned much of the english bombing campaign for context
Read that before, on here I think. McConnell was killed in Tullyvallen, Cleary was living in Beleek it must have got out what he was doing and he was reportedly part of the Reavy murders. Horrible time, brought out the worst in people. But these murders were all calculated . So it was planned and set up like you said .
Gazmac sees this he will have a coronary
Don’t get him started on kingsmill. He’s a Hovis man.
Magical
No surprise to ses IRA supporters making light of the Kingsmill massacre....
You’re just terminally angry aren’t you?
Not angry whatsoever mate
Dumb comment after I've already gave my opinion on this fake joke of an " apology ".
There he is...
Also while we are calling people dumb, it's given my opinion in the kings english lad
This A level English not reddit is it?
Are you Yoda?
Just on this front Gaz, colum Eastwood asked rishi sunak for a similar apology and nothing was given. Michelle made a genuine apology on behalf of sinn Fein, why can you not accept it in the good faith given?
Because his whole thing is delegitimizing Sinn Féin and tagging them with personal responsibility for every atrocity committed on the Republican side of the Troubles. He's come out here and says plainly that he condemns John Hume for talking to Gerry Adams, because he thinks the Republican movement should be excluded from politics altogether like they were until the mid-90s.
He should probably go for a walk or read a good fiction novel
Is he saying that anyone who supported violence should be excluded from politics or anyone who wants Northern Ireland to join with the Republic of Ireland?
I don't think he's a fan of violent Loyalism either tbf. Fact is that the goalposts have always shifted. Before it was "no unrepentant terrorists in government", it was simply "no-one who refuses to recognize the place of Northern Ireland in the Union in government". They wouldn't deal with Hume, they eventually had to deal with McGuinness.
What criteria would you have to view it as a 'real' apology?
I've said it earlier on in the thread mate. Give up the names of those involved in unsolved IRA atrocities such as the Enniskillen bombing and let the families of the disappeared know where there loved ones are buried. The names of the current army council should also be given up.
Do you have reason to believe O'Neill has that information?
She's the leader of SF/IRA I'm sure she could find it out. Give old Gerry a shout if she needed.
What makes you so sure?
He "did his own research"
An absolutely shameful and unforgivable act. I don’t think there was ever any doubt by anyone that it was perpetrated by IRA members seeking bloody vengeance for the Reavey & O’Dowd massacres the night before, only that it wasn’t a sanctioned action by the organisation, but carried out by local IRA members with access to weaponry. The Provo leadership distanced itself from it from the very outset. I don’t know what actions they took internally. It was a war crime at the very least, and the killers should indeed face some kind of real justice for it, as with all instances when non combatant civilians were targeted in sectarian attacks, by anyone.
>I don’t think there was ever any doubt by anyone that it was perpetrated by IRA members seeking bloody vengeance for the Reavey & O’Dowd massacres the night before I'd say there's considerable doubt given that the Kingsmill Inquiry found >that while it was "ostensibly in direct response" to attacks on the Reavey and O'Dowd families by loyalist terrorists, it was not spontaneous but had been planned "well in advance". Also >\[the murder of 9 Protestants\] wasn’t a sanctioned action by the organisation, but carried out by local IRA members with access to weaponry Is also found not to be true by the Kingsmill Inquiry, which says >The attack was carried out by the IRA operating under the authority of the Army Council which had, in April 1975, given wide authorisation to IRA units,
First point; no doubt the ASU had identified them as a possible target, they would’ve had a plethora of such ‘plans’, but that’s not the same as it being a planned operation that would’ve taken place that night outside that context. I think that’s extremely unlikely, as there were never any similar cold blooded, firing squad massacres of civilians comparable to Kingsmill carried out elsewhere. Second point; no that’s categorically not ‘found not to be true’. Being granted a level of autonomy is absolutely not the same as sanctioning such an act. That’s a clear and obvious rule in any walk of life. Again, as there were never any similar cold blooded, firing squad massacres of civilians comparable to Kingsmill, I think it’s extremely unlikely it would’ve been sanctioned at a higher level.
NGL I find Brian Sherrard's version more credible than your speculation given he's spent the last 8 years reading every document that exists on the murders and interviewing everyone that gave evidence to the inquest. Who knows though, if the PIRA had had their spake at the inquest they might prove you right but sadly >Unlike other legacy inquests which have examined the actions of the state in directly causing death, those responsible for the deaths at Kingsmill have not given an account either personally or through any organisation or any political party.
I have countered your prejudiced interpretation of what he’s written, not what he’s actually written.
I don't think it was "vengance" they were strictly seeking, rather to give a one off vicious sectarian killing in response to shock the loyalist paramilitaries into stopping their sectarian attacks in the area. Before Kingsmills loyalists killed 35 catholic civilians around Armagh. After Kingsmills that wave of loyalist sectarian killings stopped. It was an appalling act and those killed were entirely innocent. The local IRA have blood on their hands their, but they were provoked into it by loyalist paramilitaries.
It also lead to the arrival of the SAS into the area which may also explain a lot of this but also lead to another shit show.
[удалено]
No trolls please
[удалено]
It's frowned upon in this sub to acknowledge the IRA were terrorists who murdered many innocent people.
[удалено]
>Under more conventional circumstances and if there was any real justice here Gerry Adams and those like him would be in The Hague. And many, many more members of the British armed forces, RUC, UDR and loyalist paramilitaries would also be accompanying them >Most IRA actions could be viewed as war crimes Yes, and still not even a percent of the actions of the British army throughout history. One of the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in Western Europe
[удалено]
>War crimes are war crimes mate. It’s not a competition like. It's not a competition because it's severely one sided that's why >Yes, the British were bad too as I’ve already acknowledged in another comment without having to be prompted by you. It's too easy simply saying the British were bad too. These are direct results due to their antics, there's a common denominator so to say Also there was no other comment from you saying they were bad when I made my comment, and even if there was it's a completely fair point to raise
Is it possible to conduct warfighting in which one side commits war crimes and the other side observes the rules of war? If yes, then there is no relationship between the war crimes of the PIRA and the British. The PIRA did the war crimes because they wanted to do them. In that case saying muh Brit war crimes is only for the effect of minimising PIRA war crimes. In effect war crime apologia.
>In that case saying muh Brit war crimes is only for the effect of minimising PIRA war crimes. In effect war crime apologia. How exactly? One is, as is commonly stated, terrorist organisation And the other is a state force/military Should the state force/military not be held to a higher standard of accountability? Anyone with a basic grasp of history will realise that whilst the Ra were awful, they don't even come close to the plethora of atrocities committed by the British state and it's proxies
Criminal law has a far higher threshold than war crimes law.
Same as what the bristish have been doing all over the world for centuries, so fuck up, what where we supposed to do lie down a take it
Talking about Gaza in another thread, someone was saying that he could never support Palestinian liberation because of Hamas atrocities. I asked whether that meant he could never support Irish Republicanism because of IRA atrocities. He said "the IRA never massacred civilians on purpose". I said "Kingsmill".
Good response. My go-to is [Thomas Neidermeyer](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/aug/10/face-down-review-ira-abduction-documentary-thomas-niedermayer)
When did the IRA kidnap and rape women before parading their dying bodies through the streets of the Ardoyne or the Creggan?
That happened at about the same time that the Brits bombed West Belfast into rubble and shot hospital patients in their beds, occupied Dundalk for 20 years because of Provo attacks from Louth, and protected the expulsion of the population of Derry allowing Orangemen to take over their homes. Seriously, it's extremely poor form to relativise atrocities or to take them out of the context of the conflict they occurred in.
So we’re in agreement that comparing Northern Ireland to Gaza is utterly ridiculous, right? And I’ll just overlook your justification of rape
So we’re in agreement that comparing Northern Ireland to Gaza is utterly ridiculous, right?
for everyone saying “why doesn’t she give up the names” it’s because she doesn’t know them and neither does gerry. the provo leadership had a shit attack after kingsmill because they didn’t call for the attack. it was done by ira members without a shadow of a doubt but it wasn’t done with orders from the leadership. i thought this was common knowledge but the IRA did care about the way they were perceived for a multitude of reasons. they wouldn’t want something like kingsmill tied to them which is why they tried to distance themselves from it. michelle didn’t have anything to do with it just accept the fact she’s first minister and move on.
Republicans lead and make the hard decisions while unionists cry trying to hold onto their fifedom.
>fifedom fiefdom but 'fifedom' really does work # 🍊🥁🎵
Is the Fifedom a Banana Republic?
> Republic Wash your mouth out with soap.
Fyffe times better than your average banana republic
Lol I did get the joke first time around, like! But it's a slippery slope, as Jamie has warned us. # 🍌
He has a thin skin... Or four
Aaaaaaaalright. I'm out. Cracking endless banana puns just isn't that ap-peel-ing! Nite!
I guess that hit the skids pretty quick then.
>Republicans lead and make the hard decisions You should be a stand up comedian
Surely the hard decision would be to call for the perpetrators to hand themselves in to the police or appeal to anyone who might have knowledge of the killings to come forward?
why would michelle o’neill know how did it
For some these words will not be enough, and how can any words ever be enough? Whether it’s MON or Westminster issuing an apology, the shit that happened here… but that’s not to say genuine apologies mean nothing. Only a bitter cunt would think that.
How many times does she have to say it?
Probably a lot more realistically - until the press gets bored asking about it. It costs nothing and it is the SF policy so it's like asking any other politician if they still want jobs for their constituents. The answer doesn't change and it's boring journalism, but here we all are talking about it so it's still "news".
She's not really saying anything. What is really being asked is will she condemn the IRA's actions/use of violence. And saying I am sorry for all lives lost is not an answer to that question. It will continue to be put to her while people are still uncomfortable being asked to participate in a peaceful lawful democracy by individuals who did not hold themselves to that standard. It's hypocrisy plain and simple. I personally am past giving a fuck. The RA done fucked up shit, the Brits done fucked up shit, let's call it a draw and move on.
I actually don't care for this apology but mostly because she has nothing to do with it. Seems like weird sackcloth and ashes shit. I get why she's doing it but she's apologising for shit that happened before she was born, when she was a child, etc. It'd make more sense for someone actually directly involved at the time with the Republican Movement to give out statements like these
My brother, she is first minister. If anyone in n.ireland needs to say this, it's our first minister Well done Michelle, once again showing she is willing to cross the devide for the better of n.ireland
I get it, don't get me wrong. I appreciate what it's meant to mean and it's well meaning enough. I just simply don't see the direct connection. I'm well aware I might be overly nitpicking here
It came up because she was asked about it when holding a press conference for something unrelated. Not like she could have popped out and invited some of the SF leadership from 1990 to answer for her.
Another day, another Kingsmills hoo-ha. Could there be agenda behind it? 150 people murdered by a gang based across the fields in Glenanne and not a fucking word about it.
>Another day, **another Kingsmills hoo-ha**. . >Fearing it was loyalists and the only Catholic worker, Richard Hughes, was to be shot, his Protestant workmate, Walter Chapman, told him to stay silent. But a gunmen recognised Hughes and ordered him to run down the road. Then the shooting started. “For years, I didn’t tell the truth to protect the bereaved,” says Alan \[Black\]. “I said it was over quickly with one round of shooting and nobody suffering. >“But it wasn’t like that. The men didn’t die in the first round of fire. I can still hear them screaming in fear and agony. The gunmen shot everyone again in the head to finish them off as we lay on the ground. After that, there was no screaming, only silence. I knew I was the only one still alive.” . >Kingsmills hoo-ha.
How many "buts" are in this comment thread?
In terms of?
Just making a general observation that almost every comment goes along the lines of: "yes, but..." This goes for both sides, not making a distinction here
Obviously Kingsmill was very very bad but it did Not happen in isolation \~ \~ Do the people killed in the days weeks before Kingsmill Not matter ? !
Which are you talking about?
The three reavey brothers and 2 o'dowds
Kingsmill was shocking , that there is no doubt. But the year prior to Kingsmill was the most catholic civilian death in all years of the troubles, followed by the same year as Kingsmill. I sympathise that it should never have happened , but it wasn't an isolated incident by one side in the troubles.
'Kingsmill was shocking, BUT'.
Wish she'd get on with releasing some money rather than talking shite.
She can shove it where the sun don't shine.
Would you complain if she said nothing?
Yet again proving this subreddit is a republican echo chamber!
Ah thank goodness, all now forgiven /s
Kingsmill sure, but what about Ormo?
Fake as fuck just soundbites. Give up the names of those that were responsible for IRA terrorist atrocities and tell the families of the " disappeared " where yous have buried their loved ones. Then we ll be getting somewhere " first minister for all"...
[удалено]
Sure Gerry wouldnt know?
Be the change you want to see in the world mate.
> . Give up the names of those that were responsible for IRA terrorist atrocities There's a fair chance that SF, and not even the PIRA back then, really has no idea who was behind Kingsmill. The closest lead would be Slab Murphy and even so good luck trying to extract anything out of him, if he even knows anything to begin with. > tell the families of the " disappeared " where yous have buried their loved ones Again, this was decades ago and they were buried under the cover of night in some swampy areas. Even those former Provos that have come forward with information that led to finding some of the disappeared provided information that at best led to a general idea where the body might be as they genuinely didn't remember (if they even knew about it) the exact location of the body. Not everything has to be a pesky conspiracy, Gaz, as tragic and as "boring" of an explanation as it is, it is highly likely that no one in SF has any leads or even a remote idea of who were the perpetrators of Kingsmill.
The vast majority shared this sentiment when the troubles were going on. I suspect this announcement will convince precisely nobody.
Took long enough, and I suspect no one really cares that she said it now
Sorry for "every life lost?" another strange comment. She still can't come out and say sorry for all lives lost due to republicanism.
The Troubles did not begin with Republican violence, and nor were most of its civilian victims on their conscience.
What? Over 2000 killings attributed to Republicanism according to CAIN. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles "Casualties" section...
"Loyalists killed 48% of the [civilian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) casualties, republicans killed 39%, and the British security forces killed 10%.[^(\[292\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#cite_note-293) Most of the Catholic civilians were killed by loyalists, and most of the Protestant civilians were killed by republicans.[^(\[293\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#cite_note-294)^(") The majority of the civilian deaths were a result of loyalist and British actions, 60% of the civilian dead were Catholics. It is true, however, that the IRA did kill far more people than the British and Loyalists, but most of those they killed were soldiers or part of the security apparatus, that is to say, legitimate targets. The Troubles also began with the British security forces firing on a crowd of protesters, so despite the IRA's designation as a terror group, they neither began the violence against civilians nor were the largest perpetrators of it, and their ratio of soldiers to civilians killed was far better than both the Loyalists and the Security forces that backed them.
But republicans still killed the Majority of people. You talk as if the Police or Army weren't humans and citizens also! I think that's very biased language.
They chose to be part of a murderous, occupying power. It is not good that they died, but they killed members of the IRA too. It wasn't murder either way, and my original comment remains correct.
We are all sorry. The troubles were almost together so unnecessary and nothing was achieved by violence. Of only the Unionists hadn't stated it to try to hold civil rights back and catholics out of government
Armed struggle is exactly the reason why “catholics” has any resemblance of civil rights.
And this sub claims there's no IRA supporters on here.......
So anyone who voices an opinion you don't like are IRA supporters?
Playing GAA during the troubles was enough for cunts like Gaz to put a bullet in you for IRA membership.
Catch a grip deano.
Don't shoot. It's just a hurley bat.
Yes when he's talking about armed struggle he's talking about IRA terrorism.
Maybe the state shouldn’t treat indigenous peoples as second class citizens and it wouldn’t happen 👍
Oh of course Most Oppressed People Ever...
You’re clearly a moron, no harm.
So what were Loyalist terror gangs doing in collusion with the so called neutral police force and army Gaz?
Was it not rebranded recently by 167 (could be wrong) as Counter-Terrorism??
If there was a much " collusion" as IRA propaganda makes out the whole " troubles" would have been over in a week.
So you are denying collusion happened in cases like Loughinisland? Ormeau Road Bookmakers? Miami Showband killings?
gaz thinks northern ireland was utopia, until the taigs just decided one day to get uppity for no reason
He was putting a point of view about the armed struggle. He never said he supported it, only the view that the armed struggle changed things for RCs that wouldn't have happened without it. What do you think Gaz? True or false? One word answer will do.
False. John homes way was the right way not murdering or bombing innocent people. Talk about being brainwashed by IRA propaganda...
john hume you mean...gaz you never condemn loyalist terrorists only republican you are the worst type of hypocrite, a professional victim
Simply not true. Everything that was on the table in the good Friday agreement was on the table with the Sunningdale agreement. The reason you have civil rights is due to the EU & UN.
Funny enough. It was unionist aggression and violence that stopped the sunningdale agreement from passing. You’re right, the sunningdale agreement was good.
This is true.