Illegal British Spies, film Loyalist Crucifiction

[Wasp]

As Jim says would it be acceptable if the Irish Defence Forces had crossed the border in pursuit of people or would you be pissed of at them trespassing on British sovreignty?

Here we go again. If you remember I clearly said my position on this several times on another thread. Why are you both trying to twist round my position to forward your own arguement by trying to demonize me by suggesting that I have unequal views on this, bias views on this and would be opposed to the IDF doing so??? You both know fine well that I clearly said the IDF have every right to pursue anyone that attacks them. I also said that if loyalists carried out an attack in the republic and they were fleeing back across the border the IDF would have every right to continue thier chase into N.Ireland. I also said especially if the British were not doing anything or rather very little to stop these attacks. I also believe that I said the IDF would have every right to take strategic areas of N.Ireland to prevent their country being attacked from these areas. But you and Jim just keep on trying to imply I said different so that it helps your arguement if I have one rule for the British and one for the Irish.

The British Army Has NO place crossing the Irish border - it has done so and it has been tacitly ignored at times to avoid diplomatic imbroglios but there have also been occassions where British soldiers have been arrested over it

.

They have every place and right to do so if it is in order to protect civillians in N.Ireland or the lives of their fellow officers. This is typical of republicans, support there army in whatever they do with little or no condemnation of any wrong doings, then trying to argue how wrong the British army are in the things that they do. Basically you just want the BA to be walkovers and let the ira get off with everything. Now that is what I call double standards. I remember asking about the Christmas tree lights in Dublin and I was told that the question could not be answered because it hasn't happened etc. Well at least I am answering your 'what ifs', but my 'what ifs' are met with can't answer or its a daft question.

I've said before my father during his time in the Irish army met many British soldiers wandering around who claimed to be 'lost' often up to a dozen miles into Irish territory. Lost while equipped with detailed ordance survey maps it should be pointed out...

So you have said and it may or may not be true. But there are plenty of fathers telling stories which may or may not be true about each of the sides up here.

If I said somethings that were said to me by fathers etc, you would all be demanding links, proof etc and then I would be accused of lying. Ah those old double standards again.

I also told about a civillian being tortured to death. He was kidnapped by the ira infront of gardai who were unarmed. Because he had left the police sometime before taking up his new job his wife thought he would be freed. Instead of that his autopsy report stated that he had injuries similar to being lowered into a bath of boiling water among other things.

What replies did I get? All discarded as lies even though it came from the womans mouth herself and I even provided his name but it was all dismissed as usual because it didn't fit in with the republican thinking. That autopsy reminds me of just how hypocritical republicans are, greeting about wrongfull arrest, house seraches, surveillance yet supporting an organisation that commited such barbaric crimes like the one I just mentioned.

[Blue Angel]

all i'll say wasp is that i have never knowingly caught my father out in a lie in my life - he is not one of the old sweats you find in all armies who make up stories of their brave deeds - he rarely talks about his time in the army and was an untypical soldier as he was very quiet, teetotal and very family oriented. And there are plenty of documented cases of british soldiers been arrested for incursions into the republic including a number who were tried in dublin for it - they are on official record.

okay you say you have no problems with the IDF crossing the border in pursuit of terrorists - fortunately the general staff and Irish govt. know it would be disastrous to do so and trigger a massive furore and so have never done so - having come nearest to doing so at the height of the troubles when they got sent up to the border en masse.

For me personally I'd condemn the torture used by all organisations whether that be the IRA, UVF or the British army itself.

[Wasp]

all i'll say wasp is that i have never knowingly caught my father out in a lie in my life - he is not one of the old sweats you find in all armies who make up stories of their brave deeds - he rarely talks about his time in the army and was an untypical soldier as he was very quiet, teetotal and very family oriented.

I never ever said he was lying, from knowing you on these forums you seem very close to him and family orientated. I was simply pointing out the double standards.

And there are plenty of documented cases of british soldiers been arrested for incursions into the republic including a number who were tried in dublin for it - they are on official record.

Are these in modern times as in during the troubles. What happened in the court case, I would like to hear more about that etc.

okay you say you have no problems with the IDF crossing the border in pursuit of terrorists - fortunately the general staff and Irish govt. know it would be disastrous to do so and trigger a massive furore and so have never done so - having come nearest to doing so at the height of the troubles when they got sent up to the border en masse.

How do you know for sure that they never ever crossed the border even by mistake, perhaps they were undercover?

For me personally I'd condemn the torture used by all organisations whether that be the IRA, UVF or the British army itself.

The retired officer I was talking about suffered terribly and tragically his son died at the same age as a result of a road traffic accident. Both were real nice men, quiet and reserved. The son never got over his fathers death and begged the police to ask the ira to let him give his dad a hug and kiss goodnight. This was before his badly mutilated body was discovered.

[bearhunter]

"the IDF have every right to pursue anyone that attacks them."

WASP, they don't. It's called invasion and it tends to be illegal pretty much everywhere, much like the BA encroaching on Irish soil. They are not allowed to do it, without the express instructions of their Government, which would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

[Jim]

wasp said:

Jim just keep on trying to imply I said different so that it helps your arguement if I have one rule for the British and one for the Irish.

While it would be great for my argument I recognise that you would rather have the irish army up here if it meant a greater "good", so I dont try and use it as a basis for my argument. The basis of my argument is that no nation has a right for any reason to tresspass the sovereignty of others, that includes the irish army coming up here.

Basically you just want the BA to be walkovers and let the ira get off with everything. Now that is what I call double standards. I remember asking about the Christmas tree lights in Dublin and I was told that the question could not be answered because it hasn't happened etc. Well at least I am answering your 'what ifs', but my 'what ifs' are met with can't answer or its a daft question.

No, I want the British Army to fuck off and leave the island of Ireland I make no secrets about that. Your question in Dublin wasnt comparable because there are people in the north elected to do a job that supported the IRA, and there is no one in Dublin elected to do their job that supported those bombs by loyalists/british army. What If's and But's are not real life, even I dont use those that much, it was a daft question.

[Wasp]

bearhunter said:

"the IDF have every right to pursue anyone that attacks them."

WASP, they don't. It's called invasion and it tends to be illegal pretty much everywhere, much like the BA encroaching on Irish soil. They are not allowed to do it, without the express instructions of their Government, which would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

BH you are entitled to your opinion, but if any government had any backbone they would address the other countries government and warn them if you do not co-operate in trying to catch those fleeing across the border, if you do not do more in border areas to prevent these attacks, if these attacks keep occuring then we will take all actions necessary to minimize them. End of.

Take Turkey for example, I have no love for Turkey but I do sympathise with the fact Kurdish rebels are attacking them across the border. The Turks were just right to say that they will cross the border to protect their citizens.

Now if a country was attacking another country with pops at them across the border every now and again, then that country has no right to want to move into the other country to catch those that are attacking them, as one is as bad as the other. But if a country is just being attacked then it has every right to defend itself and its people.

I think the Irish British thing is perhaps clouding peoples judgement, perhaps not but no-one here would want their government to defend its territory even if it means giving chase to those who just launched an attack if the other country was doing naff all or very little to try to stop these attacks.

Jim sometimes in life we have to have the ifs and buts to try and understand what it is like if the shoe was on the other foot. To avoid such questions IMO is just avoiding them because it might shine some bad light or make things a bit tricky. I have been asked so many what ifs or buts here etc, and I try to answer them as best I can. You yourself have used plenty of what ifs or how would you feel etc. I have no problem with that at all.

[Jim]

They do co-operate on many levels already, the BA and the IA, that doesnt give the BA the right to cross a border. Legally the Irish Government could hold those soldiers and should untill an apology is given.

As far as Kurdistan and Turkey go, Turkey has a long way to go before getting my sympathy and while the Kurds are no angels they need to be respected also by the four nations that occupy their land. Kurdistanis have a right to protect their people, also, just because they dont have a country of their own doesnt mean they dont have that right and surely it would be something you as an Ulsterman would be closer with than Turkey?

I've no love for the Irish army and in my opinion, according to international law infact not just my opinion, have no right to cross the border in any way without permission, they are a 26 county force, the British army should respect the border if they are there to maintain it (and they are there to maintain it).

[Wasp]

As far as Kurdistan and Turkey go, Turkey has a long way to go before getting my sympathy and while the Kurds are no angels they need to be respected also by the four nations that occupy their land. Kurdistanis have a right to protect their people, also, just because they dont have a country of their own doesnt mean they dont have that right and surely it would be something you as an Ulsterman would be closer with than Turkey?

I never said I was closer to any of them. I have alot of sympathy for the Kurds especially under Saddam. But the fact remains that kudish rebels were attacking Turkish soldiers in Turkey.

[bearhunter]

wasp said:

As far as Kurdistan and Turkey go, Turkey has a long way to go before getting my sympathy and while the Kurds are no angels they need to be respected also by the four nations that occupy their land. Kurdistanis have a right to protect their people, also, just because they dont have a country of their own doesnt mean they dont have that right and surely it would be something you as an Ulsterman would be closer with than Turkey?

I never said I was closer to any of them. I have alot of sympathy for the Kurds especially under Saddam. But the fact remains that kudish rebels were attacking Turkish soldiers in Turkey.

And so therefore you would have supported the Turks against the invading/encroaching Allied troops at Gallipoli in 1915? You're not making sense WASP. On the one hand you are saying that certain armies (like the Kurdish rebels) should NOT be encroaching on sovereign soil and at the same time other armies (the British Army, apparently) can ignore national boundaries and invade another country as it sees fit and in complete contravention of international law. Make your mind up, would you?

[Wasp]

I don't have to make my mind up, you can twist whatever I say to mean what you want it to mean. I believe that a country has a right to protect itself from an aggressor be that aggressor terrorists/criminals like the ira or a government itself.

Of course some governments are the aggressors and on occasions these aggressors need to be dealt with. But where a country is of no threat to its neighbour then that same country has every right to defend itself. I think you know fine well what I mean but you are trying to twist things around, trying to dissect my words to come up with something else.

You are jumping all over the place to suit your arguement, we have been talking about the troubles era and up to the present day where I stated the British had every right to go into the republic for surveillance etc as most countries have spies anyway. I clearly stated my reasons for supporting it and I clearly said that the IDF had the same right as did any nation that was under threat from one country and that country was doing nothing to minimize that threat.

Twist all you want, I know what I said and what I meant but you sem to have this habit of dissecting my words to mean something else or putting them into completely different scenarios.

[Jim]

There is no twisting here, only truth; the british army cant respect irish sovereignty (they never could, to be honest, must still think we're in the commonwealth), thats about it. Hardly surprising, for a country that made its power from invading other people.

[Harry]

jim said:

So you would not want them staring through your front window but its fine if you cant see them, is that the message?

Harry the IRA are the only ones to make any moves to give up their guns, so yes I would say it is genuine, after 30 years of refusing to budge it was very significant. Dissidents are another matter completely, I'm assuming you mean the provisionals when you say "IRA".

British soldiers spying on people is more likely to give dissidents fuel. Its the Governments way of keeping control over you, a government that hasnt ever recieved a single vote in this state, if the Assembly wasnt up it would be a text book dictatorship and the Armies activities certainly resemble that. While you may be mortified if they stopped I wouldnt.

When was the last IRA bomb? When was the last time a Provo opened fire on the RUC or the British army?

Of course i wouldn't want them staring in my window but all this hype and lies make it out that the BA are watching an entire community. It isn't the case, surveillance should be for individuals or groups of individuals and not used to invade anyones privacy. If you have nothing to hide i can guarantee any of you that you will not or never come under surveillance.

I'm not stating the IRA aren't genuine but again i can guarantee that the IRA still has the capacity to strike and hasn't entirely dissolved like some of you on here try and make out. Until then i have no doubt major players within the IRA will still be watched. When the IRA cease to exsist then the covert ops will stop. Dissident republicans pose a real threat, while nowhere near the level of the IRA, it is a credible threat and the shooting of 2 PSNI officers only adds weight to this assertion.

The last time the IRA did anything is irrelevant. They are one of the most sophisticated Terrorist organisations in the world and their lack of activity is truly welcomed but its no time for complacency. I don't advocate harrassment but i do support the idea of keeping a watchful eye.

[Harry]

bearhunter said:

Harry, I can understand your suspicion of the PIRA, but considering they at least have given up their guns (or a sizeable amount of them anyway) I would be more trusting of them than, say, the UDA/UVF who have given nothing but empty promises dressed up in archaic rhetoric. I'd rather have the guns than any poxy promises.
WASP, firstly, can I ask do you believe it is acceptable for the British Army to enter the Republic covertly to spy people here? And while your eagerness to help the security forces defeat terrorism, even to the extent of changing the judicial system to make it easier to get a conviction, would you also then advocate the suspension of habeas corpus and a return to Diplock Courts? Will you be lining up for a security pass/ID card when Brown hands them out because this will help defeat terrorism? Will you be happy ewnough to have to carry a passport/ID card when you travel between NI and Britain, despite the fact that you see them as one country, because this is helping reduce the threat of terrorism?

BH i recognise the steps the IRA have taken and i would expect the UDA,UVF to be treated and watched just the same as the IRA. I don't have any real fear that the IRA are suddenly going to unleash a war again but for now they can't just be left to have a free run as the dangers of individuals deflecting to more hardline Republicanism must be guarded against.

[Jim]

Theres not much I can say against your post then, its sensible, but the one problem I do have is that you dont put so much survelliance equipment across the black mountain to look at a handful of men, they are looking at the entire community because the IRA are within that community. Everyone always was and always will be a suspect, anyone old enough to shoot a gun.

[Harry]

jim said:

Theres not much I can say against your post then, its sensible, but the one problem I do have is that you dont put so much survelliance equipment across the black mountain to look at a handful of men, they are looking at the entire community because the IRA are within that community. Everyone always was and always will be a suspect, anyone old enough to shoot a gun.

I don't agree Jim. Intel i'm almost certain will know 99.9% of those involved or who have been involved with violent republicanism. The others will be left to get on with normal life.