H.E.T...Locals did try to help dying soldier

[DavidCaldwell]

What I said was " in a position to deal say "Aquinas on a just war" in the context of the British Army/Security forces in Northern Ireland?"

I did not say anything about PIRA!!!!!!!!

So are you able to expand your views of the "British Army/Security forces in Northern Ireland" in terms of "Aquinas on a just war"?

The army was deployed to maintain rule of law and policing - it wasn't waging a war. In any case, its actions met the just war criteria.

Or would you have prefered the government to abandon the population to the care of the IRA and UVF?

[Mickeymac]

[QUOTE=DavidCaldwell;4915045]The army was deployed to maintain rule of law and policing - it wasn't waging a war. In any case, its actions met the just war criteria.



Try telling that David to the many victim's families they (BA) deprived of their loved ones

[DavidCaldwell]

[QUOTE=Mickeymac;4915254]

The army was deployed to maintain rule of law and policing - it wasn't waging a war. In any case, its actions met the just war criteria.



Try telling that David to the many victim's families they (BA) deprived of their loved ones

My remark was phrased badly. The deployment of the army met the just war criteria. Some of the army's actions - e.g. Bloody Sunday - were unjust, were murder. May I express my sorrow and regret about these.

[McSlaggart]

The army was deployed to maintain rule of law and policing - it wasn't waging a war.

Was the IRA waging a war?

[Mickeymac]

[QUOTE=DavidCaldwell;4915304]

My remark was phrased badly. The deployment of the army met the just war criteria. Some of the army's actions - e.g. Bloody Sunday - were unjust, were murder. May I express my sorrow and regret about these.

Unionists need to get this whole BA involvement into perspective......Do unionists honestly believe that the Catholic community suddenly woke up one morning despising them after embracing them when they arrived in '69, do they ever stop to think WHY that happened?

[Castle Ray]

Was the IRA waging a war?

That's an interesting question and one that pro-IRA people want to hear answered in the affirmative to try and justify their actions / support.

I think in their hearts they had convinced themselves they were but in their heads they knew they weren't. How else can their political wing support the system and its investigation of their actions with criminal prosecutions for those found guilty? Unless maybe they are admitting the IRA was defeated, but they deny that position. Seems they are very inconsistent with their own view on your question at best.

[Mickeymac]

That's an interesting question and one that pro-IRA people want to hear answered in the affirmative to try and justify their actions / support.

I think in their hearts they had convinced themselves they were but in their heads they knew they weren't. How else can their political wing support the system and its investigation of their actions with criminal prosecutions for those found guilty? Unless maybe they are admitting the IRA was defeated, but they deny that position. Seems they are very inconsistent with their own view on your question at best.

Why not just answer the question Ray without all that baloney you posted?

[gweedo prophet]

If we try to take a broader approach, it tends to push us towards the use of universal rules. Think about a few general approaches that are generally accepted as reasonable - pragmatic ones such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, normal legal systems (say Denmark), Aquinas on a just war, or philosophical ones such as Kant's categorical imperative, Rawls' veil of ignorance etc - and think whether the PIRA campaign was justified by these criteria.

With regards to an overall judgement of the morality of the actions of the British Army in Northern Ireland, we differ not so much in terms of principles as in assessment of the facts. If I believed that the Army had arranged for the the killing of civilians to be carried out by the UVF, then I would have your low opinion of its actions. But I do not believe this. Please remember that I have some inside knowledge of its way of operating. Also, perhaps think about how convenient such difficult-to-verify beliefs can be.

With respect your claim on insider knowledge to refute collusion does little to inspire confidence and suggests more a decent individual unwilling or unable to accept the reality of the actions of his beloved army. Similar perhaps to a dedicated IRA volunteer unable to accept the worst excesses of this organisation. Your insinuation that collusion is a convenient myth borders on the insensitive and surprising for a poster such as yourself.

Incidentally how do you feel the british army stacks up in terms of the UDHR Article 3 and the right to life, liberty and security of person - when viewed in the context of issues such as Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy massacre, the New Lodge six, shoot to kill, internment, established links to loyalist murder gangs murdering innocent catholics etc. Are all these (and more) really just lapses in control to you?

[DavidCaldwell]

Gweedo Prophet, MickeyMac,

A word of warning. The following thoughts may come across as insensitive and insulting. That is not the intention. Rather, I wish simply to put forward my impression of the truth. If you do not wish to read more about a view of the world in which Republicanism is seen rather badly, please do not read on. I do not wish to insult you, just to say what I believe. Incidently, I do acknowledge that I may be mistaken.

First the less contentious bit. I recognise that the initial good relations between the army and the Catholic population broke down. There were two main causes, that amplified each other
- mistakes and bad behaviour from the army
- the decision of PIRA to kill soldiers, to launch a campaign to achieve a united Ireland through the use of violence.
At it simplest, consider the fact that soldiers (but also any human) will not be in the best, kindest of moods if someone has just shot at them, if they have just seen one of their best friends blown to pieces.

The more contentious bit - collusion. Although Republicanism will have felt it was under attack from a coalition of the Loyalist Paramilitaries and the security forces, I do not believe that such a coalition really existed. The Loyalist paramilitaries predated the conflict (showing that they were not the creation of the security forces) and were targeted and arrested in large numbers (although I would agree that they were a lower priority than PIRA, at least most of the time).
You say that I may be "unwilling or unable to accept the reality". Possibly, but at the end of the day, it is not a big deal to me. If there was collusion, it was wrong, but certainly no worse the bombing of German cities. I know that British Army does bad things at times - my belief in it is based on the idea that others doing worse sometimes have to be stopped).
Now the really contentious bit. Republicanism might also be "unwilling or unable to accept the reality". It is a bigger deal - Republicanism defines itself by the legitimacy of the struggle against British jurisdiction in Ireland.

A final thought. I am a Catholic, as I imagine you are. I used to believe that the Catholic priesthood was over-whelmingly benign, as I imagine you did. I have been proved wrong. There is a possibility that one or all of us are wrong now, and that one or all of us needs to rethink our assumptions that an organisation we sympathise with was predominantly in the right. (I am not assuming that you do hold such sympathies - the remark would apply only if you did).

[Young Ned]

That's an interesting question and one that pro-IRA people want to hear answered in the affirmative to try and justify their actions / support.

I think in their hearts they had convinced themselves they were but in their heads they knew they weren't. How else can their political wing support the system and its investigation of their actions with criminal prosecutions for those found guilty? Unless maybe they are admitting the IRA was defeated, but they deny that position. Seems they are very inconsistent with their own view on your question at best.

I've always struggled with the view that they're inconsistent. You're not the first one I've heard say that, but in my mind it's the unionists who are incosistent in that, they want to view them as criminals when it suits, and as war criminals when that suits.

You can't have it both ways.