Patrick Finucane

[ViolentPanda]

I think there is a very human tendancy to see large powerful organisations as monolithic and unchanging. The state is just as transient. People come and go in jobs. They retire. Departments are closed. Organisational maps a changed.

You may have noticed that I didn't say that the state was static (or perhaps not). And sure, pieces of the apparatus change, as do the personnel manning the apparatus, but the basic behaviour of the state does not.

My point is that if we are, rightly, going to be cynical about the methods and motivations of the state, it seems a bit illogical to at the same time carry high expectations of the moral behaviour of the state.

I have no expectations. In fact it's the expectations that the state imposes on itself (rules of good behaviour, so to speak) knowing that it will observe thme most often in the breach, that I find interesting.

 

[Blagsta]

And yet it is naive to expect them to protect you when the core power structures in that society are threatened. I don't believe Governments tend to orchestrate these extra-judicial killings. I just think that elements within those governments turn a blind eye to the excesses of their allies.

This one was orchestrated.

 

[Blagsta]

Up to the point where you start planting bombs yes.

This is hang 'em and flog 'em logic.

 

[elbows]

and what about those DROPPING bombs? eh?

Now you've done it, somewhere a bunch of daleks will start shrieking 'There is no moral equivalence, exterminate, exterminate!'

 

[likesfish]

When you have terrorists insurgents whatever title you want running about.
Things get messy rapidly .
Even with every excuse.
Republicans killed twice the number loyalists did and the british killed a 1/3 of the loyalist total.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

When you have terrorists insurgents whatever title you want running about.
Things get messy rapidly .
Even with every excuse.
Republicans killed twice the number loyalists did and the british killed a 1/3 of the loyalist total.

 

[Idaho]

Where does that data come from Louis? Looks interesting.

 

[Idaho]

You may have noticed that I didn't say that the state was static (or perhaps not). And sure, pieces of the apparatus change, as do the personnel manning the apparatus, but the basic behaviour of the state does not.


I have no expectations. In fact it's the expectations that the state imposes on itself (rules of good behaviour, so to speak) knowing that it will observe thme most often in the breach, that I find interesting.

Holding the state to it's own self-declared standards is reasonable. I just think that by doing so you cement that (false) belief that the state has those high standards.

 

[likesfish]

Summary of Organisation responsible for the death:
Organisation_Summary Count
British Security 363
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1016
not known 84
Republican Paramilitary 2061
TOTAL
3529

this is from the cain website makes the whole sorry mess plain you can spend a depressing time finding who killed who where and on what day

 

[Pickman's model]

Summary of Organisation responsible for the death:
Organisation_Summary Count
British Security 363
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1016
not known 84
Republican Paramilitary 2061
TOTAL
3529

this is from the cain website makes the whole sorry mess plain you can spend a depressing time finding who killed who where and on what day

but it's not fucking accurate! at least one death should be removed from 'loyalist paramilitaries' and placed under 'british security'.

 

[Idaho]

but it's not fucking accurate! at least one death should be removed from 'loyalist paramilitaries' and placed under 'british security'.

I don't think that makes much of a difference to the ratios.

 

[likesfish]

well it was a britsh agent i.e a terrorist who was taking money not the most reliable of types at the best of times so not actually british security so technically a loyalist kill .
if your going to do stuff like that you better take 40 or so off the provos for stakeknifes fun and games as well etc etc.

 

[framed]

And on the evidence of that graphic: more than half of those killed by the 'British Security Forces' were civilians, the vast majority (around 80%) of those killed by 'loyalists' were civilians, and the overwhelming majority of those killed by 'perpetrators unknown' were civilians. However, the majority of those killed by republican organisations were members of the British Security Forces. Of course, there are far too many civilians included in the republican body count, but it does suggest that their primary target was the British state rather than innocent civilians, or even loyalist paramilitaries. They killed more touts and rivals on their own side than members of loyalist organisations, which puts the lie to the idea of a 'civil war' that involved only 'two sides' - loyalist and republican. There was a war alright, but it was between the forces of Irish republicanism and the British state, as represented by their army on the streets. Loyalism is a sideshow.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think that makes much of a difference to the ratios.

as one of the major supermarkets says, every little helps.

 

[likesfish]

They achieved the sum of gerry and martin getting well paid jobs.
A glorious victory to be sure.

 

[Deareg]

So this guy makes a career of defending murderers in court and then his family get all upset when his murderers are not brought to justice?

I have to admit there are people for whom I feel more sympathy.

What about defence solicitors in England, Would you feel such apathy if the police started setting them up to be murdered as well?

 

[Deareg]

If Finucane felt this way, why didn't he defend loyalists as well?

If he was being labelled as an IRA member, How many Loyalists do you think would have used his services?

 

[Firky]

Christ, when you see it laid out like that.

 

[Deareg]

Also many of those who were killed were killed by people who were at the time working as agents for one or other branch of the state so the body counts of those can be added to.

 

[Firky]

I bet there's lots of "missing persons" too.

 

[likesfish]

No theres not The british state was not into free falling dissidents into the irish sea.
Pira managd to dissapear a few.

 

[Deareg]

No theres not The british state was not into free falling dissidents into the irish sea.
Pira managd to dissapear a few.

So it is all right to kill someone as long as there is a funeral afterwards.

 

[Idaho]

I bet there's lots of "missing persons" too.

Who would you attribute those too?

 

[Firky]

Who would you attribute those too?

Well I'd need to know who was missing and their background to have even the vaguest of guesses.

 

[framed]

I bet there's lots of "missing persons" too.

No theres not The british state was not into free falling dissidents into the irish sea.
Pira managd to dissapear a few.

bbc - the disappeared

16 in total according to most sources, including the republican movement and the Irish & British governments. Hardly enough to make a dent on the figures, and further proof that the main thrust of republican military strategy was aimed at the British military presence and institutions symbolic of the British government and the British economy.

 

[Firky]

Mother of Disappeared victim dies

Can't imagine what it must be like going to your deathbed never knowing what happened to your children. He was 17. A kid.

 

[SpookyFrank]

However, the majority of those killed by republican organisations were members of the British Security Forces. Of course, there are far too many civilians included in the republican body count, but it does suggest that their primary target was the British state rather than innocent civilians, or even loyalist paramilitaries.

I seriously doubt that any of those civillians would give three-fifths of a fuck who the IRA's 'primary target' was, not least because thanks to the IRA they're now dead.

 

[framed]

I seriously doubt that any of those civillians would give three-fifths of a fuck who the IRA's 'primary target' was, not least because thank to the IRA they're now dead.

Three-fifths of a fcuk or not, the point remains that the IRA were for the most part fighting the British Army, not the loyalists or the civilian population. That's not an excuse for them killing innocent civilians, it's just a cold fact based on the numbers.

Proportionally speaking, Likesfish's army killed more civilians than the IRA did. If we're talking 'kill ratios' rather than bleeding hearts, the IRA did very well in comparison to the other combatants in the war.

 

[likesfish]

And what the fuck did 30 years of slaughter achieve?

 

[Idaho]

Proportionally? Sorry but that is a dreadful argument.