Christy Walsh On 6th March, Colonel Richards Kemp tweeted about the summary execution of 3 unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar. I quote:

Operation Flavius. Today, 1988, 3 IRA terrorists intent on mass murder of British forces in Gibraltar were killed by the SAS with back up from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regt. The Israeli intelligence service Mossad played a key role in intelligence & surveillance.

The next day he had an article published in The Daily Telegraph condemning the Russians for a similar war crime of the summary execution of an unarmed Ukrainian soldier- who was also engaged in violent resistent to the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine. Kemp had this to say of the Russian war crime:

A shocking video has been circulating in the last few days that appears to show a Ukrainian prisoner of war being gunned down by his Russian captors as he utters what he knows are the last words he will ever say: ‘Slava Ukraini’ – glory to Ukraine. This image of heroic defiance against appalling brutality should send a chilling message to Vladimir Putin after a year of butchery in Ukraine: you can murder and torture us all you like, but you cannot defeat our will to fight.

The only meaningful difference between these summary executions is The Rome Statute, which was adopted on 17th July 1998. The Rome Statute created the International Criminal Court (ICC) where war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity can be prosecuted. Proof of that fact has just arisen, as of 19th March 2023, an Australian SAS Soldier has been charged with the war crime of “shooting dead a prone Afghan man, who is lying with his hands up, in a wheat field in southern Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province.”[1]

It should never be forgotten that Brit Colonels like Kemp invented narrative warfare to excuse the atrocities they and their soldiers have committed around the world. Did you know that during the Brits occupation of places like Malaysia and Kenya they routinely severed the heads and hands of their victims?

In blazing heat or sweltering humidity they lugged the dead weight of sacks over open plains or through impenetrable jungles containing numerous hands and decapitated heads back to the villages. This is where narrative warfare kicks in - the heads were stuck on spikes and villagers rounded up, a terror tactic and war crime? Not according to Kemp’s predecessors: it was on the auspices to see if the villagers could identify the deceased. The severed hands were necessary for fingerprinting purposes back at the barrack. Photographs of jungle patrols back then confirm they had cameras; they could have photographed the corpses and saved days of marching while lugging decomposing human remains about with them. And a simple ink pad and some paper would have been a much lighter and civilised means of taking fingerprints.

On a more progressive note: The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has immeasurably improved the way the ICC operates. In previous atrocities in places like Rwanda or Sarajevo the ICC did not get involved until the conflicts were over and investigations can take decades. They faced incredible hurdles in the recovery of evidence and tracing witnesses.

In areas where the Russians have been forced to retreat hundreds of bodies are found.[2] The number of crimes registered by Ukraine’s general prosecutor surpassed 11,200 and Unicef reported that at least 100 children were killed in the war in April alone. On 12th May 2022 the first war crimes trial got under way. Vadim Shishimarin a 21-year-old Russian soldier appeared in the dock accused of killing an unarmed civilian. He faces life in prison if convicted.[3]

In another case, which is likely to he heard in absentia, a soldier named as Mikhail Romanov is accused of breaking into a house in a village in the Brovarsky region in March, murdering a man and repeatedly raping his wife while “threatening her and her child with violence and weapons”. A second soldier also raped the 33-year-old woman and it is understood prosecutors believe they know his identity.

The UN has received “credible allegations” that Russian forces had used cluster munitions in populated areas. The UN has despatched nearly 60 UN human rights monitors in Ukraine, and have verified 77 incidents in which medical facilities were damaged, including 50 hospitals. Ukrainian cities have been pounded by airstrikes and heavy shelling in Russia’s five-week-old invasion, killing civilians and destroying hospitals in acts that may amount to war crimes.[4] Throughout Ukraine, the United Nations has so far documented 8317 civilian deaths and 13.892 injuries since the war began.[5]

Most notably, The ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his commissioner for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia since Moscow's invasion in 2022. The indoctrination of these children into Russian culture could elevate the charges to genocide. Of course there is slim chance Putin will ever be arrested unless Ukraine win the war and he is handed over as part of any settlement.

Back to Kemp: in 1978 he was an infantry platoon commander when he experienced his first enemy fire on the Falls Road. In total he did 8 tours of the occupied 6 counties and at some point he was wounded in a mortar attack in South Armagh. By Kemp's own account he has spent most his life fighting terrorism and insurgency, commanding British troops on the front line of some of the world’s toughest hotspots, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. More recently, he spent his time in Downing Street as head of the international terrorism team at the Joint Intelligence Committee. He has Chaired the Cobra Intelligence Group, responsible for coordinating the work of the national intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6. In retirement, he is a Senior Associate Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, a militarist think tank of war mongers, and a board member of Friends of Israel Initiative – I presume Kemp is the Mossad connection involved in Gibraltar. (See: Colonel Richard Kemp.


[1] Former SAS soldier arrested and charged in NSW for alleged war crime over killing of Afghan civilian.


⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Colonel Richard Kemp Distinguising British And Russian War Crimes

Christy Walsh On 6th March, Colonel Richards Kemp tweeted about the summary execution of 3 unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar. I quote:

Operation Flavius. Today, 1988, 3 IRA terrorists intent on mass murder of British forces in Gibraltar were killed by the SAS with back up from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regt. The Israeli intelligence service Mossad played a key role in intelligence & surveillance.

The next day he had an article published in The Daily Telegraph condemning the Russians for a similar war crime of the summary execution of an unarmed Ukrainian soldier- who was also engaged in violent resistent to the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine. Kemp had this to say of the Russian war crime:

A shocking video has been circulating in the last few days that appears to show a Ukrainian prisoner of war being gunned down by his Russian captors as he utters what he knows are the last words he will ever say: ‘Slava Ukraini’ – glory to Ukraine. This image of heroic defiance against appalling brutality should send a chilling message to Vladimir Putin after a year of butchery in Ukraine: you can murder and torture us all you like, but you cannot defeat our will to fight.

The only meaningful difference between these summary executions is The Rome Statute, which was adopted on 17th July 1998. The Rome Statute created the International Criminal Court (ICC) where war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity can be prosecuted. Proof of that fact has just arisen, as of 19th March 2023, an Australian SAS Soldier has been charged with the war crime of “shooting dead a prone Afghan man, who is lying with his hands up, in a wheat field in southern Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province.”[1]

It should never be forgotten that Brit Colonels like Kemp invented narrative warfare to excuse the atrocities they and their soldiers have committed around the world. Did you know that during the Brits occupation of places like Malaysia and Kenya they routinely severed the heads and hands of their victims?

In blazing heat or sweltering humidity they lugged the dead weight of sacks over open plains or through impenetrable jungles containing numerous hands and decapitated heads back to the villages. This is where narrative warfare kicks in - the heads were stuck on spikes and villagers rounded up, a terror tactic and war crime? Not according to Kemp’s predecessors: it was on the auspices to see if the villagers could identify the deceased. The severed hands were necessary for fingerprinting purposes back at the barrack. Photographs of jungle patrols back then confirm they had cameras; they could have photographed the corpses and saved days of marching while lugging decomposing human remains about with them. And a simple ink pad and some paper would have been a much lighter and civilised means of taking fingerprints.

On a more progressive note: The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has immeasurably improved the way the ICC operates. In previous atrocities in places like Rwanda or Sarajevo the ICC did not get involved until the conflicts were over and investigations can take decades. They faced incredible hurdles in the recovery of evidence and tracing witnesses.

In areas where the Russians have been forced to retreat hundreds of bodies are found.[2] The number of crimes registered by Ukraine’s general prosecutor surpassed 11,200 and Unicef reported that at least 100 children were killed in the war in April alone. On 12th May 2022 the first war crimes trial got under way. Vadim Shishimarin a 21-year-old Russian soldier appeared in the dock accused of killing an unarmed civilian. He faces life in prison if convicted.[3]

In another case, which is likely to he heard in absentia, a soldier named as Mikhail Romanov is accused of breaking into a house in a village in the Brovarsky region in March, murdering a man and repeatedly raping his wife while “threatening her and her child with violence and weapons”. A second soldier also raped the 33-year-old woman and it is understood prosecutors believe they know his identity.

The UN has received “credible allegations” that Russian forces had used cluster munitions in populated areas. The UN has despatched nearly 60 UN human rights monitors in Ukraine, and have verified 77 incidents in which medical facilities were damaged, including 50 hospitals. Ukrainian cities have been pounded by airstrikes and heavy shelling in Russia’s five-week-old invasion, killing civilians and destroying hospitals in acts that may amount to war crimes.[4] Throughout Ukraine, the United Nations has so far documented 8317 civilian deaths and 13.892 injuries since the war began.[5]

Most notably, The ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his commissioner for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia since Moscow's invasion in 2022. The indoctrination of these children into Russian culture could elevate the charges to genocide. Of course there is slim chance Putin will ever be arrested unless Ukraine win the war and he is handed over as part of any settlement.

Back to Kemp: in 1978 he was an infantry platoon commander when he experienced his first enemy fire on the Falls Road. In total he did 8 tours of the occupied 6 counties and at some point he was wounded in a mortar attack in South Armagh. By Kemp's own account he has spent most his life fighting terrorism and insurgency, commanding British troops on the front line of some of the world’s toughest hotspots, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. More recently, he spent his time in Downing Street as head of the international terrorism team at the Joint Intelligence Committee. He has Chaired the Cobra Intelligence Group, responsible for coordinating the work of the national intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6. In retirement, he is a Senior Associate Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, a militarist think tank of war mongers, and a board member of Friends of Israel Initiative – I presume Kemp is the Mossad connection involved in Gibraltar. (See: Colonel Richard Kemp.


[1] Former SAS soldier arrested and charged in NSW for alleged war crime over killing of Afghan civilian.


⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

58 comments:

  1. When you go somewhere with the express intent of blowing up British Soldiers you can hardly expect other British Soldiers to be thinking about your welfare. The real question is who ratted the 3 Provo's out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve - when I spoke to Clive Fairweather about the Gibraltar killings and asked him if it was murder, this was his response: ‘it was not murder but it was as close to murder as can be.’ There might be a question regarding how the IRA volunteers were discovered but as The Fenian Way has stated it is lazy to always look for the informer. Gibraltar was one of those situations that demonstrated where the rule of law becomes the mask behind which the rule of law enforcement is applied. Christy is not expecting that the British military would be concerned about the welfare of IRA people. What he is making clear is that Russian killings and British killings in the circumstances cited both come under the rubric of war crime.

      Delete
    2. Enoch Powell, of all people, took great issue with the Gibraltar killings.

      The incident highlighted the duplicity of British policy at that time; the Troubles were essentially a crime wave perpetuated by illegal organisations and the ultimate goal to the security forces was to uphold the law but simultaneously it was a war and that same law could be discarded as the government of the day saw fit to prosecute the war that wasn't a war.

      I think the most accepted interpretation of the Gibraltar ambush now is that Thatcher and her cabinet fully intended to let the IRA trio come to Gibraltar to send the IRA, and the world, a message.

      Delete
  2. Steve

    Just like the Ukrianian solder was on his way to blow up Russians-do you have a problem with that? And they were known to be unarmed. Had the Gibraltar executions occured after 1998 it would have been a war crime just like the SAS Soldier has been charged for the summary execution, post 1998, of an Afgan man with his hands up.

    Even under the Geneva Convention it is a war crime but that Convention is more a moral code to be followed rather than enforced. The ICC provides actual accountability.

    Steve, are you arguing that the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute should be scrapped generally or just when the Brits commit war crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've little doubt that the 3 of them were never leaving that island alive. Considering that back then 90 percent of the SAS came from the Paras and warranpoint would have been on their mind it was inevitable.

    Christy, did the IRA ever bother with the Rome statute or Geneva convention?

    AM,

    The Fenian Way also claims the IRA is the only " National " army. How many war crimes did they commit? I still haven't heard his opinion on the Irish Defence Forces.

    War is a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy Walsh comments
      Steve

      Killing for revenge is a war crime. The Brits can't murder anyone unarmed and no threat anymore than the Russians can. You are simply defending the indefensible.

      And yes the IRA did follow international rules but like the Brits, not all of the time.

      I would also point out that Kemp alleges that Mossad was involved. you suggest an informer... it is safe to assume that all the Intel knew it would be a bomb attack and none were carrying anything bulky to the attack area and at the time of the executions they were leaving Gibraltar... there was absolutely no imminent threat at the time of their executions.

      Delete
    2. "And yes the IRA did follow international rules but like the Brits, not all of the time."

      Come again?

      Delete
  4. that is not in dispute nor what the article is about - inevitability tells us nothing about the rightness or wrongness of an act. The IRA had to take it on the chin much as it did when Loughall happened. But the families of those dead do not have to take it on the chin. They have the right to query the claims made on behalf of the killers. Is there a single country that the British have invaded in which they did not perpetrate war crimes and atrocity? And when you have a military with such a reputation coming onto the streets it also seems inevitable that people will take up arms against them, and particularly when a community has it confirmed for them by the same type of atrocities being carried out in Derry and Ballymurphy. What other way was it ever going to go? The people who deserve praise are those who did everything to prevent it going that way but blame should not be hurled in the direction of those who fought back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, but any semblance of moral high ground is completely eroded when the first drop of innocents blood is shed. I've no problem saying Bloody Sunday and the murph were war crimes and condemn as such, but if we are to say it was a war then war crimes are inevitable. What war would be complete without them?

      Delete
    2. "The [loyalist groups] set itself the strategic goal of killing people merely because they belonged to a particular unarmed civilian population. The IRA did not have that as a strategic goal." That is wrong. The Provos had the strategic goal of killing non-combatants to terrorise the community. A browse through Lost Lives should put you right.

      Delete
    3. I think one of the above commenters has read Lost Lives more closely than yourself and has provided some instructive data from it. On a minority of occasions the IRA inexcusably did target civilians but the general thrust of its campaign was not aimed at killing civilians. It was directed at killing security force personnel and loyalist activists. The only body that had the goal of killing civilians as its central strategic spine was the loyalists. I think most people on this blog at any rate would be open to persuasion if you could provide data rather than generalisations. Every group in the northern conflict used terror. What we have been trying to tease out here without getting on our high horse and exercising bragging rights is the extent to which each of the combatant groups targeted civilians for death. Members of the body you belonged to in or out of uniform killed more civilians than combatants. Yet, it would be inaccurate to claim that the overriding strategic goal of the UDR was to kill civilians.
      As for Lost Lives, a great resource but for some time I have suggested it needs updated. It has a very narrow typology of those responsible for killings. Yet, as the time has elapsed since the conflict we have learned more and more about the role of state forces in those killings. How do we assign culpability to one group for, say, the killings carried out by Stakeknife or Mark Haddock? It seems to me that we really are talking about joint enterprise of some sort.

      Delete
    4. I have never mentioned the state forces nor have I argued that the main focus of the Provos was civilians. I have no data and no desire to trawl through it. What is self evident though is that the Provos had a stragey of hitting "economic" targets, fire bombing shops, bombing factories and businesses, putting car bombs in town and city centres. This is clearly targeting non-combatant civilians. Many died from mistakes, heart attacks, panic attacks etc, many lost jobs, livelihoods and hope, and the Provos kept going even when they knew the effect it was having on innocent people. This, in my view, is a clear strategy to terrorise non-combatant civilians for political leverage. This is not a broad strategy to kill individuals like the loyalists did, it is nevertheless the targeting of civilians. Other targets were military but in such circumstances that civilian deaths were inevitable. Again, this is not specific individual targeting but at the very least a complete disregard for civilian lives. I hold to my opinion that you were wrong to say that the Provos didn't have the killing of civilians as a strategic goal.

      Delete
    5. It is evidence that the IRA had an economic bombing campaign that targeted the property of civilians but not the civilians themselves for assassination - which is the substance of the discussion. The IRA was aware of the impact it had on people but like every other group carried on regardless. That was a by-product of IRA strategy not the end goal. The was negligence, indifference, callousness - but none of that amounts to a strategy that had as its core objective the death of civilians.
      But at least there is some agreement that the IRA unlike the loyalists did not have as a broad strategy the killing of individual civilians.
      We each think the other is wrong but I feel I am guided by the data and not by a bias in favour of the IRA.

      Delete
    6. So, after Claudy, Bloody Friday and La Mon, they continued with the same tactics. And this was down to "negligence, indifference, [and] callousness"? I can't agree. I believe they wanted a turn over of civilian deaths to terroise the community. Most attacks were carried out on Protestant and middle class stoop voting Catholic areas, I think that is telling. But we will agree to disagree on this one.

      Delete
  5. War crimes are inevitable but so is disease. We are obligated to prevent them to whatever extent it is possible to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can we prevent a war crime when the very fact of war has meant diplomacy has failed?

      Delete
    2. Steve

      War crimes are preventable and the ICC adds a deterence.

      ("And yes the IRA did follow international rules but like the Brits, not all of the time."

      Come again?)

      Simply re-read it.

      The IRA was influenced by Internationla law -for example they did make genuine attempts to avoid civilian fatalies -even to the point of reporting the whereabouts of an abandoned bomb attack for the brits to defuse.

      My guess is you are confusing British law with international law --British law says its unlawful to kill their soldiers -international law does not.

      Delete
    3. "-for example they did make genuine attempts to avoid civilian fatalies"

      I must have missed this on Bloody Friday, Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Teebane and the Shankill. My fucking hole they tried to avoid civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians then claiming mistaken identity when in reality they knew it was a Prod might fly with the gormless yanks but it didn't and doesn't fly with us. See Brandon's article below , killing kids OK with "International Law", is it?

      Delete
    4. I think we know what happened on all the operations you outline: Bloody Friday was a total calamity where they failed to realise that they were placing the RUC and British Army in an impossible position in that neither could have shepherded the civilians to safety. The intention was not to kill civilians. Kingsmill was a war crime; Enniskillen little better. Teebane was a calculated attempt to take out ancillary workers to the security services. They were not seen as civilians. The Shankill was not a direct attack on civilians - but they took a chance and in playing it so close to the wire lost one of their own volunteers to death and another seriously injured. For the most part the IRA did try to avoid civilian casualties. Unlike the loyalist campaign which at the meta-strategic level was a war crime, the IRA's campaign was significantly different. As horrific as it could be it was not a war against a civilian population. I think that is the difference Brandon is trying to tease out.

      Delete
    5. "Teebane was a calculated attempt to take out ancillary workers to the security services. They were not seen as civilians."

      They were to us.

      Delete
    6. well that immediately allows us to see the problematic. Loyalism cannot see ancillary workers with the Repressive State Apparatuses as something other than civilians while seeing non involved nationalist civilians as legitimate targets.

      Delete
    7. Yes, that's the rationale behind tit for tat. Sean Graham bookies was hit for Teebane. Greysteele for the Shankill.

      Delete
    8. Tit for tat was not the rationale for the loyalist campaign. That was a campaign which by its very nature was a war crime. It was the deliberate targeting of a civilian population not involved in any war effort. That was its general content. That does not rule out it engaging in retaliation. Even the attacks you refer to were people selected to be killed for no reason other than their perceived religion as part of the any Taig will do mentality. Nobody on the Shankill or at Teebane was targeted for their religion. That is not to justify either, but to identify it for what it was.

      Delete
    9. Well this is a blind spot Republicans have, perceiving their actions as being solely about engaging the Brits while ignoring the sectarian dimension to it. The reality felt very different to us.

      Delete
    10. For it to be a blind spot we would have to be incapable of having that more panoramic view that we need to have if we are to grasp the IRA campaign. Brandon outlines it pretty well while avoiding Godwin's Law - even though he thinks he invoked it.

      The IRA carried out a broad range of attacks. The bulk of its campaign was directed at the British state but it did stray viciously into other areas particularly during the mid 70s. For this reason there has been no shortage of people on this blog willing to flag up war crimes for which the IRA bears culpability. But I find it impossible to regard the general IRA campaign as a war crime whereas I find it impossible to regard the general Loyalist campaign as not being a war crime. The latter set itself the strategic goal of killing people merely because they belonged to a particular unarmed civilian population. The IRA did not have that as a strategic goal. Were there occasions on which the IRA did just that? Kingsmill.

      Delete
    11. Not a strategic goal, unvarnished revenge, the most base of human emotions. Whether the driving force behind it differs it's cutting edge was viewed as I've pointed out by my community.

      Delete
    12. The Provos like to think they had lofty, morally justifiable grounds to end the lives of 6 young workers, but the world and his wife know that the real reason had a sectarian element. And the Provos knew how it would be perceived in the PUL community, and that the serve would be returned. So, the Provos must take their share of the blame for what happened in the bookies. Nearly a dozen lives lost and scores more ruined for absolutely fuck all.

      Delete
    13. The IRA killed Catholic ancillary workers. The sectarian element where it may be said to exist lay in the likelihood that they would not have killed eight Catholic ancillary workers.
      The IRA can take its share of the blame for the bookies on the same grounds that the Paras can take theirs for Narrow Water.
      There is no getting away from it - the loyalist campaign was directed against a civilian population whereas the IRA's was not. The loyalists were as culpable in terms of agency but not in scale as those who waged a war of terror on German civilian population centres from the skies. How useful it is to ask the Nazis to take the blame for the murderous actions of another party is a moot point.

      Delete
    14. Unvarnished revenge - that is like me kicking my next door neighbour because you kicked me. He has nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    15. The IRA's campaign was very much waged against civilians. They planted booby traps not knowing who would trigger it; they planted car bombs not knowing who would be passing when it went off; they opened up in urban areas not knowing who would get sprayed, and not giving a fuck either, because if they gave a fuck they would have stopped doing it after the first hundred died. They revelled in the mayhem and carnage. The Paras can take some of the blame for Narrow Water because it was Paras who died. The innocents who died in the bookie's were not Provos. The Provos ended the lives of 6 young workers knowing that 6 CNRs would suffer the same fate. Did it stop them? Did it fuck.

      Delete
    16. Never said it was logical.

      Delete
    17. Steve - whatever the emotion on the ground, there was a strategic logic to it. The logic was that by targeting the non-combatant civilian population pressure might be brought to bear on the nationalist population to reject the IRA. In terms of war crimes it wasn't as bad as Operation Gomorrah - even the name lets you now the malign intent. Generally, loyalism did not target children for death.

      Delete
    18. Peter - that seems the result of viewing your experience through the lens of ideology. Gives you a distorted view. The data is in sharp contrast with your claim which is more the outworking of myth rather than reason. It is as mythical as the claim that the IRA never perpetrated war crimes or that Gerry Adams was never a member. Like creationist myths, when you drill down there is very little at the foundations. The IRA took risks with civilian lives, same as state forces when retuning fire in built up areas. But there is little to show that the British selected civilian population for mass killing at the strategic level, which is what the loyalists did. The British massacres were specific. Although in years to come historians might discover more about the degree to which the Loyalist campaign at a strategic level was managed by the security services. While the jury is still out on that the perception has only been moving in one direction.

      Delete
    19. There is absoluely no distorted view. The Provos deliberately targeted civilians. They firebombed peoples' shops, the destroyed peoples' businesses. They planted bombs in litter bins causing panic and mayhem with the local civilians. They planted hoax bombs just to spread civilian panic. The planted bombs knowing that there would be civilian casualties. If you put a bomb under a man's car at night knowing that he takes his family to school/work in the morning then you are deliberately targeting civilians. Attacks on non-combatant civilians were a strategic instrument of terror used by the Provos and loyalists alike.

      Delete
    20. I think the discussion above was quite specific when it talked about targeting civilians. It tries to address the issue of whether civilians were targeted for killing by the IRA in the way that civilians were targeted by loyalism. The data answers the question.
      Were the IRA culpable for the things you outline? Indeed. But then we have to accept that the state did likewise - the indiscriminate use of CS gas; homicidal assaults on non combatants including children; checkpoints where nationalists were routinely disrupted, abused and intimidated particularly by the UDR; saturation house searches accompanied by theft and destruction of property; the targeting of children for death by plastic bullets to instill fear in the nationalist community; mass screening by the British Army and routine assault in the four hour screening custody period; and all of that is before we get to the widespread collusion.
      If you accept that this was the state at war on the civilian population then within the definition of war on civilians that you have put forward you would have a point. But you can't have it both ways.
      Best to stick to the terms of the discussion rather than widening the net. You just end up snared in it.

      Delete
    21. Steve

      Yes, very true -I was busy at other things and hurriedly posting and I just saw your overall responses as on the defence. If I have you right -you see gunning down unarmed civilians as a war crime but not unarmed combatants. However, international law treats killing unarmed prisoners or combatants surrendering as war crimes, The killing of POWs and surrendering opponents was first treated as war crimes during the American civil war and it has been considered a war crime ever since - revenge killing of your enemy is totally a war crime and whataboutary is not a justification.

      Delete
    22. Christy,

      I'd much rather nobody gunned down anyone. I'd go and talk face to face with anyone if I could persuade them not to kill. Except Isis or historically, the Nazis as they are too far gone into fantacisim.

      Delete
    23. Steve - even in those cases somebody should always be talking to them. It might not be radical or fashionable but chipping away at the block has its purpose.

      Delete
  6. @ Steve R

    It's worth remembering, much to the displeasure of traditionalist republicans, that the British army were welcomed in Nationalist areas. UKG could have been steadfast in preventing abuse and excess by their soldiers and history would have been different.

    I think that almost any armed force deployed in any conflict zone will commit war-crimes. It's simply a matter of scale, and then subsequently if they are named and treated as such.

    Republicans, loyalists and the security forces kidnapped, bombed, murdered, and tortured. And they all deliberately targeted civilians. The only difference was some tactical variation and scale.

    I have to admit to being startled when I discovered this while researching my Holy Cross pieces (https://www.thepensivequill.com/2021/07/holy-cross-exceptionally-troubling.html):

    "The most prolific killer of children during the Troubles was the IRA. A book, Children of the Troubles, details 186 children (under the age of 16) who were killed. 43% of them died at the hands of republican paramilitaries. 27% were killed by loyalist paramilitaries, and 26% died at the hands of the security forces.

    Whilst researching this piece, I discovered that paramilitaries counted statistically fewer children among their victims that the security forces. Republicans were responsible for 59% of all Troubles related deaths, loyalists for 29%, and the security forces for 10%. The supposed forces of law & order were pro-rata more enthusiastic killers of children than paramilitaries."

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Steve R

    Genuine question: In terms of war crimes, how do you think the IRA conducted their campaign contrasted with, for example, the UVF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon,

      I'm opposed to violence except in the face of the likes of ISIS. Whenever the IRA or the UVF, or the BA or anyone else kills an innocent they lose all credibility morally and ethically in my eyes.
      Neither of them had any restraint when killing purely in the name of religion.

      Delete
    2. Steve

      "the IRA or the UVF, or the BA or anyone else kills an innocent .... Neither of them had any restraint when killing purely in the name of religion."

      Your whataboutary abjection slip even further here -'neither of them' --neither impies only 2 --and only the UVF can be said to be purely driven by religion/sectarianism. Though your neither of them appears to be intended to exclude the Brits.

      My article is about how Colonel Kemp (and you) try to distinguish Brit war crimes from war crimes committed by the Russians (you include the IRA). None of your responses have washed british hands from its attrocities and war crimes -the Union Jack is not called the Butchers Apron for nothing.

      Delete
    3. There has been nothing yet said by Steve that would allow us to consider that British war crimes are somehow less baleful than Russian ones. Yet, the British state has a history of war crimes and atrocity across the globe. British political culture is so skewed that people are encouraged and coerced into wearing poppies in honour of the war criminals who unleashed incendiary mass murder war on German civilian population centres from the skies.
      The IRA did many horrendous things but it occupies a small place in a very wide space densely populated by British war criminality.

      Delete
    4. Christy,

      But I've been on record as calling Bloody Sunday a war crime? And Ballymurphy?

      Delete
  8. @ Steve R

    The article I wrote revealed that the security forces, pro rata, killed more children than republicans or loyalists. I found this disturbing, and fascinating.

    An analogy I've used when contrasting loyalist and republican paramilitaries is this, and apologies for invoking Godwin's Law.

    Loyalist paramilitaries can arguably be seen through the same lens as the SS: they were essentially dedicated to the wholesale persecution of a civilian population, but nevertheless on occasion killed combatants.

    The IRA can be seen through the same lens as the Wehrmacht. Their main targets and victims were combatants, though they engaged in numerous war crimes.

    This is a crude and clumsy analogy, but I think it's broadly accurate.

    Eamon Collins once wrote that all armed protagonists in the Troubles fought with one hand tied behind their back. I think this is true. Had republicans been totally dedicated to killing PUL civilians (or British subjects in Britain), they had the materiel and manpower to do so in terrifying numbers. I think it's also safe to say that loyalists could have killed more CNR civilians, but were justifiably scared of the republican response.

    I don't agree that the UVF, UDA, or IRA were unrestrained. In fact there were constant factors and pressures involved in the application of sectarian murder. Kingsmill is the most infamous example. It is also an unambiguous war crime, one committed, in many Irish eyes, to prevent more war crimes being committed by other war criminals who lived nearby.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did the IRA seriously believe they scared us? There was no fear, just hatred, when these attacks happened. Revenge was inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they scared them. It would be strange for it not to have scared them. Just as loyalist attacks scared the IRA. Macho posturing for anybody to claim otherwise.

      Delete
    2. Maybe, but fear didn't stop either.

      Delete
  10. The supremacist hatred existed long before the IRA campaign. And during the campaign we saw it manifest itself in the savagery of the Shankill Butchers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You never encounter psychopaths in the provos?

      Delete
    2. They were present but not something that we could argue was fed by a supremacist ideological hatred.

      Delete
  11. @ Peter

    "So, the Provos must take their share of the blame for what happened in the bookies. Nearly a dozen lives lost and scores more ruined for absolutely fuck all."

    Using that rationale, the UDR were partially to blame for Kingsmill. I also think it's wrong to definitively link Sean Graham's to Teebane. I'll explain why. Before I do, let me state that what I write is not a defence, it's simply information that I found when I was researching both of my pieces entitled "The IRA’s War Against Security Force Contractors" (one and two), which can be found on this blog.

    The Tyrone IRA responsible for Teebane thought that the men they were attacking were working for Henry Bros, instead of Karl Construction. The Tyrone IRA were also, with some evidence, convinced that Henry Bros contained within its workforce substantial numbers of security force members and, significantly, UVF members. The UVF were highly active at the time, and the IRA in that area wanted to hit them back. Two weeks before Teebane, the UVF had shot two members of the Kearney family, morally wounding 69 year old John and killing Kevin outright.

    Of course, the IRA might well have blown up a bus of workers servicing a security force base anyway, but I think there were a myriad of motives behind Teebane.

    I also completely accept that to members of the PUL community there was zero difference between Teebane and Kingsmill.

    Regarding the link to Sean Graham's, loyalists were massacring nationalists fairly frequently, and the only difference with the infamous bookies massacre was that the death tool was a bit higher than usual. I think that the UFF would have carried out an operation like that anyway, but the claim of responsibility would have been different. I could be wrong, but the Sean Graham's massacre was in keeping with the UFF campaign of the time.

    Interestingly, loyalists killed no more nationalists in 1992 following Teebane, and it was almost a full year before they were again active, killing Patrick Shields and his son Diarmuid on an attack on their shop. The attack was reminiscent of the attack on the Kearney's business. Less than a week later, the IRA killed Matthew Boyd, a 60 year old man the Provos claimed was in the UVF. I couldn't find any evidence to suggest he was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is a fascinating discussion on whether the IRA was as sectarian as the loyalists. Many sectarian actions by the IRA occurred during the conflict but despite many points made to put this debate to bed previously in many Quill posts the same people are arguing that the IRA were just as sectarian as loyalists.

    These debates are interesting and help understanding but in the past the arguments in favour of looking at Loyalists and Republicans as being equally sectarian or just as bad as each other have petered out after being conclusively shown to be false. The argument always dries up.

    People who favour this argument, after all the discussion in the past retreat and base it on perception alone which doesn't cut it.

    People arguing against the position list and compare statistics from Lost Lives, or Sutton's Index of Deaths which show that around 7.8% of the IRA's dead were killed for sectarian reasons compared to 77% of loyalist victims. It has been explained that the policy of the IRA was to target combatants or those collaborating with them. Loyalists persisted in their claim during the conflict that they targeted Catholics as a body to sicken Republicans and for ordinary Catholics to put pressure on them to stop. Remember "Yabba Dabba Do Any Fenian Will do"?

    So Republican policy was to focus targeting on combatants which is borne out by the statistics. Likewise Loyalist policy of killing anybody suspected of being Catholic is borne out by the statistics. Ever wonder why?

    Likewise, the manner of those who argue that there was ethnic cleansing along the border. They can't back it up with evidence. Perception of something doesn't make it so.

    I'd gamble confidently that Catholic and Protestant members of the security forces were killed in proportion to the demographics of those bodies. Those killed unintentionally by explosions or shootings or accident would also be extremely likely to be proportionately Catholic and Protestant.

    Along the border the UDR members who were killed were vulnerable easy targets. Likewise civilian workers for the security forces. It was an awful time but argue against the IRA for the terrible things they did not wishy washy soundbites claiming ethic cleansing or that they were just as sectarian as loyalism. There's plenty of sordid stuff that the IRA was responsible for including war crimes, torture and sectarianism. Making baseless arguments just undermines the arguments that carry weight.

    The IRA didn't even go out to kill random members of the Orange Order never mind random Protestants. All killing is innately wrong and much of it happened because the conflict gathered its own momentum and spiralled out of control. Much like loyalists gloating about collusion during the conflict we see the same thing with being more sectarian: Denying it is now the norm.

    Perception is still vitally important and should be acknowledged but its tiresome seeing the same debate being lost over and over again, often by the exact same people, arguing the same points that have been rubbished many times before.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve

    I am not defending the IRA --but to equate them to psychopaths?? you're stretching it --why are you so desperate to defend brit war crimes by deflection?? And on psychopaths --read Kitson's Gangs and Counter Gangs -if not a psycopath certainly a sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment should have have "in Tyrone" included: "Interestingly, loyalists killed no more nationalists in 1992 following Teebane"

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Pete, AM

    According to Sutton (CAIN: Sutton Index of Deaths - extracts from Sutton's book (ulster.ac.uk)
    :

    The IRA killed 1823 people, of whom 1013 were members of the security forces, and 130 were Protestant civilians killed in sectarian attacks.

    If we add those killed by the INLA, the figure for Protestant civilians killed in sectarian attacks increases to 150.

    Loyalists killed 1027 people, of whom 62 were (current or former) republican paramilitaries, or nationalist/republican politicians. 718 were killed in sectarian attacks targeting the nationalist population in the north. 46 were killed in deliberate attacks on the South.

    Of the 718, 63 were Protestant civilians killed “by mistake.” To put it another way, loyalist paramilitaries killed more of the people they claimed to be defending accidently than those involved in attacking those they claimed to be defending.

    Loyalists killed exactly 130 Protestants in loyalist feuds or by mistaking them for Catholics. The exact same number of Protestants killed in deliberate sectarian attacks by the IRA.

    Sutton, like Lost Lives, is not perfect. But I don’t think any serious study of Troubles fatalities would return any different thematic conclusions.

    The IRA mainly targeted the security forces. Loyalists mainly persecuted a civilian population.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Peter, AM

    The economic bombing campaign, particularly in the North, is understudied in my opinion.

    Sabotage and destruction of infrastructure are accepted norms in warfare. That said, I've always found the rationale put forward for the economic bombing campaign weak. Whilst it became far more refined in terms of civilian safety, in the 1970s, abject carelessness and on notorious occasions such as the Banbridge bomb in 1982, cowardice, caused intense civilians suffering.

    Whilst the strategy itself may have been non-sectarian, there is some evidence to suggest sectarian prejudice on a tactical level, eg the targeting of specifically Protestant businesses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brandon
    I think sectarian prejudice and desire not to alienate nationalists probably influenced where the economic bombs targeted --ultimately they realised that economic attacks were more effective in London --which has raised questions about the timing of the ceasefire.

    ReplyDelete