WHISPER IT, BUT if Australia play their cards right, they can take advantage of New Zealand’s scrum.
Whoever they choose at tighthead next weekend will be looking at Tony Woodcock’s struggles against South Africa with interest, while selecting Scott Sio at loosehead is likely to correct the messiness of James Slipper’s performances so far.
Sio has come off the bench in the wins against both South Africa and Argentina, and barring one poor scrum against the Pumas on Saturday, he has looked far more sturdy than James Slipper, who has offered little in either game.
Likewise, with both Sekope Kepu and Greg Holmes looking solid at tighthead, Tony Woodcock’s performance against South Africa on Saturday shows that he’s there for the taking, struggling at times with Jannie du Plessis, and but for the South African being forced off at half-time, the result at Ellis Park could have been much different.
Kepu enjoyed a respectable performance against South Africa, and he was swapped for Greg Holmes on Saturday, who did equally well in difficult circumstances.
Holmes managed to limit the damage in the first half, when Marcos Ayerza’s blatant crooked drives were going unpunished by referee Jaco Peyper.
This scrum, for example, shows that dramatic change of direction from Ayerza, and how Holmes holds his shape under such incredible pressure. To gain perspective, look how symmetrical the bodies of Holmes and Ayerza are below before the feed, and note how Ayerza is driving parallel to his flanker Javier Ortega Desio.
Once Australia feed the ball, the Argentinean pack use a trigger call for them to all start their drive at the same time. Once that trigger comes, Ayerza immediately pops out his hips, and begins to drive in across the chest of Holmes. You can see how he is almost perpendicular to the scrum, but critically Holmes keeps his hips and shoulders square, ensuring Australia get the ball in and out safely.
It happens again on the next scrum, and once again Holmes shows good patience under real pressure.
Just like last time, we’ll look at the initial set-up, with Ayerza square and straight.
And once again, as soon as the trigger call comes, Ayerza begins to turn inside and drive across the pitch. If Holmes were to try drive forward, the pressure coming in from Ayerza at an angle would force him to turn and ultimately collapse, so some good patience to merely hold his spot ensured Australia get the ball in and out safely.
While Holmes did well in the opening half, James Slipper at loosehead struggled. While we couldn’t see his side of the scrum, the Australian gave away a free-kick and a penalty for driving early, while the opening two scrums saw three resets, all coming from slips on his side of the pack.
He was replaced by Scott Sio just before the break, and while Sio’s first scrum saw a penalty conceded, he’ll be pleased with two dominant drives towards the end of the game.
While it’s difficult to be sure, the Argentinean drive looks to have come from another crooked angle from Ayerza on the far side, with the scrum moving infield before it moves forward; usually a sign of crooked driving.
With Argentina then moving forward, we can see Sio begins to stand up to stop the drive, and ultimately concede a penalty.
However, he showed on his next two scrums that he’s capable of dominance, earning two penalties off replecemant tighthead Matias Diaz.
Sio is powerful and legal, keeping his back flat and his head outside the shoulder of Diaz.
When we look at him mid-drive, we can see how he keeps his body parallel to the ground even as he moves forward, rather than rising and dipping like a lot of props do, and we can also see how Diaz drops his bind onto the arm of Sio, marked with an X.
It’s worth watching the GIF above back again, and watch how Diaz slips the bind, and how Sio keeps his shape
Sio’s final scrum was quite similar, and resulted in the penalty that Tevita Kuridrani ultimately scored from. Again we can see in the circle below how an arm-bind from Diaz tries to pull Sio down.
But once again, he stays upright and straight, with Argentina swinging their hips clockwise and wheeling around to give away the penalty.
Whether Kepu or Holmes gets the nod for the decider, they will look at how Jannie de Plessis caused Tony Woodcock problems on Saturday with interest.
Du Plessis – himself under fire after a poor season in Super Rugby – was arguably South Africa’s most influential player until a knee injury forced him off at half-time.
After two even scrums to begin with, du Plessis earned the first penalty from the set piece after this dominant drive. In the GIF below, watch how New Zealand’s pack begin to turn their hips as du Plessis forces Woodcock backwards.
The replay from the other side of the scrum shows how the All Blacks’ backrow begin pushing the scrum at an angle, which causes it to turn. Their tricks aren’t fooling Jerome Garces, however, and the penalty is awarded.
After getting a roasting on that scrum, Woodcock then found himself pinged for an early free kick. The scrum the followed showed he was rattled, and as such, beginning to try bend the rules.
We can see the set-up as normal, with both players lined up square and straight.
However, once the ball is fed by Aaron Smith, Woodcock begins to change his angle, boring in on du Plessis, who keeps his hips pointing forward and his back straight, which in turn keeps the scrum upright.
Circled, you can Woodcock’s backside jutting out from the side of the scrum, a clear sign the he’s angling in.
Woodcock is lucky not to concede a penalty, and he’s equally lucky on the scrum that follows. He collapses, and it all comes down to his poor initial set-up.
In the still below, we can see clear differences in the positioning of both he and du Plessis.
The Springbok has his back straight, 90 degree angle at the hips and 120 degrees at the knees, with his weight on the front studs.
Woodcock, on the other hand, has his feet planted flat on the ground, meaning his weight isn’t distributed correctly, while his knees are in front of his hips, meaning he’s producing very little power in his legs.
Once du Plessis steps up the pressure as the ball is fed, Woodcock’s limited power ultimately results in him collapsing.
Du Plessis’ knee injury meant he had to depart for debutant Vincent Koch, and South Africa continued to have the measure of things at scrum time.
Dane Coles’ try came off the back of a scrum, but a look back would indicate South Africa were very unlucky not to get a reset.
We can see in the GIF below how Tendai Mtawarira clearly slips, with an accidental slip usually resulting in a reset.
But most notably, that slip came before Aaron Smith had even fed the ball. Circled, we can see how Smith still has the ball in his hands, despite the scrum having collapsed.
That slip aside, The Beast was looking comfortable, and unlike last week against Australia, Heyneke Meyer resisted the urge to change things around when they were going well.
The following scrum illustrated the pressure New Zealand were under well, with Liam Messam giving Owen Franks an illegal hand. For perspective this is how they set up, with Messam bound legally to the second row of the scrum.
But once the pressure from South Africa comes on, Messam slides up Franks’ and begins driving in on Mtawarira, a dangerous move that is becoming more and more common in the game.
Backrows must have one arm bound to the second row at all times, but as we can see below, Messam has moved so far up the scrum the Owen Franks is no longer visible, the X marking where he should be bound to.
South Africa were now well in control of the scrum, and they were looking dangerous when awarded one five metres out.
Owen Franks was replaced by brother Ben, and with Sam Whitelock in the sin bin, South Africa made their numerical advantage count.
Mtawarira won another penalty after Franks pulled down the bind and flopped to the ground.
This still frame shows how he dropped his bind to the arm, before dropping the scrum.
They opted for the scrum again, and another dominant drive almost sent them over.
Just like Sio earlier on, Mtawarira showed his class with his ability to maintain a straight back while moving forward at speed.
However, a blood injury and a knock to the ribs for Koch caused uncontested scrums for the rest of the game, and South Africa’s best weapon was neutralised.
Substitute Trevor Nyakane may have tighthead experience, but it wasn’t enough to satisfy Garces, who took the sensible – if unfortunate – decision to make the setpiece uncontested.
But while South Africa weren’t able to attack the New Zealand weakness in the final 20 minutes of the game, at least they showed it’s there.
I hope this documentary shows up the UVF for who they really are, British sponsored terrorists.
That’s not even worthy of a reply.
I didnt think your post was worthy of a reply either but I replied anyway. Its the same old republican nonsense all the time and its getting boring.
Finger constantly pointed at this collusion between loyalists and police etc but never a mention of the exact same collusion between the Irish state and republican terrorists.
When the article is about IRA collusion i will comment in relation to that, as this is about a British terrorist attack that’s what my comments will reflect, i said your previous comment was not worth a reply because you wrongly assumed i am some kind of Republican sympathiser. I suggest you should read the article and all the comments before you make assumptions such as that.
The article is about the troubles in which there were more than one side, this attack was the latest in a very long line of attacks that took place over the previous 25 years. It wasnt a British terrorist attack either, it was an attack by illegal loyalist terrorists, would it be fair for me to say every IRA or INLA massacre was an Irish terrorist attack?
No it wouldn’t, James, because you deny their Irishness
And now you’re denying that the UVF are British? How strange
The article is about a documentary on the Loughinisland massacre.
With almost 25,000 british troops patrolling that tiny little part of this country at the time are you trying to tell me that “illegal loyalist terrorists” were able to carry out this or any attack without the prior knowledge of those at the very top of the military? if you are, you’re pissing against the wind. The highest number of casualties in any one day during the conflict was the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, educate yourself on who and how these were carried out, if you still insist on calling them “illegal loyalist terrorists” well then as Ron White once said, ‘You cant fix stupid’
would it be fair for me to say every IRA or INLA massacre was an Irish terrorist attack?”
Yes it would, but never in the name of the Irish people, nor were they sponsored by Dublin, Unlike the British terror squads, whom i must add had no support from the British public, but were supported by Westminster.
While I have no doubt that Jamesy will vehemently deny it, the UVF targeted civilians to a much greater extent than the IRA. While the IRA was killing British soldiers and police officers, the UVF were killing Catholics civilians.
Why did the UVF consistently choose to target Catholics for purely sectarian reasons?
The republicans murdered innocent Protestants so I assume the loyalists reacted by murdering innocent Catholics, that was the sectarian nature of the conflict.
The years before this massacre the republicans had carried out the Shankill bombing and the Teebane massacre and the loyalists retaliated with Greysteel and Sean Grahams massacres. It was the same kind of tit for tat nonsense that was in effect in the 70′s.
Its all well and good blaming loyalists and the security forces for colluding, dont forget to mention the Irish state funding the PIRA and its security forces then colluding with them too. Why is that being swept under the carpet?
And in 1994 there were no 25, 000 British troops here, there were about 10, 000 and they had every level of the IRA infiltrated too as well as the loyalists, look at Scappaticci and Donaldson as examples. Why didnt they stop every IRA operation? I’ll tell you why and the intelligence folk who worked here will tell you also, no matter how good your intel is or how on the ball you think you are you just dont stop every attack every time, thats the way it goes.
Brendan Hughes said that by the time the 94 ceasefires came around about 80% of IRA operations were compromised, to the security forces that would be considered a victory. The British were also content that they had the conflict down to “an acceptable level of violence” since the 1980′s.
325 years and still under siege eh Jamesie? Your whataboutery argument is a joke. Educate yourself outside the box.
I see that you’re as intransigent as ever, Jamesy. That’s some fine whataboutery though.
It’s well established that the IRA did not generally target civilians. Even the most damning report into IRA killings only places the percentage of civilian deaths at between 20 and 30%. Only around 8% of those killings are considered sectarian in nature.
Of the UVF’s targets, approximately 85% were Catholic civilians, the majority killed in sectarian attacks.
The IRA would murder soldiers or police officers and, in response, the UVF would massacre civilians. That’s the kind of ‘tit for tat’ killings that were going on.
The IRA did target civilians. Why the revisionism?
Did I claim that they didn’t? I clearly cited that 20-30% of their victims were civilian, 8% targeted for sectarian reasons. How much clearer do I have to make it for you?
Civilians were not their main target though. That would have been agents of the British state, such as soldiers or police officers. Soldiers alone made up roughly 55% of their victims.
The UVF, however, almost exclusively targeted civilians, and for purely sectarian reasons. While the IRA and British security forces were fighting a protracted conflict, the UVF were acting as a sectarian death squad.
So, Jamesy, why do you think the UVF acted in such a way? What do you think was their reasoning for massacring civilians solely for being catholic?
They massacred Catholic civilians because the republicans massacred Protestant civilians. Both were murderous bstards. How clear do you want me to be?
The only side making efforts to save life were the security forces, they paid the highest price too for doing so.
Do you not see the difference between 30% (max, the actual figure is likely closer to 20%) and 85% (a commonly accepted figure)? The UVF existed solely to massacre civilians. The IRA, whatever else one can say about them, mostly targeted security forces. Even the most staunch critics of the IRA only claim 8% of their killings to be sectarian in nature. Contrast that to the vast majority of UVF killings with a sectarian motive.
As much as you would like to muddy the waters and claim that all sides were the same, it just isn’t true.
You overlook the volume of killings though, the IRA murdered about 1800 while the UVF murdered about 450. That renders your % as less significant.
Im not a spokesperson for the UVF by the way nor do I want to be. You seem to be a defender of the IRA, are you a supporter?
I am not go away
No, it doesn’t.
I’m not defending the IRA. I would hardly call their targeting of security forces murder if I was. I’m just dealing with the reality of the situation. The IRA did not target civilians in the same way that the UVF did. If you have a problem with that factual statement, your problem is with reality.
The republicans did target civilians in exactly the same way though and as frequently.
And you talk of security forces like it was ok to kill them, the people in the RUC and UDR who were killed had family too, they also had family members who took revenge (wrongly in my opinion but im not one of the bereaved) through loyalist paramilitaries. The republicans killed these people in the most callous fashion too when many of them were off duty.
Jamesy, I have repeatedly called the killing of security forces murder. Does that sound like . You really are slow on the uptake.
Ridiculous comment, that the IRA targeted civilians as frequently as
Jamesy, I have repeatedly called the killing of security forces murder. Does that sound like I’m condoning it? You really are slow on the uptake.
Ridiculous comment, that the IRA targeted civilians as frequently as the UVF. Once again, 85% to 20/30%. That’s clearly not the same frequency.
Disregard my previous comment. Hit submit early by mistake.
The total number though allied with the % suggests that it was the same frequency.
1800 kills to 450 kills. Do rough maths.
Ira very very rarely chose civilians. Shankill butchers was yes but that was a unique situation.
Jamesy boy you lost that one – badly!!
White fang how can you say the IRA did not target civilians . On the 21 of July 1971 26 car bombs went off in belfast city Center killing 11 people and 120 injure . There are ex Provo s walking around today disgusted by there actions and what they have done . It became known as bloody Friday . A pregnant female police officer was kill in Bangor . The ira s reaction to it . We got two for the price of one .
Them 25000 troops were patrolling the time of the kingsmills massacre to !
What about kingsmills , eniskellen and the like whitefang
No it wasnt
Immature
Get goosebumps just reading about that horrible night.. was only 12 when this happened but still remember me mum and dads reaction after it… I hope some day the families get the closure they deserve!
While the Northern Troubles threw up many many bad days – this was a very dark one – a real tragedy.
30 for 30 brilliant series and thanks for taking this story to a global audience
Excellent article, may those dark days never return to our small island again. I remember that day with such joy , only for it to be replaced with sorrow. Shot dead by sectarian bigots for following their team!! Madness.
Why?
Why what, exactly?
Nice article, but they didn’t die for “the love of the sport” They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, murdered by religious bigots, they did not sacrifice their lives for football.
To be fair, I don’t think I ever suggested that in the article – it’s only if you interpret the headline in a very particular way without reading any of the text below that you can come to that conclusion. They died because they so happened to like sport and were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that’s what both the headline and the piece in general are outlining.
They weren’t in “the wrong place at the wrong time” I’m sure all in the bar watching the match intended to be there, they were murdered by coward who laughed all the way back to the getaway car……..
Why did you delete my reply Paul, to the best of my knowledge I didn’t break any of The Journals guidelines. Are we not allowed to criticize an article on The Journal? Now I am left with so many unanswered questions. Did my intelligent retort upset you? Did it confuse you? Do you agree or disagree with my reply. If someone is murdered in their own house, cooking dinner, would you have titled the subsequent article They died for their love of the food”
You’re perfectly entitled to criticise articles Helena, but please abide by our comments policy while doing so (http://www.thejournal.ie/comments-policy/).
Furthermore, your food analogy is inept. As the article makes clear, it wasn’t a complete coincidence that the murderers killed followers of the Irish soccer team — they undoubtedly knew the pub would be full of football fans when they planned the murders.
You’re retort wasn’t as intelligent as you might think, Helena. As Paul pointed out, that food analogy was silly.
I never knew it was the author of the article that moderated the comments.
I never knew it was the author of the article that moderated the comments
Great article paul , I was only 13 and football mad when it happened , couldn’t understand it then , still can’t understand it now . Cowardly and barbaric act .
Paul how can the journal do nothing about jamsey b pickart p lyons he is destroying the journal with his trolling can anything be done
Michael, I would urge you and others to please report any comments you read that fail to abide by the comments policy referenced above.
Provided they do break the rules, we will delete them promptly once they’re reported.
I remember being in my hotel room in New York and seeing this come on the news, it was a real low point and lead to many New Yorkers changing their questions about what was this soccer tournament about to asking us what is was like coming from a country with a war going on!
“at the time, the attitude was that if you couldn’t get an IRA man you should shoot a Taig, he’s your last resort”.
Gusty Spence
And to think there are still those who believe armed struggle is a viable way forward.
Never again.
Those that think it today are criminals who just call their trade union republicanism
this is about british state sponsored murder, not bout the ira.
And yet even in the face of unjustifiable slaughter of innocents, small minded bigots from both sides will bicker in this comment section about who was right and wrong.
The people who did the shooting were wrong
Loyalist siege mentality basterds, yet it’s only the cause of republicanism that sullied by media the world over. My friends in Slovakia could go on and on about the IRA yet hadn’t a notion about the UVF or British army and the god knows how many other Loyalist forces that spilled more civilian blood during the troubles.
It seems I can’t say I’m an Irish republican anywhere in the world without people assuming I’m an extremist, while a self confessed Loyalist would be considered unblemished and “enlightened” . It frustrates me.
Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anam
Its a pity about you isnt it.
It makes me angry. Justice shouldn’t be one sided and neither should the media.
Justice did go both ways, over 7000 loyalists were locked up during the troubles. Thats a fairly significant number of people from that movement incarcerated, definitely for a movement that supposedly escaped justice.
Sadly about 3000 of the 3500 murders during the conflict were unsolved so a lot of people on both sides escaped justice, hence the formation of the HET.
You actually make a great point and not too far from the truth , it’s like everyone in the world knows of 9/11 but never heard of USA drone attacks on civilians killing women & children . Media controls what the world will hear , only few of us step outside the bubble and realise the real truth , media came up with sky sports and X factor to keep everyone in this bubble .. Having said all that , I believe Sinn Fein are taking the right direction , a united Ireland will only be achieved thru peaceful and political ways . The IRA now are nothing more than thugs that control the drug trade in Dublin , not many Irish ppl can see this either.
That the same HET which provided the evidence of systematic and institutionalised collusion between the state and loyalist murder gangs? Something which you have repeatedly denied on this site?
Mitch, I agree with most of what you say, but I would take issue with your last statement regarding the IRA being thugs that control the drug trade in Dublin. Any and all of those criminal organisations are not even the distant cousin of the IRA. They are criminals masquerading as Republicans in order to gain some form of legitimacy. Grand, they have hijacked the name of the IRA, but you could call a duck a giraffe and it will still stay a duck.
A similar attack to that perpetrated at Loughinisland was attempted at nearby Annaclone on the occasion of the World Cup final just a few weeks later.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/publican-averted-ulster-massacre-1414769.html
Thankfully the owner of the pub, John Loy, had wisely locked his pub’s doors at kick-off. Unable to get in, the attacking gunmen opened fire through windows and, while seven customers were injured, nobody was killed.
(My personal interest: my parents rented a house from the Loy family just 100 meters from the Hawthorne Inn when we lived in Annaclone in the mid-60s).
Paddy I don’t support or defend any of the terrorist organisation that existed during the troubles but I think you will find the ira murder more Catholics then the uvf ever did . The murder campaign of the ira resulted in thousands of people dieing and tens of thousands injured . The uvf it was hundreds . Over a million Brit soldiers serve in ulster and everyone of them risk there life’s in a conflict of hate . Many paid with there life’s and many more sacrifice there life’s to save others .
I assume that is in reply to me, I am well aware of the history of Northern Ireland, i was commenting on this story/documentary and the age old argument ‘ your side killed more ‘ is childish at best, all deaths involved were terrible, i does’t escape the FACT that the UVF/UFF/UDA etc were and still are British government sponsored death squads, the best argument i have ever heard in the great debate about the IRA is that if it wasn’t for the British, they simply would have never existed.
These are correct up to 2011 as far as im aware…
loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:
868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries
85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.
Republicans accounted for over 60% of the whole death toll and murdered more people than loyalists and security forces put together. They certainly maimed a lot more than that too in bombings, everybody seems to think a victim is somebody who was killed, there were 50, 000 people injured here too many seriously. The Loughinisland massacre killed 6 people, a further 5 were shot too which in my opinion is being seriously injured.
That comment with statistics was in reply to a comment made about how republicans murdered more civilians that anyone else.. it wasnt a ‘loyalists are worse’ comment it was a reply! :-) im well aware of how bad the ira were durong the troubles..
Tommy I think you will find out if you checked that most of the Catholics the Provos killed were poor white English trash who wore the Brit army uniform- The Volunteers with a AK or a remote control switch had not got the time to ask British army members which religion they were- The IRA did not discriminate – they killed them all-
Loyalists always chose civilian targets and nothing else. CATHOLICS. animals with no cause
I think it’s time to move on and stop bickering about who did the most violence and so on. The record of violence and murder in the Provence was atrocious and let’s hope we never live to see it again .
Micheal are u for real . The ira murder more people in n Ireland then any other organisation during the 20 odd yrs during the troubles . They where always the key to bringing the troubles to an end . No other organisation could have brought the troubles to an end . Not the British or any other organisation was capable of ending the blood bath . All you have to do is look at the north today . It’s a completely different place simply because the ira ended there campaign of violence . The loyalists terror organisations could no longer justify there existence . The home service battalions of the British army have been disbanded . The patrol bases pull down . The border no longer manned . The ira made there point back in the 70s or even 80s and the violence should have been brought to an end . Thousands of people would have never have needed to die on all sides but they didn’t . They chose to try to bomb and kill there way into a united Ireland by the use of force . It took 24 yrs for them to realise that the people on both sides of the border where not going to support them or Sinn Fein . If they thought that violence was capable of bringing about a united Ireland then it would be still happening today .
Well the Loyalists started the troubles before the Provos even existed, and they’re still terrorising people today long after the provisionals have decommissioned
The British state was not capable of ending the bloodbath?? Are u for real??
Really? Sinn Fein are about to become the largest power in Irish politics in few wks with Gerry Adams as most popular leader according to polls
16% is nowhere near the largest party!
25% is………………….lol
Tommy you are actually correct. The violence should and could have ended in the 70/80′s, saving hundreds of lives. The IRA had sued for peace then. It was brought down by unionism/loyalist who refused to even contemplate treating the nationalist community as any type of equals. The unionist politicians of dup,oup,took to the streets hand in hand with loyalist paramilitaries to bring these talks down. The British folded due to those threats of deepening conflict. The GFA could have been arrived at Years earlier if this intransigence had not been to the fore from unionist and British quarters.
Come election time – SF lucky to get 10/15% of morons votes !
Whoever did this , I hope they burn in hell , barbaric cowardly act !!
It always comes back to ‘ but but the IRA’. The issue is and always has been with these murders, that british tax payers pay the police and army and these state forces who operate above the law of the same state murdered innocent people. People to this day on RUC pensions and men in suits in Mi5 who go into work each day knowing exactly who killed these people and knew well in advance of their killing. They’re worse than the UVF
Attacks likes these were only done with senior approval. One of the signs of an impending loyalist attack was that the British Army and RUC would withdraw from an area.
I remember visiting cousins from in Armagh, my mother’s people, staunch unionists.
They would warn us about RUC or UDR checkpoints so to avoid them.
What an awful tragedy. Carried out by ciwRds or rather murderers.
Absolutely sickening.
One can only imagine happiness turning to fear and terror and then death.
Mans inhumanity to man.
the UVF and IRA are opposite sides of the same coin and both are too stupid and blinded by hatred to realise this.
The RUC and the UDR played their part in this attack. Like most Loyalist killings the security forces knew when to stay away and knew who not to arrest.
The investigation was compromised in every way possible.
The PSNI has today appealed for any new information to be made public- which it should- but it will not come by the PSNI-
Today Sinn Fein made a public statement saying that the PSNI appeal was a insult to people’s intelligence because the PSNI today is trying to thwart an investigation by the Police Ombudsman into the Loughinisland massacre-do the police think Sinn Fein are going to forget-
If you want to solve this crime ask the local RUC .
Jamesy boy !
Don’t quote false statements from people who are dead.That speaks volume about your mindset etc.Do you accept the fact that you are an irish man albeit a bottom feeder.
Apologize to the people in general and stop this pointless rhetoric better men than you and indeed me have done so
White fang 47000 people where injured by all sides that was point . Attempted murder on thousands more . The ira left 100 s of ieds in public places with no regard to who they kill . Belfast city center was a prime target . The majority of them disarm by security forces . Anyone could have been a victim no matter where u come from , what religion you or what ur believes are .
if brit terrorists weren’t murdering civvies the ira would not have existed.
Micheal u don’t give into violence by a minority of people that chose to Inflict it on the majority . Less then one percent of the population of the north chose to take part in the violence that brought so much misery into people’s lives .
Tens of thousands?
Ah Tommy, you clearly haven’t a clue.
Jamesy, why did the UVF choose to almost exclusively target civilians? Only one side aimed to massacre those with no connection to the conflict, for purely sectarian reasons.
No fang, both sides aimed to massacre those with no connection to the conflict. Get your facts right and I’ll engage you in debate.
jamsie and facts…lmfao
You don’t give into violence from a minority of people. How did the 6 county state ever come into being then??????
Scottish planters !
Donal you don’t even look old enough to have been around during the troubles . You sure your having a going at the right people here . Almost every day the ira where put on our tv screens with another murder . People where outrage at the actions of the ira both north and south of the border . The reputation you have as a republican has been giving to you by the organisation that kill so many people in the most cowardly way . To the majority of people south of the border they where consider to be nothing more then murderers .
I consider murderers murderers as well. What I was venting about was how lightly it seems murderers in the name of Loyalism have gotten off in media, particularly abroad. It made me angry to learn of this gloss over while I was in Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary recently. They also had never heard of the British armys conduct or of state security forces collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries. They were missing morr than half the story. I asked them if they had even hearf of it on the news and they all said no. They’re intelligent with keen interest in news and politics around the world but were very misinformed. I could only think their media was being highly selective or biased. It makes you wonder what’s really going on in places of conflict like the middle east and africa.
James I agree with a lot of what u say . The problem with a lot of people on here is that they cannot defend a organisation that murder men women and children so they chose to try and drag everybody else down to the same level as the murderers they try to defend . It’s the only way they can justify there actions .
Anyone no when can we watch this or when is it on here
Terrible