Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

KeithAFC · 15-12-2011 5:10pm

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

But you're not - you're a member of the "PUL community" and yet you don't seem to be so eager to admit your shame around the reasons why there was the need for a civil rights movement in the first place!! :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone has denied the legitimacy of the civil rights movement. The PIRA actually done more damage to how it was viewed than any one else.

Some really thick leadership in the PIRA at the time. Lets not focus on civil rights, lets go for the pipe dream which is a United Ireland. Laughable and tragic at the same time. Was never going to work.

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 5:14pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Chuck's percentages view

It's not my view. It's an observation.

I didn't invent percentages.

KeithAFC · 15-12-2011 5:14pm

maccored wrote: »

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the UDA just called themselves the UFF when they wanted to kill a few people. When they llegally wanted to kill people they called themselves the UDR. All the same thing. Miami Showband killings is proof of that.

Do you know how many people had joined the UDR? A lot more than the UDA. The UDR was not the UDA and of course there was Loyalist volunteers using in the UDR but that was always going to happen.

The PIRA was slaughtering Protestants, UDR, British Army, RUC and so on. And people in the Republican movement actually expect for everyone in the UDR or British Army to just accept that and for some to not use Loyalists?

It would be very naive to think like that.

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 6:09pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do you know how many people had joined the UDR? A lot more than the UDA. The UDR was not the UDA and of course there was Loyalist volunteers using in the UDR but that was always going to happen.

The PIRA was slaughtering Protestants, UDR, British Army, RUC and so on. And people in the Republican movement actually expect for everyone in the UDR or British Army to just accept that and for some to not use Loyalists?

It would be very naive to think like that.

Irish Republicans couldn't give a damn about slaughtered members of the security forces - they regarded them as legitimate targets despite the fact they operated under civil law and the 'yellow card' system - ie as glorified policemen. Those Republicans carrying out the murder of members of the security forces whilst wearing no uniform were guilty of murder under the rules of war.

As you say, it escapes the attention of Irish Republicans that most murdered members of The UDR and RUC came from the local Protestant community (not from Mars or Venus) and the impact on their friends and relatives was every bit as severe as the murder of Nationalists by Loyalists was on the local RC community.

It's a miracle that bereaved UDR men didn't assist Loyalists in targeting Republicans to a far greater extent than is alluded to on this forum.

Anyway, here are some facts regarding The UDR:

The UDR lost 196 of it's members to terrorist action (mostly IRA) and a staggering 40 ex-members. The ex-members were simply Protestant civilians. 10 of the UDR casualties were Catholics.

The UDR killed only 8 people during 'The Troubles'. Three were terrorists, including a UVF man (?)

18% of the initial UDR membership was Catholic. This was whittled down by Republican intimidation and murder.

Denis Ormerod was an RC leader of The UDR in 71/73
Harry Baxter was a ROI leader of The UDR in 73/76

Only 4 Loyalist terrorists were members of The UDR when they were killed.

Of the 40,000 persons recorded as having served in the UDR from 1970 to 1992, 18 were later convicted of murder, 11 for manslaughter. The regiment was responsible for the shooting deaths of nine people: three members of the IRA, one loyalist hijacker, two joyriders, an alleged thief, a deaf youth who could not hear the warnings shouted at him, and a man shot accidentally in a confrontation with a patrol.

LordSutch · 15-12-2011 7:43pm

Dotsey wrote: »

look at the original post I made there's a slight typing error, change the word "demographs" to "demographics" and there's your answer!!

I was refering to all your 'Empire' rubbish from post#426, in which you said > "it's feasible that in 10 to 15 years the "British empire" will be made up of just England, Wales, Gibraltar and the Malvinas". unquote.

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 7:46pm

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)

Joint membership of the UDA (which had objectives incompatible with those of HMG) and the UDR, became widespread, and at the same time the rate of UDR weapons losses greatly increased. Subsequently a number of UDR members with traces in other subversive organisations have come to note.

Some members of the UDR, who also belong to subversive groups, undoubtedly lead 'double lives', and even with the aid of intelligence it is occasionally difficult to persuade a CO that one of his men is a risk. Indicative, but not typical, is the case of a member of 1 UDR, apparently a good citizen (the Deputy Chairman of a District Council) who had the following traces:
a. Subject was OC of Ballymena UDA
b. Subject had obtained ammunition for the UDA
c. Subject was suspected of illegal arms dealings, and of acquiring an SLR and an SMG in Scotland, and of selling them to the UDA.

He was however described by his CO as 'a model soldier'.

It seems likely that a significant proportion (perhaps five per cent - in some areas as high as 15 per cent) of UDR soldiers will also be members of the UDA, Vanguard service corps, Orange Volunteers or UVF.

LOSS OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION

11. Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR. The details of UDR arms losses for 1972/3 are set out below:

a. 1972

LOST/STOLEN AT ARMOURY OR ON DUTY LOST/STOLEN AT HOME OR ON WAY TO HOME TOTALS

SLR 102
-62 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft. 38 140
- 62 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft

SMG 24
- 8 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft 4 28
- 8 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft

PISTOL 7 15 22
TOTAL 135

( - 70 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft) 57 190
( - 70 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft.

A great bunch of lads.

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 7:57pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)

A great bunch of lads.

Why do you believe what a British Army Brigadier says?

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 7:59pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)

A great bunch of lads.

Why did The UDR only kill two (yes 2) IRA men?

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 8:00pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)

A great bunch of lads.

Are you refering to The UDA or UDR?

Chuck Stone · 15-12-2011 8:13pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do you believe what a British Army Brigadier says?

Let's just say that I would trust someone from the BA to be more impartial than someone from the anti-Catholic militias of NI.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why did The UDR only kill two (yes 2) IRA men?

Bad shots? Incompetence? Poor eyesight? Is it a trick question?

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you refering to The UDA or UDR?

I understand that there was a strong evidence of dual membership and it might be confusing for you but the report is about 'Subversion in the UDR'.

Don't be intellectually lazy. If you have a problem with the report read it through and critique it. You hardly expect me to do it for you do you now?

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 8:31pm

The Westerner wrote: »

Even if World War 2 had a different outcome (i.e Germany & Japan won) you would hold the same view?

Yes. Decent people don't murder innocents.

Not 100% now. You’ve added a condition to your own statement re civilian deaths.

No. In that case the individual was in a dangerous location that was a valid target. A shopping centre or main street or pub is not a valid target.

Personally I would still say that someone bombing the target should make it their responsibility to ENSURE that all civilians are clear (e.g. count people coming and going).

We're talking about murder; the caveat would be manslaughter (and not the cynically-and-sickeningly-made-up "collateral damage".

But following on from this, unconditionally stated this is incorrect. Luis Moreno Ocampo (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court) outlines his concerns re the US in Iraq in this wiki article on the principle of Distinction, as related to the application of International Law regarding the waging of war.

He has his opinion, I have mine. Not only that but the word "war" only seems to apply to excuse IRA atrocities and isn't used when it comes to giving others the same (unwarranted) benefit of the doubt. So yet again, we have people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

You won't abandon the totality of this statement even if it led to the Axis Powers of WWII being victorious?

Why would I ? They are despicable because they murdered innocents and if you conspire to murder innocents then you are removing the difference between you and them.

So if two groups are both despicable, what difference does it make ?

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 8:32pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Chuck's percentages view

It's not my view. It's an observation.

I didn't invent percentages.

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 8:34pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 8:39pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

What am I "twisting" ? I'm stating a fact.

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

That is a laughable view.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 8:43pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What am I "twisting" ? I'm stating a fact.

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

That is a laughable view.

It's not laughable on any level, it's just statistical facts, open to be interpreted on many different levels.

The Westerner · 15-12-2011 8:47pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. In that case the individual was in a dangerous location that was a valid target. A shopping centre or main street or pub is not a valid target.

Yes. You undermined your own statement. Your merely saying it again here.

He has his opinion, I have mine.

I agree with his opinion, not yours.

Not only that but the word "war" only seems to apply to excuse IRA atrocities and isn't used when it comes to giving others the same (unwarranted) benefit of the doubt. So yet again, we have people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

You can apply this to other posters, not me.

Why would I ? They are despicable because they murdered innocents and if you conspire to murder innocents then you are removing the difference between you and them.

So if two groups are both despicable, what difference does it make ?

Are you for real? This is a disconnect from the consequences of historical events on a mind boggling scale TBH.

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 8:58pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Let's just say that I would trust someone from the BA to be more impartial than someone from the anti-Catholic militias of NI.

Bad shots? Incompetence? Poor eyesight? Is it a trick question?

I understand that there was a strong evidence of dual membership and it might be confusing for you but the report is about 'Subversion in the UDR'.

Don't be intellectually lazy. If you have a problem with the report read it through and critique it. You hardly expect me to do it for you do you now?

You're not very good at this are you 'chuck' (LOL).

You suffer from what I call IRISHI/TIS - an assumption that any answer to a question will do.

Still - the audience for the imbecilic thoughts of Irish Nationalists is THE IRISH, so I guess it doesn't matter.

LOL
LOL
LOL

trendyvicar · 15-12-2011 9:01pm

karma_ wrote: »

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

Are you Irish Karma?

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:05pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you Irish Karma?

I am.

Also Liam, I had a look at the figures of your analogy there, here's what I found.

Total numbers:
30 killed
14 guilty (of what I'm unsure)
16 innocent

percentage wise this shows that;

you killed 67% of all victims
person B killed 33% of all victims

53% of all killed were innocent
47% guilty

Of the innocents Killed;

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:14pm

karma_ wrote: »

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you Irish Karma?

I am.

Also Liam, I had a look at the figures of your analogy there, here's what I found.

Total numbers:
30 killed
14 guilty (of what I'm unsure)
16 innocent

percentage wise this shows that;

you killed 67% of all victims
person B killed 33% of all victims

53% of all killed were innocent
47% guilty

Of the innocents Killed;

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:16pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

Did you look at the figures?

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here. To me this tells me that you do not even understand your own argument.

By the way, it was you who brought up the fictional account.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:20pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

Did you look at the figures?

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here. To me this tells me that you do not even understand your own argument.

By the way, it was you who brought up the fictional account.

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statements from earlier:

Liam Byrne wrote:

]And a smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger number.

Liam Byrne wrote:

621 vs 156 vs 412 in real figures. So the IRA murdered more than the others put together.

Chuck Stone wrote:

]It's your problem if you don't want to accept the fact that proportionately the IRA killed less civilians than any other protagonist.

You are arguing with the wrong person, karma! You are defending Chuck Stone and attacking me, even though you AGREE with me and DISAGREE with HIM!

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:29pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statement from earlier:

No, this does not invalidate Chucks figures either, had you provided other information in your analogy, we could have gone deeper.

Like I said, there is different ways of interpreting and analysing statistical information, you dismissed it as 'laughable'.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:32pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statement from earlier:

No, this does not invalidate Chucks figures either, had you provided other information in your analogy, we could have gone deeper.

Like I said, there is different ways of interpreting and analysing statistical information, you dismissed it as 'laughable'.

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

Not only that, but when you thought I was saying what Chuck was saying, you yourself used the word "twisting", and yet now you're saying "open to interpretation" - why? Because you realise the argument was by a fellow apologist ? Because you realise it's not my point ?

I haven't laughed as much at a u-turn in years! Thanks!

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:33pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

The reason I ask is to ascertain something about The Irish.

On all The Irish forums I've been on, those commenting on 'the troubles' seem to have a great difficulty coping with reality. They seem to exaggerate everything, selectively sample data and generally talk out of their backsides.

Is this something they learn to do in Irish schools or is it cultural, or even genetic?

Or is it just something that Irish Nationalism encourages?

It seems to me that The Irish are a childish folk that can't get beyond their own emotions or needs.

Of course, it might be that these retards are actually from Birmingham (England or America), in which case forgive my observations.

Reality? I was born into the troubles, and lived my whole life in NI right up to the GFA, I got my fair share of reality thanks.

Also, could you have got any more bile squeezed into a single post?

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:35pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

How is it rubbish? It's just mathematics, if you feel Chucks figures are wrong, then show us, it should be easy.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:38pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

How is it rubbish? It's just mathematics, if you feel Chucks figures are wrong, then show us, it should be easy.

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Remember : I was "twisting" but Chuck is just "interpreting"

If Chuck is just "interpreting" then surely I was too ?

Not according to you jus a few posts ago, because you clearly accused me of "twisting".

Why aren't you accusing Chuck of twisting ?

Because he's on your "side" ? :rolleyes:

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

And I'm off to debate with someone who isn't so transparently blinkered and biased that they don't mind undermining their own credibility with a u-turn worthy of The Stig.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:43pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

I feel like banging my head into a table right about now.

How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?

I think what you mean is, you just don't like one particular interpretation, well too bad because it's still not wrong.

Like I said previously, if you believe Chuck's figures to be wrong, then show us, it's quite basic math.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:49pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

I feel like banging my head into a table right about now.

How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?

I think what you mean is, you just don't like one particular interpretation, well too bad because it's still not wrong.

Like I said previously, if you believe Chuck's figures to be wrong, then show us, it's quite basic math.

You said just a page ago that I was "twisting" when you thought my argument was his.

Why is it not now "twisting" ?

YOU spent a page telling me that I was wrong, when you thought my argument was his.

Why the change of heart ?

Since just a page ago you reckoned it was wrong and involved twisting, you should be able to answer the above.

Or were you lying or being misleading on the previous page ?

Oh - and re "How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?"

One phrase : "the boom is getting boomier"

Figures and stats can prove anything if you want them to, hence the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

karma_ · 15-12-2011 9:59pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said just a page ago that I was "twisting" when you thought my argument was his.

Why is it not now "twisting" ?

YOU spent a page telling me that I was wrong, when you thought my argument was his.

Why the change of heart ?

Since just a page ago you reckoned it was wrong and involved twisting, you should be able to answer the above.

Or were you lying or being misleading on the previous page ?

Oh - and re "How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?"

One phrase : "the boom is getting boomier"

Figures and stats can prove anything if you want them to, hence the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

Let us go back to the post I was replying to first.

You said:

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

I proved you were wrong, by using the figures and information you provided.

The figures Chuck show earlier, were of something very different, if you doubt this, go back and look, there is nothing wrong with teh figures he posted, nothing at all.

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments