Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 1:05am

K-9 wrote: »

Well its better than the alternative Keith or maybe you'd prefer they still bombed?

We'd basically 10-15 years of a stalemate after the hunger strikes, neither side was going to win or lose.

Go on then K-9, tell us how a UK State victory would have looked in 1998 instead of The Belfast Agreement stalemate. I'm fascinated to hear your views...

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 1:11am

K-9 wrote: »

Northern Ireland is now subject to self determination Keith, that's a big advance.

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

Liam Byrne · 19-12-2011 1:32am

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Discussion, negotiation, protests or - if it came to it and you view it as acceptable - actual "fighting back"

Lots of options in between "doing nothing" and murdering innocents.

Liam, you well know that wasn't what i was really on about.

My point still stands. I'd believe you'd do nothing if you couldn't fight that perfect war after said discussions, negotiations and protests were no longer an option.

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

karma_ · 19-12-2011 1:34am

trendyvicar wrote: »

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

A very, very different Stormont.

K-9 · 19-12-2011 1:44am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Go on then K-9, tell us how a UK State victory would have looked in 1998 instead of The Belfast Agreement stalemate. I'm fascinated to hear your views...

What? A UK state victory would have meant the IRA defeated, most locked up in jails, not releasing them.

trendyvicar wrote: »

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

Grand. Can you give me a source for that?

Nodin · 19-12-2011 2:40am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

You still haven't answered my question. Would you care to get back to me?

JustinDee · 19-12-2011 9:12am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Pearse must be spinning in his grave...

He spins everytime the armchair republicans (as bad as the armchair loyalists/pot-stirrers) here write his first name in Irish.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-12-2011 10:07am

SF and the PIRA were of course defeated. The stuff Martin McGuinness comes out with these days would have got him shot not so long ago.

northern ireland always had self determination as a six county entity - its just they always determined to stay in the UK as the majority within the state wanted it that way. That was the entire reason the IRA took on armed campaign.

Its the same with scotland/wales. If they ever wanted to leave the UK they could.

now mainstream unionism certainly took a bloody nose because they clearly didn't want the GFA (remember sunningdale and the workers strike) but if they took one step to the centre then Sinn Fein took 10

I think only SDLP and Alliance could say they outright stuck by their principles and got everything they initially claimed to want

The Westerner · 19-12-2011 11:15am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

As per Nodin's post #758 please.

Liam Byrne · 19-12-2011 11:24am

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

As per Nodin's post #758 please.

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

Anyway, we're drifting miles off-topic; the murder-of-innocents part of their campaign was definitely not justified and no amount of ganging up or nit-picking or whataboutery will change that fact.

The Westerner · 19-12-2011 12:29pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

Anyway, we're drifting miles off-topic; the murder-of-innocents part of their campaign was definitely not justified and no amount of ganging up or nit-picking or whataboutery will change that fact.

PM sent.

Nodin · 19-12-2011 1:52pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

What a truly, truly pathetic load of shite. You were asked to address a straightforward question in relation to supposed principles you yourself brought up.

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 3:19pm

K-9 said:

What? A UK state victory would have meant the IRA defeated, most locked up in jails, not releasing them.

Not really K-9. You seem to be suggesting that the only difference between a stalemate and a UK State victory was the early release of a few hundred Republican and Loyalist prisoners, out of the tens of thousands who had served their entire sentences previously. You could say that that happens at the end of any conflict - German soldiers were returned to Germany at the end of WWII for instance.

Grand. Can you give me a source for that?

This is the entire Government of Ireland Act, 1920 which governed Northern Ireland up until 1972.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/67/pdfs/ukpga_19200067_en.pdf

You'll have to scan it for the relevant clauses, but Wiki summarised the relevant provisions as follows:

As well as sharing the same viceroy, a Council of Ireland was envisaged to co-ordinate matters of common concern to the two parliaments, with each parliament possessing the ability, in identical motions, to vote powers to the Council, which it was hoped would evolve into a single Irish parliament. Both parts of Ireland would continue to send a number of MPs to the Westminster Parliament. Elections for both lower houses took place in May 1921.

Provisions for Irish Unity if agreed in NI were in place prior to 1972, presumably through Stormont.

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 3:22pm

karma_ wrote: »

A very, very different Stormont.

Both elected democratically. One man, one vote, etc. Just less Catholic voters.

Nodin · 19-12-2011 3:24pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Both elected democratically. One man, one vote, etc. Just less Catholic voters.

....which ignores the gerrymandered boundaries and the fact that it was not "one man, one vote" for most of its existence.

maccored · 19-12-2011 4:12pm

my but you are a funny fellow. first you pretend there was no link betweeen the udr and the uda ... anyone form the north over the age of 35 could easily tell you there was ... and then you insinuate I have 'friends in the IRA' ..... classic stuff.

I'll say one thing - the propaganda you were fed seems to have worked alright.

trendyvicar wrote: »

They weren't. Why do you continue to push this fiction?

Your friends in The IRA hated The UDR for the simple reason they formed part of the security forces that were holding the line against The IRA murder campaign. Some of The IRA also hated them because they were mostly Protestant. They definitely didn't want any Catholics in The UDR, for the simple reason The IRA lived in Catholic areas and having neighbours in the security forces wasn't in their interest. They also didn't want large numbers of Unionists with military experience in the event of a British withdrawal from NI. Those are the main reasons Republicans ran a continuous campaign against The UDR.

Of course, their propaganda didn't succeed did it? The 'troubles' were almost at an end when The UDR were merged to create The RIR. Yes, merged with another UK Army regiment, not disbanded. Bad luck old boy.

Have you read all the statistics on The UDR I posted? I note with interest no Nationalist responded to that post. No surprise there...

maccored · 19-12-2011 4:19pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

You and your comrades on here have been thrashed by me.

oh christ this is getting funnier. No offense trendyvicar, but the only impression Ive taken away from your posts - far from you thrashing anyone - is that you have a rose tinted view of the UDR, UDA and things that happened in the north. Im afraid I missed the bits where you came out on top, as a quick read through the thread doesnt reflect that.

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 4:45pm

Nodin wrote: »

....which ignores the gerrymandered boundaries and the fact that it was not "one man, one vote" for most of its existence.

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 4:46pm

maccored wrote: »

oh christ this is getting funnier. No offense trendyvicar, but the only impression Ive taken away from your posts - far from you thrashing anyone - is that you have a rose tinted view of the UDR, UDA and things that happened in the north. Im afraid I missed the bits where you came out on top, as a quick read through the thread doesnt reflect that.

Oh dear...

JustinDee · 19-12-2011 5:03pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

- For example, Derry/Londonderry/call it what you will. Catholic majority in area but council made up of minority due to the resetting of boundary lines to suit that minority.
- Unless I'm much mistaken, it would have taken place since the early 40s and lasted right through and formed the civil rights origins of the so-called troubles.

If you want a good overview or insight into these times, try Peter Taylor's excellent series of books on the North (Provos, Loyalists, Brits) and accompanying ground-breaking BBC documentary series.

K-9 · 19-12-2011 5:03pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

K-9 said:

Not really K-9. You seem to be suggesting that the only difference between a stalemate and a UK State victory was the early release of a few hundred Republican and Loyalist prisoners, out of the tens of thousands who had served their entire sentences previously. You could say that that happens at the end of any conflict - German soldiers were returned to Germany at the end of WWII for instance.

Well you're just going to say black if I say white anyway! Considering they were in all party talks after the ceasefire and eventually Government it doesn't look like a surrender to me. Its a bit like saying the old IRA surrendered in 1921 because they had a truce and had talks and not getting their aim. Its a very blinkered way of looking at it.

This is the entire Government of Ireland Act, 1920 which governed Northern Ireland up until 1972.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/67/pdfs/ukpga_19200067_en.pdf

You'll have to scan it for the relevant clauses, but Wiki summarised the relevant provisions as follows:

Provisions for Irish Unity if agreed in NI were in place prior to 1972, presumably through Stormont.

Well the Free State leaving the Commonwealth and later becoming a Republic made that a bit irrelevant! I don't see how that has anything to do with self determination either and the whole Good Friday Agreement thing of inserting a self determination clause suggests to me, no self determination clause previously existed. Its a pretty logical conclusion so I'll see if anybody can provide proof it did exist.

K-9 · 19-12-2011 5:09pm

The freemasons were looked after anyway!

65.-(1) It
that existing enactments
relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do
not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge
of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland, or of any lodge or
society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
(2) Neither the Parliament of Southern Ireland, nor the
Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have power to abrogate
or affect prejudicially any privilege or exemption of the Grand
Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, or any lodge or society
recognised by that Grand Lodge which is enjoyed either by
is hereby declared
E
51
Special pro-
visions as to
Freemasons.
[CH.
A.D. 1920.
67.]
Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
[10 & 11 GEo. 5.]
law or custom at the time of the passing of this Act, and any
law made in contravention of this provision shall, so far as it
is in contravention of this provision, be void.
66.-(1) If the Government Ireland

Nodin · 19-12-2011 5:19pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

The boundary changes were in Fermanagh and Armagh. As regards the vote - this was linked to property ownership, giving many more than one and some none at all in local government. This is well known, so I presume your earlier claim of "one man, one vote" was an attempt at provocation.

karma_ · 19-12-2011 5:32pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

Now you're just having a laugh and it's clear that you have no clue about the history of Northern Ireland or you are wilfully blind to it because of prejudice. My own constituency was gerrymandered up until 1997 for fcuks sake.

maccored · 19-12-2011 5:43pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Oh dear...

Oh dear is right - I think you're here just to wind people up.

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 6:03pm

JustinDee wrote: »

- For example, Derry/Londonderry/call it what you will. Catholic majority in area but council made up of minority due to the resetting of boundary lines to suit that minority.
- Unless I'm much mistaken, it would have taken place since the early 40s and lasted right through and formed the civil rights origins of the so-called troubles.

If you want a good overview or insight into these times, try Peter Taylor's excellent series of books on the North (Provos, Loyalists, Brits) and accompanying ground-breaking BBC documentary series.

STORMONT

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 6:05pm

Nodin wrote: »

The boundary changes were in Fermanagh and Armagh. As regards the vote - this was linked to property ownership, giving many more than one and some none at all in local government. This is well known, so I presume your earlier claim of "one man, one vote" was an attempt at provocation.

STORMONT

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 6:07pm

K-9 wrote: »

Well you're just going to say black if I say white anyway! Considering they were in all party talks after the ceasefire and eventually Government it doesn't look like a surrender to me. Its a bit like saying the old IRA surrendered in 1921 because they had a truce and had talks and not getting their aim. Its a very blinkered way of looking at it.

Well the Free State leaving the Commonwealth and later becoming a Republic made that a bit irrelevant! I don't see how that has anything to do with self determination either and the whole Good Friday Agreement thing of inserting a self determination clause suggests to me, no self determination clause previously existed. Its a pretty logical conclusion so I'll see if anybody can provide proof it did exist.

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

trendyvicar · 19-12-2011 6:09pm

maccored wrote: »

Oh dear is right - I think you're here just to wind people up.

I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference...

K-9 · 19-12-2011 6:51pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

You were asked for a link to show NI was subject to self determination. You haven't provided it, some link to the Government of Ireland act that says nothing of the kind. You thought you'd get away with that one!

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments