To all the Anti-Nationalists here....

Big Mouth

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland? Would you have joined the Armed Struggle? Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Over to you......and lets try keep on topic please!

Liam Byrne

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland?

No.

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have joined the Armed Struggle?

No.

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Possibly, as long as they weren't hijacked by the violent thugs.


Then again, I'm not really "anti-Nationalist"; people are entitled to their beliefs.

I'm just anti-murder, and I detest when people involved in stuff like that claim my support.

Eliot Rosewater

Big Mouth wrote: »

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland?

I'd have joined the peaceful protests for equal rights. When those rights were won I'd have settled down and tried to make the most of my life by going to college and finding some interesting hobbies. I certainly wouldn't have blamed all the malcontent in my life on abstract notions such as the "nation" into which I was born.

I deal in tangible happiness, like having nice friends and doing enjoyable things. There is no happiness to be won from a united Ireland because it doesn't actually affect you, excepting the colour of the post boxes and the insignia on letters from the tax man. I don't know why people buy into nationalism of this kind because there's nothing tangible to be gained from it.

If the two countries on this island are ever united it will be fascinating to watch the response of nationalists. Suddenly they'll realise, "wait, this won't actually change my life".

KeithAFC

Big Mouth wrote: »

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland? Would you have joined the Armed Struggle? Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Over to you......and lets try keep on topic please!

I think these questions could be asked for both sides.

lugha

Big Mouth wrote: »

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland? Would you have joined the Armed Struggle? Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

A response using force to the oppression of catholics would be very difficult to criticize.
However, what we eventually got was a bunch of lads assuming the right to speak for all of us and asserting that they were the true government of Ireland.
Plus a willingness on their part to kill the guardians of this state in some of their "fundraising" in the republic.
Can I ask you, why didn't they stick to being a force to address the wrong-doings done to catholics?

Big Mouth

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think these questions could be asked for both sides.

No they could not. They were the oppressed people not the other way around, don't even try to make it seem as the two peoples were in any way equal.

I don't recall any Protestant civil rights marches or hundreds of people in East Belfast being victims of internment.

@ Liam Byrne - I wonder who you would have called violent thugs if you had of marched on Bloody Sunday?

baby and crumble

I never post in here, but I saw the title on the front page...

Why is this always brought to catholic vs protestant? Just wondering. Lots of southern protestants are as irish as irish can be, if you want to put it that way, and lots of northern catholics want to keep Northern Ireland part of Britain.

Just saying.

Big Mouth

lugha wrote: »

A response using force to the oppression of catholics would be very difficult to criticize.
However, what we eventually got was a bunch of lads assuming the right to speak for all of us and asserting that they were the true government of Ireland.
Plus a willingness on their part to kill the guardians of this state in some of their "fundraising" in the republic.
Can I ask you, why didn't they stick to being a force to address the wrong-doings done to catholics?

I don't support the IRA now. They are irrelevant in my eyes.
I do however understand their creation and their objectives in the 60's, 70's and 80's. When has anyone on here supported or cordoned the P/R/C IRA activities in the last 15 years?

You are talking about scumbags who may have been in the IRA and are just thugs who would have jumped to join any violent orginization, however, the IRA as a body were well supported by lots of people in the North and South in the period I'm referring too. Why do you think that is?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PomBear

it's funny how us in the South are easy to say this this yet the Nationalist community (who have experienced Republicanism first hand) in the six counties have continually pledged their support to Republicanism

Big Mouth

@ Liam Byrne, DonegalFella and others with fair weather atitudes

I take it you didn't support Nelson Mandela and the ANC as these were considered terrorists by apartheid South Africa and were "violent thugs" too?

timespast

In fairness all of this belongs in the past...... the one's who continually go on about the past are the one's who wish to drag SF down.

It's been 15 years and SF are a left wing party who have made major gains in the North and hope to do so in the rest of Ireland.

How about turning it onto Labour/ Democratic Left/ Workers Party/ Official SF?

We've more important things to be worrying about.

Liam Byrne

Big Mouth wrote: »

@ Liam Byrne - I wonder who you would have called violent thugs if you had of marched on Bloody Sunday?

What is "had of" supposed to mean ?

ballsymchugh

zoegh wrote: »

I never post in here, but I saw the title on the front page...

Why is this always brought to catholic vs protestant? Just wondering. Lots of southern protestants are as irish as irish can be, if you want to put it that way, and lots of northern catholics want to keep Northern Ireland part of Britain.

Just saying.

good point, and plenty of protestants marched in the civil rights demonstrations also.

Liam Byrne

ballsymchugh wrote: »

good point, and plenty of protestants marched in the civil rights demonstrations also.

I remember even as a teenager wondering why the news reports focussed on what religion the victims were.

To me it made no sense.

OK, so those involved may say "yaaay, another prod dead", but for most of the violence which targetted civilians, who's to know what religion they were ?

I mean, of the 28 murdered in Omagh, who knows ( or cares ) what religion they were ?

amacachi

Big Mouth wrote: »

@ Liam Byrne, DonegalFella and others with fair weather atitudes

I take it you didn't support Nelson Mandela and the ANC as these were considered terrorists by apartheid South Africa and were "violent thugs" too?

I wouldn't have the same view (though few of the lads in the ANC were as perfect as history seems to be trying hard to paint them). It's very easy looking from the future and from the outside but after the mid 70s the armed republican movement stopped being much to do with republicanism for most people. What people seem to forget is that the civil rights marches were about what they were called, they had nothing to do with nationalism. Unfortunately it evolved as these things tend to, from civil rights to nationalism (sometimes separatist) to an excuse for thugs to make money. Just look at the so-called republicans now, drugs and contraband seems to be mainly what they do. While contraband has been a mainstay since early enough the drugs are proof that it's thuggery and money that are all they're about.
My dad went on marches in the late 60s and was just lucky he wasn't at the one that they decided to open fire at. He came down here and was treated like **** by a lot of the so-called republicans (anti-brits) down here (and by the Gardaí for that matter), so he knows and I know somewhat how empty the support of a lot of the so-called dissidents is.

The movement went the wrong way in my opinion but I blame the minority who steered it towards making money rather than the early masses who felt that it was their only option.

amacachi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, so those involved may say "yaaay, another prod dead", but for most of the violence which targetted civilians, who's to know what religion they were ?

Those same lads would be the first to give out about northerners coming this side of the border as well.

Liam Byrne

amacachi wrote: »

Those same lads would be the first to give out about northerners coming this side of the border as well.

.....while probably driving over the same border to buy their cheap booze and diesel!

lugha

Big Mouth wrote: »

You are talking about scumbags who may have been in the IRA and are just thugs who would have jumped to join any violent orginization

No, I am taking about PIRA.

Big Mouth wrote: »

@ Liam Byrne, DonegalFella and others with fair weather atitudes

I take it you didn't support Nelson Mandela and the ANC as these were considered terrorists by apartheid South Africa and were "violent thugs" too?

Ah, Nelson! He hasn't made an appearance here in a while! :pac:

Once again, with feeling. The black South Africans (who did not have a vote) had the support of the majority of the people they claimed to represent. PIRA, demonstrably, could only claim the support of a tiny minority of the people they claimed to represent.

If there was a party advocating a peaceful solution (a la SDLP) which drew the support of the majority of blacks, but were ignored by the ANC, then perhaps the comparisment might be fair.

PomBear

lugha wrote: »

No, I am taking about PIRA.



Ah, Nelson! He hasn't made an appearance here in a while! :pac:

Once again, with feeling. The black South Africans (who did not have a vote) had the support of the majority of the people they claimed to represent. PIRA, demonstrably, could only claim the support of a tiny minority of the people they claimed to represent.

If there was a party advocating a peaceful solution (a la SDLP) which drew the support of the majority of blacks, but were ignored by the ANC, then perhaps the comparisment might be fair.

Ever hear of Gerrymandering? Support for Republicanism could not be represented fully as democracy and therefore demographic voting statistics were extremely flawed

lugha

PomBear wrote: »

Ever hear of Gerrymandering? Support for Republicanism could not be represented fully as democracy and therefore demographic voting statistics were extremely flawed

Are you claiming that Sinn Fein had greater support than the SDLP?
Not that it matters. They certainly did not have the support of us down here.

View

Big Mouth wrote: »

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland? Would you have joined the Armed Struggle? Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Over to you......and lets try keep on topic please!

Wtf, is an anti-Nationalist?

Do you mean someone who wouldn't have supported the campaign of the IRA at the time?

Lest anyone forget, one of the (other) stated aims of that campaign involved the overthrow of the democratically elected government of (the Republic of) Ireland.

PomBear

lugha wrote: »

Are you claiming that Sinn Fein had greater support than the SDLP?
Not that it matters. They certainly did not have the support of us down here.

Yes.

Well Sinn Féin did not take their seats, voting did not see their candidates make a difference, Nationalist didn't vote and when they didn't vote their constituency was gerrymandered. Ofcourse SF had more.

Liam Byrne

PomBear wrote: »

Yes.

Well Sinn Féin did not take their seats, voting did not see their candidates make a difference, Nationalist didn't vote and when they didn't vote their constituency was gerrymandered. Ofcourse SF had more.

What ?????

So you're making the assumption that anyone who didn't vote was automatically an SF supporter ?

And also claiming that they stopped voting because SF didn't take their seats, even though they knew in advance that SF wouldn't take their seats ?

PomBear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?????

So you're making the assumption that anyone who didn't vote was automatically an SF supporter ?

And also claiming that they stopped voting because SF didn't take their seats, even though they knew in advance that SF wouldn't take their seats ?

No i'm saying many Republicans did not vote as they saw it to be useless.

Very few SF voters would vote as for the reason above, those that did saw their vote Gerrymandered. Also, SDLP capitalised on this as they would flaunt themselves as a party to get things done politically, not many fell into this trap.

lugha

PomBear wrote: »

No i'm saying many Republicans did not vote as they saw it to be useless.

Very few SF voters would vote as for the reason above, those that did saw their vote Gerrymandered. Also, SDLP capitalised on this as they would flaunt themselves as a party to get things done politically, not many fell into this trap.

So how did Seamus Mallon manage to become deputy first minister?

PomBear

lugha wrote: »

So how did Seamus Mallon manage to become deputy first minister?

Yes SDLP were the higher party then, have I not explained why this was?

Pat D. Almighty

Thread has gone off topic, as predicted. There are many threads on this forum discussing the pros/cons & merits/demerits of militant republicanism. I'll answer the OPs questions in the context of the beginning of the troubles.

Big Mouth wrote: »

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland?

No, I certainly would not. I am not a Catholic, but any sort of oppressive injustice and sectarianism sickens me.

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have joined the Armed Struggle?

It depends what age I was. If I was a teenager, in my naivety, I probably would have. If it was kicking off at the age I am now, then probably not, but I'd get involved in the party political side of republican activism.

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Certainly.

KeithAFC

Big Mouth wrote: »

No they could not. They were the oppressed people not the other way around, don't even try to make it seem as the two peoples were in any way equal.

I don't recall any Protestant civil rights marches or hundreds of people in East Belfast being victims of internment.

@ Liam Byrne - I wonder who you would have called violent thugs if you had of marched on Bloody Sunday?

There was many protestants which went on the Civil rights march. You just insulted them.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're making the assumption that anyone who didn't vote was automatically an SF supporter ?

Alot of the electorate which didn't vote in working class nationalist areas would have been like this.
This did happen up till the 90's in certain areas(mostly working class). That election machine called SF went on a voter registration push in their strongholds and this along with demographics helped push up their vote since then.

gurramok

lugha wrote: »

Are you claiming that Sinn Fein had greater support than the SDLP?
Not that it matters. They certainly did not have the support of us down here.

There was no 'Troubles' down here so the population was not directly affected by national identity or civil oppression as they had won their freedom and hence voted for other parties with a non-militant ethos.

Its no co-incidence that the majority of the electorate up north vote for parties where national identity is important in their decision making (SF & DUP).

20Cent

So for those who say they would have joined the civil rights marches. Many of these were attacked and marchers beaten while the RUC stood back and watched (or joined in). What would you do then?
Keep marching and getting beaten up?

Fratton Fred

20Cent wrote: »

So for those who say they would have joined the civil rights marches. Many of these were attacked and marchers beaten while the RUC stood back and watched (or joined in). What would you do then?
Keep marching and getting beaten up?

Are you claiming that the correct course of action is to start killing innocent people yourself then?

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you claiming that the correct course of action is to start killing innocent people yourself then?

Are you claiming that the RUC were innocent?

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Are you claiming that the RUC were innocent?

Are you saying the people killed in LeMons,warrington, Birmingham, guildford, enniskillen weren't?

20Cent

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you claiming that the correct course of action is to start killing innocent people yourself then?

Not at all.
But when your marches are attacked.
Voting areas gerrymandered.
Your MP is actually against you, letters etc don't work.
If you go out and sit on the street you are beaten.

Whats left to do?

Not condoning attacks on civilians but the British gov did leave no choice. People need some avenue of protest or representation or else it leaves a vacuum for violence.

Fratton Fred

20Cent wrote: »

Not at all.
But when your marches are attacked.
Voting areas gerrymandered.
Your MP is actually against you, letters etc don't work.
If you go out and sit on the street you are beaten.

Whats left to do?

Not condoning attacks on civilians but the British gov did leave no choice. People need some avenue of protest or representation or else it leaves a vacuum for violence.

There was a choice, they could have had an armed struggle without resorting to targeting innocent people. The moment they did that they destroyed any form of moral highground the civil rights movement had.

Irish nationalism/civil rights became tarnished by the blood lust and revenge of the thugs that ran the IRA.

I doubt you will find anyone who does not agree with what their goals were, but most right minded people have a real problem with their methods.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you saying the people killed in LeMons,warrington, Birmingham, guildford, enniskillen weren't?

No, were they marching for their civil rights?

The RUC and their B-special travellers beat people to death in the early days at the start of the Troubles, how did you expect the victims to react?

angelfire9

Big Mouth wrote: »

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

A few less people dead for a start
Birmingham, Guildford, Enniskillen, Omagh, all those people who "vanished", Gerry Mc Cabe.... I could go on and on

Big Mouth wrote: »

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland?

Living in the south most of us didn't have much of a choice
Then again living in the south when my father was stationed on the border in the early '80's our family lived in fear every day while he was away
Have you forgotten Leggykelly??

Big Mouth wrote: »

Would you have joined the Armed Struggle?

Absolutely NOT!
Killing innocent civilians? And killing RUC officers and British Army Officers is still murder
To say nothing of killing the Gardai!

Big Mouth wrote: »

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

What exactly do you think Bobby Sands achieved by the way?
Let us not forget that the H-Block hunger strikes were ended as a result of one of the mothers of one of the other hunger strikers putting her foot down and ending her son's starvation
At the end of the day Bobby Sands committed suicide I don't see anything particularly admirable about that!

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

No, were they marching for their civil rights?

The RUC and their B-special travellers beat people to death in the early days at the start of the Troubles, how did you expect the victims to react?

By fighting back at the people persecuting them, not innocent people going about their normal lives.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By fighting back at the people persecuting them, not innocent people going about their normal lives.

Fighting, by how?

padma

You've also got to throw in the Loyalist gangs marching in to Catholic neighbourhoods and burning Catholics out of their homes, simply because they were catholics. Backed up by the B specials and RUC, and later the british army who were originally brought in to protect the catholics.

The daily curfews, not being allowed leave your neighbourhood. A whole system in place which was illegal and undemocratic. Why the U.N just stood back and let Northern Ireland be ruled in such a sectarian way is beyond me.

When money pored in from the States and elsewhere to help the Catholic peoples form and unite against the system in place, this was when the Provisional movement was set up. Of course many of the Youth of the time joined ranks in order to PROTECT their neighbourhoods. As they saw themselves under attack from all sides. This was the reality

So in answer to your question I'm not really sure on the one hand if I was born in to that society and reaching the age of 17/18 and the troubles were starting I probably would have joined up in order to protect my family and neighbours. I put it in to the context if your neighbourhood in your city was attacked and treated this way would you want to do something to help your situation? On the other hand Who I am now is a peaceful and calm person and wouldn't have any inclination on this level. But I haven't been brought up in such a situation.

Of course I would have been out demonstrating for my rights as they are my rights, it's like my life all you have is your rights.

losthorizon

Big Mouth wrote: »

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Since you all critictize Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands etc so much I am interested to know what would you have done and what do you think you would have achieved by now?

Honestly, would you have stood by as Catholic people were victims of such injustices in Northern Ireland? Would you have joined the Armed Struggle? Would you have protested in Civil Rights marches?

Over to you......and lets try keep on topic please!

What you forget to mention is that the vast majority of people both North and South abhorred violence. THey voted against it again and again both North and South despite the provocations. The IRA, INLA and the various Loyalist groups ignored the democratic wishs of the voters and kept on their murder campaigns. I tend to find that those people who are most in awe of these "groups" are two young to remember or not even born when all these events were happening. I'm not from NI but If I was I would have marched In the Civil Rights Protests and and and probably voted SDLP followed by Alliance.

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'd have joined the peaceful protests for equal rights. When those rights were won I'd have settled down and tried to make the most of my life

And back in the real workd where those peaceful protests were brutally crushed, then what?

OhNoYouDidn't

losthorizon wrote: »

I'm not from NI but If I was I would have marched In the Civil Rights Protests and and and probably voted SDLP followed by Alliance.

And what have they achieved?

padma

Wouldn't it have been much better at the start of the civil rights movement that civil rights were granted to those who they were denied to? That the powers to be at the time instead of beating up the protesters and backing up there loyalist followers decided to listen instead of being fired up by Paisley and crew? Then things would have evolved at a more gentle level and we wouldnt of had all the years of bickering.

20Cent

padma wrote: »

Wouldn't it have been much better at the start of the civil rights movement that civil rights were granted to those who they were denied to? That the powers to be at the time instead of beating up the protesters and backing up there loyalist followers decided to listen instead of being fired up by Paisley and crew? Then things would have evolved at a more gentle level and we wouldnt of had all the years of bickering.

True and thats why I think Paisley was one of the main instigators of the troubles. Don't know why he is being honoured now like a peacemaker, if he coped on 30 years ago a lot of bloodshed would have been saved.

CokaColumbo

The ANC put bombs in bins and pubs too. Their forms of punishment and execution were far more brutal than the IRA's. There is no moral difference between Martin McGuinness and Nelson Mandela; both are either murderers or freedom fighters.

Although the IRA didn't have the backing of the majority of the population, neither did the IRA of the war of independence era (the 1918 election was 'first past the post' and Sinn Fein didn't require a majority to beat the other parties). The 26 counties is founded on that "illegitimacy."

Violent republicanism has never relied on majority backing. It relies on other justifications, i.e. atrocities and injustices committed by Britain throughout history and throughout the troubles (e.g. mass collusion, internment, shoot-to-kill, torture, brutality, widespread destruction of catholic homes by British troops etc.) and the simple fact that Westminster has no right to rule in any part of Ireland. Young men and women never needed much of an excuse to take up arms against the unionist & sectarian security apparatus in the north.

The IRA's war had the sympathetic backing of large sections of Irish society, north and south. The fact that those nationalists who lived through the worst of the Troubles now elect veteran provisionals into government demonstrates that. And as unfortunate as it was, in a war situation civilians are going to die. That is a simple fact. You cannot expect an armed group to not kill civilians in any sort of war-time situation. Botched bombings and other "accidents" were the main reason civilians died at the hands of the IRA, and over 100 provisional activists themselves. That and individuals took it upon themselves to murder civilians of course.

padma

Why were they denied is the question you'd have to impose upon the powers to be at the time, the mentality of those in power. The mentality of the Orange order. Why were the catholics being treated as second class citizens by a country which was supposed to have "civilized" the world? Why did the catholic emancipation act come in in the 1860's while Britain had abolished slavery decades before. No other reason IMO but racism, state sponsored,

losthorizon

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And what have they achieved?

It was these forces of peace that barely managed to keep the North from sliding into total anarchy. What would have happened if the SDLP hadnt existed? I shudder to think. In the end even the IRA/Sinn Feinn realised this.

OhNoYouDidn't

losthorizon wrote: »

It was these forces of peace that barely managed to keep the North from sliding into total anarchy. What would have happened if the SDLP hadnt existed? I shudder to think. In the end even the IRA/Sinn Feinn realised this.

So absolutley nothing then