Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 9:59pm

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :

karma wrote:

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here.

Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

karma_ · 15-12-2011 10:04pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :

Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

I posted that, because it does show the opposite of what you're claiming.

You gave an analogy without thinking it through, then on the basis of that analogy said that Chuck would say that you were less evil because their percentage was higher.

The FACT is that your % was higher, which immediately invalidated your argument.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 10:06pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :

Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

I posted that, because it does show the opposite of what you're claiming.

You gave an analogy without thinking it through, then on the basis of that analogy said that Chuck would say that you were less evil because their percentage was higher.

The FACT is that your % was higher, which immediately invalidated your argument.

My head hurts!

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

My total was higher, their percentage was higher.

karma_ · 15-12-2011 10:08pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

Now you're failing at basic maths.

The moral here is that you shouldn't post stupid analogies that can be ripped apart with 2 minutes of thought.

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2011 10:14pm

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

Now you're failing at basic maths.

The moral here is that you shouldn't post stupid analogies that can be ripped apart with 2 minutes of thought.

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

Hannibal · 15-12-2011 11:44pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

RMD · 16-12-2011 12:04am

Dotsey wrote: »

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

I'm not backing up Loyalists in the slightest, I hate those scum. But something to take into account which regularly isn't is the Loyalists weren't at war with the state, members of the security forces whether it be RUC or BAF weren't targets for them. The only people who posed as opponents to them were Republicans and Republican sympathisers in essence (pretty much all Catholics as they saw it).

Sadly, because they had such a narrow pool of "legitimate targets" available, the main victims of retaliation attacks were civilians. Who targeted what though doesn't justify either, at the end of the day hundreds of civilians died at the hands of paramilitaries, some through direct attacks and others as "collateral damage" in bombing campaigns. Either way, they died due to the actions of cowardly scumbags.

trendyvicar · 16-12-2011 12:19am

RMD wrote: »

I'm not backing up Loyalists in the slightest, I hate those scum. But something to take into account which regularly isn't is the Loyalists weren't at war with the state, members of the security forces whether it be RUC or BAF weren't targets for them. The only people who posed as opponents to them were Republicans and Republican sympathisers in essence (pretty much all Catholics as they saw it).

Sadly, because they had such a narrow pool of "legitimate targets" available, the main victims of retaliation attacks were civilians. Who targeted what though doesn't justify either, at the end of the day hundreds of civilians died at the hands of paramilitaries, some through direct attacks and others as "collateral damage" in bombing campaigns. Either way, they died due to the actions of cowardly scumbags.

Why do you hate them?

trendyvicar · 16-12-2011 12:22am

Dotsey wrote: »

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

Who gave them the right to murder police officers and those acting in support of the police?

Liam Byrne · 16-12-2011 12:43am

Dotsey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

Leaving bombs on streets is targeting civilians. No amount of "but look we didn't overall" will change that fact.

And they were pretty damn good at it, since they murdered more than all the rest put together.

karma_ · 16-12-2011 12:53am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Leaving bombs on streets is targeting civilians. No amount of "but look we didn't overall" will change that fact.

And they were pretty damn good at it, since they murdered more than all the rest put together.

You know, the thing is, I agree with you and I posted in the thread earlier that there was no justification for any violence by Republicans in NI, none whatsoever. However, this thread turned a good few pages back, where even though moderate nationalists agree with this they were still getting attacked and accused of apologising for the IRA, being bigots, and being naive.

I certainly have never apologised for them, and I never will, however, when I see pish posted about a moderate like myself getting tarred with the same brush, then I jump in, with both feet.

Chuck Stone · 16-12-2011 10:49am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do you hate them?

Why do you keep asking flaccid questions?

trendyvicar wrote: »

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.

I reject your pseudo-scientific diagnosis. Work with reality and stop trying to create your own echo-chamber.

Noreen1 · 16-12-2011 12:13pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

The IRA campaign had nothing to do with Civil Rights. They didn't want civil rights for Catholics under British rule. They wanted Irish independence and a 32 county republic. Some impressionable idiots were fed that crap about civil rights. The ambitions of Adams and McGuinness were to become top dog once they knew the armed campaign was going nowhere so they instead switch tack and focused on a gradualist process of phasing out terror and phasing in normal politics. They have only recently completed the transformation and having left shed layers of dead skin they leave the killing and murdering up to the idiots in the RIRA.

The aim was power. Peace only came when the provos saw the door open for political power.

The people were voting for peace since 1922.

So what? They don't care and there's no chance of them going to prison now. They let Bobby Sands starve while they were planning their political trajectories.

If the Provos had done it they would telling us all contextualize it as part of the war. It's only an atrocity because they didn't do it!

Good luck with that friendo!

You know they never will.

Never going to happen.

Why so emphatic?

Your posts show remarkably little faith in the people who inhabit this Island - the very same people who voted overwhelmingly for peace.

When you say that people will never admit wrongdoing by those of their own political persuasion, you can only be referring to those who are sufficiently narrow-minded, bigoted, and immature to be capable of doing so.
The very same type of people who helped cause the whole tragic period known as "The Troubles", by fanning the flames of hatred, bigotry, and predjudice.

The majority of people have proved they do not want that - hence, it is reasonable to assume that, given enough time, such sentiments will fade.

There may always be Nationalists and Unionists. Neither have to choose to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry. That, with the advent of the peace process, has become a personal choice - and, as such obviously carries personal responsibility.

The truth needs to be told to foster understanding. That truth, elements of which may be difficult for both Communities, does not need to be inflammatory, or used as an exercise in "point-scoring", or worse, deliberate jeering.

Unfortunately, some people haven't reached that level of either maturity or humanity - yet!

maccored · 16-12-2011 12:59pm

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

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.

maccored · 16-12-2011 1:01pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

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.

Oh. My. God.

Thats the most loyalist apologist statement I think Ive ever read on this forum. Plus, the UDR assisted loyalist killers in targeting republicans - as did most of the rest of the corrupt security forces. These things happen in a war, but your statement there tried to make it sound like the UDR werent sectarian ****.

trendyvicar · 16-12-2011 2:06pm

maccored wrote: »

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

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...

LordSutch · 16-12-2011 2:07pm

maccored wrote: »

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

A bit like Sinn Fein and the PIRA?

J Cheever Loophole · 16-12-2011 2:07pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

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.

So the inference from what you are saying is that there were legitimate civil rights abuses. And I'm sure even you would accept that those abuses came fom elements within the "PUL Community" - the community of which you are a part. Given that, do you feel any sense of shame for these abuses?

LordSutch · 16-12-2011 2:08pm

Was the Republican campaign justifiable? NO

Did militant Republicans have a mandate to murder? NO

Did Militant Republicans have the right to plant Bombs? NO

Did the PIRA Armed Struggle achieve its aims? NO

Was all the death, maiming & destruction worth it? NO

Did the Republican campaign Unite North & South? NO

Did the Republican campaigh pull the North out of the UK? NO

Did murdering Unionists/British people bring us closer? NO

Was dislodging Northern Ireland from the UK successful? NO

Is Northern Ireland more likely to leave the UK a result of the Troubles? NO

=============================================

Was a so called United Ireland all a Big pipe dream? YES

trendyvicar · 16-12-2011 2:11pm

maccored wrote: »

Oh. My. God.

Thats the most loyalist apologist statement I think Ive ever read on this forum. Plus, the UDR assisted loyalist killers in targeting republicans - as did most of the rest of the corrupt security forces. These things happen in a war, but your statement there tried to make it sound like the UDR werent sectarian ****.

Can you tell me exactly how many Republicans were killed as a result of UDR assistance to Loyalist paramilitaries?

By the way being a 'sectarian w*nker' or a 'politically motivated w*nker' doesn't make you a terrorist.

KeithAFC · 16-12-2011 5:08pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16221743

A witness at the Smithwick Tribunal has claimed a former IRA bomb-maker was a secret agent or was being protected by some state agencies "north and south".
Interesting.

trendyvicar · 16-12-2011 6:30pm

From the posts on this forum so far, it's becoming increasingly obvious that Nationalists/Republicans have very little concrete to offer in opposition to the widely regarded narrative that the only parties fighting their self declared 'wars' were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries with the security forces carrying out their UK State mandate to minimise loss of life and imprison those committing terrorist acts, whilst a political solution could be found.

The widely regarded narrative has always allowed for a small number of criminal acts having been committed by members of the security forces including collusion with loyalist paramilitaries on occasion.

This narrative is of no interest to Nationalist Ireland and especially Irish Republicans, because their political stance is to see 'the troubles' in the light of British Imperialism setting the two communities in Northern Ireland at each other's throats in order to maintain control over part of 'Ireland'. To this end they target their propaganda at the activities of the security forces. Given how few people were deliberately killed by the security forces without obvious just cause, it has always been a Republican propaganda imperative to link the security forces to Loyalist paramilitaries, despite the absurdity of those same security forces imprisoning over 10 000 Loyalists in UK jails.

It is a reflection of the low point that Irish Nationalism/Republicanism has found itself in that reference to The PIRA rarely appears linked to the historical Republican objectives of Irish independence and sovereignty, but only as some sort of freakish adjunct to 'The Civil Rights' movement. This extends to massaging and discounting PIRA 'military' successes - the reason the organisation was set up in the first place. It would appear that a civil rights narrative is now more acceptable to 'Nationalist' Ireland and SF as the acceptors of UK rule in Northern Ireland are more than happy to go along with this.

DoireNod · 16-12-2011 10:23pm

LordSutch wrote: »

............
Was a so called United Ireland all a Big pipe dream? YES

I accept that you may have a case for some of your previous assertions, but this I can't accept.

Can you define what you mean by "so called United Ireland"?
And can you tell me why such is a "Big pipe dream"?

LordSutch · 16-12-2011 11:15pm

Well number one, I say 'so called' because what does/what would a united Ireland mean? and how could it truly be United in the Republican sense of the meaning? I guess that Republicans visualise a 32 county Irish Republic under one flag (Tricolour), and with one national anthem (Amhrán na bhFiann). But in the light of day how in God's name would Northern Unionist British people feel about that? and would they want to just give up their beloved Union with Britain? (cue massive list from their British Culture-Heritage, to their NHS to the GBP +everything in between) . . . I mean how can they just drop all that, and then leave their heriatge & their Union behind them & walk into a new Union, and aquire a new heriatge with Dublin & Gaelic Ireland?

This is why I say it was a Big pipe dream, and I personally think that a United Ireland was never part of the original plan in 69/70. I think the dream emerged during the troubles, a dream that might come true if the IRA could kill enough people & bomb enough businesses out of existance so that the burden was just too much for Belfast & London, therefore breaking NI away from the rest of the UK. < The pipe dream didn't happen though, and the majority of Northern people still wish to be part of the United Kingdom of GB & NI, while having normal & friendly relations with Dublin & the rest of the 32 counties.

Chuck Stone · 17-12-2011 1:05pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Nationalists/Republicans have very little concrete to offer in opposition to the widely regarded narrative that the only parties fighting their self declared 'wars' were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries with the security forces carrying out their UK State mandate to minimise loss of life and imprison those committing terrorist acts, whilst a political solution could be found.

You have been presented with cold hard facts detailing the failures, collusion, incompetence, subversion and inability to be a civilian arbiter as regards your beloved 'security forces'.

Security forces that were nothing more than jumped up anti-Catholic militias and yet you continue to sing your fairy tale in the hope that it's incessant repetition will make it true.

You're an unashamed and deluded apologist for the failure of the statutory apparatus of NI to protect Catholics from 'the good old boys' when they sought equality.

The anti-Catholic militias you refer to as security forces were not referees. They were players in the conflict and there was only one team they had allegiance to.

Suck it up.

trendyvicar · 17-12-2011 2:23pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have been presented with cold hard facts detailing the failures, collusion, incompetence, subversion and inability to be a civilian arbiter as regards your beloved 'security forces'.

Security forces that were nothing more than jumped up anti-Catholic militias and yet you continue to sing your fairy tale in the hope that it's incessant repetition will make it true.

You're an unashamed and deluded apologist for the failure of the statutory apparatus of NI to protect Catholics from 'the good old boys' when they sought equality.

The anti-Catholic militias you refer to as security forces were not referees. They were players in the conflict and there was only one team they had allegiance to.

Suck it up.

Once again, nothing more than the slavish repetition of none specific allegations. The lack of any qualitative evidence of widespread law breaking by any branch of the security forces stands out like a sore thumb.

God Bless America.

Nodin · 17-12-2011 2:52pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Once again, nothing more than the slavish repetition of none specific allegations. The lack of any qualitative evidence of widespread law breaking by any branch of the security forces stands out like a sore thumb.

God Bless America.

Stevens managed to get 94 convictions out of his inquiries, so something was going on.

The conflict in Northern Ireland was needlessly intensified and prolonged by the "disastrous" activities of a core of army and police officers who colluded with the terrorists responsible for dozens of murders, Britain's top policeman has concluded after a four-year investigation.
Sir John Stevens will today tell the Northern Ireland chief constable, Hugh Orde, that unprincipled collusion "ratcheted up the hatred and bitterness" between Catholics and Protestants, and that the system of recruiting and handling the agents responsible for the killings was "out of control".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/17/northernireland.northernireland2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2954773.stm

Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.

Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.
It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation. Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

trendyvicar · 17-12-2011 3:55pm

Nodin wrote: »

Stevens managed to get 94 convictions out of his inquiries, so something was going on.

Where's the detail on the 94 convictions?

Nodin · 17-12-2011 4:08pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Where's the detail on the 94 convictions?

He refers to them on page 15. I've no idea where theres an itemised list
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2003/stevens/stevens.pdf

trendyvicar · 17-12-2011 4:15pm

Nodin said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/17/northernireland.northernireland2

Sir John Stevens views on 'the troubles' appear to be those of a naive and incompetent fool - or else someone acting in a duplicitous role to lubricate the 'peace process' at that time. His only specific comments apply to Nelson who ended up in jail. The idea that The UDA needed Nelson to kill members of The Nationalist community is hilarious. Nothing else of substance appears in this newspaper article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2954773.stm

There's even less of substance in this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

RUC had agents inside UVF? Wow. They possibly got away with crimes as a result? Wow.

That's the nature of running agents inside any organised crime or terrorist gang. It's called a necessary evil in pursuit of the greater good.

None of this adds up to a row of beans and in no way conflicts with my views that law breaking within the security forces, was minimal. It takes place everywhere in the world.

Are you trying to do my job for me Nodin? LOL

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments