Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Fratton Fred

irishh_bob wrote: »

thats right , the catholics should have bowed to thier protestant betters , bent over and yelled , thank you , please sir can i have another :rolleyes:

im beginning to wonder are most of the posters on this thread eoghan harris in disguise

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

laoch na mona

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

this is a thread about the PIRA not the RIRA
i assume you are referring to omagh?

blahfckingblah

trendyvicar wrote: »

I think you're being very generous there Keith (for whatever reason). The problem isn't contextual analysis, as Republicans have little ability to do that. The biggest problem is that Irish Republicans can't even produce evidence for many of their claims or they get said evidence wrong. There can be two reasons for this:

(i) The Irish story telling tradition.
(ii) Discussion is crude propaganda - war by other means. Propaganda of the repetitive Goebbels style, rather than anything sophisticated - they would be incapable of that.

patronising

Fratton Fred

laoch na mona wrote: »

this is a thread about the PIRA not the RIRA
i assume you are referring to omagh?

Or Manchester, Warrington, Harrods...

irishh_bob

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

twisted and sick states create bitterness and hatred among an extraordinary percentage of the population , while acts like that are evil , the source of the troubles and subsequent terror campaign by the IRA was institutionalised prejudice against the minority catholic population , you cannot expect opressed people to either remain docile and accepting of thier lot , nor can you expect thier reaction to be at most , rigorous college like debate , that was tried via the civil rights movement yet the reply they got was a whack on the head from the security foreces an paisleyite mobs , you cant make progress with bullys by trying to shame them into reform , bullys have no shame but even bullys understand a bloody nose

the reality of northern ireland is that it was the unionist population who needed to be civilised and that they were eventually

Fratton Fred

irishh_bob wrote: »

twisted and sick states create bitterness and hatred among an extraordinary percentage of the population , while acts like that are evil , the source of the troubles and subsequent terror campaign by the IRA was institutionalised prejudice against the minority catholic population , you cannot expect opressed people to either remain docile and accepting of thier lot , nor can you expect thier reaction to be at most , rigorous college like debate , that was tried via the civil rights movement yet the reply they got was a whack on the head from the security foreces an paisleyite mobs , you cant make progress with bullys by trying to shame them into reform , bullys have no shame but even bullys understand a bloody nose

the reality of northern ireland is that it was the unionist population who needed to be civilised and that they were eventually

poor excuse for terrorism tbh.

Literally hundreds of thousands of nationalists didn't feel the need to murder people.

irishh_bob

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poor excuse for terrorism tbh.

Literally hundreds of thousands of nationalists didn't feel the need to murder people.

you mean they didnt volunteer to fight back , most people havent the stomach for war but that doesnt mean they dont benefit from the sacrafices and grotesque actions of others

Fratton Fred

irishh_bob wrote: »

you mean they didnt volunteer to fight back , most people havent the stomach for war but that doesnt mean they dont benefit from the sacrafices and grotesque actions of others

That justifies a whole multitude of actions.

I don't know anyone from the North who would entertain the notion that Tim Parry died in their name.

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

all wars - conflicts involve murder , the IRA were consigned to a few pockets with a handfull of die harders by the end of the fifties and this despite the fact that unionists were given carte blanche by london to walk all over thier catholic ( percieved inferior ) neighbours , had the unionists had an ounce of sense ( let alone humanity or humility ) , they would have saw it in thier interest to allow parity of esteem and equality for thier catholic neighbours after 1922 , had that happened, the vast majority of catholics would have simply blended into what was another part of the uk , its important to remember that the vast majority of people will avoid violence and conflict if they can avoid it , most people just want to live in peace , raise thier families and see thier children get a decent education , revolutionaries are few and far between , the IRA could never have done what they did were it not for the support of a very sizeable percentage of the catholic population in northern ireland , a population who through decades of unionist apparthied policys saw no kind of fair deal and no goverment power ( at home or abroad ) willing to speak up for them in any real sense , us southerners down here were happy to look the other way yet some to this day love to puff themselves up with righteous indignation and shout MURDERER as if theese people were cartoon evil carracatures who just felt like blowing the **** out of the place for the craic for thirty years , i perfer to take a less black and white view of things , the reality is one of cause and effect , if you treat people like **** for decades , trample over thier rights and expect them to be content with thier second class status , eventually they will get fed up and hit back , its human nature and its been happening since the beginning of time and no amount of demonisation of the main protagonists will change that

Is that why Loyalist paramilitaries felt able to attack the general Nationalist population in NI?

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

I have zero doubt that the bombing was traumatic for the people on the Shankill Rd, though I wouldn't demean their pain by stating those who express outrage about it were 'ranting and raving'.

You are still missing the point I'm making though, the analogy was a poor one, there is a world of difference between what happened at say, Loughgall and what happened on Bloody Sunday. You're preaching about context but doing it badly.

No I'm not. Both those events took place within the context of a conflict that was already ongoing.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

No I'm not. Both those events took place within the context of a conflict that was already ongoing.

You most certainly are, and I would suggest wilfully.

The conflict was still in it's infancy and could have been prevented at that stage.

trendyvicar

laoch na mona wrote: »

so if you were denied rights you wouldn't fight back?

Depends on what 'rights' I was being denied and what you mean by 'fight back'.

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

You most certainly are, and I would suggest wilfully.

The conflict was still in it's infancy and could have been prevented at that stage.

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists. You're speculating about what might have happened and coming to a conclusion that reflects your bigoted Nationalist views regarding the British. Your thoughts on those already killed by BS and who by exposed you for what you are and how your mind has been conditioned. You are, of course, one amongst many amongst your tribe in that respect.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists. You're speculating about what might have happened and coming to a conclusion that reflects your bigoted Nationalist views regarding the British. Your thoughts on those already killed by BS and who by exposed you for what you are and how your mind has been conditioned. You are, of course, one amongst many amongst your tribe in that respect.

I'm a bigot now is it? In a tribe? Your mask is slipping there.

It's clear from your posts that you blame Nationalists, and Nationalists only for the conflict, contrary to what the evidence shows.

All sides, Republican, Loyalist and the British government must share the blame equally for what came after 1972. Another 3000 dead and what we ended up with was what the Civil Rights movement would have achieved anyway.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

Is that why Loyalist paramilitaries felt able to attack the general Nationalist population in NI?

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

lugha

irishh_bob wrote: »

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

Yet, no one has managed to explain how the majority of what PIRA did could be construed as defensive. Can you give specific examples of what they did that enhanced the security of Northern Catholics?

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

I'm a bigot now is it? In a tribe? Your mask is slipping there.

It's clear from your posts that you blame Nationalists, and Nationalists only for the conflict, contrary to what the evidence shows.

All sides, Republican, Loyalist and the British government must share the blame equally for what came after 1972. Another 3000 dead and what we ended up with was what the Civil Rights movement would have achieved anyway.

Of course you're a bigot. You proved it by assuming that most deaths leading up to BS had been caused by Loyalists or The Security Forces when in fact they'd been caused by Republicans. No independent thinker could have made an error like that - so easily exposed. It must be a nightmare for Nationalists when someone like me appears on one of their fantasy forums.

I presume you're a member of The Nationalist tribe - what's wrong with that?

As for the blame - I haven't apportioned any, merely addressed statements made by other posters. Although I will say that you apportioning blame to The UK State equally to Republican murder gangs post 1972 is pretty absurd and again reinforces my impression of what you are.

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. The reality is that some Loyalists thought The Security Forces weren't getting very far and as a result set up counter-terror gangs. PIRA weren't a defencive force and neither were The UVF/UFF - they were all aggressive killing machines.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists.

That 250 has a lot of detail you are willfully omitting from your post.

Many of the deaths (attributal to Irish Nationalists) from the civilian Unionist community were killed in self-defence gun battles while Nationalists were trying to prevent themselves from being burned out of their homes. So tough shit really.

Another large tranche of those deaths by Nationalists are were BA soldiers and from the Unionist militias (of which I include the RUC) so were fair game form the POV of the IRA.

What did you want them to do? A sit down peace protest while they were being burned out of their homes?

Get a grip.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

Of course you're a bigot. You proved it by assuming that most deaths leading up to BS had been caused by Loyalists or The Security Forces when in fact they'd been caused by Republicans. No independent thinker could have made an error like that - so easily exposed. It must be a nightmare for Nationalists when someone like me appears on one of their fantasy forums.

I presume you're a member of The Nationalist tribe - what's wrong with that?

As for the blame - I haven't apportioned any, merely addressed statements made by other posters. Although I will say that you apportioning blame to The UK State equally to Republican murder gangs post 1972 is pretty absurd and again reinforces my impression of what you are.

Maybe it's reading I should be asking you to learn, as I never stated that. I said there was some Republican violence, but I said the greatest threat came from the Loyalist and Security forces, which is true. It was the Loyalists who started the cycle in 1966, (which I noticed your figures did not extend back to) it was the security forces, and Stormont who fought so harshly against the Civil Rights movement.

Now, if believing that there never was justification for an armed campaign, believing that Civil Rights should have been adopted sooner, believing that there is blame to be apportioned to all sides makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I guess I'm a bigot.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order

Rubbish.

It's well documented that the RUC et al watched as the civil rights marches were brutally oppressed.

The RUC was nothing more than a jumped up Unionist militia.

You're a revisionist. You like to think that Unionists and the RUC had no part in energizing physical force Nationalism when their failure to be a impartial civilian police force was exactly what made Nationalists turn to the violence.

Fucking incredible.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That 250 has a lot of detail you are willfully omitting from your post.

Many of the deaths (attributal to Irish Nationalists) from the civilian Unionist community were killed in self-defence gun battles while Nationalists were trying to prevent themselves from being burned out of their homes. So tough shit really.

Another large tranche of those deaths by Nationalists are were BA soldiers and from the Unionist militias (of which I include the RUC) so were fair game form the POV of the IRA.

What did you want them to do? A sit down peace protest while they were being burned out of their homes?

Get a grip.

I'm not going to comment on that hilarious drivel except to say it has nothing to do with my point about the conflict being well underway by the time of BS.

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

Maybe it's reading I should be asking you to learn, as I never stated that. I said there was some Republican violence, but I said the greatest threat came from the Loyalist and Security forces, which is true. It was the Loyalists who started the cycle in 1966, (which I noticed your figures did not extend back to) it was the security forces, and Stormont who fought so harshly against the Civil Rights movement.

Now, if believing that there never was justification for an armed campaign, believing that Civil Rights should have been adopted sooner, believing that there is blame to be apportioned to all sides makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I guess I'm a bigot.

Hilarious.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Rubbish.

It's well documented that the RUC et al watched as the civil rights marches were brutally oppressed.

The RUC was nothing more than a jumped up Unionist militia.

You're a revisionist. You like to think that Unionists and the RUC had no part in energizing physical force Nationalism when their failure to be a impartial civilian police force was exactly what made Nationalists turn to the violence.

Fucking incredible.

I've said no such thing.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

I've said no such thing.

Yes Chuck, don't you know that the RUC were only upholding the law, as they saw it, at the time, no matter if it was right or not.

The most telling thing about this particular poster though, is that he argues so vehemently against, what is, blatantly moderate Nationalist opinion.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on that hilarious drivel except to say it has nothing to do with my point about the conflict being well underway by the time of BS.

Of course you're not because you've been caught for the bigot that you are.

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists.

In 1969 there were multiple murders of Catholics by beatings and otherwise from the RUC.

I'm not sure if you're Unionist but if you are you should look a lot closer to home for the reasons for the conflict.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. The reality is that some Loyalists thought The Security Forces weren't getting very far and as a result set up counter-terror gangs. PIRA weren't a defencive force and neither were The UVF/UFF - they were all aggressive killing machines.

your rationale behind why loyalists set up shop ( security forces werent up to it ) is indeed very revealing , law and order in your eyes was keeping the catholics in thier place , i see it the same but feel very differently about it

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl yours and other's posts to prove what is pretty obvious.

Granted, you less so than most as you tend to condemn all violence against civilians across the board and across conflicts.

You specifically quoted me when referring to the "amnesiacs", and now you're trying to weasel out of singling me out and trying to associate me with that approach ?

Just admit that you were wrong to include me and be done with it.

I'll expect a retraction in the morning.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order

Lol. Such misty-eyed tripe.

In 1968, the marches of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) were met with a violent backlash by police and civil authorities

The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 6 (May, 1989), pp. 1277–1302

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You specifically quoted me when referring to the "amnesiacs", and now you're trying to weasel out of singling me out and trying to associate me with that approach ?

I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. I toned it down as regards you because I feel there is greater consistency when condemning violence across conflicts. Indeed I thought you were a pacifist until you informed me otherwise.

As I've said before by my reading your posts on these boards, and the posts you thank by others, I would be of the opinion that you come down more heavily on Nationalist violence than on Unionist/British violence.

Btw saying 'I expect an retraction in the morning'... well... I'm not sure whether that's a joke but it's headmaster tone definitely has me smiling.