Sinn Fein- Never forget

JustinDee

Crooked Jack wrote: »

9/11? 9/11 2001. Three years after the GFA. Seven years after the first Ceasefire. 30 years after the IRA had first demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with the brits and look for a peaceful solution. Yeah, 9/11.

One would normally be able to say "you couldn't make it up" but you can and you do. You believe that secret meetings with Heath and Thatcher governments were attempts at consolidatory peace? Lol
Would take far more than that to make up for PIRA's hijacking of the civil rights movement and slaughter of innocents on a muddled agenda.

nua domhan

junder wrote: »

There does indeed seem to be alot of 'experts' on northern Ireland who have never set foot in the country. Have you ever set foot in northern Ireland, or more importantly lived here for a significant amount of time before the ceasefires were declared? If you have then you would indeed see how the republican paramiltarys groups destroyed the chance a united Ireland, likewise loyalist paramiltarys alienated the catholic community from wanting to be part of the union. However since the gfa us unionists do have an easier job since northern is fact not concept line a united Ireland, while he British economy is in diffs it's in better shape then the republics therefore northern Ireland is better of staying part of the union. Irish culture in general is being more accepted as a fact of life in northern Ireland has been for decades across the rest of the uk while unionist culture is stil to this day ( and within that I include the very important aspects of our / my culture of the bands and the loyalism orders) not welcomed / respected or in anyway considered legitimate ( even on this site people have made statements that the unionists have no culture) which for me atleast as a unionist is evidence that republicans are still undermining the chances of thier united Ireland which on reflection for me is a good thing

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

JustinDee

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That's funny, that bit sounds an awful lot like condemnation. Especially the bit where he says "I condemn it."
Im just presenting the facts, why is it that anything short of joining in with the hysterical screaming of the what-about-brigade gets you labeled as an apologist?

To summarise your hero:
"I and the PIRA had nothing to do with it. If I knew who did though, I'd condemn the action . . . "

Thats basically all he said. As I mentioned, not an ounce of contrition or regret. Just a laughable denial while on a laughable scramble to take an office he does not recognise.

Laminations

nua domhan wrote: »

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? Did you ever experience an IRA punishment beating? Or were you a loyalist burned from their home? I think you are far more biased than an observer who could see attacks and atrocities on both sides. The IRA protected you? They exacerbated your problems, they killed catholics, they engaged in punishment beatings, they provoked counter attacks and retaliation. They killed 800 civilians!! They killed more people during the Troubles than the British. They engaged in indiscriminate violence and targeted civilian streets and businesses. They were not your saviours, peace has been your saviour.

At least you recognise that the progress made (by both sides) is what is to be commended.

golden lane

nua domhan wrote: »

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

i am pleased you mentioned david irvine......he deserves to be remembered.....

he put the whole unionist situation into context by saying.........

they want the british out of norther ireland........i am the british, it is my country...

Elmer Blooker

JustinDee wrote: »

One would normally be able to say "you couldn't make it up" but you can and you do. You believe that secret meetings with Heath and Thatcher governments were attempts at consolidatory peace? Lol
Would take far more than that to make up for PIRA's hijacking of the civil rights movement and slaughter of innocents on a muddled agenda.

The IRA didn't have to "hijack" the Civil Rights movement.
Here a quote from Ivan Cooper (to the British govt after bloody Sunday) who was a leading figure in the C.R. movement and a founding member of the SDLP.
"you know what you've done don't you? you've destroyed the civil rights movement and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight young men and boys will be joining the IRA and you will reap the whirlwind"

JustinDee

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The IRA didn't have to "hijack" the Civil Rights movement.
Here a quote from Ivan Cooper (to the British govt after bloody Sunday) who was a leading figure in the C.R. movement and a founding member of the SDLP.
"you know what you've done don't you? you've destroyed the civil rights movement and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight young men and boys will be joining the IRA and you will reap the whirlwind"

I saw the TV movie that you quote . . .

An all-important civil rights movement was long forgotten (much with the ludicrous marxist-leninist tripe being bandied about) once the unrealistic agenda of an all-island Ireland and tit-for-tat sectarianism took the table.

Laminations

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I just refuse to join in with this fence-sitting pontificating about "how everyone was as bad as everyone else," when that is clearly not the case. (Cue "yea the IRA was the worst bullshit)

Come on Jack, interpret these figures in a way that supports your case, especially looking at the number of Catholics killed.

golfball37

Just out of interest how do people feel about Michael Collins planned invasion of NI post the treaty and the potential ethnic cleansing of Protestants? The act carried out at Altnaveigh is as bad as anything the Provos did, and the man responsible was Tanaiste of this country many years later.

Surely that can't sit well with all the posters here decrying the modern SF or will it just be denied and ignored as per usual. We Irish are hypocrits, its no wonder we were colonised for half our existence as we are very easily led. We turn on each other at the drop of a hat. Informers were the biggest scourge of both the old IRA and the PIRA, the same sort of Irish insecure mindset that ensures we'll never be a free nation.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for SF because of their murky past, I do have a problem with hypocrisy however. Until an alternative party comes along to the 3 parties that have returned this free state back to dominion status, I will vote for the new SF anyway. They have blood on their hands but so do the rest of em. They at least have not destroyed this country unlike the rest of them.

The real irony is I grew up hating the Provos and loving the Old IRA, its only when you read what went in NI that you actually realise the Provos had more of a reason to take up arms than the former against the British.

nua domhan

Laminations wrote: »

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? I cannot experience someone else's perception - we're not in the matrix yet.

Did you ever experience an IRA punishment beating? No.

Or were you a loyalist burned from their home? Stupid question.

I think you are far more biased than an observer who could see attacks and atrocities on both sides. I think i am far more qualified to talk about the troubles and have a better understanding than someone "observing" from a far. UN observers don't do it from their desk, why should you?

The IRA protected you? They exacerbated your problems, they killed catholics, they engaged in punishment beatings, they provoked counter attacks and retaliation. So the IRA in your view are to blame for Bloody Sunday, The Dublin and Monaghan pub bombs, the killing of Pat Finuacaine and Rosemary Nelson, the Murder of Robert Hamill...the list goes on. Afterall, if they hadn't started it etc.....

They killed 800 civilians!! They killed more people during the Troubles than the British. It's not a competition to see who killed the most, taking 10 lives from one side does not excuse the other taking even 1.

They engaged in indiscriminate violence and targeted civilian streets and businesses. While there may have been mistakes, or some over zealous individuals i don't believe that targeting civilians was a systemic policy. Many warnings were given before bombs and the leadership were smart enough to know that killing indiscriminately did not bring you support. There may have been some idiots who believed that all protestants were the enemy (and i have met and been disgusted by some) as there are those who daub KAT on walls.

They were not your saviours, peace has been your saviour. Peace didn't magically fall from the sky - it was worked for by "murderers" from both sides

At least you recognise that the progress made (by both sides) is what is to be commended.

Can i ask you now, what expertise you bring to the table? are you a historian or have you lived in the troubles? I only ask because, while you're entitled to your opinion, the weight of which it carries is directly related to your experience or research. I could give you an opinion on how to milk a cow because i saw it on tv, doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about or that anyone should give value to what i say.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? Did you ever experience an.......... is what is to be commended.

Hysteria and handwringing. Theres no such thing as a clean war, or a nice one. The armed struggle resulted from (a)the sectarian statelet of NI and (b) the violence employed against peaceful attempts to change that statelet.

Elmer Blooker

JustinDee wrote: »

I saw the TV movie that you quote . . .

An all-important civil rights movement was long forgotten (much with the ludicrous marxist-leninist tripe being bandied about) once the unrealistic agenda of an all-island Ireland and tit-for-tat sectarianism took the table.

Eh? it wasn't a movie, it actually happened.
The Civil Rights movement organized the Bloody March on January 31st 1972 so they were hardly "long forgotten"

Laminations

nua domhan wrote: »

Can i ask you now, what expertise you bring to the table? are you a historian or have you lived in the troubles?

Living in the troubles would only serve to give me a one sided view - you admit this yourself, we are not in the matrix. So you saying 'you don't know how is was man' is easily countered by me saying 'neither do you'.

I only ask because, while you're entitled to your opinion, the weight of which it carries is directly related to your experience or research.

While experience is highly informative it is also highly biasing especially in a situation of such strongly opposed in-group/out-group. So I stick to research. Objectivity and subjectivity and important distinctions

If you want to explain how the figures on who killed who paints the IRA as better, then go ahead - but I hope you don't try and argue that every murder of a civilian was in their case a mistake or a rogue element.

I could give you an opinion on how to milk a cow because i saw it on tv, doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about or that anyone should give value to what i say.

Sometimes you could be milking a cow for so long you are sure you are doing it the right way and the best way. I could watch you do it and then go and watch others do it (research as you mention) and conclude that you are in fact pulling on the penis. My observation would be correct and trump your years of experience.

Finally if you want to tell me how your experience of the troubles in any way justifies the support and collection of Garda killers (which is the crux of this thread) please do explain

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Hysteria and handwringing. Theres no such thing as a clean war, or a nice one. The armed struggle resulted from (a)the sectarian statelet of NI and (b) the violence employed against peaceful attempts to change that statelet.

War?

Hannibal

Laminations wrote: »

Come on Jack, interpret these figures in a way that supports your case, especially looking at the number of Catholics killed.

These figures need to be elaborated on further, to simply define everyone as either "Catholic", "Protestant" or not from "NI" is ridiculous.

Take the Lost Lives study has a total of 1,781 dead caused by the IRA. 944 of the dead by the IRA were from British security forces, 644 civilians, 28 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army a further 163 were republican paramilitary members although this includes IRA members killed by their own actions.

The CAIN study at UU has slightly different figures with a total of 1,824. 928 from British security forces, 621 civilians, 35 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army, 80 republican paramilitary

Laminations

Also nua domhan, did you live through WW2? I doubt it.

so you couldn't possibly comment on the atrocities committed by the Nazis or you couldn't possibly after researching events make any conclusion as to who was in the wrong? I mean we'd get a more truthful account listening to a Nazi recount how the Jews did xyz and the allies bombed abc. Living through something that is highly charged makes you highly biased. Objective observation is always the better approach.

This example is in no way trying to equate the Troubles with the Holocaust before anyone gets trigger-happy with the Godwin button

golden lane

well, the unionist position in northern ireland......is, as it would have been without the troubles.......but they now hold the high ground....

Laminations

Dotsey wrote: »

These figures need to be elaborated on further, to simply define everyone as either "Catholic", "Protestant" or not from "NI" is ridiculous.

Take the Lost Lives study has a total of 1,781 dead caused by the IRA. 944 of the dead by the IRA were from British security forces, 644 civilians, 28 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army a further 163 were republican paramilitary members although this includes IRA members killed by their own actions.

The CAIN study at UU has slightly different figures with a total of 1,824. 928 from British security forces, 621 civilians, 35 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army, 80 republican paramilitary

Can you quote the other side of those figures so we can compare total killings by IRA against total by British?

I was responding to nua domhan who believes the IRa were protecting him as a catholic - pointing out how many catholics they killed refutes his point (regradless of the background of those catholics) and makes it more likely that they were protecting him (if thats even the right word) because he didn't disagree with them - had he joined the British forces or publicly criticised the IRA I think he'd find his catholicism would not be a shield or uniting characteristic for long.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's quite well known that British agents (working on behalf of who else but the british government) were involved in the planning an execution of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

No it's not. What you mean is Republicans 'know it'.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

............

I was responding to nua domhan who believes the IRa were protecting him as a catholic - pointing out how many catholics they killed refutes his point (regradless of the background of those catholics) and makes it more likely that they were protecting him (if thats even the right word) because he didn't disagree with them - had he joined the British forces or publicly criticised the IRA I think he'd find his catholicism would not be a shield or uniting characteristic for long.

....so? If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

....so? If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction.

Grand, so they didn't protect catholics, or irish, communities or families. They protected their aims and ideology and they attacked anyone they saw as a threat or enemy (in their self-appointed role as judge, jury and executioner). So lets not start swapping accounts of how the IRA protected the weak and the oppressed...

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

....so? If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction.

Are you justifying the murder of anyone who opposed the IRA?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Grand, so they didn't protect catholics, or irish, communities or families. They protected their aims and ideology and they attacked anyone they saw as a threat or enemy (in their self-appointed role as judge, jury and executioner). So lets not start swapping accounts of how the IRA protected the weak and the oppressed...

A distortion of the reality. The fact is that the PIRA grew out of a situation where state violence had been employed against a section of the community.

I'm sorry that things didn't follow your narrow sectarian plot-line.

Laminations wrote: »

Are you justifying the murder of anyone who opposed the IRA?...

No.

Is that loaded question an example of "Objectivity and subjectivity"?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

A distortion of the reality. The fact is that the PIRA grew out of a situation where state violence had been employed against a section of the community.

I'm sorry that things didn't follow your narrow sectarian plot-line.

What section of the community?
And who was IRA violence directed against? How is it they killed so many civilians and as a group are responsible for most deaths overall? They killed to protect an ideology, not a people.

No.

Is that loaded question an example of "Objectivity and subjectivity"?

So explain your comment. 'If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction' - is that justifiable? were the IRA correct to target people in that way? You cannot have it both ways, supporting their tactics (which as you say was to consider anyone who actively worked against them an enemy while maintaining you are not justifying their murder of those who oppose them.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

What section of the community?
And who was IRA violence directed against? How is it they killed so many civilians and as a group are responsible for most deaths overall? They killed to protect an ideology, not a people..

The nationalist/republican/catholic community, generally.

What "ideology" was that?

Laminations wrote: »

So explain your comment. 'If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction' - is that justifiable? were the IRA correct to target people in that way? You cannot have it both ways, supporting their tactics (which as you say was to consider anyone who actively worked against them an enemy while maintaining you are not justifying their murder of those who oppose them.

The SDLP weren't killed, yet oppossed IRA tactics. Joining the RUC would be working against the Republican movement and nationalist community generally, however.

Why are you asking questions to which the answers are well known?

Laminations

Nodin, if you want to get back to the main topic of the OP - is it justifiable that SF petitioned for (unsanctioned) Garda killers to be included in the GFA, supported their release and a sitting SF TD went and collected them and chauffeured them from prison to celebrate with them?

How do you square that one?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

The nationalist/republican/catholic community, generally.

What "ideology" was that?

Revenge mainly. But also bloody-minded re-unification of Ireland and expulsion of the British from the island. While not recognising the legitimate government or legal/policing apparatus of the Republic or caring about majority wishes north or south of the border.

The SDLP weren't killed, yet oppossed IRA tactics. Joining the RUC would be working against the Republican movement and nationalist community generally, however.

Why are you asking questions to which the answers are well known?

They killed more catholics then just RUC members. And civilians Nodin, you're forgetting about all the 'accidents'.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Nodin, if you want to get back to the main topic of the OP - is it justifiable that SF petitioned for (unsanctioned) Garda killers to be included in the GFA, supported their release and a sitting SF TD went and collected them and chauffeured them from prison to celebrate with them?

How do you square that one?

There were reasons that was done. Suffice to say it was important to keep all on-board for a successful peace process. Whether it was worth it to avoid risks to same is up to the individual to judge.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

There were reasons that was done.

Ah now don't be cryptic. What reasons? All on-board? Who is the all you are referring to?

This happened in 2009, how would SF not collecting Garda killers damage the peace process? why would unsanctioned killers not being greeted by a smiling Martin Ferris have upsat the IRA (which are supposed to no longer exist)?

And you think it was worth it?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Revenge mainly. But also bloody-minded re-unification of Ireland and expulsion of the British from the island. While not recognising the legitimate government or legal/policing apparatus of the Republic or caring about majority wishes north or south of the border.
.

This is more of the "Objectivity and subjectivity" you were talking about, I take it?

Your rather hysterical " revenge mainly" is a nonsense. Re-unification was seen as the antidote to the northern statelet. "caring about majority wishes" north of the border was hardly on the agenda, when it was failure of the majority to protect the minority that led to the siuation in the first place.

Laminations wrote: »

They killed more catholics then just RUC members............

Again, I'm sorry things didn't follow your sectarian narrative.