Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland
Options
Comments
-
Haha, the IRA kill more civilians than any other group by planting bombs in civilian areas but they never done it on purpose and felt really really bad about it hahahahahahahahaha0
-
Colonial disengagement. A nasty, nasty affair, which has led to documentation being destroyed at the time (as happened here), and worse - documentation today still being witheld. Being conducted in 'far off places' against non-Europeans gave it cover it could never achieve in NI. The notion that this couldn't have happened, or that it was a one off is rather laughable. Many of the senior personnel were veterans of not just one but a number of these conflicts as were the troops. This, bloody sunday, Ballymurphy etc and the relatively more severe years of the 70's were SOP as the 'colonies' had known them.
Of course the British aren't the only one's with "form" in this regard, but it's they who are the focus of the current discussion.
And we should always remember we played no small part in this empire building also.0 -
The IRA killed 140 more civilians than the UVF, but them UVF bastards done it on purpose and we're not even sorry! Unlike the saintly IRA who were just really unlucky that their bombs in public places kept killing the public :-(0
-
:mad:Haha, the IRA kill more civilians than any other group by planting bombs in civilian areas but they never done it on purpose and felt really really bad about it hahahahahahahahaha
You should go back and read that sentence slowly and go for a long walk. Think about it and bury your resentment and hatred for a day. Stop with the who did what etc, and get involved in the new Ireland.0 -
And we should always remember we played no small part in this empire building also.
....as did many colonised peoples - the Scots, the Sikhs, the Kenyans. The non-whites have been given the air-brush since leaving the "Empire". That's part of the perversity of the Imperial system - its institutionalised use of division, bribery and violence. Use the Sikhs in India as they lack the numbers to rebel on their own, and can't count on muslim or hindu support. Use the school system to promote division between muslim and hindu ........................
"In a letter dated January 14, 1887, Secretary of State Viscount Cross wrote to Governor General Dufferin: “This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look forward for some good as a result of your Committee of Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material.”
George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India wrote to Curzon, the Governor General: “I think the real danger to our rule in India … is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas … and if we could break educated Indians into two sections [Hindus and Muslims] … we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan education textbooks that the differences between the two communities are further enhanced.”
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/rid-our-body-politic-of-communal-poison/article3986268.ece
...and that was the policy by which a nation with a small population ruled large parts of the globe.0 -
Advertisement
-
....as did many colonised peoples - the Scots, the Sikhs, the Kenyans. The non-whites have been given the air-brush since leaving the "Empire". That's part of the perversity of the Imperial system - its institutionalised use of division, bribery and violence. Use the Sikhs in India as they lack the numbers to rebel on their own, and can't count on muslim or hindu support. Use the school system to promote division between muslim and hindu ........................
"In a letter dated January 14, 1887, Secretary of State Viscount Cross wrote to Governor General Dufferin: “This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look forward for some good as a result of your Committee of Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material.”
George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India wrote to Curzon, the Governor General: “I think the real danger to our rule in India … is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas … and if we could break educated Indians into two sections [Hindus and Muslims] … we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan education textbooks that the differences between the two communities are further enhanced.”
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/rid-our-body-politic-of-communal-poison/article3986268.ece
...and that was the policy by which a nation with a small population ruled large parts of the globe.
I am well versed in all that Nodin - I just commented that the Guardian timeline makes an interesting snapshot. But it is wrong to think that we are blameless.0 -
Haha, the IRA kill more civilians than any other group by planting bombs in civilian areas but they never done it on purpose and felt really really bad about it hahahahahahahahaha
The Us military killed 2million Vietnamese civilians by dropping nalpam on them & also slaughtered women & children including kicking & punching infants to death at Mi Lai but they felt bad about it & didn't mean it ahahahahahaha0 -
The IRA killed 140 more civilians than the UVF, but them UVF bastards done it on purpose and we're not even sorry! Unlike the saintly IRA who were just really unlucky that their bombs in public places kept killing the public :-(
Loyalist paramilitaries actually killed more than the IRA, 818 civilians in total according to CAIN.0 -
Loyalist paramilitaries actually killed more than the IRA, 818 civilians in total according to CAIN.
Yes, all loyalist paramilitary compared to just the IRA, the IRA actually killed more people than every other group together, loyalist, republican and British & irish security forces, the IRA was the most murderous blight this island has known.
The IRA killed more civilians than any other group.
The IRA killed more catholics than any other group.
The IRA killed more protestants than any other group.
The IRA killed more non civilians than any other group.
The IRA killed more men than any other group.
The IRA killed more women than any other group.
The IRA killed more children than any other group.
The IRA killed more people than every other group together.
Yet you will defend them.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I said I thought the armed struggle was legit I also said I didn't agree with many of the tactics used like the ones you've pointed here.
You said you couldn't and wouldn't defend the Provos if you thought it was part of their strategy to target innocent people. You acknowledge they did kill hundreds of innocent people, and you seem to realise it would be ridiculous to presume the Provos were just unlucky given they bombed so many civilian and public areas, repeatedly.
So you're wrong in what you said - you can and do defend the Provos even though they did target innocent people. You might not agree with the tactics, but you don't withdraw your support all the same.Yes I think they did. Brendan Hughes said in he the voices from the grave documentary he felt very guilty about innocent people get hurt. Something like Bloody Friday (which was disgusting) was never tried again because of the civilian causality rate. They also kept working on their technique of planting incendiary bombs to try & avoid civilians deaths.
I'd say it had more to do with the Provos taking a cold, calculated view the impact for propaganda, as well as increased intelligence work by the British. I do to some level acknowledge that many Provos felt increasingly disgusted or troubled by the nature of the campaign - clearly something motivated those who co-operated with British intelligence. The Provos were so compromised that by the end even their head counter-intelligence man was actually a British agent.
But at an institutional level Bloody Friday was just another atrocity for the Provos. They continued a series of frankly inhuman attacks on people - one example that always stick with me is how back in 1990, up in Derry they invaded a man's home, abducted his family and threatened to murder them to force him to act as a suicide bomber by driving a car bomb to a British army post. Of course they always intended to murder the man because they booby trapped the car door so it detonated when he tried to flee.
I'm sure you don't agree with that tactic either, but I'd also be fairly certain it doesn't alter your support for the Provos. But how do you square that level of inhumanity with your fantasy of Provos agonising over how to minimise civillian casualties?Well that's true but pretty much every successful army in history has been brutal in pursuit of their goals. The Americans slaughtered millions of civilians in their pursuit of stopping communism in Vietnam does that make them better or worse than the Provos? All war is ruthless that's the nature of it.
Well, for starters the Provos aren't a recognised army and never adhered to the Geneva conventions and deliberately targeted civilians. What happened in Northern Ireland wasn't a war, and the Provos never concerned themselves with any of the responsibilities that an army has.It is a valid statement & I'm a big fan of Orwell's writings. But I think most people joined the IRA out of sheer anger to what was happening in their communities rather than out of any nationalist ideology. Eamon McCann said in a interview after the findings of the Saville report that he could remember people queuing up to join the provisionals after Bloody Sunday & been told to go away & come back later because they were full up & couldn't train the the people they had already & then going to the Officials wing & been told the same thing.
It's a very valid statement. Peoples anger is very understandable, and I'm very sympathetic to that. If gangs are roaming the streets attempting to burn you out of your home or army units are gunning down civilians, violence is an obvious option.
But when you find out that the violence is about murdering civilians rather than protecting your own family/neighbours, which is what the Provo campaign rapidly became: violence motivated by rage and hate. That's a key difference in our views. You disagree with the tactic but you maintain your support. I don't.
@NodinThe civilian casualty rate was consistent with that found in other wars
What wars are you comparing the Northern Ireland conflict to? High intensity wars like WW2? Vietnam? The Chinese Civil War? Those were fought with tanks, artillery and heavy bombers in and over huge civilian cities. There was immense disruption to basic economic functions like getting food, medicine, etc.
The Provos fought their "war" with pistols and carbombs.0 -
-
-
Happyman42 wrote: »As we know to our cost (and the rest of the world too) the British always had a love/hate relationship with the Geneva Convention. :rolleyes:
No, no, it was more the "what did you say, old bean? Does it really say that? Must check later - Best carry on" approach.0 -
-
Yes, all loyalist paramilitary compared to just the IRA, the IRA actually killed more people than every other group together, loyalist, republican and British & irish security forces, the IRA was the most murderous blight this island has known.
The IRA killed more civilians than any other group.
The IRA killed more catholics than any other group.
The IRA killed more protestants than any other group.
The IRA killed more non civilians than any other group.
The IRA killed more men than any other group.
The IRA killed more women than any other group.
The IRA killed more children than any other group.
The IRA killed more people than every other group together.
Yet you will defend them.
All the Loyalist groups were under the control of the CLMC which is the equivalent of the IRA Army council & that 818 is not including the 188 killed by their BA allies. The IRA killed more combatants than any groups.
Like I said the IRA's number of kills is actually very small for a guerrilla army who fought for 30 years.0 -
All the Loyalist groups were under the control of the CLMC which is the equivalent of the IRA Army council & that 818 is not including the 188 killed by their BA allies. The IRA killed more combatants than any groups.
Like I said the IRA's number of kills is actually very small for a guerrilla army who fought for 30 years.
What nonsense, why did the loyalists have so much in fighting if the were one big group? the IRA killed half the total people killed ffs! The IRA were the most murderous blight this island has seen!
Remember you do not need to convince me the loyalists were murderous, vile and disgusting creatures, I detest them every bit as much as the IRA, but try to open your eyes man and see the IRA for what they were, not worse, not better but every bit as bad as the UVF, UDA etc
Just look at the numbers and apply critical thought ffs.0 -
Small arms and improvised explosives, the former being far more dominant in the first decade of the conflict. You'll note that a bomb is not the most discriminating of weapons, be it improvised or otherwise.
True, which is why actual soldiers try not to put bombs in pubs, shops, homes etc.
One other thing I note with fairly weary predictability is that when this thread started people were squawking in outrage at the very concept of civilians being targeted and killed. Even questioning the *very* dodgy claims of the documentary led to sneers about supporting murder. Now, when it comes to "our" side deliberately targeting civillians, I get told "Well, it was a war, **** happens".
I'm not surprised - I've encountered the exact same attitudes before but for once it would be nice to be surprised or even challenged by a Provo with a coherent and consistent view other than "My side good, their side bad".0 -
-
You said you couldn't and wouldn't defend the Provos if you thought it was part of their strategy to target innocent people. You acknowledge they did kill hundreds of innocent people, and you seem to realise it would be ridiculous to presume the Provos were just unlucky given they bombed so many civilian and public areas, repeatedly
I'll give you an example. If the they IRA did something like Dublin & Monaghan bombings were the UVF (possible British intelligences) goals was to create as much dead bodies as possibles The IRA strategy was to economic & financial damage slaughter innocent people.-So you're wrong in what you said yo can and do defend the Provos even though they did target innocent people. You might not agree with the tactics, but you don't withdraw your support all the same.
I'm not look above?
Name one attack the the Army Council sanctioned on civilians?
I'd say it had more to do with the Provos taking a cold, calculated view the impact for propaganda, as well as increased intelligence work by the British. I do to some level acknowledge that many Provos felt increasingly disgusted or troubled by the nature of the campaign - clearly something motivated those who co-operated with British intelligence. The Provos were so compromised that by the end even their head counter-intelligence man was actually a British agent.
But at an institutional level Bloody Friday was just another atrocity for the Provos. They continued a series of frankly inhuman attacks on people - one example that always stick with me is how back in 1990, up in Derry they
course they always intended to murder the man because they booby trapped the car door so it detonated when he tried to flee.invaded a man's home, abducted his family and threatened to murder them to force him to act as a suicide bomber by driving a car bomb to a British army post. Of'm sure you don't agree with that tactic either, but I'd also be fairly certain it doesn't alter your support for the Provos. But how do you square that level of inhumanity with your fantasy of Provos agonising over how to minimise civillian casualties?
Yes it did actually & disguised many Republicans & helped the Provos loose support which they needed.
.Well, for starters the Provos aren't a recognised army and never adhered to the Geneva conventions and deliberately targeted civilians. What happened in Northern Ireland wasn't a war, and the Provos never concerned themselves with any of the responsibilities that an army has
It's that a joke hardly anybody complies with the Geneva covnention anymore if they can get away with it. It was a war. It was low intensity guerrilla warfare. There the Army of the of Irish Republic.
Yes they did a lot of bad things but they did a lot of god things. Battle of Short Strand for example. Where a mob of loyalists backed by UVF & RUC men who wanted to burn out the lower falls road like they did to bombay street the years before were repealed by a group of 12 IRA men led Billy McKee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St_Matthew%27s
It's a very valid statement. Peoples anger is very understandable, and I'm very sympathetic to that. If gangs are roaming the streets attempting to burn you out of your home or army units are gunning down civilians, violence is an obvious option.
But when you find out that the violence is about murdering civilians rather than protecting your own family/neighbours, which is what the Provo campaign rapidly became: violence motivated by rage and hate. That's a key difference in our views. You disagree with the tactic but you maintain your support. I don't.
@Nodin
What wars are you comparing the Northern Ireland conflict to? High intensity wars like WW2? Vietnam? The Chinese Civil War? Those were fought with tanks, artillery and heavy bombers in and over huge civilian cities. There was immense disruption to basic economic functions like getting food, medicine, etc.
The Provos fought their "war" with pistols and carbombs.0 -
Advertisement
-
You said you couldn't and wouldn't defend the Provos if you thought it was part of their strategy to target innocent people. You acknowledge they did kill hundreds of innocent people, and you seem to realise it would be ridiculous to presume the Provos were just unlucky given they bombed so many civilian and public areas, repeatedly
I'll give you an example. If the they IRA did something like Dublin & Monaghan bombings were the UVF (possible British intelligences) goals was to create as much dead bodies as possibles The IRA strategy was to economic & financial damage slaughter innocent people.
I'm not look above?
Name one attack the the Army Council sanctioned on civilians?
I'd say it had more to do with the Provos taking a cold, calculated view the impact for propaganda, as well as increased intelligence work by the British. I do to some level acknowledge that many Provos felt increasingly disgusted or troubled by the nature of the campaign - clearly something motivated those who co-operated with British intelligence. The Provos were so compromised that by the end even their head counter-intelligence man was actually a British agent.
But at an institutional level Bloody Friday was just another atrocity for the Provos. They continued a series of frankly inhuman attacks on people - one example that always stick with me is how back in 1990, up in Derry they course they always intended to murder the man because they booby trapped the car door so it detonated when he tried to flee.
Yes it did actually & disguised many Republicans & helped the Provos loose support which they needed.
.
It's that a joke hardly anybody complies with the Geneva covnention anymore if they can get away with it. It was a war. It was low intensity guerrilla warfare. There the Army of the of Irish Republic.
Yes they did a lot of bad things but they did a lot of god things. Battle of Short Strand for example. Where a mob of loyalists backed by UVF & RUC men who wanted to burn out the lower falls road like they did to bombay street the years before were repealed by a group of 12 IRA men led Billy McKee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St_Matthew%27s
It's a very valid statement. Peoples anger is very understandable, and I'm very sympathetic to that. If gangs are roaming the streets attempting to burn you out of your home or army units are gunning down civilians, violence is an obvious option.
But when you find out that the violence is about murdering civilians rather than protecting your own family/neighbours, which is what the Provo campaign rapidly became: violence motivated by rage and hate. That's a key difference in our views. You disagree with the tactic but you maintain your support. I don't.
@Nodin
What wars are you comparing the Northern Ireland conflict to? High intensity wars like WW2? Vietnam? The Chinese Civil War? Those were fought with tanks, artillery and heavy bombers in and over huge civilian cities. There was immense disruption to basic economic functions like getting food, medicine, etc.
The Provos fought their "war" with pistols and carbombs.
Le Mon
Black Friday
Teeban
Claudy
Enniskillen
To name a few and let's not forget thier proxy bombs where so poor innocent critters family white held hostage while they where tied to a bomb and told to drive to a target. I know a fella who witnessed not only the poor innocent bloke tied to the bomb being blown to prices but also his best mate to. Still hasn't got over it0 -
True, which is why actual soldiers try not to put bombs in pubs, shops, homes etc.
One other thing I note with fairly weary predictability is that when this thread started people were squawking in outrage at the very concept of civilians being targeted and killed. Even questioning the *very* dodgy claims of the documentary led to sneers about supporting murder.
As I've shown, there's nothing "dodgy" about the claims, as they fit in to established practice by their methodology and place in the chronology.Now, when it comes to "our" side deliberately targeting civillians, I get told "Well, it was a war, **** happens".".
If you can find a quote of mine that supports the deliberate targeting of civillians, I'd like to see it please .0 -
The so called battle of short strand, the East Belfast perspective0
-
try to open your eyes man and see the IRA for what they were, not worse, not better but every bit as bad as the UVF, UDA etc
When it came to killing unarmed civilians, for nothing other than the religion they happened to baptised into, then there is simply no comparison between the PIRA and loyalists.
Loyalists killed more civilians in total than the PIRA
Loyalists killed more Catholics in total than the PIRA
85% of Loyalist killings were civilians.
4% of Loyalist killings were Republicans.
75% of PIRA killings were players in the conflict.An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.
It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
news.bbc.co.ukA senior military officer said: ''They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.''
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.5986720 -
Charles Rocher wrote: »When it came to killing unarmed civilians, for nothing other than the religion they happened to baptised into, then there is simply no comparison between the PIRA and loyalists.
Loyalists killed more civilians in total than the PIRA
Loyalists killed more Catholics in total than the PIRA
85% of Loyalist killings were civilians.
4% of Loyalist killings were Republicans.
75% of PIRA killings were players in the conflict.
The usual nonsense chuck, why compare all loyalist paramilitary groups to just one republican group? All in the killed roughly the same, with the IRA being far ahead the biggest threat to civilians, and why do you guys always post the % as if it makes the IRA seem less murderous? ?? I don't understand, if the loyalists targeted security forces and killed say 100 times more non civilians that the did civilians would you all the sudden find them less murderous? ? I really hope finally to get an answer to this.0 -
The usual nonsense chuck,
The numbers are the numbers. Take it up with CAIN if you think they're wrong.why compare all loyalist paramilitary groups to just one republican group?
Loyalists killers acted under the CLMC umbrella.the IRA being far ahead the biggest threat to civilians.
Incorrect.
The PIRA killed about 650 civilians.
152 of which were unintended targets.
34 of which were contractors for the BA.
19 of which were alleged criminals and drug dealers
8 Protestant civilians during street disturbances (probably attacking Nationalist areas.and why do you guys always post the % as if it makes the IRA seem less murderous?
Because when it comes to out-and-out blood lust for killing civilians the percentages tell us who went after soft targets who were unlikely to shoot back and who went after the armed apparatus of the sectarian statelet.
Loyalists and the PIRA are simply not comparable in their tactics, capabilities, and victim profile.
Even the British/Unionist sycophant Kevin Myers recognises the difference:"There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated. And then there was Lenny Murphy and his merry gang, the Shankill Butchers, who for years in the mid-1970s abducted, tortured and murdered Catholics -- usually by cutting their victims' throats.
This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure.
Irish Independent, June 23, 2011I don't understand, if the loyalists targeted security forces and killed say 100 times more non civilians that the did civilians would you all the sudden find them less murderous? ? I really hope finally to get an answer to this.
Loyalists considered the BA and RUC 'their own' and they pretty much were. Despite being provided with intelligence, weapons and operatives from the so-called 'security' forces Loyalist killings of Republicans amounted to 4%.
What this tells us is that Loyalists' raison d'etre was the murder of innocent Catholics.0 -
Charles Rocher wrote: »The numbers are the numbers. Take it up with CAIN if they you think they're wrong.
Loyalists killers acted under the CLMC umbrella.
Incorrect.
The PIRA killed about 650 civilians.
152 of which were unintended targets.
34 of which were contractors for the BA.
19 of which were alleged criminals and drug dealers
8 Protestant civilians during street disturbances (probably attacking Nationalist areas.
Because when it comes to out-and-out blood lust for killing civilians the percentages tell us who went after soft targets who were unlikely to shoot back and who went after the armed apparatus of the sectarian statelet.
Loyalists and the PIRA are simply not comparable in their tactics, capabilities, and victim profile.
Even the British/Unionist sycophant Kevin Myers recognises the difference:
Loyalists considered the BA and RUC 'their own' and they pretty much were. Despite being provided with intelligence, weapons and operatives from the so-called 'security' forces Loyalist killings of Republicans amounted to 4%.
What this tells us is that Loyalists' raison d'etre was the murder of innocent Catholics.
Yet the IRA killed more civilians than any other group, mental gymnastics. You as I do also condemn the UVF for being murderous bastards and a blight on the people, now you will agree the IRA killed more civilians than the UVF but because they also killed lots of non civilians you think they are great, I just don't get it0 -
Yet the IRA killed more civilians than any other group, mental gymnastics.
They only killed more civilians if you pretend that Loyalists weren't acting under the CLMC which you're doing now.you think they are great, I just don't get it
I do not think PIRA were 'great'. I'm all too aware they were ruthless killers and committed some heinous atrocities.
The attempts to draw parallels between the PIRA (who were primarily interested in attacking the apparatus of the state) and Loyalists (who were primarily interested in killing innocent civilians) and to hermetically seal the security forces from the dirty war was has to be challenged for the distortion and propaganda that it is.0 -
+What nonsense, why did the loyalists have so much in fighting if the were one big group? the IRA killed half the total people killed ffs! The IRA were the most murderous blight this island has seen!
Remember you do not need to convince me the loyalists were murderous, vile and disgusting creatures, I detest them every bit as much as the IRA, but try to open your eyes man and see the IRA for what they were, not worse, not better but every bit as bad as the UVF, UDA etc
Just look at the numbers and apply critical thought ffs.
It's not nonsense at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Loyalist_Military_Command
The infighting came after the ceasefires over difference over the GFA kinda of like how the CIRA & RIRA broke from the PIRA over the GFA. There was no infighting during the conflict unlike Republicans when the OIRA & PIRA feuded during the 70's or with the INLA & IPLO during the 80's There was no Loyalist infighting during the conflict as they were all under the same command.1
Most murderous this island has ever seen? I'm guessing you've never heard of the United Irsishmen, Cromwell's New Model Army, The Catholic Defenders etc...
You just don't seem to understand the conditions that cause war.0 -
Advertisement
-
+
It's not nonsense at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Loyalist_Military_Command
The infighting came after the ceasefires over difference over the GFA kinda of like how the CIRA & RIRA broke from the PIRA over the GFA. There was no infighting during the conflict unlike Republicans when the OIRA & PIRA feuded during the 70's or with the INLA & IPLO during the 80's There was no Loyalist infighting during the conflict as they were all under the same command.1
Most murderous this island has ever seen? I'm guessing you've never heard of the United Irsishmen, Cromwell's New Model Army, The Catholic Defenders etc...
You just don't seem to understand the conditions that cause war.
The clmc was a loose confederation of the loyalist paramilitaries and certainly did not ' command' anyone. It was little more then a talking shop0
Advertisement