Northern Ireland and the IRA

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

They delivered it in 1974 in Sunningdale, but the two sectarian groups up North wouldn't accept it.

you mean the loyalists went in a huff and cut off all the electricity? Best just to say that rather than pretend something else happened.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

They delivered it in 1974 in Sunningdale, but the two sectarian groups up North wouldn't accept it.

Unionism destroyed it. You ran away the last time that was shown to you.

Sunningdale would never have worked because it didn't have everyone at the table. Hume, The British were in fantasy land to think it was going to work. Unionists refused point blank to powershare and pulled down Faulkner's powersharing executive.

The solution came when John Hume agreed to Alex Reid's suggestion to talks with Adams. Adams convinced Hume of an all nationalist solution - SF, The SDLP and the Irish government and Hume used his political capital to see that it became the solution. Reid's approaches to Seamus Mallon met with failure - Mallon wasn't interested, putting party before peace.

The British having ended the Unionist veto in the Anglo Irish Agreement a few years before agreed and made all the right noises and the rest is history.

Note: in 1999 Unionist had come full circle: 84 per cent of Ulster Unionist supporters, 71 per cent among PUP/UDP, and 58 per cent among those who voted for the DUP approved of the powersharing deal and that was with SF, who were not even near the table at Sunningdale.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

They delivered it in 1974 in Sunningdale, but the two sectarian groups up North wouldn't accept it.

Actually it was primarily the unionists who wouldn't accept it as they described it as "Dublin rule".

steddyeddy

Blanch I have a feeling you'll ignore this again but here we go.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

They delivered it in 1974 in Sunningdale, but the two sectarian groups up North wouldn't accept it.

How many times have you been shown up on this false equivalence? Three, maybe four times?

Yet here you are at it again such is your hatred of truth that it was Unionists backed by the UVF that sunk the Sunnigdale Agreement

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How many times have you been shown up on this false equivalence? Three, maybe four times?

Yet here you are at it again.

Tbf its a widely held view by many in the republic.......


A very powerful example of propaganda and dangers of banning free speech,that this lie was left unchallenged for so long

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How many times have you been shown up on this false equivalence? Three, maybe four times?

Yet here you are at it again such is your hatred of truth that it was Unionists backed by the UVF that sunk the Sunnigdale Agreement

It's part of the attempt to keep the myth of John Hume going. You'll notice in the south that FG/FF fans desperately try to convey the image that Hume was infallible.

Hume was a great man, no doubt. He served his country well when his moment came. But he and the SDLP were political failures until Hume teamed up with Adams. That is the reality. Hume was involved in many failed projects, Sunningdale being one and he made mistakes. Mallon and the SDLP made massive mistakes not least repudiating the start of the Peace Process and forcing Hume to go it alone. (Mallon, McGrady etc)

The people of NI showed emphatically who they thought achieved for them by rewarding SF. Blanch and the FG/FF cabal have never forgiven the people for that. They like to portray SF as having 'stolen' the SDLP's vote, that's as fantastic as the bitterness gets.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbf its a widely held view by many in the republic.......

That particular person has been walked through this Sunningdale thing on a number of occasions. It's tedious and he knows what he's writing is not truthful. It's dishonest and designed to cause frustration.

steddyeddy

I don't think Blanch believes his own posts on this issue. If he did then he wouldn't run away when confronted with reality.

Mad_maxx

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's part of the attempt to keep the myth of John Hume going. You'll notice in the south that FG/FF fans desperately try to convey the image that Hume was infallible.

Hume was a great man, no doubt. He served his country well when his moment came. But he and the SDLP were political failures until Hume teamed up with Adams. That is the reality. Hume was involved in many failed projects, Sunningdale being one and he made mistakes. Mallon and the SDLP made massive mistakes not least repudiating the start of the Peace Process and forcing Hume to go it alone. (Mallon, McGrady etc)

The people of NI showed emphatically who they thought achieved for them by rewarding SF. Blanch and the FG/FF cabal have never forgiven the people for that. They like to portray SF as having 'stolen' the SDLP's vote, that's as fantastic as the bitterness gets.

Hume was hardly to blame for the North being a failure until himself and Adams sat down ?

one man cannot make the various interest groups come together and work things out

as for the SDLP falling by the wayside since the late nineties , its not like they were the first party to ever shrink in size ?

SF are a bigger movement but without the SDLP , good will would not have existed in the corridors of power in Washington which drove the British corridors of power to move when the time came

maccored

John Hume - in my eyes anyway - was a bit more progressive than the rest of the SDLP. He didnt really care who you were - he just wanted peace. His talking to SF gave SF a legitimate voice - one which they had been refused up to that stage by the British and Irish governments.

In saying that, John Hume was vilified for talking to Adams by many of the same media - and people throughout the north, and probably south - that later glorified him.

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Hume was hardly to blame for the North being a failure until himself and Adams sat down ?

one man cannot make the various interest groups come together and work things out

as for the SDLP falling by the wayside since the late nineties , its not like they were the first party to ever shrink in size ?

SF are a bigger movement but without the SDLP , good will would not have existed in the corridors of power in Washington which drove the British corridors of power to move when the time came

I never said he was to blame for the north being a failure. For the Irish people the north had already failed and given birth to Hume the politician.

But he and his party had failed to deliver for the people who had voted for them up until Hume allied with Adams. This is depicted as Hume pleading and cajoling Adams, but it was a much more mutual and nuanced coming together than that.
The northern Irish electorate saw that, and they saw how the SDLP party (Mallon McGrady etc) were more interested in party than peace. They chose who they wanted to represent them accordingly.

Mad_maxx

maccored wrote: »

John Hume - in my eyes anyway - was a bit more progressive than the rest of the SDLP. He didnt really care who you were - he just wanted peace. His talking to SF gave SF a legitimate voice - one which they had been refused up to that stage by the British and Irish governments.

In saying that, John Hume was vilified for talking to Adams by many of the same media - and people throughout the north, and probably south - that later glorified him.

the vast majority of the population down here ignored what the media here said about Hume when he sat down with Adams

the media down here have always been soft on intransigent unionism

FrancieBrady

maccored wrote: »

John Hume - in my eyes anyway - was a bit more progressive than the rest of the SDLP. He didnt really care who you were - he just wanted peace. His talking to SF gave SF a legitimate voice - one which they had been refused up to that stage by the British and Irish governments.

In saying that, John Hume was vilified for talking to Adams by many of the same media - and people throughout the north, and probably south - that later glorified him.

Absolutely vilified. Now, to salvage something they have done a volte face, go on about, 'if only the Shinners had listened to Hume' and raised Hume on a pedestal and carry on vilifying SF. Largely because the SDLP are not at the gates.

steddyeddy

I take it Blanch learned his lesson that the unionist community was never going to accept a democracy without a fight.

Sunny Disposition

The strategy of ignoring the IRA had failed by the time Hume started talking to Adams, plus the Brits had regularly had contact through back channels. To a point some criticism was understandable, the IRA were definitely not a legitimate force, even if you look solely Catholics in the north they had nowhere near a majority of support. But the level of criticism was totally over the top, you'd think Hume was commiting the murders rather than the IRA.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How many times have you been shown up on this false equivalence? Three, maybe four times?

Yet here you are at it again such is your hatred of truth that it was Unionists backed by the UVF that sunk the Sunnigdale Agreement

20 more years of terrorist activity and the GFA ended up being Sunningdale for slow learners.

That there were slow learners on both sides is not in doubt, but the increased IRA violence post-Sunningdale reduced the political pressure on the unionists. If the IRA had stopped when the Sunningdale agreement was reached, the political pressure on the unionist side to agree to it would have bourne fruit and we would have saved more than 20 years of useless killing by the PIRA to end up with the same outcome more or less.

That is a reasonable opinion consistent with the facts, an opinion shared by people like Seamus Mallon.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

20 more years of terrorist activity and the GFA ended up being Sunningdale for slow learners.

That there were slow learners on both sides is not in doubt, but the increased IRA violence post-Sunningdale reduced the political pressure on the unionists. If the IRA had stopped when the Sunningdale agreement was reached, the political pressure on the unionist side to agree to it would have bourne fruit and we would have saved more than 20 years of useless killing by the PIRA to end up with the same outcome more or less.

That is a reasonable opinion consistent with the facts, an opinion shared by people like Seamus Mallon.

20 years after Sunningdale Mallon repudiated a chance at peace. That's his legacy. Hume took the chance thankfully.
The 'slow learners' SDLP/FF/FG face saving nonsense has been totally debunked.
Sunningdale made things worse, of that there is no doubt.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

20 years after Sunningdale Mallon repudiated a chance at peace. That's his legacy. Hume took the chance thankfully.
The 'slow learners' SDLP/FF/FG face saving nonsense has been totally debunked.
Sunningdale made things worse, of that there is no doubt.

Nothing has been debunked. You can hold a different opinion, but that is all.

The opinion I hold is reasonable and in line with events.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

20 more years of terrorist activity and the GFA ended up being Sunningdale for slow learners.

That there were slow learners on both sides is not in doubt, but the increased IRA violence post-Sunningdale reduced the political pressure on the unionists. If the IRA had stopped when the Sunningdale agreement was reached, the political pressure on the unionist side to agree to it would have bourne fruit and we would have saved more than 20 years of useless killing by the PIRA to end up with the same outcome more or less.

That is a reasonable opinion consistent with the facts, an opinion shared by people like Seamus Mallon.

Sunningdale for slow learners - please stop repeating inaccurate soundbytes that have already been overused and disproven.

Theres a massive difference between the two - though sets of unionists did their best to destroy both. Unionism - those lads you’ve been promoting.

Can you see with all that egg on your face at this stage?

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

20 more years of terrorist activity and the GFA ended up being Sunningdale for slow learners.

That there were slow learners on both sides is not in doubt, but the increased IRA violence post-Sunningdale reduced the political pressure on the unionists. If the IRA had stopped when the Sunningdale agreement was reached, the political pressure on the unionist side to agree to it would have bourne fruit and we would have saved more than 20 years of useless killing by the PIRA to end up with the same outcome more or less.

That is a reasonable opinion consistent with the facts, an opinion shared by people like Seamus Mallon.

Silly conclusion Blanch. It was loyalist terrorists who opposed the deal with violence. So your thesis is that more political pressure would have been put on the loyalist terrorists to stop the violence if there was less violence from the IRA. The point somewhat falls into even more stupid territory when we point to the fact that the IRA were nothing to do with the Sunningdale agreement, it was the SDLP.

On 10 December, the day after the agreement was announced, loyalist paramilitaries formed the Ulster Army Council – a coalition of loyalist paramilitary groups, including the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, which would oppose the agreement.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Silly conclusion Blanch. It was loyalist terrorists who opposed the deal with violence. So your thesis is that more political pressure would have been put on the loyalist terrorists to stop the violence if there was less violence from the IRA. The point somewhat falls into even more stupid territory when we point to the fact that the IRA were nothing to do with the Sunningdale agreement, it was the SDLP.

Feel free to disagree. Historical analysis can support both opinions, it is a what if scenario. We know what did happen - the PIRA killed loads more people over the next 25 years.

You can hold the opinion that was all necessary. I can hold the opinion (as many others do) that it was a completely unnecessary waste of human life, with the sum total of human misery only added to by the PIRA and that there was not a single tangible achievement in the decades since.

My analysis is also supported by what you and many others have said about a post-United Ireland situation - that the unionist community would not be able to support and maintain a terrorist campaign in such a scenario. If that is true of today, then it is also true of 1976, when far less was asked of unionism.

To put it another way, my opinion that the PIRA were wrong is predicated on unionism not being able to maintain a terrorist campaign, something that nationalists today claim.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Feel free to disagree. Historical analysis can support both opinions, it is a what if scenario. We know what did happen - the PIRA killed loads more people over the next 25 years.

You can hold the opinion that was all necessary. I can hold the opinion (as many others do) that it was a completely unnecessary waste of human life, with the sum total of human misery only added to by the PIRA and that there was not a single tangible achievement in the decades since.

My analysis is also supported by what you and many others have said about a post-United Ireland situation - that the unionist community would not be able to support and maintain a terrorist campaign in such a scenario. If that is true of today, then it is also true of 1976, when far less was asked of unionism.

To put it another way, my opinion that the PIRA were wrong is predicated on unionism not being able to maintain a terrorist campaign, something that nationalists today claim.

So do you agree with the violence up to the 'achievement' of Sunningdale?

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Historical analysis can support both opinions,

No it does not! It supports that sunningdale failed due to threats of loyalist violence and strikes. Go away with your made up history

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So do you agree with the violence up to the 'achievement' of Sunningdale?

That would assume that Sunningdale would not have been achieved without violence.

Again, a view that the Sunningdale compromises were delayed rather than facilitated by the IRA violence is out there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That would assume that Sunningdale would not have been achieved without violence.

Again, a view that the Sunningdale compromises were delayed rather than facilitated by the IRA violence is out there.

Sunningdale only came about because it was a solution to violence.

Please stop pretending that the only violence was coming from the IRA and answer the question.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Feel free to disagree. Historical analysis can support both opinions, it is a what if scenario. We know what did happen - the PIRA killed loads more people over the next 25 years.

You can hold the opinion that was all necessary. I can hold the opinion (as many others do) that it was a completely unnecessary waste of human life, with the sum total of human misery only added to by the PIRA and that there was not a single tangible achievement in the decades since.

My analysis is also supported by what you and many others have said about a post-United Ireland situation - that the unionist community would not be able to support and maintain a terrorist campaign in such a scenario. If that is true of today, then it is also true of 1976, when far less was asked of unionism.

To put it another way, my opinion that the PIRA were wrong is predicated on unionism not being able to maintain a terrorist campaign, something that nationalists today claim.

So the unionists can't be blamed for violence as not enough political pressure was put on them.......

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

To put it another way, my opinion that the PIRA were wrong is predicated on unionism not being able to maintain a terrorist campaign, something that nationalists today claim.

The british army and loyalist paramilitaries,were active throughout the troubles,with near infinite resources??

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

That would assume that Sunningdale would not have been achieved without violence.

Again, a view that the Sunningdale compromises were delayed rather than facilitated by the IRA violence is out there.

Blanch you're the one who's stating that the paramilitary groups can't be blamed for their actions because there was a lack of political pressure.

Read your idea back to yourself from the opposing side of the conflict.

The UVF were to blame for the IRA bombing campaign because the actions of the UVF prevented political pressure being put on the IRA. That's what you said......

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

That would assume that Sunningdale would not have been achieved without violence.

Again, a view that the Sunningdale compromises were delayed rather than facilitated by the IRA violence is out there.

if anything was delayed it was by the Ulster is British and no Surrender bull****, never mind the police force which only represented part of the community. Where'd you learn your history anyway? On a cornflakes box eating breakfast one morning?

steddyeddy

Blanch I'd advise you to look up the phenomenon of projection. You're literally excusing terrorists of their actions while accusing others of doing the same.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch you're the one who's stating that the paramilitary groups can't be blamed for their actions because there was a lack of political pressure.

Read your idea back to yourself from the opposing side of the conflict.

The UVF were to blame for the IRA bombing campaign because the actions of the UVF prevented political pressure being put on the IRA. That's what you said......

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch I'd advise you to look up the phenomenon of projection. You're literally excusing terrorists of their actions while accusing others of doing the same.

What sort of nonsense is that?

You clearly have misunderstood my post.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

What sort of nonsense is that?

You clearly have misunderstood my post.

anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of the history of the time is bound to misunderstand your post. you blame the IRA for unionist actions.

indioblack

I remember talking to an Irish relative in the mid 1970's and my opinion then was that while the re-emergence of the IRA, [PIRA], could be understood, a continuation of their campaign might prove counter productive. People might be more likely to focus on the violence than the initial cause.

maccored

indioblack wrote: »

I remember talking to an Irish relative in the mid 1970's and my opinion then was that while the re-emergence of the IRA, [PIRA], could be understood, a continuation of their campaign might prove counter productive. People might be more likely to focus on the violence than the initial cause.

the cause remained through right up until the ceasefires of the 90s. there was still harassment going on by the RUC/UDR etc and they still didnt represent everyone in the community

Hamsterchops

indioblack wrote: »

I remember talking to an Irish relative in the mid 1970's and my opinion then was that while the re-emergence of the IRA, [PIRA], could be understood, a continuation of their campaign might prove counter productive. People might be more likely to focus on the violence than the initial cause.

Well that's the thing, it quickly got to the stage where they were just planting bombs here there & everywhere. Another week another bomb, more loss of life, maybe an off duty policeman or a judge, an army building contractor, or even one of their own who "got out of line" so Bang bang to him!

The Provos were if course scum of the highest order, as were the INLA & their Loyalist equivalents. It has been said many times that the biggest obstacle to uniting the island was the poison inflicted by the men if violence (primarily by the PIRA). Bombing & shooting your neighbours was never going to unite anyone, was it :cool:

It's poppy day, let's plant a bomb!
******s

Sunny Disposition

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well that's the thing, it quickly got to the stage where they were just planting bombs here there & everywhere. Another week another bomb, more loss of life, maybe an off duty policeman or a judge, an army building contractor, or even one of their own who "got out of line" so Bang bang to him!

The Provos were if course scum of the highest order, as were the INLA & their Loyalist equivalents. It has been said many times that the biggest obstacle to uniting the island was the poison inflicted by the men if violence (primarily by the PIRA). Bombing & shooting your neighbours was never going to unite anyone, was it :cool:

It's poppy day, let's plant a bomb!
******s

This is something that gets forgotten. There were other political options available in the 70s, and most Catholics wanted change but wanted peace more. The IRA meant that improvements for Catholics were delayed and partition hasn't ended either.

MitchBuch

As a "millenial" Northern Ireland person I have always noticed the southerners and the GB people try to belittle your viewpoints because you didn't grow up during the troubles. This is partly why I don't engage in discussions about it anymore. The way I see it someone like myself has every right to his views whether they be extreme or moderate because I had to grow up in the post troubles society among the other sort, the outsiders may have been alive in the 70s and 80s but they don't have to live in Northern Ireland society.

It especially annoys me when the Gen X and Boomers of Northern Ireland say it, they have some nerve, they carried on a war for 30 years and have the brass neck to complain when the next generation comment on it when it is the next generation who have to pick up their mess. Don't even get me started when the American boomers try to slide their opinion in.

end of the road

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

This is something that gets forgotten. There were other political options available in the 70s, and most Catholics wanted change but wanted peace more. The IRA meant that improvements for Catholics were delayed and partition hasn't ended either.

sorry but you have already been shown that there weren't other political options available in the 1970s.
those who did try peaceful means were shot off the streets at best and murdered at worst as you already know.
there were not going to be improvements for catholics without violence, there was no wish or incentive to implement them.
in fact without violence, improvements would have come a lot later or not at all.
why you keep making a claim that both history and reality have shown isn't true is beyond me.

Sunny Disposition

end of the road wrote: »

sorry but you have already been shown that there weren't other political options available in the 1970s.
those who did try peaceful means were shot off the streets at best and murdered at worst as you already know.
there were not going to be improvements for catholics without violence, there was no wish or incentive to implement them.
in fact without violence, improvements would have come a lot later or not at all.
why you keep making a claim that both history and reality have shown isn't true is beyond me.

Yes, there were, there always are, and the vast majority of Catholics wanted to take them. I lived in one of the biggest IRA strongholds during the worst of the Troubles, and even there fewer people supported them than did not. Thinking the IRA helped us is what’s not borne out by history.

Hamsterchops

end of the road wrote: »

sorry but you have already been shown that there weren't other political options available in the 1970s.
those who did try peaceful means were shot off the streets at best and murdered at worst as you already know.
there were not going to be improvements for catholics without violence, there was no wish or incentive to implement them.
in fact without violence, improvements would have come a lot later or not at all.
why you keep making a claim that both history and reality have shown isn't true is beyond me.

I think it disgrace that any civilised person would even hint at Terrorism being "the only way".

The Nationalist SDLP were a very good option for Nationalists, and yes they were batoned off the streets during civil rights unrest, but they were and still are a peaceful and honourable party. No one ever had to plant bombs and blow people's arms & legs off, no reason at all.

The SDLP had no grizzly murders in their name.

Sunny Disposition

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I think it disgrace that any civilised person would even hint at Terrorism being "the only way".

The Nationalist SDLP were a very good option for Nationalists, and yes they were batoned off the streets during civil rights unrest, but they were and still are a peaceful and honourable party.

No grizzly murders in their name.

Ridiculous, the IRA were a total disaster for Ireland and we still haven’t recovered from their campaign. They have put back reunification, but that pales into insignificance beside some of the barbarity.

FrancieBrady

Unionism and the British had choices too, from the get go. They chose to beat people into the ground so much they rose up against them. Same story the world over - bloodbaths and who was the common denominator?

Guess who.

Hamsterchops

Ah Francie, there you go .....

Your mentality would never Unite.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Ah Francie, there you go .....

Your mentality would never Unite.

You think yours would HC?

The blame for what happened is a shared one...just like the only stable future will be a shared one.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think yours would HC?

What do you mean by that ^

My mentality means that I have never supported the IRA, INLA, UFF, UDF, or any other F, my line all along has been to denounce terrorism and the planting of bombs, because Francie, blowing people to bits only perpetuates hatred & division, it also delays any Uniting of the Green & Orange.

Thankfully it's all over now, but please don't expect the rest of us to look back at the IRA campaign as some kind of glorious necessity. It's wasn't necessary at all, and many good people from both sides could lived their lives without being murdered by the PIRA (and the Loyalist gangs).

Mad_maxx

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionism and the British had choices too, from the get go. They chose to beat people into the ground so much they rose up against them. Same story the world over - bloodbaths and who was the common denominator?

Guess who.

while i know that the province of Ulster always had the most rebellious people in Ireland , for the most part we are a fairly moderate people and had catholics been given a fair shout , revolutionaries would have been very thin on the ground as the vast majority of people just want to do the usual and get a job , get a house and raise their families in a normal environment.

the unionists made an awful balls of things up there.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

What do you mean by that ^

My mentality means that I have never supported the IRA, INLA, UFF, UDF, or any other F, my line all along has been to denounce terrorism and the planting of bombs, because Francie, blowing people to bits only perpetuates hatred & division, it also delays any Uniting of the Green & Orange.

Thankfully it's all over now, but please don't expect the rest of us to look back at the IRA campaign as some kind of glorious necessity. It's wasn't necessary at all, and many good people from both sides could lived their lives without being murdered by the PIRA (and the Loyalist gangs).

Violence doesn't occur in a vacuum, it has causes. The British destroyed indigenous societies the world over for centuries and would still do it if they had any power left.
They had a 'choice' too. There was not a single reason why they could not have delivered what was in the GFA in 1969.
They choose to shore up a bigoted sectarian suprematist Unionist state.

The primary responsibility lies with them and the reason your 'mentality would never unite' is that the British don't even make your list above.

maccored

Hamsterchops wrote: »

What do you mean by that ^

My mentality means that I have never supported the IRA, INLA, UFF, UDF, or any other F, my line all along has been to denounce terrorism and the planting of bombs, because Francie, blowing people to bits only perpetuates hatred & division, it also delays any Uniting of the Green & Orange.

Thankfully it's all over now, but please don't expect the rest of us to look back at the IRA campaign as some kind of glorious necessity. It's wasn't necessary at all, and many good people from both sides could lived their lives without being murdered by the PIRA (and the Loyalist gangs).

i have to ask, respectfully - did you grow up there throughout it all? if you didnt then theres no surprise you can look at it from an outside viewpoint.

if you grew up there and - like many - had to deal with the harassment from unionists during the marching season (ie, may-sept), with the ruc, etc etc then you might not be able to afford such a viewpoint. Im just speaking from my experience. Im sure unionists would say exactly the same thing about republicans etc etc.

I'm sure there were those who really enjoyed killing etc - but Im also sure a sizeable majority of those who were involved wold have preferred to have had a much more peaceful life. as mentioned - it didnt happen in a vacuum. suppress people and there will be violence. humans are like that the world over.

end of the road

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I think it disgrace that any civilised person would even hint at Terrorism being "the only way".

The Nationalist SDLP were a very good option for Nationalists, and yes they were batoned off the streets during civil rights unrest, but they were and still are a peaceful and honourable party. No one ever had to plant bombs and blow people's arms & legs off, no reason at all.

The SDLP had no grizzly murders in their name.

you can think that away, but it's still reality that it was the only way.
you can blame britain for it, they had every chance to avoid that being the only way and it refused to take those opportunities, instead doubling down.
the SDLP could have done nothing, the reality is that if there was no campaign the catholic/nationalists would have been ultimately ethnically cleansed from northern ireland.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Ridiculous, the IRA were a total disaster for Ireland and we still haven’t recovered from their campaign. They have put back reunification, but that pales into insignificance beside some of the barbarity.

the IRA campaign didn't put reunification back.
there were only a couple of ways reunification was happening.
1. britain pulls out.
2. a majority in NI vote for it.
3. a catastrofic event like brexit and the possible breakup of the UK.