Should the IRA or republicans return to violence?

jman0

ishmael whale wrote:

What do you do when a significant portion of the electorate part company with the core beliefs necessary to run a functioning democracy? I don’t have a ready answer for that.

You better take a closer look at that so called "functioning democracy" because there's obviously something terribly wrong with it.
In fact, if neglected violence will inevitably fill the political vacuum.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

Little it matters.
How badly wrong did it go?
Hasn't exactly cost Republican votes in NI.

I do so love this, you raise this as not a public relationships matter, claim the family broke a trust and then when presented contradictory evidence go "piffle tis but a trifle"

It went badly wrong in that it has been part of the snowball effect leading to the EU support. And if you'll notice anyone with an ounce of sense who reviewed the NI elections, the fact that Cunnigham won his seat, and the fact that SF went into this election aganist a demoralised and leadershipless SDLP and failed to win any semblance of a tangible victory could be seen as a loss for republicans.

You better take a closer look at that so called "functioning democracy" because there's obviously something terribly wrong with it.
In fact, if neglected violence will inevitably fill the political vacuum.

Ah right so the murder of the robert mc cartney is the fault of the non implimentation of the Good Friday agreement. Funny I don't remember any reports of SDLP, British government, or even DUP or UUP, not seeing anything at the bar where he was gutted, or any of them intimidating witnesses engaging in forensic clean up and witness intimidation..... :eek:

jman0

jman0 wrote:

In fact, if neglected violence will inevitably fill the political vacuum.

That statement prompts 3 questions:

(1) Do you think that most of the "new" converts to SF in the North would countenance a return to violence? Past experience is that, these new converts went elsewhere when the IRA was actively bombing and shooting.

(2) Do you think its acceptable that people whose reason d'etre was to protect nationalists from widespread discrimination in the early 70's should go back bombing and shooting just to bring about a united Ireland in a way that would (a) be totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Irish people and (b) would be counter productive in that it would further alienate the 1 million or so Unionists from the concept of a united Ireland.

(3) Given that a large majority of people polled recently think that Adams and McGuinness have strong links to the IRA,and many think they *are* the IRA, how difficult do you think a return to violence(even by proxy as you have suggested) would make their positions and that of their party down south? I'd suggest very difficult.

ishmael whale

jman0 wrote:

You better take a closer look at that so called "functioning democracy" because there's obviously something terribly wrong with it.

Read my point again. “What do you do when a significant portion of the electorate part company with the core beliefs necessary to run a functioning democracy?”

The point is how do you achieve political progress in Northern Ireland if a significant proportion of the electorate just aren’t that bothered about, say, the IRA carrying out executions.

On the other side of the equation, Unionists seem happy enough with direct rule if the alternative involves SF in government. Which leaves the majority of both nationalists and unionists, for different reasons, essentially not that pushed about achieving progress.

Maybe you can see a way out of this corner, but I have to admit it beats me.

Incidently, I hate to be all anal about this, but do I take it you do concede you were wrong to suggest that the McCartney family broke a confidence, and that in fact the IRA issued a public statement itself clearly stating its willingness to engage in executions.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

That statement prompts 3 questions

(1) Impossible to answer, it remains to be seen. We are in a new phase of the conflict today.

(2) I don't think bombing and shooting can bring about a United Ireland. However i can imagine these techniques applied for other aims.

(3) Well i don't believe either are on the Army Council so i'd have to disagree with the first part of your question, which by the way seems accusational and not pertinent. I guess yes it could be difficult, but difficult in what way exactly? SF already are gaining votes, the only difficulty seems to be a very partisan media. Which is nothing new really.
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Irelandclick/arts2005/may12_is_that_your_best_shot__RLivingstone.php

hawkmoon269

I think it's pretty simple. IRA have two choices:

(1) Decommission themselves. Permanently

(2) Be put out of business. Permanently.

I think some SF people are very naive, are they not aware of the current mentality in the White House and how much it is against them in the post 9-11 environment.

hawkmoon269

jman0 wrote:

http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Irelandclick/arts2005/may12_is_that_your_best_shot__RLivingstone.php

One comment I'd make about the article in that link, the writer doesn't appear to be aware that David Burnside has already named the people (allegedly) responsible for the Northern Bank robbery, in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege. I won't post it here but anyone wishing to view the relevant debate, it is easily available if you do an internet search.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

(1) Impossible to answer, it remains to be seen. We are in a new phase of the conflict today.

what conflict is there today?

(2) I don't think bombing and shooting can bring about a United Ireland. However i can imagine these techniques applied for other aims.

what other aims and whose?

(3) Well i don't believe either are on the Army Council so i'd have to disagree with the first part of your question, which by the way seems accusational and not pertinent.

Well, the question is a valid one and based on public opinion polls not my opinion, so I guess you are disagreeing with the public opinion polls?

I guess yes it could be difficult, but difficult in what way exactly? SF already are gaining votes, the only difficulty seems to be a very partisan media. Which is nothing new really.

Yes they are gaining votes in NI, but I was talking about in the scenario where theres a return to violence...Past experience being people didnt vote for SF in that scenario.
As regards difficulty...Well I'd say it would be difficult in the sense that there would be a lot of resentment in the 26 counties.
There certainly was a lot of resentment here during the IRA campaign.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

what conflict is there today?

Republicans are in perpetual conflict. Against HMG and her unionist drones; an electoral conflict against Fianna Fail and the SDLP; against a partisan media and all the black propaganda spewing forth. Sometimes conflicts turn violent, in greater and lesser degrees, sometimes a battle of words.

Earthman wrote:

what other aims and whose?

Aims to be determined by those that yield such devices.
I can think of one right now: a complacent HMG comfortably denying representation to Nationalists and legislating from afar, forgeting the GFA, could be reminded of the dark days when bombs exploded in London, the goal : a new urgency to become persuaders, and getting the unionists in their seats in the NI assembly (which by the way was a compromise)

Earthman wrote:

so I guess you are disagreeing with the public opinion polls?

Gladly. Are these the same opinion polls that have resulted from the years of Section 31? and the partisan nature of the media against SF? I remember speaking with people in Dublin and they believed the IRA bombed the place in 1974 because that's what the government of the day told them.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Republicans are in perpetual conflict. Against HMG and her unionist drones; an electoral conflict against Fianna Fail and the SDLP; against a partisan media and all the black propaganda spewing forth. Sometimes conflicts turn violent, in greater and lesser degrees, sometimes a battle of words.

And what propoganda book did you lift that from? Or was it an indoctrination rally speech? Do you even understand what you've just written jman0? Republicans have just as 'partisan' media spewing forth "black" propoganda. Are you glorifing the "armed struggle" then?

Aims to be determined by those that yield such devices.
I can think of one right now: a complacent HMG comfortably denying representation to Nationalists and legislating from afar, forgeting the GFA, could be reminded of the dark days when bombs exploded in London, the goal : a new urgency to become persuaders, and getting the unionists in their seats in the NI assembly (which by the way was a compromise)

Heh. That's funny. Claiming the British government is forgetting the GFA. The IRA seem quite happy to "forget" about on a daily basis.

Nothing more than hypocritical, paranoid twaddle. The British Government is hardly innocent in all dealings northern Irish, but that above quote is just priceless in its comic value. It reads to me of a mindset that has not progressed, politically speaking, since the 1970s and continues to fail to progress beyond that dark and not so glorious era of Irish history.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Sometimes conflicts turn violent, in greater and lesser degrees, sometimes a battle of words.

The two are mutually exclusive terms.One is legal and rightly so, and the other is illegal and rightly so, its an imperative of democracy.

Aims to be determined by those that yield such devices.
I can think of one right now: a complacent HMG comfortably denying representation to Nationalists and legislating from afar, forgeting the GFA, could be reminded of the dark days when bombs exploded in London, the goal : a new urgency to become persuaders, and getting the unionists in their seats in the NI assembly (which by the way was a compromise)

Do you believe in violence to achieve aims when a democratic vote doesnt yield a majority for them?

Are these the same opinion polls that have resulted from the years of Section 31?

Well SF had the freedom of the airwaves in NI throughout the worst of the troubles and a majority of nationalists didnt vote for them then-ergo a majority of NI nationalists didnt agree with the troubles.

and the partisan nature of the media against SF?

Sindo and INDO or all media? so what you are saying is that the readers of the first two and people in general are brainwashed into being anti Republican?
I suggest you cop on and wake up to the fact that most people dont want political violence in Ireland and while that is the case those that perform it, will when caught see jail.

I remember speaking with people in Dublin and they believed the IRA bombed the place in 1974 because that's what the government of the day told them.

Where was this propegated? links please.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Where was this propegated? links please.

Looking
Although i'm surprised you haven't heard of that before.
I've read it in more than 1 book as well.
It was at least a common held misconception until 1993 when the UVF claimed responsability.
It's not the only such instance either. In fact PanAm flight 103 was originally blamed on the IRA too.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Looking
Although i'm surprised you haven't heard of that before.
I've read it in more than 1 book as well.

Which books are these?

jman0

Lemming wrote:

Which books are these?

I believe one was called "The Uncivil Wars" by Padraig O'Malley
But it may also have been in The History of the IRA or something, written i think by Bowyer Bell, i can't remember. But i don't think it's the Tim Pat Coogan one,.

ishmael whale

For my part, I’m not aware of anyone thinking that the IRA were responsible for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. The only controversy that I associate with this topic is the extent to which British intelligence either knew or were involved in the events, and I’ve certainly seen articles suggesting that Loyalist paramilitaries would not have the technical expertise or organisational support to mount a bombing operation in Dublin on their own. Jman0 may be getting confusing over the point raised, for example, on the website of Justice for the forgotten, where they say

http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/may17.php

“….It was repeatedly stated in the days following the bombing that any Irish citizen who had even entertained the thought of supporting the IRA’s contemporary campaign was every bit as guilty of the slaughter of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as were those who had, cold-bloodedly and without any warning, planned and carried out the atrocity. ….”

Put another way, political leaders at the time essentially pointed out that Loyalist paramilitaries could claim IRA violence as a justification of their bombings. That’s clearly a world away from them saying that the IRA carried out the bombings.

Half-Bicycle

Hopefuly they will never have to go down that avenue ever again. Despite provocation and prevarication from the British Govt, our Govt, Unionists and the ahem, "press". No, Sinn Fein have, under Gerry Adams made significant progress in the peace process. The IRA will eventually dissipate, claiming victory and why not?

Funny how some of the most vocal anti-Nationalist posters keep schtum when it comes to Unionist stalling techniques and Loyalist atrocities. :rolleyes:

Lemming

Half-Bicycle wrote:

Hopefuly they will never have to go down that avenue ever again. Despite provocation and prevarication from the British Govt, our Govt, Unionists and the ahem, "press". No, Sinn Fein have, under Gerry Adams made significant progress in the peace process. The IRA will eventually dissipate, claiming victory and why not?

Funny how some of the most vocal anti-Nationalist posters keep schtum when it comes to Unionist stalling techniques and Loyalist atrocities. :rolleyes:

You seem to be missing a couple of fundamental "little" points, like a great deal many other IRA supporters here.

1. The reason why there is such focus placed upon the IRA and not on other paramilitary groups BOTH sides of the equation is because none of these parties have members in government. They're just as repugnant, make no mistakes about that.

2. Under Adams significant steps have been taken. Lets see. Stop "officially" murdering/maiming people. Geeeh. You want a medal for that? I'd kind of figured that that woudl be a prequisite to actually engaging in talks in the first place. But no, they're still quite happy to engage in those activities (among others) in an "unofficial" capacity.

I'm sorry - who's doing the stalling here?

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

Aims to be determined by those that yield such devices.

"Wield", presumably. So the message is: we've got the guns; we'll decide what to use them for. They're not for a specific purpose, but rather a useful instrument to further whatever aim is currently convenient to justify the possession of arms. Right?

jman0 wrote:

I can think of one right now: a complacent HMG comfortably denying representation to Nationalists and legislating from afar, forgeting the GFA, could be reminded of the dark days when bombs exploded in London, the goal : a new urgency to become persuaders, and getting the unionists in their seats in the NI assembly (which by the way was a compromise)

The threat of terrorism as a negotiating tactic. Democracy in action, republican style.

mycroft

oscarBravo wrote:

"Wield", presumably. So the message is: we've got the guns; we'll decide what to use them for. They're not for a specific purpose, but rather a useful instrument to further whatever aim is currently convenient to justify the possession of arms. Right? The threat of terrorism as a negotiating tactic. Democracy in action, republican style.

And lets not forget two simple facts;

Teenage sucide rates in areas under IRA control like the Ardoyne are expotentially higher than in ordinary areas of Ireland.

The IRA have killed more catholics than any side in this conflict.

So, this army this brave army have done more in real terms to damage the communities and people they claim to protect than anyone else......

This concept as the IRA as noble army fighting for heroism and some vunerable communities is negated by the reality of what has occured.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

And lets not forget two simple facts;

Teenage sucide rates in areas under IRA control like the Ardoyne are expotentially higher than in ordinary areas of Ireland.

The IRA have killed more catholics than any side in this conflict.

So, this army this brave army have done more in real terms to damage the communities and people they claim to protect than anyone else......

This concept as the IRA as noble army fighting for heroism and some vunerable communities is negated by the reality of what has occured.

any proof that the suicide rate is higher than in any similar sized working class area in the north or the south



the conflict was not about religion so how many catholics were killed is irrelevant unless of course you believe that a catholic live is more important than a protestant one

egan007

WTF?
When did they stop being violent?

IRA me b*ollix - They are not a republican army in my name
They soil the name of the brave men of the rebellion.

They have become clouded, unfocused, out of touch, unrealistic, crinimals who are no better than any gang in the country.
Bomb the brits - Is that the best they can come up with.
FFS the problem in the north goes back a thousand years to Hugh ONeill
Not one of them know enough about the history they fight for.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

any proof that the suicide rate is higher than in any similar sized working class area in the north or the south

I thought you and I had an understanding cdebru, I'd ignore you, and you'd ignore me, and the Mods and I would stop worrying about our rising blood pressure. Took you two weeks to renage on that. :rolleyes:

Here;

Cairns death is the 13th by suicide in the North Belfast area since Christmas -- an average of two people a week in the last six weeks.

from here

and

the rate for men committing suicide in Ireland is given as 18 per 100000

from here

Do you need me to do the maths?

the conflict was not about religion so how many catholics were killed is irrelevant unless of course you believe that a catholic live is more important than a protestant one

And please spare me your faux outrage that you think I'm suggesting that catholic lives are more or less valuable than protestant. Do I have to spell it out for you? The IRA have killed more catholics than any other side in the conflict. The nationalist community is overwhelmingly catholic, therefore the IRA have killed more members of the community they proclaim to protect and serve.

Half-Bicycle

Lemming wrote:

You seem to be missing a couple of fundamental "little" points, like a great deal many other IRA supporters here.
QUOTE]

Does giving Sinn Fein the benefit of the doubt automatically make one an IRA supporter?

Or.

Does a post-colonial hangover of a society automatically make one anti-Nationalist?

Hmmm.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

I thought you and I had an understanding cdebru, I'd ignore you, and you'd ignore me, and the Mods and I would stop worrying about our rising blood pressure. Took you two weeks to renage on that. :rolleyes:

I told you i was not putting you on ignore but if you wanted to put me on ignore go ahead



Here;

from here

and


from here

Do you need me to do the maths?



And please spare me your faux outrage that you think I'm suggesting that catholic lives are more or less valuable than protestant. Do I have to spell it out for you? The IRA have killed more catholics than any other side in the conflict. The nationalist community is overwhelmingly catholic, therefore the IRA have killed more members of the community they proclaim to protect and serve.

I told you i was not putting you on ignore but if you wanted to put me on ignore go ahead
I dont have a problem with blood pressure thanks for the concern though


now what i asked you was if you had any evidence that the suicide rate was higher than a comparable working class area

it is higher than the national average that is not what i asked you

I remember back in the 80s in the area of north dublin I lived in there was a spate of suicides which would have been well above the national average

the area was not under IRA control as you put it


I dont think it gives a true reflection of anything to say they killed more catholics or protestants it is over simplistic

people were not killed by the IRA because they were Catholic so the point is irrelevant

they killed catholic british soldiers catholic RUC men catholic informers their own members who were killed by accident innocent catholics who happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Lemming

Half-Bicycle wrote:

Lemming wrote:

You seem to be missing a couple of fundamental "little" points, like a great deal many other IRA supporters here.

Does giving Sinn Fein the benefit of the doubt automatically make one an IRA supporter?

Or.

Does a post-colonial hangover of a society automatically make one anti-Nationalist?

Hmmm.

To the above questions No & No. However, your wording has thus far spoken volumes as to your "stance" Half-Bicycle. it would appear to be somewhat further beyond giving the IRA the "benefit of the doubt".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

Half-Bicycle wrote:

Hopefuly they will never have to go down that avenue ever again. Despite provocation and prevarication from the British Govt, our Govt, Unionists and the ahem, "press". No, Sinn Fein have, under Gerry Adams made significant progress in the peace process. The IRA will eventually dissipate, claiming victory and why not?

Funny how some of the most vocal anti-Nationalist posters keep schtum when it comes to Unionist stalling techniques and Loyalist atrocities. :rolleyes:

Further, you also took my quote completely out of context in order to make your *ahem* reply. You are indeed missing a few fundamental points, as I so pointed out and then pointed out what those points were, in relation to what you had posted regarding the matter.

If you are also calling me an "anti-nationalist" I would suggest that you either state why, or stfu and retract that jibe.

Half-Bicycle

I think you are perhaps reading to much into what you call my "stance", Lemming. I am not an IRA supporter but I do not ignore why they came into being.

As for SF, I admire the significant leaps that they have made during the peace process whilst the Unionists have done little except stall and denigrate Sinn Fein at every given chance. We are now witnessing an ongoing vilification of SF, which surely has Unionists rubbing their hands in glee. Fianna Fail along with a complicit media are attempting to turn SF into outcasts. Then we have the US influence. Mr Adams was an outspoken critic of the illegal invasion of Iraq and his left-wing ideals do not endear himself to the present US administration. It suits them very well to close the door on SF, fearing that sometime in the near future Ireland will have socialists forming a Govt. And the US can't have a lefty Ireland, can they?

If my anti-Nationalist jibe caused offence, I apologise. You're prob more Nationalist than I, an Internationalist at heart.

stfu, btw, stinks of censorship. Not to mention bad manners. :rolleyes:

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

I told you i was not putting you on ignore but if you wanted to put me on ignore go ahead
I dont have a problem with blood pressure thanks for the concern though

More worried about mine and the mods, I couldn't care less about yours.

now what i asked you was if you had any evidence that the suicide rate was higher than a comparable working class area

it is higher than the national average that is not what i asked you

I remember back in the 80s in the area of north dublin I lived in there was a spate of suicides which would have been well above the national average

the area was not under IRA control as you put it

I just proved that it's far higher than the national average. Furthermore the sucide rate in Ireland is far higher in rural areas (25 %) than urban areas.
What more do you need, or are you going to ignore simple facts?

Now I provided statistics and figures, you've responded with an ancedote.

I dont think it gives a true reflection of anything to say they killed more catholics or protestants it is over simplistic

people were not killed by the IRA because they were Catholic so the point is irrelevant

I think it's relevant to the people killed. It's not why they were killed, it's the fact they were killed. If the IRA have killed more members of the community and ethic group the claim to protect, I think it's fairly obvious to say they did a piss poor job of said protection.

they killed catholic british soldiers catholic RUC men catholic informers their own members who were killed by accident innocent catholics who happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Yes, they killed an awful lot of people. They killed more members of the community they claim to have been protecting, than any other side in this conflict.

Mr Adams was an outspoken critic of the illegal invasion of Iraq

Except when it really mattered, then he shut his gob and ran up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush just before the invasion. Another fine example of SF duplicity.

Half-Bicycle

mycroft wrote:

Except when it really mattered, then he shut his gob and ran up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush just before the invasion. Another fine example of SF duplicity.

Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that, my dear mycroft.

But duplicity??? What, you think SF have the monopoly on duplicity?

mycroft

Half-Bicycle wrote:

Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that, my dear mycroft.

Excuse me? You'd have to take my word on the infamous Hillsborough summit?

http://www.counterpoint-online.org/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=188

and

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60059&search_text=Hillsborough%20summit

As for the summit, the terms for the administration of post-war Iraq were discussed. Sinn Fein, who play an active role in the Irish anti-war movement, defended their decision to take part in separate talks about the future of the Irish peace process, but came under heavy criticism from other republicans for doing so. Meanwhile, strong doubts were raised about whether this US administration had any real interest in our peace process, suggesting that this was all just suitable window dressing for Blair and Bush’s “Peace Summit”.

Spare me the outspoken critic about the war in Iraq crap, Adams scurred up to bush when asked to provide some window dressing for the pre war summit.

But duplicity??? What, you think SF have the monopoly on duplicity?

So everyone else is lying, so it's okay?

SF set themselves up as the breath of fresh air, truth and honesty. Basically saying, "everyone else is lying, so it's okay for my guys to" Does not instill confidence.

Lemming

Half-Bicycle wrote:

I think you are perhaps reading to much into what you call my "stance", Lemming. I am not an IRA supporter but I do not ignore why they came into being.

Nor do I. I just don't dress them up in romantic fairytale visions of "fighting the good fight". What was spawned as a symptom of a cause swiftly became cause of the symptom. You'd do well to remember that little phrase.

Further, if you support SF then you support the IRA. I have nothing more to say on taht matter since it has been quite clearly established elsewhere time and time again why.

As for SF, I admire the significant leaps that they have made during the peace process whilst the Unionists have done little except stall and denigrate Sinn Fein at every given chance. We are now witnessing an ongoing vilification of SF, which surely has Unionists rubbing their hands in glee. Fianna Fail along with a complicit media are attempting to turn SF into outcasts. Then we have the US influence. Mr Adams was an outspoken critic of the illegal invasion of Iraq and his left-wing ideals do not endear himself to the present US administration. It suits them very well to close the door on SF, fearing that sometime in the near future Ireland will have socialists forming a Govt. And the US can't have a lefty Ireland, can they?

Significant leaps? I'm sorry - what leaps were these? Moving from the official murdering, beating, drug dealing, intimidation, etc to the unofficial murdering, beating, drug dealing, intimidation, etc. Wow. That's some leap ...

Can you *actually* name one thing that the IRA has fed into the peace process besides words? One tangible thing? And saying cessation of violence does not count. That was the mandatory precursor to talks. But hey .. they're still at it.

As for the US and the current media unpopularity, you have a very selective memory. I'd be checking your head for IRA propoganda implants if I were you.

If my anti-Nationalist jibe caused offence, I apologise. You're prob more Nationalist than I, an Internationalist at heart.

I am neither a nationalist, so please don't try to tell me what I am. Tell me though, what makes yuo consider yourself an "internationalist" at heart? I'm curious ....

stfu, btw, stinks of censorship. Not to mention bad manners. :rolleyes:

stfu can also be taken as a case of "put up or shut up", which you promptly did by retracting your statement.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

More worried about mine and the mods, I couldn't care less about yours.

ah I'm sure the mods are touched by your concern

mycroft wrote:

I just proved that it's far higher than the national average. Furthermore the sucide rate in Ireland is far higher in rural areas (25 %) than urban areas.
What more do you need, or are you going to ignore simple facts?

Now I provided statistics and figures, you've responded with an ancedote.

Teenage sucide rates in areas under IRA control like the Ardoyne are expotentially higher than in ordinary areas of Ireland.

that is the claim you made all you have proven is that it is higher than the national average

never mind that you did not prove any link to the statistic and the IRA

mycroft wrote:

I think it's relevant to the people killed. It's not why they were killed, it's the fact they were killed. If the IRA have killed more members of the community and ethic group the claim to protect, I think it's fairly obvious to say they did a piss poor job of said protection.



Yes, they killed an awful lot of people. They killed more members of the community they claim to have been protecting, than any other side in this conflict.

if you dont look at the reason why people were killed then what is the point

saying the IRA killed more catholics than anyone else without looking at who they killed and why is pointless

should the IRA only have killed protestant policemen or stopped and asked british soldiers what religion they were before blowing them up
should they have had special bombs that didn't kill innocent catholic civilians

except in isolated incidents the IRA did not target people because of their religion catholic or protestant

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

never mind that you did not prove any link to the statistic and the IRA

That would be impossible as dead people dont talk.

If this is going to turn into a tangent on suicide on a dull cold damp dreary day like this between you two erstwhile best buddies, please take it elsewhere thanks

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

That would be impossible as dead people dont talk.

http://www.suicidereferencelibrary.com/test4~id~1778.php

well just to finish cant copy and paste if you read it it clearly states that although paramilitaries are a problem in the area

that each suicide is an individual act and they occur for a variety of reasons
including unemployment drug abuse relationship problems and that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush

besides which the paramilitary group that has been blamed is not the PIRA but the INLA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3494511.stm

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

except in isolated incidents the IRA did not target people because of their religion catholic or protestant

http://www.brandonhamber.com/publications/Chap%204%20-%20Victims%20NI%20Marie%20Smyth.pdf

If you want to get lost in detail, trying the list above.

The key point is not that the IRA killed more Catholics than the British Army (although it looks like they did.) The key point is that most people killed in the conflict were civilians. Additionally, civilians and security force personnel account for over 80% of deaths. Combined republican and loyalist paramilitary deaths comprise about 13% of the total. On the other hand, paramilitaries are responsible for over 80% of deaths, with security forces responsible for about 11%.

All this boils down to is the simple fact that the IRA were right in the thick of it, killing civilians with the best of them. That’s all that’s needed. A simple recognition that the IRA campaign was not an historic struggle against oppression, and in fact involved plenty of violence inflicted on civilians in communities in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. This is not to excuse Loyalist actions, simple to point out that the IRA actions are not praiseworthy and that for all the banging on about perfidious Albion, the security forces created far fewer widows.

Half-Bicycle

"I just don't dress them up in romantic fairytale visions of "fighting the good fight". What was spawned as a symptom of a cause swiftly became cause of the symptom. You'd do well to remember that little phrase.

Further, if you support SF then you support the IRA. I have nothing more to say on taht matter"

oh my. Who's being romantic? I prefer realism myself. Anyway, since you bring up the hoary old chestnut of SF=IRA I can see that I'm clearly wasting my time.

Keep it real.

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

http://www.brandonhamber.com/publications/Chap%204%20-%20Victims%20NI%20Marie%20Smyth.pdf

If you want to get lost in detail, trying the list above.

The key point is not that the IRA killed more Catholics than the British Army (although it looks like they did.) The key point is that most people killed in the conflict were civilians. Additionally, civilians and security force personnel account for over 80% of deaths. Combined republican and loyalist paramilitary deaths comprise about 13% of the total. On the other hand, paramilitaries are responsible for over 80% of deaths, with security forces responsible for about 11%.

All this boils down to is the simple fact that the IRA were right in the thick of it, killing civilians with the best of them. That’s all that’s needed. A simple recognition that the IRA campaign was not an historic struggle against oppression, and in fact involved plenty of violence inflicted on civilians in communities in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. This is not to excuse Loyalist actions, simple to point out that the IRA actions are not praiseworthy and that for all the banging on about perfidious Albion, the security forces created far fewer widows.

the interesting thing is that the link you provided blows mycrofts other contention that the IRA killed more catholics than anyone else out of the water

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

the interesting thing is that the link you provided blows mycrofts other contention that the IRA killed more catholics than anyone else out of the water

Fine. Now would you like to address the key point, which is that the IRA was out there killing civilians with the best of them, rather than trying to skate off onto a point of detail that doesn't change this essential reality.

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

Fine. Now would you like to address the key point, which is that the IRA was out there killing civilians with the best of them, rather than trying to skate off onto a point of detail that doesn't change this essential reality.

what is your point of course the IRA killed civilians I did not dispute that

my point was that the IRA in general did not target and kill people based on their religion.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

the simple fact that can be derived from this is that the IRA is the only organisation that killed less civilians than it did the people it was targetting

loyalist paramilitaries deliberately targeted civilians and killed 20 times more civilians than they did republican paramilitaries

the british security forces killed more civilians than they manged to kill paramilitaries of either hue

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

what is your point of course the IRA killed civilians I did not dispute that ....the british security forces killed more civilians than they manged to kill paramilitaries of either hue

My point is the simple fact that the IRA have far more deaths on their conscience than British security forces and suffered fewer casualties, which I'm not sure is clear from the spin you are putting on it. This plain reality does not sit comfortably with a view that the IRA were conducting a heroic struggle against oppression.

The fact that they killed more Catholics than the British Army puts it quite starkly, and I don't think anyone who isn't an SF apologist has trouble seeing the significance of that fact. But that's not the key point. The key point is the nature of their campaign. SF supporters seem to have a very different picture of that campaign to the rest of us.

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

the simple fact that can be derived from this is that the IRA is the only organisation that killed less civilians than it did the people it was targetting

That makes them the least worst, which is hardly praiseworthy in and of itself.

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

My point is the simple fact that the IRA have far more deaths on their conscience than British security forces and suffered fewer casualties, which I'm not sure is clear from the spin you are putting on it. This plain reality does not sit comfortably with a view that the IRA were conducting a heroic struggle against oppression.

The fact that they killed more Catholics than the British Army puts it quite starkly, and I don't think anyone who isn't an SF apologist has trouble seeing the significance of that fact. But that's not the key point. The key point is the nature of their campaign. SF supporters seem to have a very different picture of that campaign to the rest of us.

so it is a counting contest whoever scores the least can sit at home conscience free

what of course the stark figures do not take account of is that loyalist paramilitaries were working for the british by proxy
there were allowed to operate and kill innocent catholics or in some cases they actually operated on behalf of the british
so put the 873 civilians murdered by loyalist paramilitaries alongside the 192 civilians murdered by the british securuty services it puts a different slant on the figures

unless of course you dont believe that loyalists paramilitary acted in collusion with and at the behest of the British security services

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

my point was that the IRA in general did not target and kill people based on their religion.

Eh ... there have been quite a few infamous incidents where they went into various locations for no other reason than they were predominantly populated by protestant civilians and machine-gunned the place.

If that's not targetting based on religion then I'm not sure what way "up" is.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Eh ... there have been quite a few infamous incidents where they went into various locations for no other reason than they were predominantly populated by protestant civilians and machine-gunned the place.

If that's not targetting based on religion then I'm not sure what way "up" is.

there are a few and I can only think of one during the most recent campaign where the IRA targeted people because they were protestant

that is why I put in general in the sentence

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

besides which the paramilitary group that has been blamed is not the PIRA but the INLA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3494511.stm

And I have previously posted links that the INLA punishment squads in the area have been "subcontracted" to the INLA by the IRA.

Are you really so naieve to believe that the INLA such a small sub section of the republican movement can operate "community policing units" without the implied or implicit support of the IRA or at the very least the IRA turning a blind eye?

the interesting thing is that the link you provided blows mycrofts other contention that the IRA killed more catholics than anyone else out of the water

Where does it say that?

And it seems to me you don't mind that republican terrorists killed more innocents than anyone else?

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

there are a few and I can only think of one during the most recent campaign where the IRA targeted people because they were protestant

that is why I put in general in the sentence

There are three that spring to mind for me:

The rememberance day parade bombing, a pub "shooting" in Omagh (I think it was many moons ago - I could be mistaken on the town)?, and that work-yard where they shot 7 protestant workers.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

And I have previously posted links that the INLA punishment squads in the area have been "subcontracted" to the INLA by the IRA.

Are you really so naieve to believe that the INLA such a small sub section of the republican movement can operate "community policing units" without the implied or implicit support of the IRA or at the very least the IRA turning a blind eye??

subcontracted out have they seen the contract did you come on for god sake that is nonesense

why would they do that ?

mycroft wrote:

Where does it say that??

http://www.brandonhamber.com/public...rie Smyth.pdf

page 8 of 11 republican paramilitaries killed 24.7% of all catholics killed

loyalist paramilitaries killed 47.6% of all catholics killed

mycroft wrote:

And it seems to me you don't mind that republican terrorists killed more innocents than anyone else?

actually they did not

loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians

republican paramilitaries killed 737 civilians

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Calina

In answer to the question posed by the OP - no. I don't think a return to violence would be desirable. There is no justification for killing and/or maiming anyone.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

There are three that spring to mind for me:

The rememberance day parade bombing, a pub "shooting" in Omagh (I think it was many moons ago - I could be mistaken on the town)?, and that work-yard where they shot 7 protestant workers.

ok again i said in general now in 30 years and thousands of IRA operations you can think of three

in the case of the only one that you gave enough information on to clearly identify I dont think it is 100% that the bomb was there to target the people attending the remembrance parade
the IRA claim it was not but have never properly explained what happened

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

so it is a counting contest whoever scores the least can sit at home conscience free

No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out that more of the damage was done by the IRA, because sometimes it looks as if this is lost sight of. In terms of where this leads, clearly security forces given legitimate authority to police a country have to be judged by a higher standard than a paramilitary organisation. Its perfectly rational to enquire into why even one in every ten fatalities can be laid at their door.

But that's not the same as pretending that the IRA campaign was something other than what it was. Paramilitaries are bad news. We really need to see them gone.

cdebru wrote:

so put the 873 civilians murdered by loyalist paramilitaries alongside the 192 civilians murdered by the british securuty services it puts a different slant on the figures

I thought you were suggesting its not a numbers game? But, for what its worth, is it really rational to assign every civilian killed by loyalists at the door of the British security services?

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

subcontracted out have they seen the contract did you come on for god sake that is nonesense

why would they do that ?

To "maintain control"?

And again your literal interpretation ignores the thrust of the post. Could the INLA operate "community policing units" in belfast without IRA support?

saltar

cdebru wrote:

subcontracted out have they seen the contract did you come on for god sake that is nonesense

why would they do that ?




http://www.brandonhamber.com/public...rie Smyth.pdf

page 8 of 11 republican paramilitaries killed 24.7% of all catholics killed

loyalist paramilitaries killed 47.6% of all catholics killed




actually they did not

loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians

republican paramilitaries killed 737 civilians

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

MyCroft is full of hot air and no actual fact and when presented with evidence dissapears or ignores the facts, indeed he is no different than your average unionist (maybe he is one,I don't know) or most political opponents of Sinn Fein. In this regard he will be found spouting nothing but tripe and backing it up with circumstantial mumbo jumbo.