Northern Ireland 2125?

Correct. Like people who grew up in working class areas but who ended up flying business class for private surgical procedures in the USA, having holiday home in Donegal etc?

All of this being true wouldn't for a second change the fact that the PIRA were at most a contributing factor to derailing the Civil Rights Movement, that things like British state forces beating them off the streets or in other cases, shooting them and covering it up for decades was another contributing factor. Even without the Provos, we have absolutely nothing that remotely suggests that at the time, the Civil Rights movement would've had any degree of success.

Your description of anything at the time as remotely akin to a path to peacefulness in the light of what happened to those protestors on Bloody Sunday is an insult to their memory....but I don't suppose there is ground so low you wouldn't take it as long as you can get your jabs in at the Provos and SF.

We weren't discussing causative factors in the formation of the PIRA, so I haven't suggested the PIRA were a reaction to Bloody Sunday. We were discussing the derailment of the Civil Rights Movement. Given the large number of people who abandoned the Civil Rights movement and instead turned to violent resistance specifically because of Bloody Sunday, I'd find it difficult to take seriously anyone who doesn't acknowledge it as a contributing factor. That doesn't for a second imply that I think that it was the morally correct choice, nor does it suggest that I think it was an effective choice.

The, 'PIRA had already diverted the Civil Rights Movement' is dancing awfully close to those who suggest that those killed on Bloody Sunday were rioters and carrying weapons rather than innocent civil rights marchers fired upon with no justifiable reason. I assume you'd rather clarify your statement rather than leave that hanging around ambiguously so I'll give you opportunity to do so before responding to that.

While you say nobody disputes the wrong of Bloody Sunday, we have certainly had posters from this very thread make those insinuations to paint it as much more of a grey area than an outright wrong.

The border campaign was quite limited - was essentially the dyiing embers of the war of independence/civi war.l Many of the leaders then went into peaceful politics as the Workers Party (later merged with the Labour Party).

Its simply not true that nationalist and unionist working class had the same rights. Maybe on paper, but not in reality. Policing of nationalist areas was oppresive even before the troubles. People growing up in nationalist communities did not have the same access to housing or the opportunities to better their lives e.g. via using education to enter a lot of professions or senior piblic service positions.

'Bloody Sunday' was not a stand alone event. There was loads of other things happening ramping up tensions in REAL TIME.

The result was a society in chaos and everybody was living in fear of what was next.

In that chaos people made choices, no doubt about that.

No surprise there are posters here who aren't willing to look at 'choices made' across the board and at who had the prime duty, responsibility and power to make the right choices.

I don't subscribe to the concept of 'evil' but if I did, knowingly creating a society like NI was allowed to be, and attempting to shore it up when it collapsed would be 'evil'.

I would say take the name of John Hume out of your mouth, he pinpointed what went to the heart of NI's problems and worked to remove it. It has never once been mentioned or accepted by you as a major factor in NI's collapse into violent chaos and it's ultimate failure.

Even in ongoing conflicts you can see that different people, because of their circumstances, make different choices, there is nothing unusual in it happening in our conflict/wars through the ages, all related to the British presence here.

I never understood the high moral ground rage about the 'no alternative' remark.

I dearly hope that anyone who killed genuinely felt that they had 'no alternative', while it can never excuse, to think they killed when there were alternatives is much worse.

You let slip again the trouble is "all related to the British presence here.". Not the British Government presence in N. Ireland, but the presence of people who identify as British, it is all their fault.

Not surprised you never understood the high moral ground rage about the 'no alternative' remark, because you are an extremist Republican and do not see things from others points of view.

You are hoping that "anyone who killed genuinely felt that they had 'no alternative'". So for example, those who planted the bomb in Enniskillen or Le Mons restaurant ….you are concerned about those who planted those bombs and hope that they "genuinely felt that they had 'no alternative'"? You said in another post it was all the unionists fault. Your concern about the bombings in Enniskillen, Warrington, Bloody Friday etc is about the bombers. You always refused to condemn them but now you hope they "genuinely felt that they had 'no alternative'"", and you do not understand anyone who thinks there was an alternative.

Not only that, but if anyone disagrees with you and mentions, indeed praises, a person who believed in the democratic process like Hume, you very rudely say "take the name of John Hume out of your mouth".

If you were a loyalist extremist the mods would have rightly banned you.

Do you believe the British and Loyalists who killed (and they did) had an alternative but didn't take it?

Yes or No?

No changing the subject, pivoting to something else. Just answer a straight question.

The most disgusting revisionism that has taken place over the last 30 years has been the idea that somehow John Hume respected the PIRA. 

And we pivot to something that was never said in the discussion. Totally disingenuous.

Yes, they were against Hume meeting with Adams. They thought it legitimised Sinn Fein and the IRA.

As I said, the SDLP are where they are with the electorate for a reason.

The same type of moral high grounders can be seen and heard criticising Catherine Connolly for the same thing, funnily enough.