Tribal bigotry is not a response to IRA violence -- it was there before

philologos wrote: »

So you think the violence that the Provos perpetrated was justified? Or indeed the recent violence of the CIRA / RIRA blowing up policemen's cars? Really?

How the hell did you draw those conclusions from what I said? Quite a leap there

Do you have any idea of the nature of N.I society from the 1920's to the 1960's, have you any grounding in what you are talking about

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think he has. Just because he does not follow the Irish Republican view on it, does not make his view point any less relevant in the discussion of the thread. Same with his views on Loyalism or Unionism.

I think he has made many good points and I am enjoying his posts.

You would enjoy his posts because he immediately links any critical observation of the nature of unionist society in the first half of the 20th century to support for dissident republicans. Inherently flawed logic but that is common enough among some

R P McMurphy wrote: »

How the hell did you draw those conclusions from what I said? Quite a leap there

Do you have any idea of the nature of N.I society from the 1920's to the 1960's, have you any grounding in what you are talking about

I have an idea yes...

Somehow some people think that if they disagree with their opinion that the opposing side are ignorant. I'm holding the strict middle ground that both were ultimately as bad as each other and the violence perpetrated by one was about as revolting as the other.

I'm asking you a question that you've not answered. Do you think that the violence perpetrated by the Provos was legitimate? Yes or no.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its simply rubbish to say that bigotry arises as a response to violence, that gives it some sort of justification.

True, i don't think the irish going to glasgow during the famine were violent in any way. They were faced with some serious bigotry.

philologos wrote: »

I have an idea yes...

Somehow some people think that if they disagree with their opinion that the opposing side are ignorant. I'm holding the strict middle ground that both were ultimately as bad as each other and the violence perpetrated by one was about as revolting as the other.

I'm asking you a question that you've not answered. Do you think that the violence perpetrated by the Provos was legitimate? Yes or no.

The campaign launched by the republican movement was a response to the oppressive and discriminatory society that they found themselves in. If you take for example a person in Derry that joined the repubican movement in the aftermath of bloody sunday, they did so in response to agents of the British state who had carried out mass murder against civilians, the police and the British judicary then colluded to ensure that no-one would be held accountable, thereby making this act of mass murder a legal and acceptable act. When there is no one to protect you or your family, from state or state sanctioned violence, then taking up arms to do so becomes a legitimate course of action

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Now to ask you a question, how do you equate criticism of the unionist governments in the North in the 1920's to 60's, with support for dissident republicans. It displays something else ...

We need to wind this back. You said this:

If you are referring to the recent troubles and claiming that violence arose out of bigotry, you are right in one sense in that republican violence arose out of unionist bigotry.

I said this:

So you think the violence that the Provos perpetrated was justified? Or indeed the recent violence of the CIRA / RIRA blowing up policemen's cars? Really?

I claimed that violence arose out of bigotry which I feel is still valid. You claimed that republican violence arose out of Unionist bigotry. I asked you was the violence perpetrated by the Provos, CIRA / RIRA legitimate.

Fair game. Personally, I don't believe it was legitimate in that I don't believe that violence is an acceptable resolution to political issues.

^^ I've explained why I asked that now.

stovelid wrote: »

Your heroes will be viewed as a shame and aberration to future generations.

Are you selling yourself as a some sort of prophet?

philologos wrote: »

That's a shame. Although the suggestion that I am a Paisleyite and that I'm not really Irish etc for respecting the democratic will of the people is simply hilarious.

Democracy didn't do much for northern Nationalists until recently - I wouldn't laud democracy too much before I gave it's failings a little critical thought.

I think it is great that the 26 counties formed a Republic. I wouldn't have it any other way. The idea that we should force the other 6 to join us against their will and more than likely our will is absurd.

But it was okay to draw a line and have a ~million Nationalists behind it creating a fairly powerless minority? That is a cynical abuse of democracy looked at from their angle. Can you see this? Or do you only like democracy that suits your worldview?

The Provos existed, and CIRA / RIRA exist because of underlying bigotry that existed prior to their formation.

More symbolically than as an actual force with teeth. It was British/Unionist intransigence, discrimination, murder and lack of protection which energized the IRA. The Nationalist community didn't just suddenly decide to become violent for no reason.

philologos wrote: »

So you think the violence that the Provos perpetrated was justified? Or indeed the recent violence of the CIRA / RIRA blowing up policemen's cars? Really?

The recent violence was carried out by extremists with almost no support in the wider Nationalist community. The IRA had considerable support from the Nationalist community.

Are you pretending you don't understand the difference or are you genuinely unable to grasp it?

Not at all. I wrote quite clearly that I condemn equally Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. I don't see either as better than another. That's precisely looking at it objectively.

Loyalist paramilitaries routinely plucked thier victims arbitrarily from the Nationalist community. Most of the Nationalist community were not IRA supporters or sympathisers - the SDLP was the latgest Nationalst Party in the north until more recent times.

For all it's failings at least the IRA did not engage in a sustained campaign against innocent Protestants simply because of their religion or political persuasion. If the IRA would have considered innocent protestants as a legitamate target then there would have been thousands and thousands of dead Protestants.

I'm just looking for an answer. Was the violence that the Provos perpetrated legitimate?

Is any violence legitimate?

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The campaign launched by the republican movement was a response to the oppressive and discriminatory society that they found themselves in. If you take for example a person in Derry that joined the repubican movement in the aftermath of bloody sunday, they did so in response to agents of the British state who had carried out mass murder against civilians, the police and the British judicary then colluded to ensure that no-one would be held accountable, thereby making this act of mass murder a legal and acceptable act. When there is no one to protect you or your family, from state or state sanctioned violence, then taking up arms to do so becomes a legitimate course of action

More than this they said that the people they shot were terrorists and stuffed their pockets with nail bombs.

The outcome of the recent enquiry has risen the dead of Bloody Sunday to 'murdered' from 'terrorists legitimatley being killed'.

the bolt wrote: »

useing that logic if donegal voted in a referendum to split from the 26 counties you think that would be ok.

Significant minority would be key. I'm merely saying that it is common practice that when significant minorities desire to be separate that partitioning often takes place to account for this. Northern Ireland is no different than other comparable situations. As such I think that the partition between the Free State and Northern Ireland was reasonable at the time. Indeed it is still reasonable for Northern Ireland to be separate because the majority of people don't want a United Ireland across the board.

I say..

It was British/Unionist intransigence, discrimination, murder and lack of protection which energized the IRA. The Nationalist community didn't just suddenly decide to become violent for no reason.

and you answer

philologos wrote: »

Many on the other side could argue the very same.

This is utter nonsense. Please attempt to explain what you mean.

I don't see what popular support has to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

If a considerable section of a minority supports violence against a state then you've got to think why they do. Do you think that these people were just violent in their nature?

The only difference is the number of supporters.

So you think Geoffrey Dalmer = IRA?

I'm sure that similar happened the other way around.

Not in anywhere near the same way.

The numbers are there in another thread. Loyaists gangs murdered Catholics for being Catholics.

philologos wrote: »

I mean that it is nothing substantial to say that as Unionists / Loyalists could argue that the nationalists provoked them much as you've said the loyalists provoked the nationalists.

Absolute nonsense.

I'm not sure you could believe this without being disingenuous.

Before the violence kicked off in a big way Nationalists were primarily concerned with civil rights. When they went on their civil rights marches they were attacked by loyalists while the police watched or were attacked by the police tehmselves. This culminated in the slaughter of Bloody Sunday.

"in another thread" is bugger all use to anyone currently following this one though.

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72733261

The Loyalist record on killing civilians speaks for itself. Killing civilians was their raison d'etre.

As if you didn't know.

Quoting another poster to help philogos understand the difference between targeting civilians as a 'reason for being' and targeting a disscernable military force.

Nodin wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Curfew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasdrumman_ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummuckavall_Ambush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Conservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Ballygawley_barracks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McVerry




.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nothing substantial?

You must be fucking joking.

Either you are joking or you are trying to equate discrimination against Nationalists with a paranoid superiority complex 'suffered' by the unionist/protestant section of the NI populace.

Again one could apply the same criticisms to the other side pretty easily. I'm not aiming to downplay any discrimination that occurred. What I am trying to do is show contempt for any form of bigotry and violence on both sides. I obviously don't believe that Britain was completely blameless in terms of abuse. What I will recognise however is Britain's stride forward in respect to human rights in Northern Ireland which is probably why now in 2011 most Northern Irish Catholics want to remain with Britain.

That's a fair position.

As for the figures I'll have to look into them further.

My original point before we went down this line of argument was that it is reasonable that in 2011 just as is 1920 that Northern Ireland should remain separate from the Republic. If popular opinion in Northern Ireland happens to change (which is unlikely) then the situation should remain as it is.

If that opinion means that somehow I should no longer consider myself Irish sobeit :pac:.