Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1234568

Comments

  • #212
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    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


  • #213
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    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?

    Are you reading the right thread? Police men having their cars blown up?? Where did he mention that?


  • #214
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    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.

    steadyeddy: I agree it is about tribal bigotry. The OP who has since been banned was trying to argue that Loyalists are in some way more extreme than Republicans in NI. I don't see how this is true.

    They are certainly more bigoted than republicans as can be seen from the statistics breaking down their attacks. The uvf's victims were drawn mostly from innocent catholics.

    The OP then went on to argue for a United Ireland and that the partition that occurred in 1920 was illegitimate. I argued against him using examples of how this has occurred in the 21st century.

    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.

    You've misread my last post. I said violence arose out of bigotry not the other way around. Please read my posts before posting.



    No please read my post again.

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

    The same for the UDA, UVF etc.

    Actually the uda uvf existed originally based on perceived threats to the union which often catholics got blamed for. The ira had very few sectarian attacks (given that some of its members and indeed leaders were protestent).
    Please make sure to read carefully what I'm saying.

    I would read your posts but you disagree with your self from post to post I would recommend you read your previous posts before posting again as it can be confusing to people.


  • #215
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    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?

    As you said yourself I realise this is an emotive subject but please look at it objectivly.


  • #216
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    As you said yourself I realise this is an emotive subject but please look at it objectivly.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    They are certainly more bigoted than republicans as can be seen from the statistics breaking down their attacks. The uvf's victims were drawn mostly from innocent catholics.

    What statistics?
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Actually the uda uvf existed originally based on perceived threats to the union which often catholics got blamed for. The ira had very few sectarian attacks (given that some of its members and indeed leaders were protestent).

    What are you basing this on?
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I would read your posts but you disagree with your self from post to post I would recommend you read your previous posts before posting again as it can be confusing to people.

    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.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    As you said yourself I realise this is an emotive subject but please look at it objectivly.

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


  • #218
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    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


  • #219
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    So you think the violence that the Provos perpetrated was justified?

    A great deal of it was, yes. You'll note the lack of discrimination up there now has led to rather a different tune.


  • #220
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #221
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    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

    Nonsense. My posts no more support KeithAFC's unionism than republicanism. I'm arguing that things should be left as they are and we need to move forward from where we are now.

    I don't believe that violence was justified on either side and I believe that such violence arose out of bigotry and intolerance towards the other on both sides.
    Nodin wrote: »
    A great deal of it was, yes. You'll note the lack of discrimination up there now has led to rather a different tune.

    The lack of discrimination came from diplomacy rather than violence as far as I'm concerned and yes it's a hugely positive development. I'm not going to blindly support any one side in this.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    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.


  • #223
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    ..........

    The lack of discrimination came from diplomacy rather than violence as far as I'm concerned and yes it's a hugely positive development. I'm not going to blindly support any one side in this.
    Yes. They took so favourably to diplomacy so early on, its amazing it took so long....[


  • #224
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    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


  • #225
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    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?

    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 ...


  • #226
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #227
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    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.

    He didnt mention anything about disagree he asked where he mentioned about policemen blowing up cars ect.


  • #228
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


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


  • #229
    the bolt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭the bolt


    Duckworth_Luas wrote: »
    Yet he always claims to be Irish! FFS his column in the Irish Times was titled An Irishman's Diary. Who are you to dispute his nationality? There are probably people posting on this very thread who were born in England to Irish parents who consider themselves nothing but Irish.
    they may consider themselfs english that doesnt make them so,plastic paddys.


  • #230
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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'.


  • #231
    the bolt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭the bolt


    philologos wrote: »
    A majority of people there didn't want it though. That's why Ireland was partitioned, just as Kosovo split from Serbia and just as Montenegro cast a vote in 2006 to split from Serbia. Indeed, the same is going to be true for Southern Sudan due to a referendum.
    useing that logic if donegal voted in a referendum to split from the 26 counties you think that would be ok.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #233
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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 line was drawn because a significant portion of the population didn't want to be joined to the Free State in 1920. Hence the Government of Ireland Act was a compromise.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.

    Many on the other side could argue the very same. I think we are beyond the point of playing the blame game. We have a political situation right now, what's the very best we can do with it? Build further stability in Northern Ireland, encourage more cross-border co-operation and build better relations between Ireland and Britain in the process surely?
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what popular support has to do with it. Popular support doesn't make something right. Indeed it would be an ad-populum argument to suggest this were true. If the majority of a demographic group in a society encourages the use of terrorism that's still terrorism. I'm sure that ETA had a large degree of support in the Basque country but I don't think that justifies bombing Spanish beaches, much as I don't believe the Provos were right to bomb Canary Wharf.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Are you pretending you don't understand the difference or are you genuinely unable to grasp it?

    The only difference is the number of supporters.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.

    I'm sure that similar happened the other way around.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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 don't know how you are determining that the Loyalists were way worse than Republicans, the Provos, the CIRA / RIRA. Honestly I don't.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Is any violence legitimate?

    I don't think so.


  • #234
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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.


  • #235
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    This is utter nonsense. Please attempt to explain what you mean.

    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.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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 violence wasn't just against a State, it also affected a huge number of civilians too. If for arguments sake a considerably section of the Islamic population in London thought 7/7 was legitimate would that make it better?
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    So you think Geoffrey Dalmer = IRA?

    It's still hugely immoral. That's my point.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Not in anywhere near the same way.

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

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


  • #236
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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.


  • #237
    Badgermonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭Badgermonkey


    karma_ wrote: »
    It's refreshing, just when you think you have already seen the most mind numbingly stupid thing you're likely ever to see on boards, Keith gets here and plumbs new depths.

    Thanks bud!

    +1

    Here's another gem

    Predator_ wrote: »
    The English are the real terrorists. The IRA, Hamas, Al Queda etc are freedom fighters.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056264057


  • #238
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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




    .


  • #239
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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.

    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.


  • #240
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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:.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    philologos wrote: »
    Again one could apply the same criticisms to the other side pretty easily.

    I can't take you seriously.


Advertisement