Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2011 9:47pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Civilians will inevitably get hit in a war, so will infrastructure. You should know this, seeing as how your lot started it and the experience you have killing innocents abroad.

Would you care to point out a conflict without civilian losses?

Aah yes, the unblinking pontification that is Irish republican arrogance.

There is a huge difference between civilians being killed and the deliberate targeting of civilians. There is also a difference between infrastructure and a shopping centre.

So, please can you explain how you, as a northern nationalist, felt protected by the PIRA bombing restaurants and shopping centres.

trendyvicar · 05-12-2011 9:52pm

karma_ wrote: »

I did not.

I know you're trying to say to Republicans that is it was a war, then surely...

However, Bloody Sunday is a touchy subject in Derry to this day, and I will not tolerate revulsion to the events of that day described as 'ranting and raving'.

The analogy is also poor, the context of that day had little to do with an armed conflict, it was a protest march that was brutally attacked by the military.

By Jan '72, there had been some Republican violence, mostly the stickies, but the greatest threat came from the Loyalists and the security forces themselves. What would then become the 'Troubles' after this point, bore little similarity to what preceded it, so to answer your question, I certainly didn't miss the point.

YOUR ANALYSIS IS A DISGRACE

Up to the 30th January 1972 the following had been killed by:

Security Forces: 62
Loyalists: 25
Republicans: 127
Others: 10

Total killed: 224

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

In other words, already by 'bloody sunday' Republicans had been responsible for the majority of killings carried out.

I can even give you the figures for January 1972:

Security Forces: 2
Loyalists: 0
Republicans: 8
Others: 1

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

Your memory of 'the troubles' has been hideously distorted by your own prejudices - something you share with all Irish Nationalists.

However, your biggest problem is that you understandably magnify 'bloody sunday' as some uniquely horrific event, because it happened near where you lived. To those on The Shankill Road, The Shankill bomb was uniquely horrific, to those in Birmingham, it was those bombs and so on.

Try and think beyond your own narrow experience.

trendyvicar · 05-12-2011 10:05pm

realies wrote: »

Yes they did Sir John Stevens, head of London's Metropolitan Police has found out enough to confirm what many nationalists have long maintained: that the British army worked with death squads in Northern Ireland. “Collusion,” he says, “is evidenced in many ways The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killing etc etc.

So perhaps you can tell us all why The UK State wanted Finucane dead?

And perhaps you can tell us all why a senior British police officer was allowed by The UK State to talk publicly about UK State collusion (if it existed)?

irishh_bob · 05-12-2011 10:05pm

Denerick wrote: »

Oh dear, I think I might have slipped on my own vomit.

History doesn't look kindly on murderers or fascists. Be they Nationalist or Unionist.

all wars - conflicts involve murder , the IRA were consigned to a few pockets with a handfull of die harders by the end of the fifties and this despite the fact that unionists were given carte blanche by london to walk all over thier catholic ( percieved inferior ) neighbours , had the unionists had an ounce of sense ( let alone humanity or humility ) , they would have saw it in thier interest to allow parity of esteem and equality for thier catholic neighbours after 1922 , had that happened, the vast majority of catholics would have simply blended into what was another part of the uk , its important to remember that the vast majority of people will avoid violence and conflict if they can avoid it , most people just want to live in peace , raise thier families and see thier children get a decent education , revolutionaries are few and far between , the IRA could never have done what they did were it not for the support of a very sizeable percentage of the catholic population in northern ireland , a population who through decades of unionist apparthied policys saw no kind of fair deal and no goverment power ( at home or abroad ) willing to speak up for them in any real sense , us southerners down here were happy to look the other way yet some to this day love to puff themselves up with righteous indignation and shout MURDERER as if theese people were cartoon evil carracatures who just felt like blowing the **** out of the place for the craic for thirty years , i perfer to take a less black and white view of things , the reality is one of cause and effect , if you treat people like **** for decades , trample over thier rights and expect them to be content with thier second class status , eventually they will get fed up and hit back , its human nature and its been happening since the beginning of time and no amount of demonisation of the main protagonists will change that

laoch na mona · 05-12-2011 10:06pm

nationalists had to defend themselves

karma_ · 05-12-2011 10:07pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

YOUR ANALYSIS IS A DISGRACE

Up to the 30th January 1972 the following had been killed by:

Security Forces: 62
Loyalists: 25
Republicans: 127
Others: 10

Total killed: 224

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

In other words, already by 'bloody sunday' Republicans had been responsible for the majority of killings carried out.

I can even give you the figures for January 1972:

Security Forces: 2
Loyalists: 0
Republicans: 8
Others: 1

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

Your memory of 'the troubles' has been hideously distorted by your own prejudices - something you share with all Irish Nationalists.

However, your biggest problem is that you understandably magnify 'bloody sunday' as some uniquely horrific event, because it happened near where you lived. To those on The Shankill Road, The Shankill bomb was uniquely horrific, to those in Birmingham, it was those bombs and so on.

Try and think beyond your own narrow experience.

I have zero doubt that the bombing was traumatic for the people on the Shankill Rd, though I wouldn't demean their pain by stating those who express outrage about it were 'ranting and raving'.

You are still missing the point I'm making though, the analogy was a poor one, there is a world of difference between what happened at say, Loughgall and what happened on Bloody Sunday. You're preaching about context but doing it badly.

trendyvicar · 05-12-2011 10:12pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't mean to.

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

I think you're being very generous there Keith (for whatever reason). The problem isn't contextual analysis, as Republicans have little ability to do that. The biggest problem is that Irish Republicans can't even produce evidence for many of their claims or they get said evidence wrong. There can be two reasons for this:

(i) The Irish story telling tradition.
(ii) Discussion is crude propaganda - war by other means. Propaganda of the repetitive Goebbels style, rather than anything sophisticated - they would be incapable of that.

laoch na mona · 05-12-2011 10:16pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

I think you're being very generous there Keith (for whatever reason). The problem isn't contextual analysis, as Republicans have little ability to do that. The biggest problem is that Irish Republicans can't even produce evidence for many of their claims or they get said evidence wrong. There can be two reasons for this:

(i) The Irish story telling tradition.
(ii) Discussion is crude propaganda - war by other means. Propaganda of the repetitive Goebbels style, rather than anything sophisticated - they would be incapable of that.

so if you were denied rights you wouldn't fight back?

Nodin · 05-12-2011 10:18pm

Denerick wrote: »

.......... The Irish Republican movement, inspired by a fiery doctrine of hate that verges on fascism, ..........

Dear o dear. Hyperbole overdrive.

irishh_bob · 05-12-2011 10:25pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

so if you were denied rights you wouldn't fight back?

thats right , the catholics should have bowed to thier protestant betters , bent over and yelled , thank you , please sir can i have another :rolleyes:

im beginning to wonder are most of the posters on this thread eoghan harris in disguise

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2011 10:34pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

thats right , the catholics should have bowed to thier protestant betters , bent over and yelled , thank you , please sir can i have another :rolleyes:

im beginning to wonder are most of the posters on this thread eoghan harris in disguise

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

laoch na mona · 05-12-2011 10:40pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

this is a thread about the PIRA not the RIRA
i assume you are referring to omagh?

blahfckingblah · 05-12-2011 10:48pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

I think you're being very generous there Keith (for whatever reason). The problem isn't contextual analysis, as Republicans have little ability to do that. The biggest problem is that Irish Republicans can't even produce evidence for many of their claims or they get said evidence wrong. There can be two reasons for this:

(i) The Irish story telling tradition.
(ii) Discussion is crude propaganda - war by other means. Propaganda of the repetitive Goebbels style, rather than anything sophisticated - they would be incapable of that.

patronising

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2011 10:54pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

this is a thread about the PIRA not the RIRA
i assume you are referring to omagh?

Or Manchester, Warrington, Harrods...

irishh_bob · 05-12-2011 10:55pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would agree that no one should be treated as a second class citizen.

Maybe you could explain how bombing a shopping centre helped, or was it just revenge?

twisted and sick states create bitterness and hatred among an extraordinary percentage of the population , while acts like that are evil , the source of the troubles and subsequent terror campaign by the IRA was institutionalised prejudice against the minority catholic population , you cannot expect opressed people to either remain docile and accepting of thier lot , nor can you expect thier reaction to be at most , rigorous college like debate , that was tried via the civil rights movement yet the reply they got was a whack on the head from the security foreces an paisleyite mobs , you cant make progress with bullys by trying to shame them into reform , bullys have no shame but even bullys understand a bloody nose

the reality of northern ireland is that it was the unionist population who needed to be civilised and that they were eventually

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2011 11:23pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

twisted and sick states create bitterness and hatred among an extraordinary percentage of the population , while acts like that are evil , the source of the troubles and subsequent terror campaign by the IRA was institutionalised prejudice against the minority catholic population , you cannot expect opressed people to either remain docile and accepting of thier lot , nor can you expect thier reaction to be at most , rigorous college like debate , that was tried via the civil rights movement yet the reply they got was a whack on the head from the security foreces an paisleyite mobs , you cant make progress with bullys by trying to shame them into reform , bullys have no shame but even bullys understand a bloody nose

the reality of northern ireland is that it was the unionist population who needed to be civilised and that they were eventually

poor excuse for terrorism tbh.

Literally hundreds of thousands of nationalists didn't feel the need to murder people.

irishh_bob · 05-12-2011 11:39pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poor excuse for terrorism tbh.

Literally hundreds of thousands of nationalists didn't feel the need to murder people.

you mean they didnt volunteer to fight back , most people havent the stomach for war but that doesnt mean they dont benefit from the sacrafices and grotesque actions of others

Fratton Fred · 05-12-2011 11:50pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

you mean they didnt volunteer to fight back , most people havent the stomach for war but that doesnt mean they dont benefit from the sacrafices and grotesque actions of others

That justifies a whole multitude of actions.

I don't know anyone from the North who would entertain the notion that Tim Parry died in their name.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:05am

irishh_bob wrote: »

all wars - conflicts involve murder , the IRA were consigned to a few pockets with a handfull of die harders by the end of the fifties and this despite the fact that unionists were given carte blanche by london to walk all over thier catholic ( percieved inferior ) neighbours , had the unionists had an ounce of sense ( let alone humanity or humility ) , they would have saw it in thier interest to allow parity of esteem and equality for thier catholic neighbours after 1922 , had that happened, the vast majority of catholics would have simply blended into what was another part of the uk , its important to remember that the vast majority of people will avoid violence and conflict if they can avoid it , most people just want to live in peace , raise thier families and see thier children get a decent education , revolutionaries are few and far between , the IRA could never have done what they did were it not for the support of a very sizeable percentage of the catholic population in northern ireland , a population who through decades of unionist apparthied policys saw no kind of fair deal and no goverment power ( at home or abroad ) willing to speak up for them in any real sense , us southerners down here were happy to look the other way yet some to this day love to puff themselves up with righteous indignation and shout MURDERER as if theese people were cartoon evil carracatures who just felt like blowing the **** out of the place for the craic for thirty years , i perfer to take a less black and white view of things , the reality is one of cause and effect , if you treat people like **** for decades , trample over thier rights and expect them to be content with thier second class status , eventually they will get fed up and hit back , its human nature and its been happening since the beginning of time and no amount of demonisation of the main protagonists will change that

Is that why Loyalist paramilitaries felt able to attack the general Nationalist population in NI?

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:08am

karma_ wrote: »

I have zero doubt that the bombing was traumatic for the people on the Shankill Rd, though I wouldn't demean their pain by stating those who express outrage about it were 'ranting and raving'.

You are still missing the point I'm making though, the analogy was a poor one, there is a world of difference between what happened at say, Loughgall and what happened on Bloody Sunday. You're preaching about context but doing it badly.

No I'm not. Both those events took place within the context of a conflict that was already ongoing.

karma_ · 06-12-2011 12:11am

trendyvicar wrote: »

No I'm not. Both those events took place within the context of a conflict that was already ongoing.

You most certainly are, and I would suggest wilfully.

The conflict was still in it's infancy and could have been prevented at that stage.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:12am

laoch na mona wrote: »

so if you were denied rights you wouldn't fight back?

Depends on what 'rights' I was being denied and what you mean by 'fight back'.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:20am

karma_ wrote: »

You most certainly are, and I would suggest wilfully.

The conflict was still in it's infancy and could have been prevented at that stage.

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists. You're speculating about what might have happened and coming to a conclusion that reflects your bigoted Nationalist views regarding the British. Your thoughts on those already killed by BS and who by exposed you for what you are and how your mind has been conditioned. You are, of course, one amongst many amongst your tribe in that respect.

karma_ · 06-12-2011 12:26am

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists. You're speculating about what might have happened and coming to a conclusion that reflects your bigoted Nationalist views regarding the British. Your thoughts on those already killed by BS and who by exposed you for what you are and how your mind has been conditioned. You are, of course, one amongst many amongst your tribe in that respect.

I'm a bigot now is it? In a tribe? Your mask is slipping there.

It's clear from your posts that you blame Nationalists, and Nationalists only for the conflict, contrary to what the evidence shows.

All sides, Republican, Loyalist and the British government must share the blame equally for what came after 1972. Another 3000 dead and what we ended up with was what the Civil Rights movement would have achieved anyway.

irishh_bob · 06-12-2011 12:29am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Is that why Loyalist paramilitaries felt able to attack the general Nationalist population in NI?

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

lugha · 06-12-2011 12:41am

irishh_bob wrote: »

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

Yet, no one has managed to explain how the majority of what PIRA did could be construed as defensive. Can you give specific examples of what they did that enhanced the security of Northern Catholics?

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:43am

karma_ wrote: »

I'm a bigot now is it? In a tribe? Your mask is slipping there.

It's clear from your posts that you blame Nationalists, and Nationalists only for the conflict, contrary to what the evidence shows.

All sides, Republican, Loyalist and the British government must share the blame equally for what came after 1972. Another 3000 dead and what we ended up with was what the Civil Rights movement would have achieved anyway.

Of course you're a bigot. You proved it by assuming that most deaths leading up to BS had been caused by Loyalists or The Security Forces when in fact they'd been caused by Republicans. No independent thinker could have made an error like that - so easily exposed. It must be a nightmare for Nationalists when someone like me appears on one of their fantasy forums.

I presume you're a member of The Nationalist tribe - what's wrong with that?

As for the blame - I haven't apportioned any, merely addressed statements made by other posters. Although I will say that you apportioning blame to The UK State equally to Republican murder gangs post 1972 is pretty absurd and again reinforces my impression of what you are.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 12:50am

irishh_bob wrote: »

loyalists were offenders , not defenders , you forget , the unionist population had a police force and defense force

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. The reality is that some Loyalists thought The Security Forces weren't getting very far and as a result set up counter-terror gangs. PIRA weren't a defencive force and neither were The UVF/UFF - they were all aggressive killing machines.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 12:52am

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists.

That 250 has a lot of detail you are willfully omitting from your post.

Many of the deaths (attributal to Irish Nationalists) from the civilian Unionist community were killed in self-defence gun battles while Nationalists were trying to prevent themselves from being burned out of their homes. So tough shit really.

Another large tranche of those deaths by Nationalists are were BA soldiers and from the Unionist militias (of which I include the RUC) so were fair game form the POV of the IRA.

What did you want them to do? A sit down peace protest while they were being burned out of their homes?

Get a grip.

karma_ · 06-12-2011 12:52am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Of course you're a bigot. You proved it by assuming that most deaths leading up to BS had been caused by Loyalists or The Security Forces when in fact they'd been caused by Republicans. No independent thinker could have made an error like that - so easily exposed. It must be a nightmare for Nationalists when someone like me appears on one of their fantasy forums.

I presume you're a member of The Nationalist tribe - what's wrong with that?

As for the blame - I haven't apportioned any, merely addressed statements made by other posters. Although I will say that you apportioning blame to The UK State equally to Republican murder gangs post 1972 is pretty absurd and again reinforces my impression of what you are.

Maybe it's reading I should be asking you to learn, as I never stated that. I said there was some Republican violence, but I said the greatest threat came from the Loyalist and Security forces, which is true. It was the Loyalists who started the cycle in 1966, (which I noticed your figures did not extend back to) it was the security forces, and Stormont who fought so harshly against the Civil Rights movement.

Now, if believing that there never was justification for an armed campaign, believing that Civil Rights should have been adopted sooner, believing that there is blame to be apportioned to all sides makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I guess I'm a bigot.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 1:03am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order

Rubbish.

It's well documented that the RUC et al watched as the civil rights marches were brutally oppressed.

The RUC was nothing more than a jumped up Unionist militia.

You're a revisionist. You like to think that Unionists and the RUC had no part in energizing physical force Nationalism when their failure to be a impartial civilian police force was exactly what made Nationalists turn to the violence.

Fucking incredible.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 1:09am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That 250 has a lot of detail you are willfully omitting from your post.

Many of the deaths (attributal to Irish Nationalists) from the civilian Unionist community were killed in self-defence gun battles while Nationalists were trying to prevent themselves from being burned out of their homes. So tough shit really.

Another large tranche of those deaths by Nationalists are were BA soldiers and from the Unionist militias (of which I include the RUC) so were fair game form the POV of the IRA.

What did you want them to do? A sit down peace protest while they were being burned out of their homes?

Get a grip.

I'm not going to comment on that hilarious drivel except to say it has nothing to do with my point about the conflict being well underway by the time of BS.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 1:10am

karma_ wrote: »

Maybe it's reading I should be asking you to learn, as I never stated that. I said there was some Republican violence, but I said the greatest threat came from the Loyalist and Security forces, which is true. It was the Loyalists who started the cycle in 1966, (which I noticed your figures did not extend back to) it was the security forces, and Stormont who fought so harshly against the Civil Rights movement.

Now, if believing that there never was justification for an armed campaign, believing that Civil Rights should have been adopted sooner, believing that there is blame to be apportioned to all sides makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I guess I'm a bigot.

Hilarious.

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 1:12am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Rubbish.

It's well documented that the RUC et al watched as the civil rights marches were brutally oppressed.

The RUC was nothing more than a jumped up Unionist militia.

You're a revisionist. You like to think that Unionists and the RUC had no part in energizing physical force Nationalism when their failure to be a impartial civilian police force was exactly what made Nationalists turn to the violence.

Fucking incredible.

I've said no such thing.

karma_ · 06-12-2011 1:20am

trendyvicar wrote: »

I've said no such thing.

Yes Chuck, don't you know that the RUC were only upholding the law, as they saw it, at the time, no matter if it was right or not.

The most telling thing about this particular poster though, is that he argues so vehemently against, what is, blatantly moderate Nationalist opinion.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 1:20am

trendyvicar wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on that hilarious drivel except to say it has nothing to do with my point about the conflict being well underway by the time of BS.

Of course you're not because you've been caught for the bigot that you are.

trendyvicar wrote: »

There were already almost 250 dead, most of them killed by Irish Nationalists.

In 1969 there were multiple murders of Catholics by beatings and otherwise from the RUC.

I'm not sure if you're Unionist but if you are you should look a lot closer to home for the reasons for the conflict.

irishh_bob · 06-12-2011 1:41am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. The reality is that some Loyalists thought The Security Forces weren't getting very far and as a result set up counter-terror gangs. PIRA weren't a defencive force and neither were The UVF/UFF - they were all aggressive killing machines.

your rationale behind why loyalists set up shop ( security forces werent up to it ) is indeed very revealing , law and order in your eyes was keeping the catholics in thier place , i see it the same but feel very differently about it

Liam Byrne · 06-12-2011 2:00am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl yours and other's posts to prove what is pretty obvious.

Granted, you less so than most as you tend to condemn all violence against civilians across the board and across conflicts.

You specifically quoted me when referring to the "amnesiacs", and now you're trying to weasel out of singling me out and trying to associate me with that approach ?

Just admit that you were wrong to include me and be done with it.

I'll expect a retraction in the morning.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 2:06am

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order

Lol. Such misty-eyed tripe.

In 1968, the marches of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) were met with a violent backlash by police and civil authorities

The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 6 (May, 1989), pp. 1277–1302

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 2:15am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You specifically quoted me when referring to the "amnesiacs", and now you're trying to weasel out of singling me out and trying to associate me with that approach ?

I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. I toned it down as regards you because I feel there is greater consistency when condemning violence across conflicts. Indeed I thought you were a pacifist until you informed me otherwise.

As I've said before by my reading your posts on these boards, and the posts you thank by others, I would be of the opinion that you come down more heavily on Nationalist violence than on Unionist/British violence.

Btw saying 'I expect an retraction in the morning'... well... I'm not sure whether that's a joke but it's headmaster tone definitely has me smiling.

Liam Byrne · 06-12-2011 2:52am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

As I've said before by my reading your posts on these boards, and the posts you thank by others, I would be of the opinion that you come down more heavily on Nationalist violence than on Unionist/British violence.

So you add to one false opinion by stating another ? Laughable!

Btw saying 'I expect an retraction in the morning'... well... I'm not sure whether that's a joke but it's headmaster tone definitely has me smiling.

No, it wasn't a joke - it's common courtesy when you state something about someone that's a blatant lie. "Toning it down" is not credible because you originally quoted me when posting your dismissive slur.

But - like many who have a warped view of what "fighting BACK" entails, I guess it was too much to expect for you to admit that you were 100% wrong.

Fromthetrees · 06-12-2011 2:58am

Look, lets just get an individual vote from each of the six counties if they want to remain British or Irish, problem solved eh, no one should die in this process okay, peace, love and harmony and all that.

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 3:18am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, it wasn't a joke - it's common courtesy when you state something about someone that's a blatant lie.

It's an opinion I hold due to evidence gleaned from posting on these forums - calling it a blatant lie is aggressive and untrue.

But - like many who have a warped view of what "fighting BACK" entails,

So you're accusing me of having warped view now?

I have a Nationalist background. My Father's family lived in the Creggan estate in Derry during those times. They experienced the bad old days and they have plenty of harrowing anecdotes that never end up in statistics.

I hear from source how the Nationalist population of Derry was frustrated, discriminated against, beaten and eventually murdered by Unionists militias and the BA. Sometimes you've got no choice but to stand up for yourself. My sympathies lie with working class Nationalist people of the time - I subscribe to that narrative and make no apology for it.

I guess it was too much to expect for you to admit that you were 100% wrong

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Liam Byrne · 06-12-2011 3:29am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's an opinion I hold due to evidence gleaned from posting on these forums - calling it a blatant lie is aggressive and untrue.

And yet you felt the need to "tone it down" almost immediately! Laughable!

I have a Nationalist background. My Father's family lived in the Creggan estate in Derry during those times. They experienced the bad old days and they have plenty of harrowing anecdotes that never end up in statistics.

I hear from source how the Nationalist population of Derry was frustrated, discriminated against, beaten and eventually murdered by Unionists militias and the BA. Sometimes you've got no choice but to stand up for yourself.

Believe it or not I have no real issue with that; but that is irrelevant to my objections. My issue isn't with "fighting back" or "standing up for yourself" - it's with extending that to murder innocent people.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

No idea what you're trying to say or weasel out of now, so I'll make a deal with you; refrain from posting cheap snide dismissive remarks and I'll avoid replying to you, and we can leave the thread back on track.

Why you couldn't simply retract your false claim and quoting of me is beyond me, but then that seems to be par for the course on NI threads - people never admit when they're wrong.

kumate_champ07 · 06-12-2011 3:47am

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

free from what, external control?

Chuck Stone · 06-12-2011 3:48am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And yet you felt the need to "tone it down" almost immediately! Laughable!

I wanted to make a distinction between yourself and others because you're more consistent. Take it as you will.

My issue isn't with "fighting back" or "standing up for yourself" - it's with extending that to murder innocent people.

You and me both. Nevertheless the reality is that this type of thing happens in conflicts and for some reason murder by Nationalists seems to be more magnified and cause outrage than murder by others.

No idea what you're trying to say or weasel out of now, so I'll make a deal with you; refrain from posting cheap snide dismissive remarks and I'll avoid replying to you, and we can leave the thread back on track.

For the sake of peace, let's go with that, although I'm uncomfortable with your wording of this peace agreement.

Why you couldn't simply retract your false claim and quoting of me is beyond me, but then that seems to be par for the course on NI threads - people never admit when they're wrong.

As I said it's an opinion I've formed from these types of discussions. Perhaps, because these discussions are almost invariably about Republicans and Nationalists wrong doings rather than those of the other side, I have developed a confirmation bias. I guess time will tell.

Peace?

Sunnyisland · 06-12-2011 10:21am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah yes, the unblinking pontification that is Irish republican arrogance.

Yes we learned a lot from the British

There is a huge difference between civilians being killed and the deliberate targeting of civilians. There is also a difference between infrastructure and a shopping centre.

So, please can you explain how you, as a northern nationalist, felt protected by the PIRA bombing restaurants and shopping centres.

These campaigns were inaugurated against a background of political stalemate during what the PIRA regarded as an economic war against British rule in Northern Ireland, and FF when your going on about Bombing innocents don't forget to put in the dublin & monaghan bombings and many other incidents in which your government played a significant part as your unblinking pontification that is arrogance clearly shows you never seem to mention .

trendy vicar wrote: »

So perhaps you can tell us all why The UK State wanted Finucane dead?

And perhaps you can tell us all why a senior British police officer was allowed by The UK State to talk publicly about UK State collusion (if it existed)?

:D

trendy vicar wrote: »

I think you're being very generous there Keith (for whatever reason). The problem isn't contextual analysis, as Republicans have little ability to do that. The biggest problem is that Irish Republicans can't even produce evidence for many of their claims or they get said evidence wrong. There can be two reasons for this:

(i) The Irish story telling tradition.
(ii) Discussion is crude propaganda - war by other means. Propaganda of the repetitive Goebbels style, rather than anything sophisticated - they would be incapable of that.

Read some Irish history and not from stormfront as your grasp of what actually was and did happen there is indeed quite confusing and I am wondering where you ever in the six counties or as i suspect from you posts on other threads your just here to troll, good man/woman welcome.

trendy vicar wrote: »

Depends on what 'rights' I was being denied and what you mean by 'fight back'.

What about these rights
one man, one vote
an end to discrimination in housing
an end to discrimination in local government an end to the gerrymanderingof district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian.
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal the end of discrimination.Would you trendy vicar have fought back then ?

trendy vicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. The reality is that some Loyalists thought The Security Forces weren't getting very far and as a result set up counter-terror gangs. PIRA weren't a defencive force and neither were The UVF/UFF - they were all aggressive killing machines.

Of course they were there just for law and order.....Internment was reintroduced on the orders of the Brian faulkner,What they did not include was a single loyalist. Although the UVF had begun the killing and bombing, this organisation was left untouched, as were other violent Loyalist satellite organisations such as TARAthe SHANKILL DEFENCE ASSOCIATION and the Ulster protestant volunteers.

trendy vicar wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on that hilarious drivel except to say it has nothing to do with my point about the conflict being well underway by the time of BS.

There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the UVF in 1966,the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969.Dont see any of your hilarious drivel mentioning this,But by now reading your posts that is to be expected.

Fratton Fred · 06-12-2011 11:02am

realies wrote: »

These campaigns were inaugurated against a background of political stalemate during what the PIRA regarded as an economic war against British rule in Northern Ireland, and FF when your going on about Bombing innocents don't forget to put in the dublin & monaghan bombings and many other incidents in which your government played a significant part as your unblinking pontification that is arrogance clearly shows you never seem to mention .

Why are you posting in bold, it doesn't detract from the dodge, deflect whataboutery you have written.

Now, maybe you could answer the question, how many nationalists were protected when the IRA fire bombed the Le Mons restaurant?

Nodin · 06-12-2011 1:41pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The security forces were there to maintain law and order and imprisoned 10 000+ Loyalists as a result. ..........

Internment saw 1,981 nationalists detained, vs 105 loyalists.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/sum.htm

trendyvicar · 06-12-2011 1:46pm

Nodin wrote: »

Internment saw 1,981 nationalists detained, vs 105 loyalists.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/sum.htm

Republicans were killing more people. In fact they murdered more than twice as many as Loyalists during the conflict.

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments