The who wrote: » All loyalist paramilitaries were driven by complete and utter sectarianism unlike the IRA. Yes the IRA was responsible for some sectarian killings such as the Kingsmills massacre but these were actually lads in the army who took matters into their own hands and the head leaders such as McGuinnes and Adams couldn't have known about all the killings that were about to take place because the IRA works in a cellular formation.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » 'Cellular formation' ? this is dancing on the head of a pin.... was Patsy Gillespie sanctioned? and your lazy stereotype of Republican Freedom fighter V Loyalkist thug is tiresome. Have you read 'Voices from the grave'? Brendan Hughes and David Ervine both seemed motivated by the same thing to me. To defend their own community and to hit the other side bloody hard. Why do you insist one side is better than the other?
Fratton Fred wrote: » What a surprise, the response starts with "what about..."
.jacksparrow. wrote: » If the pira wanted to hit the other side bloody hard they could have targeted protesants daily and with such ease, the deaths would have been in the tens of thousands.
Goat the dote wrote: » And I don't think any of them are the IRA of Collins' time
SoulandForm wrote: » Unionists who wanted to defeat the PIRA had the British Army that they could join or indeed the UDR and the RUC. Many did and whatever people might think about them here they showed bravery. Republicans and nationalists on the other hand did not have that option. Brendan Hughes did claim though that he fought for the Irish working class as a whole and in his auto-biography was incredibly honest about his own failings leaving behind an incredibly valuable historical document that shows things as they were. David Irvine's though wasnt quite that was it? The sudden emergence of David Irvine and his carry on seemed very scripted- he was a Loyalist as London would want one to be. Billy Wright on the hand had the British state basically turning a blind eye to his killing in one of the most secure prisons in Europe. Billy Wright's autobiography would have been a lot more interesting.
Banjo String wrote: » It was a legitimate question that you've avoided answering. Many believe the troubles (as we all understand them) in the north began with bloody Sunday.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » Defending the indefensible.
Why not use actual figures - rather than %.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » Why do you insist one side is better than the other?
An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA. It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".news.bbc.co.uk
Manassas61 wrote: » You leave out the most important thing of all, context. The Loyalist paramilitaries aimed at civilians as they didn't have people in uniforms driving down the street like Republican paramilitaries had. It would not have been any different if say the Irish Defence forces were in Northern Ireland and driving around Unionist areas. You would have had hundreds of deaths simply due to explosives and shootings, off duty shootings. One of the first deaths in the Troubles ironically of a British soldier came about from the Shankill.
Charlie Rock wrote: » I've never once attempted to defend the killing of innocent people. The % gives us some insight into the mindset of the different groups. Loyalists 85% civilian kill rate (of unarmed Catholics) gives us insight into the fact they were driven by sectarian blood lust. The PIRA 75% kill-rate of 'players' in the conflict shows they were primarily concerned with attacking the security apparatus of the Unionist/British statelet. 'Better' is the wrong word - 'more sophisticated' might be a better way of describing them. Republican para-militarism was primarily concerned with targeting military, security and economic targets. Loyalists were little more than a collection serial killers. The two simply aren't comparable unless you choose to completely ignore the facts like you, and others, choose to. But hey, don't listen to me:
SoulandForm wrote: » The UK state admitted that they were being fed intelligence on Republicans. They preffered soft targets. If you joined the Provos, the INLA, the RUC or the BA you knew there was a serious risk of you ending up with a bullet in the back of your head- that risk was far, far lower if you joined the Loyalist groups and the main risk would be coming from your fellow Loyalists.
Manassas61 wrote: » It would not have been any different if say the Irish Defence forces were in Northern Ireland and driving around Unionist areas. You would have had hundreds of deaths simply due to explosives and shootings, off duty shootings. One of the first deaths in the Troubles ironically of a British soldier came about from the Shankill.
Manassas61 wrote: » Nowhere near as much information as people think. They certainly didn't get enough information on PIRA members.
SoulandForm wrote: » Why ironically? Loyalists at the time wanted a repeat of the pogroms in the early 20s that followed the defeat of the war of independence in what had now become Northern Ireland. Given the world situation as it was and the increase of media the UK state decided that it simply couldnt allow that to happen. At that time the early 20s were in living memory- infact you could say that sitting back and allowing them to happen at that time was one of the major causes of the troubles later.
Manassas61 wrote: » The Loyalist paramilitaries aimed at civilians as they didn't have people in uniforms driving down the street like Republican paramilitaries had.
Manassas61 wrote: » Loyalists killing British soldiers was rare.
SoulandForm wrote: » Crap-the Prime Minister of the UK admitted a large amount of what went on in the House of Commons recently. They had the information if they wanted to target PIRA members- that would have involved actual risk though wouldnt it have?
jeffery lebowski wrote: » Primarily concerned with Military targets?
Women and children in Enniskillen 1987, Kingsmills, Jean McConville, The targeting of sons of Protestant farmers along the border, a chip shop on the Shankill road........
Charlie Rock wrote: » They had plenty of intelligence passed to them about Republicans. They still managed to rack up an appalling rate of killing of innocent people. Were the PIRA ruthless killers? Absolutely. Did they commit some vicious acts of brutality? Yes. Was the PIRA's campaign comparable to the Loyalist murder gangs' massacres of people in bars, bookies, places of work? Absolutely not. Had the PIRA engaged in a comparable campaign of mass-murder against Protestants there'd have been many thousands more dead innocent Protestants. Again, the moral equivocation and attempts to draw parallels require suspension of reason and denial of facts.
Manassas61 wrote: » No, not if a lot of the targets are in houses which they regarded as safe houses. Considering there was thousands of Loyalist prisoners, they didn't have as much wide spread information.British soldiers wearing uniforms put the PIRA in a huge advantage target wise.
Manassas61 wrote: » 300 Orangemen murdered due to them. They slaughtered people in the border region. I don't see any difference between them. Ruthless murderers. Most people don't see any honor in them.
Manassas61 wrote: » Not to mention the brutal treatment they dished out to decent Gardai officers. No honor at all.
SoulandForm wrote: » The pro-Union side in the low level was not the monolith that some Republicans would like to believe. For instance there was much more sympathy within the UDR for the Loyalists than there was within the RUC- and within the British Army proper regiements varied in their attitudes. Certainly some wanted to see Loyalists locked up. However that doesnt change the fact that they were being fed information and even being co-operated with (the killing of Vol Miriam Daly comes to mind) by elements within the "security forces". Okay lets take this argument- was the Kingsmill massacre okay than because the UVF were not wearing uniforms all the time?
SoulandForm wrote: » The Gardai used torture against Republicans during the troubles. Come on.
Manassas61 wrote: » 300 Orangemen murdered due to them.
I don't see any difference between them.
Charlie Rock wrote: » I suspect not for being Orangemen. That requires you to suspend your reasoning faculties and ignore facts.
Manassas61 wrote: » They went into an Orangehall and murdered 5 people spreading all over the place. Trying to paint some sort of honourable picture of them won't work.
