Numbers up Gerry

anncoates wrote: »

Who said that the North wasn't a sectarian state?

Or that community defence of catholic areas under loyalist attack was not valid?

Or that a political and civil rights response to the sectarianism of the state was not valid?

That, for me however, does not translate to the necessity of a 30 year armed campaign against the British.

That the British should not be occupying NI is a given but the IRA chose to declare war on them - wholly separate to unionist sectarianism and the nascent civil rights and political mobilization of NI Catholics against same - and fought a protracted military campaign that nearly 30 years later has not edged Ireland one jot closer to reunification.




I presume the differences you allude to are the consensus and equality aspect of the GFA and the referenda?


The general point remains that Sunningdale was a nascent attempt at a power-sharing assembly - also with the dimension of cross-border involvement - that more or less represented the same set-up that we now see in NI.

So the question remains: to what ultimate end 30 years of war?




That's a given and I said as much in my post but the fact remains that the IRA campaign went a long way to legitimizing and gaining support/recruits for/to Loyalism in working class protestant areas in very much the same was as British army/Loyalist atrocities did in working class Catholic communities.

Plus your assertion that Loyalists were not succeeding in hitting SF and IRA targets in the 90s is wrong. I can definitely do a search of the lists to show this when I have a little more time. Even bloodthirsty incompetents of their calibre could hardly fail to do so given the constant drip-feed of collusion between them and the Brits.

That said, any paramilitary organisation with responsibility for Bernard Teggert, Joanne Mathers, Patsy Gillespie, or indeed the Birmingham, Dropping Well and bloody Friday bombings is on egregiously thin ice when it comes to preaching about slaughter.

It's pointless aiming the whataboutery salvo at the likes of me, by the way. I can agree until the cows come home about how much I detest Loyalism.



I said as much albeit I refuse to accept that a war was necessary as the current political landscape of NI demonstrates.

anncoates wrote: »

How's the view from the back seat?

awec wrote: »

Lisa Dorrian is on that list, given she is a missing person still, but when the media and people talk about The Disappeared they are referring to those killed during the troubles - a generation before Dorrian.

LordSutch wrote: »

You're wasting your time mrsbyrne, they have very hardened attitudes.

awec wrote: »

I am still waiting on your coherent argument as to why you think loyalist paramilitaries should have been involved in that programme, or how their exclusion is somehow suggestive of a motive on the part of the producers.

Jean McConville is a member of the Disappeared. She was murdered, and secretly buried for 31 yeas. In your eyes this is apparently not a disappearing case. I would love to know what you classify as someone disappearing, if 31 years of a body being hidden does not qualify.

The Disappeared is a name applied to a collection of people, specifically 16 people, murdered and secretly buried by the IRA. When their bodies are found, they continue to be members of the Disappeared. This fact seems to be continually escaping you, despite it being pointed out multiple times in the simplest way imaginable.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I havent ignored anything. The IRA carried out the vast majority of disappearances. The IRA owned up to this and since 1999 have engaged wholeheartedly with the ICLVR.

Wattle wrote: »

Yes they did. Columba McVeigh for a start. The Adams/McConville segment was only one part of the programme. Like it or not the McConville disappearance is one of the most emotive of the entire troubles. Did you expect the programme makers to completely skirt over that issue? If so you have no idea how journalists work.