If Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1967..

iDave · 21-11-2013 11:42AM

'A Protestant state for a Protestant people'
The mere mission statement is prejudicial and favouring one ethnic group over another. Now you then have political domination by one ethnicity over the other. Gerrymandered constituencies to stop one ethnicity getting fair representation. A biased police force. Armed state militias terrorising one ethnicity and not the other (B Specials). Economic inequality, employment inequality, housing inequality. Non-state 'cultural' organisations that acted (and still do) as a vehicle for triumphalism and intimidation. Pogroms. A human rights organisation bitterly opposed and then shot on the street.
This was an APARTHEID state.
There was nothing unique about nationalist/Irish psyche or republican ideology that led to an armed campaign. Any civilisation in the world would of reacted the same.

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 11:43AM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

They were only Irish Catholics, you see, which means they were at the bottom of the victim hierarchy in the minds of failed British empire fanboys like Capt'n Farrell.

The crazy thing is Captain Farrell is probably an Irish catholic sub-human himself.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 11:43AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

When people talk about one group carrying out atrocities on innocent people, whether the former be the IRA, loyalist paramilitaries, security forces... what is the point in saying "Well, the other side did the same?" It doesn't change or mitigate or justify what's being talked about. It's just very poor arguing and extremely indicative of agenda-pushing.

The agenda being that it's fine and dandy for anyone on here to jump up and vilify the "brits", but it's tantamount to heresy to comdemn the IRA.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 11:44AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The crazy thing is Captain Farrell is probably an Irish catholic sub-human himself.

Nope. British and proud.

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 11:45AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

The agenda being that it's fine and dandy for anyone on here to jump up and vilify the "brits", but it's tantamount to heresy to comdemn the IRA.

Bullsh1t. Countless people here condemn the IRA. And do so without resorting to pathetic "Well the IRA were so bad that... ya can't blame loyalist paramilitaries."

Happyman42 · 21-11-2013 11:46AM

They want Gerry Adams taken down on suspicions that he ordered the kidnapping and killing of a woman without giving her due process and a fair trial.
Leaving the shooting of unarmed civillians to one side for a minute, will all our 'moral grandstanding guardians' be calling for whoever ordered a unit into NI to shoot 'suspected' IRA men and women without due process and a trial, be similarly tried and taken down?

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 11:47AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

Nope. British and proud.

That makes your take more understandable so - it's way worse when that stuff comes from Irish catholics (and it does sometimes). But seriously, don't be a dick by pretending non violent nationalist civilians were provos, or by justifying loyalist/security forces violence. Enniskillen and Warrington and Omagh were horrific, but innocent catholics did not deserve the same back. That's just a hateful thing to imply.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 11:47AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Bullsh1t. Countless people here condemn the IRA. And do so without resorting to pathetic "Well the IRA were so bad that... ya can't blame loyalist paramilitaries."

I never mentioned loyalist paramilitiaries once. Not even once.

I personally condemn any murder of innocents, be them Irish, catholic, protestant, British, or anything.

There just seems to be a trend on here that the IRA were grand auld lads who were fighting to liberate their brethren from the nasty Brits, so anything they did was excusable...

.jacksparrow. · 21-11-2013 11:48AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Bullsh1t. Countless people here condemn the IRA. And do so without resorting to pathetic "Well the IRA were so bad that... ya can't blame loyalist paramilitaries."

Just sit back and enjoy the digging of a massive hole, tis great entertainment!

Fratton Fred · 21-11-2013 11:49AM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You might want to familiarise yourself with the term 'whataboutery'.

Nobody is defending the killing of innocents on this thread.

On this thread. Yet.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 11:49AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

They want Gerry Adams taken down on suspicions that he ordered the kidnapping and killing of a woman without giving her due process and a fair trial.
Leaving the shooting of unarmed civillians to one side for a minute, will all our 'moral grandstanding guardians' be calling for whoever ordered a unit into NI to shoot 'suspected' IRA men and women without due process and a trial, be similarly tried and taken down?

Well it's taken the British national broadcaster to report it, so I'd say there is a good chance.

.jacksparrow. · 21-11-2013 11:49AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

I never mentioned loyalist paramilitiaries once. Not even once.

I personally condemn any murder of innocents, be them Irish, catholic, protestant, British, or anything.

There just seems to be a trend on here that the IRA were grand auld lads who were fighting to liberate their brethren from the nasty Brits, so anything they did was excusable...

You just said on the poppy thread you hold those soldiers in the same regard republicans hold Gerry Adams?

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 11:50AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

There just seems to be a trend on here that the IRA were grand auld lads who were fighting to liberate their brethren from the nasty Brits, so anything they did was excusable...

It's not a trend - it's a minority view. A vocal view, but a minority one. Vast majority of normal, reasonable people here condemn the IRA campaign of violence entirely.

walrusgumble · 21-11-2013 11:51AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

What better way to take the fight to the "Brits" than plant bombs in shopping centres and kill children?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm

Well, it kind of worked, in the sense that Downing Street took things serious and did what it could to get the moderates from both sides talking. Although the British were always talking to the IRA (privately) the days of "we won't talk to terrorists" ended rather sharpish. Manchester happened in early 1993, by the end of the year Gerry Adams was being paraded in public standing with respected politicians , Ireland and Britain signed an agreement (Downing Street Agreement)

It also made the Brits realised that any actions taken with raids on Nationalists homes might have consequences even on their own island. British people weren't happy with certain actions of Loyalists / British Soliders being done in their name (and the IRA and INLA claiming do do the work in the name of the Irish)

While it did not give the IRA ultimately what it publically wanted, what was produced was a HELL of a lot better than what Unionists would prefer. Now, NI is not and never will be a Protestant Land for a Protestant people, and as every day passes, Unionist grip on power in every day life in Northern Ireland is fading. Today, Belfast is now like any other British City in the sense that you don't see Union Jacks dominate the sky line. They can't march where they like either!

Just the fact that Unionists and Loyalists are dying inside over things like that makes it all worth while (obviously not the bombing!) The fact that many of them are being squeezed out of plum jobs is also interesting and how many of the brighter ones go off to Uni's in mainland Britian instead.........

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 11:51AM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

You just said on the poppy thread you hold those soldiers in the same regard republicans hold Gerry Adams?

Indeed, surely republicans hold Adams in low esteem as the former leader of a terrorist organisation that killed hundreds?

dublinbhoy88 · 21-11-2013 11:53AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not a trend - it's a minority view. A vocal view, but a minority one. Vast majority of normal, reasonable people here condemn the IRA campaign of violence entirely.

After 1921 you mean of course

Skylinehead · 21-11-2013 11:55AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

I personally condemn any murder of innocents, be them Irish, catholic, protestant, British, or anything.

Captain Farrell wrote: »

There, that's better.

Funny that just an hour ago you passed off the murder of innocent civilians as "terrorists". How does that condemnation work again?

Karl Stein · 21-11-2013 11:57AM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

There just seems to be a trend on here that the IRA were grand auld lads...

Quite the opposite old chum. The PIRA are decried as a special kind of evil round these parts. Indeed if you were using these boards as a yardstick you'd think the IRA was the only protagonist during those dark days and not a reaction to British/Unionist/Loyalist terrorism against innocent people

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 12:00PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Quite the opposite old chum. The PIRA are decried as a special kind of evil round these parts. Indeed if you were using these boards as a yardstick you'd think the IRA was the only protagonist during those dark days and not a reaction to British/Unionist/Loyalist terrorism against innocent people

Ah the old "the ira only did it because everyone else was doing it" argument....

whataboutery at its finest....

Karl Stein · 21-11-2013 12:03PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

Ah the old "the ira only did it because everyone else was doing it" argument....

whataboutery at its finest....

No. This is the 'two wrongs don't make a right' children's proverb which is nothing other than evidence of double standards.

'Sit on your hands, Paddy, while I slap you in the face'.

Fuck no.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 12:06PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

No. This is the 'two wrongs don't make a right' children's proverb which is nothing other than evidence of double standards.

'Sit on your hands, Paddy, while I slap you in the face'.

Fuck no.

So the reply of "slap me back, Paddy, and I will shoot you" would be ok in your books?

Skylinehead · 21-11-2013 12:06PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

whataboutery at its finest....

Seriously? After you brought up Warrington for no reason? The ironing, it is indeed delicious.

Karl Stein · 21-11-2013 12:13PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

So the reply of "slap me back, Paddy, and I will shoot you" would be ok in your books?

If you're willing to expect the same treatment?

Sure.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 12:14PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

If you're willing to expect the same treatment?

Sure.

So that's exactly what happened. Now time to stop crying about it and all of us get over it like grown ups.

irish_goat · 21-11-2013 12:18PM

I think to answer the OP, the NICRA wouldn't have materialised if Catholics had been afforded basic rights. If Catholics were getting employment, housing and votes then a large majority of them would have been content. It's seen all around the world in other conflict zones, unemployment and economic discrimination leads to unrest. A man working 9-5 doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of time to riot/protest/join the IRA as a man collecting the dole.

There would have of course still been a segment of the Catholic community who were intent on fighting for a United Ireland but they wouldn't have had the same level of public support, nor the same recruitment levels.

It's hard to imagine where the North might be as those decades were essentially lost in terms of the economy. Imagine if Northern Ireland had of been stable during the Celtic Tiger years and someone suggested uniting the countries then?

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 12:20PM

Captain Farrell, your anger towards the IRA is completely understandable, but to belittle the discrimination and mistreatment catholics put up with which led to the civil rights movement, is nastiness in the extreme.

It's also disingenuous to pretend there was no cause for nationalists to defend themselves when the sh1t got really nasty in the late 60s/early 70s. You'd have done the exact same in their position. After that, the IRA went miles too far and lost a lot of sympathy (including from my dad who was living up there at the time - started out supporting the IRA because of his disgust at treatment of catholics, utterly hated them not long after though) but it doesn't change the grotesque behaviour towards catholics.

I have complete respect for moderate unionists' views, but you just seem bigoted.

Captain Farrell · 21-11-2013 12:23PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Captain Farrell, your anger towards the IRA is completely understandable, but to belittle the discrimination and mistreatment catholics put up with which led to the civil rights movement, is nastiness in the extreme.

It's also disingenuous to pretend there was no cause for nationalists to defend themselves when the sh1t got really nasty in the late 60s/early 70s. You'd have done the exact same in their position. After that, the IRA went miles too far and lost a lot of sympathy (including from my dad who was living up there at the time - started out supporting the IRA because of his disgust at treatment of catholics, utterly hated them not long after though) but it doesn't change the grotesque behaviour towards catholics.

I have complete respect for moderate unionists' views, but you just seem bigoted.

My father is a catholic from Belfast and my mother is English. They had to leave Belfast in 1968 after he was threatened by the very organisation he used to support because he met a british wife while working over in England.

Nodin · 21-11-2013 12:24PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

My father is a catholic from Belfast and my mother is English. They had to leave Belfast in 1968 after he was threatened by the very organisation he used to support because he met a british wife while working over in England.

...what organisation?

Femme_Fatale · 21-11-2013 12:25PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

My father is a catholic from Belfast and my mother is English. They had to leave Belfast in 1968 after he was threatened by the very organisation he used to support because he met a british wife while working over in England.

Horrible as that was, it doesn't justify your belittling of what led to the civil rights campaign and your implication that you can see justification in security forces being violent to innocent catholic civilians (which your father was btw).

Karl Stein · 21-11-2013 12:27PM

Captain Farrell wrote: »

So that's exactly what happened. Now time to stop crying about it and all of us get over it like grown ups.

There were a lot of people killed who wanted no part in the conflict, among others, so unlike you, I'd never be so damned arrogant as to to say 'let's all get over it'.

Funny, isn't it, that as we get closer-and-closer to the truth of the dirty war the British pretended they weren't engaged in the 'let-bygones-be-bygones' brigade get more vocal.

Brand GB must be protected. The boys in BA costumes must know that shooting the natives is no big deal. Prosecuting civilian-killing soldiers years on is bad for morale - they were only Paddies after all.

If Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1967..

Comments