Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

Options
12357…13

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,589 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Most of the Northern Irish I've met would describe themselves as being Irish regardless of their Unionist/Nationalist/Neutral stances. Anecdotal of course, but when I was living there, they saw themselves as a section of Ireland under British rule as opposed to being a part of the UK. Most of the people I met took offence to being labelled as being British and the country didn't feel that different culturally to me compared to living in various parts of England.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #123
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    How can you get something "back" that you never "had" in the first place?

    Ireland, as an island, was a whole country when the treaty was signed. The North then exercised a clause to leave Ireland and set up NI.


  • Options
    #124
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,589 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Actually, the country was partitioned as a result of the Government of Ireland act in 1920 by Lloyd-George.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #125
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Actually, the country was partitioned as a result of the Government of Ireland act in 1920 by Lloyd-George.

    You might want to look into that.
    The wording of the secession treaty meant that the Irish Free State included the entire island, unless the North voted explicitly to return to the UK.
    The Partition act allowed for this to occur, instead of it being an all Ireland vote.
    This took place over the space of one month, in reality it was business as usual but, technically, there was an All Ireland Free State (even though the powers of Dublin, over NI, were suspended for one month)


  • Options
    #126
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    I would have thought the Union, or better yet the Northern Irish state, would be a better example of "an invention".
    Of course it's an invention, much like any nationality at the end of the day.
    maccored wrote: »
    Im irish - or maybe you disagree?
    TBH, I've no idea who you are, beyond an anonymous poster on an Internet forum.

    If you're Northern Irish, then of course you're Irish (from Northern Ireland) and can call yourself whatever you fancy, but that doesn't magically mean you are any more homogeneous to southern Irish than a Scott or Englishman is. Much of your culture, what you grew up with, your education, politics, experiences and the like would be as alien to me as those of a bloke from Liverpool. In fact, if we want to go for the jus sanguinis argument of nationality, then Liverpool should be just as 'Irish', if not more-so than NI.

    This isn't meant to offend you, but to point out the practical reality of two states that have been evolving separately for almost a century. Of course, were we to unify, after a generation or two we would become far more homogeneous (as occurred in places like Germany, Italy or even the UK), and that's in many respects why I consider nationalism to be little more than an often arbitrary invention.
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Most of the people I met took offence to being labelled as being British and the country didn't feel that different culturally to me compared to living in various parts of England.
    Depends who you met; I hired a chap from the north, who very conspicuously put his nationality down as British on his CV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Of course it's an invention, much like any nationality at the end of the day.

    TBH, I've no idea who you are, beyond an anonymous poster on an Internet forum.

    If you're Northern Irish, then of course you're Irish (from Northern Ireland) and can call yourself whatever you fancy, but that doesn't magically mean you are any more homogeneous to southern Irish than a Scott or Englishman is. Much of your culture, what you grew up with, your education, politics, experiences and the like would be as alien to me as those of a bloke from Liverpool. In fact, if we want to go for the jus sanguinis argument of nationality, then Liverpool should be just as 'Irish', if not more-so than NI.

    This isn't meant to offend you, but to point out the practical reality of two states that have been evolving separately for almost a century. Of course, were we to unify, after a generation or two we would become far more homogeneous (as occurred in places like Germany, Italy or even the UK), and that's in many respects why I consider nationalism to be little more than an often arbitrary invention.

    Depends who you met; I hired a chap from the north, who very conspicuously put his nationality down as British on his CV.

    Well if that's your logic then what's the point in there being any countries at all? Should we just have a world with no states or groups of people whatsoever and do away with thousands of years of culture and diversity? And if it's just an invention then what can be the justification for a United Kingdom or "Northern Ireland", they certainly have much less history behind them than Ireland as a whole does? Oh, and I believe the demonym you are looking for is Scot, not Scott, or maybe one of your friend's forms an ethnic grouping of his own...


  • Options
    #128
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Well if that's your logic then what's the point in there being any countries at all? Should we just have a world with no states or groups of people whatsoever and do away with thousands of years of culture and diversity?
    I believe I outlined why earlier in the thread.
    Oh, and I believe the demonym you are looking for is Scot, not Scott, or maybe one of your friend's forms an ethnic grouping of his own...
    You do read a lot from a typo, don't you?


  • Options
    #129
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The GFA was just a sop to the UVF, they were killing Catholics to keep NI in the Union they got what they wanted & then some by forcing the Free State to relinquish it's claim over the North.

    Mabey, if you are correct that the GFA was a "sop" to a group killing catholics, mabey it was the IRA they were sopping to as they killed far more catholics than the UVF?


  • Options
    #130
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I believe I outlined why earlier in the thread.

    You do read a lot from a typo, don't you?

    "Scit" would be a typo, Scott suggests a genuine lack of knowledge as to the correct spelling of the word "Scot". As for that so called outline, I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying, is it that nationalism is only wrong if it's romantic? Isn't nationalism of all sorts romantic by it's very nature though? It wouldn't appeal to anyone if there wasn't a certain romantic element to it. And tbh I don't believe that Irishness is significantly more romantic that most other identities, it certainly has more genuine substance to it than a unionists Britishness which most of them struggle to articulate in anything more than flag-waving and siege mentality paranoia.


  • Options
    #131
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    gallag wrote: »
    Mabey, if you are correct that the GFA was a "sop" to a group killing catholics, mabey it was the IRA they were sopping to as they killed far more catholics than the UVF?

    Don't mean to get it involved in this argument, but I'm not sure that statement is correct. The PIRA killed about 650 civilians in total, maybe 350-400 were catholics , the UVF killed around 500, of which the vast majority were catholics. Either way there wouldn't be as much a difference as you might think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Don't mean to get it involved in this argument, but I'm not sure that statement is correct. The PIRA killed about 650 civilians in total, maybe 350-400 were catholics , the UVF killed around 500, of which the vast majority were catholics. Either way there wouldn't be as much a difference as you might think.

    Nope, the IRA killed 493 civilians, the UVF killed 353.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
    The IRA killed 340 catholics, the UVF 276.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

    Personally there is no "winner" here, I am not making the argument the UVF were better or have a moral high ground but I get annoyed with the level of ignorance by many irish people as to how murderous the IRA were. Many were bounced on there daddy's knee hearing rebel songs about the IRA being the guardians of catholics yet the cold has truth is that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group.


  • Options
    #133
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    gallag wrote: »
    Nope, the IRA killed 493 civilians, the UVF killed 353.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
    The IRA killed 340 catholics, the UVF 276.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

    Personally there is no "winner" here, I am not making the argument the UVF were better or have a moral high ground but I get annoyed with the level of ignorance by many irish people as to how murderous the IRA were. Many were bounced on there daddy's knee hearing rebel songs about the IRA being the guardians of catholics yet the cold has truth is that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group.


    "Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

    727 Civilians
    1080 British Security Forces
    187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
    56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
    10 Irish security.

    (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

    35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

    The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

    The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

    512 Civilians
    1012 British Security Forces
    141 Republican paramilitaries
    39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
    7 Irish security

    (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

    29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

    Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

    868 Civilians
    14 British Security
    41 Republican paramilitaries.
    93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

    85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

    The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

    The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA."

    That's the list I'm working off, taken from a thread on this site which backs up roughly most of the figures I used. And tbh I don't think the IRA claimed to be "protectors of Catholics", protectors of Nationalists yes, but they were never big on bringing religion into their objectives. Either way, your original statement was that the IRA killed way more Catholics than the UVF, and even using your statistics which I would dispute it still doesn't equate to way more, especially when you take into account the percentages that these people would have represented in the groups overall kill count, ie. the IRA 15-20% compared to the UVF 75% or more.


  • Options
    #134
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Hard to believe this stuff- WHO CARES who killed most ! Each death is a story and tragedy of itself .Can we leave it at that and move on.

    Angels on the head of a pin stuff


  • Options
    #135
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    "Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

    727 Civilians
    1080 British Security Forces
    187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
    56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
    10 Irish security.

    (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

    35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

    The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

    The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

    512 Civilians
    1012 British Security Forces
    141 Republican paramilitaries
    39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
    7 Irish security

    (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

    29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

    Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

    868 Civilians
    14 British Security
    41 Republican paramilitaries.
    93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

    85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

    The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

    The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA."

    That's the list I'm working off, taken from a thread on this site which backs up roughly most of the figures I used. And tbh I don't think the IRA claimed to be "protectors of Catholics", protectors of Nationalists yes, but they were never big on bringing religion into their objectives. Either way, your original statement was that the IRA killed way more Catholics than the UVF, and even using your statistics which I would dispute it still doesn't equate to way more, especially when you take into account the percentages that these people would have represented in the groups overall kill count, ie. the IRA 15-20% compared to the UVF 75% or more.

    I always laugh when people use percentage to try to paint the IRA in a better light, the loyalist paramilitarys did not target the security forces, this does not make them worse. They are all as bad as each other ffs. Why are people so determined to paint one side in a better light?


  • Options
    #136
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    gallag wrote: »
    I always laugh when people use percentage to try to paint the IRA in a better light, the loyalist paramilitarys did not target the security forces, this does not make them worse. They are all as bad as each other ffs. Why are people so determined to paint one side in a better light?

    Because there are different levels of wrongdoing. Personally my opinion is that they IRA were set up for understandable reasons and did a lot of justifiable things, however they dirtied their bibs with some catastrophically stupid and misjudged actions and a few downright disgraceful acts. That means that they'll never be acceptable to most people and that's something I can understand. Loyalist paramilitaries on the other hand are hard to find anything justifiable in, they had no real aims other than to kill random Catholics, and the statistics back that up. For that reason I believe they were worse, although that of course isn't suggesting that the IRA weren't bad too, just not quite so sectarian or directionless.


  • Options
    #137
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Because there are different levels of wrongdoing. Personally my opinion is that they IRA were set up for understandable reasons and did a lot of justifiable things, however they dirtied their bibs with some catastrophically stupid and misjudged actions and a few downright disgraceful acts. That means that they'll never be acceptable to most people and that's something I can understand. Loyalist paramilitaries on the other hand are hard to find anything justifiable in, they had no real aims other than to kill random Catholics, and the statistics back that up. For that reason I believe they were worse, although that of course isn't suggesting that the IRA weren't bad too, just not quite so sectarian or directionless.

    What statistics back that up? Are you blind? Can you not see the republicans were every bit as harmful to civilians as the loyalists were? How can you for example say that the UVF just targeted random civilians (correct, they did) and not see the very simple fact that the IRA targeted even more random civilians? ? You think that the IRA also killing lots of non civilians therefore having a lower % of civilians killed makes them any better?? It's mental gymnastics.

    I grew up in rathcoole during the troubles, my father is a convicted UDA member, he tells me about the times when for months every night after work he and his team manned road blocks protecting their communities from IRA attack, in their minds they were acting as guardians. You and me have both been indoctrinated, told the story's and feed propaganda about how one side was better than the other, the difference is only one of us fell for it. The Loyalists were every bit as ruthless as the republicans, the republicans every bit as bad as the loyalists. Have you ever applied your own critical thought? Look at the cold hard facts and numbers, both our community's would have been better of without them all.


  • Options
    #138
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    "Scit" would be a typo, Scott suggests a genuine lack of knowledge as to the correct spelling of the word "Scot".
    "Scit" would be a typo? Fair enough, I expect you know you're shìt there.
    As for that so called outline, I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying, is it that nationalism is only wrong if it's romantic? Isn't nationalism of all sorts romantic by it's very nature though? It wouldn't appeal to anyone if there wasn't a certain romantic element to it.
    Wow. Talk about missing the point.


  • Options
    #139
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    "Scit" would be a typo? Fair enough, I expect you know you're shìt there.

    Wow. Talk about missing the point.

    Scit would be a typo as "i" is located beside "o" on a keyboard... As for missing the point, it's two lines without much context, not exactly clear cut. Also, "your sh*t" perhaps?


  • Options
    #140
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    gallag wrote: »
    What statistics back that up? Are you blind? Can you not see the republicans were every bit as harmful to civilians as the loyalists were? How can you for example say that the UVF just targeted random civilians (correct, they did) and not see the very simple fact that the IRA targeted even more random civilians? ? You think that the IRA also killing lots of non civilians therefore having a lower % of civilians killed makes them any better?? It's mental gymnastics.

    I grew up in rathcoole during the troubles, my father is a convicted UDA member, he tells me about the times when for months every night after work he and his team manned road blocks protecting their communities from IRA attack, in their minds they were acting as guardians. You and me have both been indoctrinated, told the story's and feed propaganda about how one side was better than the other, the difference is only one of us fell for it. The Loyalists were every bit as ruthless as the republicans, the republicans every bit as bad as the loyalists. Have you ever applied your own critical thought? Look at the cold hard facts and numbers, both our community's would have been better of without them all.

    The statistics in the quote that demonstrate that Loyalists were responsible for more civilian deaths than Republicans despite the fact that they only killed half as many people overall. The fact that most of the civilians killed by Loyalists were singled out and executed rather than the majority of the IRA's who were caught in bombings not meant for them.

    The IRA were not "good", there's no such thing as a violent group that is "good", however just because a group is not "good" doesn't mean that their objectives aren't more justifiable than other violent groups. At the end of the day I just think they receive an unfair rep from the media and people in general, looking at the way the Troubles is covered you'd think the IRA were the only group killing anyone, when the fact is that the people who suffered the most fatalities in the Troubles were Catholics killed by Loyalists. Most of the time you just never get that sense from the media or in discussions and I believe Loyalist groups tend to get off softly.

    Finally, as for your father, maybe he did genuinely believe he was protecting his area, but how often did the IRA actually attempt to drive into unionist areas and just start shooting them up randomly? Not all that often I'd guess..

    Anyway, this isn't the topic this thread is meant for so I'll leave it there.


  • Options
    #141
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,589 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    The IRA were not "good", there's no such thing as a violent group that is "good", however just because a group is not "good" doesn't mean that their objectives aren't more justifiable than other violent groups.

    It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

    Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?


  • Options
    #143
    IrishProd
    Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭IrishProd


    gallag wrote: »
    both our community's would have been better of without them all.

    It is a pity that the loyalist/unionist community did not have that foresight in the 60s when their "guardians" started burning their neighbours out of their homes and went around killing & bombing innocent people who were only looking for the same civil rights.


  • Options
    #144
    IrishProd
    Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭IrishProd


    junder wrote: »
    Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

    Bullsh*t.

    And if I recall correctly, you said the Bloody Sunday inquiries were a waste of money on a thread before.

    What do you think of Parachute regiment flags being flown around on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday?


  • Options
    #145
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    IrishProd wrote: »
    Bullsh*t.

    And if I recall correctly, you said the Bloody Sunday inquiries were a waste of money on a thread before.

    What do you think of Parachute regiment flags being flown around on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday?

    Did I? Care to show me when and where I made such a comment?


  • Options
    #146
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    junder wrote: »
    Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

    No, not at all. The death of any civilian is equally bad not matter what their creed, background or political views are. But for the purpose of this argument we were just talking about Catholics, that's not to demean the lives of the Protestants who died, I was just making a point.


  • Options
    #147
    Dr.Tank Adams
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Dr.Tank Adams


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

    If their objective was to kill civilians they would have killed a hell of a lot more than they did over the course of the Troubles, there would have been thousands of civilian deaths rather than hundreds as is the case.


  • Options
    #148
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    If their objective was to kill civilians they would have killed a hell of a lot more than they did over the course of the Troubles, there would have been thousands of civilian deaths rather than hundreds as is the case.

    It's here that I lose your logic, try to understand, for example you say the UVF just targeted random civilians, yet even though the IRA killed many more civilians than the UVF you maintain they would have killed "a hell of a lot more" over the coarse of the troubles if they had targeted civilians.

    Can you understand my confusion?


  • Options
    #149
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »
    Scit would be a typo as "i" is located beside "o" on a keyboard...
    Glad I know what a typo is now.
    As for missing the point, it's two lines without much context, not exactly clear cut.
    What is confusing you?
    Also, "your sh*t" perhaps?
    Perhaps.
    gallag wrote: »
    It's here that I lose your logic, try to understand, for example you say the UVF just targeted random civilians, yet even though the IRA killed many more civilians than the UVF you maintain they would have killed "a hell of a lot more" over the coarse of the troubles if they had targeted civilians.
    I think what he is trying to convey is that the UVF purposely targeted and killed civilians, while the PIRA did not purposely target and kill civilians and any that were killed were collateral damage. And if the PIRA had been purposely targeting civilians they would have been far more successful at it than the UVF.

    Don't know about you, but it makes me feel a lot safer at night to know.


  • Options
    #150
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Glad I know what a typo is now.

    What is confusing you?

    Perhaps.

    I think what he is trying to convey is that the UVF purposely targeted and killed civilians, while the PIRA did not purposely target and kill civilians and any that were killed were collateral damage. And if the PIRA had been purposely targeting civilians they would have been far more successful at it than the UVF.

    Don't know about you, but it makes me feel a lot safer at night to know.
    Yeah , I guess, but that's like saying the UVF at their worst were still less harmful to civilians than the IRA at there best?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    gallag wrote: »
    Yeah , I guess, but that's like saying the UVF at there worst were still less harmful to civilians than the IRA at there best?
    I just said what I believe he's trying to convey, I never said it wasn't incredibly stupid.


Advertisement