Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Angelo]

The driver of one of the army lorries was a 19 year old kid. The only thing left of him after the first bomb was his pelvis welded to the seat by heat of the bomb. The 2nd bomb killed a British colonel. No body parts of his could be identified, the only markers that he was dead where the bits of his colonels uniform found in the debris.

Nothing about narrow water was magnificent.

It was war though.

Nationalists in the O6 didn't just wake up and decide to start blowing Brits up one morning. There were many reasons behind that. The Free State establishment who engage in the most vitriolic anti-nationalist propaganda seem to have amnesia about the legacy of the history they celebrate, the revered men they regard as statesmen and the acts they committed.

Kilmichael and Warrenpoint were eerily similar. Both mass atrocities committed against British military due to the foreign occupation and societal oppression that nationalists found themselves living in.

But the FS establishment continue to try and airbrush Irish history. Murder pre 1923 - good, murder post 1923 - very bad.

We're not arguing about whether it was a war or not. We're arguing about whether the narrow water bombing was magnificent as Stanley seems to think.

Whether it was magnificent or not isn't really the point. The same people who are outraged by it have no problems commemorating and celebrating violent republican ambushes that led to the creation of the free state. So either violence is right or wrong. The Free State establishment want to tell northern nationalists they are animals for defending themselves against a violent pogrom on one hand while euologising gunmen and killers for liberating them on the other.

The GAA celebrates killers. There are clubs all around the island named after gunmen so where do we draw the line?

[trileacman]

The driver of one of the army lorries was a 19 year old kid. The only thing left of him after the first bomb was his pelvis welded to the seat by heat of the bomb. The 2nd bomb killed a British colonel. No body parts of his could be identified, the only markers that he was dead where the bits of his colonels uniform found in the debris.

Nothing about narrow water was magnificent.

It was war though.

Nationalists in the O6 didn't just wake up and decide to start blowing Brits up one morning. There were many reasons behind that. The Free State establishment who engage in the most vitriolic anti-nationalist propaganda seem to have amnesia about the legacy of the history they celebrate, the revered men they regard as statesmen and the acts they committed.

Kilmichael and Warrenpoint were eerily similar. Both mass atrocities committed against British military due to the foreign occupation and societal oppression that nationalists found themselves living in.

But the FS establishment continue to try and airbrush Irish history. Murder pre 1923 - good, murder post 1923 - very bad.

We're not arguing about whether it was a war or not. We're arguing about whether the narrow water bombing was magnificent as Stanley seems to think.

Whether it was magnificent or not isn't really the point. The same people who are outraged by it have no problems commemorating and celebrating violent republican ambushes that led to the creation of the free state. So either violence is right or wrong. The Free State establishment want to tell northern nationalists they are animals for defending themselves against a violent pogrom on one hand while euologising gunmen and killers for liberating them on the other.

The GAA celebrates killers. There are clubs all around the island named after gunmen so where do we draw the line?

We draw the line at wanton violence. If you can find excuses for IRA atrocities why can't you do the same for British Army atrocities or UDA atrocities? Where's the difference? Plenty of British and unionist civilians died during the troubles. Sure can't they simply argue their paramilitaries were defending themselves against Republican aggression?

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

[armaghniac]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

[general_lee]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

Can't speak for the other poster but I'm not, nor ever have been, a SF member (or any other political party). Haven't been indoctrinated either. Virtually non-political immediate-family background - soft nationalist/SDLP voting parents. I'm ardent Republican in my outlook. Not a pacifist. I've formed my views around first hand experience, reading, research etc.

Militarily, Narrow Water was a resounding success. "Magnificent" may not be the term I would use but it was an excellent operation by the PIRA fighting a guerrilla campaign against the British. I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.

On the flip side of things I am more than willing to acknowledge the war crimes carried out under the banner of Republicanism. There may still be men alive that should be rotting inside a jail cell for actions carried under the guise of the IRA but Narrow Water isn't one of them

[Chief]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

Can't speak for the other poster but I'm not, nor ever have been, a SF member (or any other political party). Haven't been indoctrinated either. Virtually non-political immediate-family background - soft nationalist/SDLP voting parents. I'm ardent Republican in my outlook. Not a pacifist. I've formed my views around first hand experience, reading, research etc.

Militarily, Narrow Water was a resounding success. "Magnificent" may not be the term I would use but it was an excellent operation by the PIRA fighting a guerrilla campaign against the British. I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.

On the flip side of things I am more than willing to acknowledge the war crimes carried out under the banner of Republicanism. There may still be men alive that should be rotting inside a jail cell for actions carried under the guise of the IRA but Narrow Water isn't one of them

This is the issue when political legitimacy is drawn from political violence. The justification for violence perpetuates itself because the perpetrators of the previous violence must show a degree of hypocrisy in condemning any current incarnation.

This is the same reason why SF haven't a moral leg to stand on when criticising dissident violence.

It's also why posters on here from the 26 counties struggle, in operational terms, to meaningfully distinguish Kilmichael from Narrow Water.

This is why the new approach to Irish Unity must be one which is peaceful and claims victory and legitimacy from the ballot box - otherwise British/Loyalist separatist violence will be hard to morally distinguish from previous Irish/Republican efforts.

[Angelo]

The driver of one of the army lorries was a 19 year old kid. The only thing left of him after the first bomb was his pelvis welded to the seat by heat of the bomb. The 2nd bomb killed a British colonel. No body parts of his could be identified, the only markers that he was dead where the bits of his colonels uniform found in the debris.

Nothing about narrow water was magnificent.

It was war though.

Nationalists in the O6 didn't just wake up and decide to start blowing Brits up one morning. There were many reasons behind that. The Free State establishment who engage in the most vitriolic anti-nationalist propaganda seem to have amnesia about the legacy of the history they celebrate, the revered men they regard as statesmen and the acts they committed.



Kilmichael and Warrenpoint were eerily similar. Both mass atrocities committed against British military due to the foreign occupation and societal oppression that nationalists found themselves living in.

But the FS establishment continue to try and airbrush Irish history. Murder pre 1923 - good, murder post 1923 - very bad.

We're not arguing about whether it was a war or not. We're arguing about whether the narrow water bombing was magnificent as Stanley seems to think.

Whether it was magnificent or not isn't really the point. The same people who are outraged by it have no problems commemorating and celebrating violent republican ambushes that led to the creation of the free state. So either violence is right or wrong. The Free State establishment want to tell northern nationalists they are animals for defending themselves against a violent pogrom on one hand while euologising gunmen and killers for liberating them on the other.

The GAA celebrates killers. There are clubs all around the island named after gunmen so where do we draw the line?

We draw the line at wanton violence. If you can find excuses for IRA atrocities why can't you do the same for British Army atrocities or UDA atrocities? Where's the difference? Plenty of British and unionist civilians died during the troubles. Sure can't they simply argue their paramilitaries were defending themselves against Republican aggression?

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

If you're consistent then you're consistent.

But violent atrocities were committed by the old IRA and republicans, by Free Staters and anti-treaty forces. The history of this island is riddled with murder and innocent people have lost their lives through. You can criticise the Provos but if you criticise then while defending the actions of Republicans in the War of Independence then you're a hypocrite. It really is that black and white.

Either killings of civilians is wrong or its not, you cannot pick and choose.
Killings of occupying British forces is either wrong or its not, you cannot pick and choose.

If you have such revulsion at the Provos then what do you think of Lemass, Collins etc? Gunmen, killers.

Here's an article for you.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/old-ira-disappearances-off-the-scale-compared-with-pira-1.3602395

[Angelo]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

Can't speak for the other poster but I'm not, nor ever have been, a SF member (or any other political party). Haven't been indoctrinated either. Virtually non-political immediate-family background - soft nationalist/SDLP voting parents. I'm ardent Republican in my outlook. Not a pacifist. I've formed my views around first hand experience, reading, research etc.

Militarily, Narrow Water was a resounding success. "Magnificent" may not be the term I would use but it was an excellent operation by the PIRA fighting a guerrilla campaign against the British. I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.

On the flip side of things I am more than willing to acknowledge the war crimes carried out under the banner of Republicanism. There may still be men alive that should be rotting inside a jail cell for actions carried under the guise of the IRA but Narrow Water isn't one of them

A very good post which I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Angelo]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

35% of IRA victims were civilians.
Almost the same amount in numbers as loyalists and far in excess of the security forces. Forget about your percentages

[Angelo]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

35% of IRA victims were civilians.
Almost the same amount in numbers as loyalists and far in excess of the security forces. Forget about your percentages

Forget about percentages?

29% of PIRA killings were civilians
51% of British army killings were civilians
Over 80% of Loyalist paramilataries killings were civilians

Consversely, 59% of PIRA killings were state security forces.

I know why you want to forget about percentages because they don't suit your narrative. 161 innocent victims riddled with bullets by the British soldiers, how many convictions?

8,000 republican arrests during the troubles, how many soliders convicted of murder? How many times did the British Army open fire on loyalist communities?

It's odd how you have more focus on those killed by republicans than innocent nationalist civilians murdered by state security forces or in collusion with state security forces and military intelligence.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

35% of IRA victims were civilians.
Almost the same amount in numbers as loyalists and far in excess of the security forces. Forget about your percentages

Forget about percentages?

29% of PIRA killings were civilians
51% of British army killings were civilians
Over 80% of Loyalist paramilataries killings were civilians

Consversely, 59% of PIRA killings were state security forces.

I know why you want to forget about percentages because they don't suit your narrative. 161 innocent victims riddled with bullets by the British soldiers, how many convictions?

8,000 republican arrests during the troubles, how many soliders convicted of murder? How many times did the British Army open fire on loyalist communities?

It's odd how you have more focus on those killed by republicans than innocent nationalist civilians murdered by state security forces or in collusion with state security forces and military intelligence.

You have lost all credibility with that post, your figures are wrong. You cant peddle shite
I don't have a narrative, I am totally anti British Army, I have had family members killed or injured with British forces both in the recent conflict and 1921. The BA stats are not disputed by me. The IRA killed 1800 approx(650 civilians). , 35% of their victims.

[sid waddell]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

The truth is that your entire viewpoint on the troubles has been formed by the simple accident of birth.

Can't speak for the other poster but I'm not, nor ever have been, a SF member (or any other political party). Haven't been indoctrinated either. Virtually non-political immediate-family background - soft nationalist/SDLP voting parents. I'm ardent Republican in my outlook. Not a pacifist. I've formed my views around first hand experience, reading, research etc.

Militarily, Narrow Water was a resounding success. "Magnificent" may not be the term I would use but it was an excellent operation by the PIRA fighting a guerrilla campaign against the British. I find it almost hilarious that establishment parties celebrate the likes of Kilmichael which was every bit as ruthless, had the exact same aims against the exact same enemy, carried out by men who would likewise execute in cold blood people suspected of informing, RIC members etc but when it's done in the north 60 years later it's "wanton" violence.

On the flip side of things I am more than willing to acknowledge the war crimes carried out under the banner of Republicanism. There may still be men alive that should be rotting inside a jail cell for actions carried under the guise of the IRA but Narrow Water isn't one of them

This is the issue when political legitimacy is drawn from political violence. The justification for violence perpetuates itself because the perpetrators of the previous violence must show a degree of hypocrisy in condemning any current incarnation.

This is the same reason why SF haven't a moral leg to stand on when criticising dissident violence.

It's also why posters on here from the 26 counties struggle, in operational terms, to meaningfully distinguish Kilmichael from Narrow Water.

This is why the new approach to Irish Unity must be one which is peaceful and claims victory and legitimacy from the ballot box - otherwise British/Loyalist separatist violence will be hard to morally distinguish from previous Irish/Republican efforts.

It could be claimed that the 1919-1921 War of Independence had democratic legitimacy given the 1918 election results

But that's debatable

1916 certainly had no democratic legitimacy

Yet in the popular imagination it is seen as "heroic"

Neither did the IRA/PIRA's war from 1969 to 1997 have democratic legitimacy, well, no real democratic legitimacy

In operational terms there was certainly no difference between Kilmichael and Warrenpoint - Irish nationalists went out to kill Crown forces, and they killed them

Perhaps the most pertinent point is that at the time of Kilmichael, war had a realistic chance of victory

By the time of Warrenpoint, did the PIRA's war have a realistic chance of victory? You'd have to say no

Did it ever a realistic chance of victory? Probably not, almost certainly not

Yet it continued until 1997

But was the PIRA's war an inevitable reaction to oppression? Nothing is inevitable, but it was as close to inevitable as is possible

[Angelo]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

35% of IRA victims were civilians.
Almost the same amount in numbers as loyalists and far in excess of the security forces. Forget about your percentages

Forget about percentages?

29% of PIRA killings were civilians
51% of British army killings were civilians
Over 80% of Loyalist paramilataries killings were civilians

Consversely, 59% of PIRA killings were state security forces.

I know why you want to forget about percentages because they don't suit your narrative. 161 innocent victims riddled with bullets by the British soldiers, how many convictions?

8,000 republican arrests during the troubles, how many soliders convicted of murder? How many times did the British Army open fire on loyalist communities?

It's odd how you have more focus on those killed by republicans than innocent nationalist civilians murdered by state security forces or in collusion with state security forces and military intelligence.

You have lost all credibility with that post, your figures are wrong. You cant peddle shite
I don't have a narrative, I am totally anti British Army, I have had family members killed or injured with British forces both in the recent conflict and 1921. The BA stats are not disputed by me. The IRA killed 1800 approx(650 civilians). , 35% of their victims.

29%.

And percentages do matter.

There was a war, bad things happen in war.

But why was there a war? People from nationalist enclaves didn't just wake up one morning and decide to start planting bombs.

So let's put the double standards to one side.

And why did these murders not bother you when you were voting SF back in the day?

[Rossfan]

Looks like McDonald and Ó Broin are trying to veer SF away from 1971-98 and all that as they chase votes in the 26.
They believe/know that the Angelos of the World will still vote for them anyway.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

You've been indoctrinated from a young age to think we're the good guys and the Brits are the baddies. Had you been born 1/2 a mile up the road in a Protestant household you'd think the exact opposite.

This is the old "one side is as bad as the other" fallacy.

In terms of the troubles.

29% of the PIRA victims were civilians
51% of British Army victims were civilians
80+% of Loyalist paramilitary victimes were civilians (mainy aided and abetted by security forces)

It's never been a case of one side as bad as the other and anyone who tries to pedal that agenda has a clear agenda at play. One side was fighting for liberation of its people, the other was fighting for a protestant ascendancy.

35% of IRA victims were civilians.
Almost the same amount in numbers as loyalists and far in excess of the security forces. Forget about your percentages

Forget about percentages?

29% of PIRA killings were civilians
51% of British army killings were civilians
Over 80% of Loyalist paramilataries killings were civilians

Consversely, 59% of PIRA killings were state security forces.

I know why you want to forget about percentages because they don't suit your narrative. 161 innocent victims riddled with bullets by the British soldiers, how many convictions?

8,000 republican arrests during the troubles, how many soliders convicted of murder? How many times did the British Army open fire on loyalist communities?

It's odd how you have more focus on those killed by republicans than innocent nationalist civilians murdered by state security forces or in collusion with state security forces and military intelligence.

You have lost all credibility with that post, your figures are wrong. You cant peddle shite
I don't have a narrative, I am totally anti British Army, I have had family members killed or injured with British forces both in the recent conflict and 1921. The BA stats are not disputed by me. The IRA killed 1800 approx(650 civilians). , 35% of their victims.

29%.

And percentages do matter.

There was a war, bad things happen in war.

But why was there a war? People from nationalist enclaves didn't just wake up one morning and decide to start planting bombs.

So let's put the double standards to one side.

And why did these murders not bother you when you were voting SF back in the day?

They did.