IRA Blamed for Sectarian Slaughter at Kingsmill

[Rav67]

That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

[Evil Genius]

Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

Well, yes. It only makes sense in the context of someone disputing that the Provos carried out the massacre

EG likes to let off steam now and again...it saves him strangling kittens.

"Strangling"? 

Perish the thought! 

[Rossfan]

At the risk of being accused of whataboutery : -


UVF pub shooting report to be published Friday
Monday, June 20, 2011 - 03:51 PM


A report on the police investigation into an Ulster Volunteer Force pub shooting which killed six men will be published on Friday.

The massacre at the Heights Bar, Loughinisland, Co Down, happened as drinkers watched the Republic of Ireland play Italy during the 1994 World Cup.

The North's police ombudsman Al Hutchinson is probing the police inquiry after families of the dead men criticised the original investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 2006.

They were prompted by claims linking at least one alleged security force agent to the gang which murdered their loved ones.

Relatives said they were particularly concerned over how the investigation was conducted.

An ombudsman spokesman confirmed: "The report will be published on Friday."

It was expected to have been been released in March.

Barney Green, 87, one of the victims, was one of the oldest people to be murdered during the Troubles.

The others who died were Adrian Rogan, 34, Daniel McCreanor, 59, Eamon Byrne, 39, his brother-in-law Patrick O'Hare, 35, and 53-year-old Malcolm Jenkinson.

Read more: http://irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/uvf-pub-shooting-report-to-be-published-friday-509700.html#ixzz1PpZsFV3W

[Minder]

I wondered how long it would be.

[Evil Genius]

That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

In principle, perhaps, but in practice there is no valid comparison (imo).

For one thing, the Americans never denied their willingness to use such weapons, whereas the Provos denied then (and still  deny) using naked sectarian slaughter as one of their tactics - hence the "Republican Action Force" fiction.

Nor did the Japanese have their own Atomic Weapons with which to bomb American cities, whereas Loyalist [sic] terrorists were quite capable of retaliating in kind for Kingsmills etc.

Moreover, Hiroshima and Nagasaki both "worked", in that they produced an immediate and unconditional surrender by the Japanese. Whereas Loyalist [sic] terrorists went on murdering Catholics for years after Kingsmills.

[Evil Genius]

Meanwhile, Dominic Bradley has an interesting comment on the matter (imo):

http://www.sdlp.ie/index.php/newsroom_media/newsarticle/bradley_kingsmills_is_sinn_feins_truth_test/
Kingsmills is Sinn Fein's truth test

SDLP Newry and Armagh MLA Dominic Bradley said the Historical Equiries Team's report into the Kingsmills massacre puts an end to a 35-year-old lie which few ever believed.

Mon 20th June

He said: "This was our darkest hour in South Armagh. In a sense there is nothing new in the details of the report which have appeared in the media. There has never been any serious doubt that the Provisional IRA was responsible. Few Provisional supporters ever seriously tried to deny it, and at the time some were openly proud of their work.

"This sordid record provides an opportunity to move forward in dealing with the past. The onus is now on Sinn Fein to live up to their own plans for a truth and reconciliation mechanism, by publicly accepting that the HET's forensic evidence on the firearms used puts Provisional responsibility beyond question.  Generalised expressions of indirect regret are not sufficient. They must also face up to the conclusion that this sectarian massacre had been planned for some time.  They can no longer deny that the  Provisional IRA was in the business of organising sectarian killings on a large scale.

"We are not dealing well with the past, we are not dealing properly with victims and survivors, because the dead hand of the Office of First and Deputy First Ministers controls the process. Sinn Fein could break the logjam by simple, honest acceptance of the truth that everyone knows about the sectarian massacre at Kingsmills."

[HiMucker]

I hate to be comparing whats worse in instances like these, as both the Kingsmill, and Japan bombings are terrible and horiffic crimes against civilians and all connected to them.  They are both IMO war crimes.   But EG it seems like you are saying that the Kingsmill is worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings which killed hundreds of thousands of people and effected millions more!

[Evil Genius]

I hate to be comparing whats worse in instances like these, as both the Kingsmill, and Japan bombings are terrible and horiffic crimes against civilians and all connected to them.  They are both IMO war crimes.   But EG it seems like you are saying that the Kingsmill is worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings which killed hundreds of thousands of people and effected millions more!

Not really my intention (bold).

If (huge "if") you believe that the Ends Justify the Means, then you still have a responsibility to ensure that your Means will be effective. The Americans had sound grounds for believing that the Atomic bomb would work (and it did), whereas any rational observer could see that massacres like Kingsmills only feed "Tit-For-Tat", rather than ending it.

As for the Principle involved, I have a clear problem with the American use of the Bomb (what reasonable person could not?), but I am still a little reluctant to criticise them completely, as follows.

If you read any account of the war in the Pacific, it was clear to all by 1944 that the Japanese could never hope to win (their intended "Knock-Out Blow" at Pearl Harbour in 1941 had failed). Yet their (Military-dominated) Government simply would not surrender.

Worse still, such was the Japanese people's devotion to their Emperor, whom many believed to be Divine, that unless he gave the order, they were quite prepared, men, women and children. to choose death before capitulation.

As a consequence, the casualties incurred by the Allies in fighting their way through the Japanese- occupied Pacific (Saipan, Phillipines etc) were horrific enough. But by the time they got to the southern part of the Japanese archipelago itself (google Iwo Jimo and Okinawa), the casualty levels on both sides, as the Japanese fought to defend their homeland, were unimaginable. (For example, at Iwo Jimo, only 217 Japanese soldiers survived, out of a total of over 20,000  )

And it was not only their own, or even their enemy, soldiers the Japanese Military Government was prepared to sacrifice. It is estimated, for instance, that as many as 100,000 civilians died in a conventional air-raid on Tokyo in one night alone (9/10 March, 1945) - and still they wouldn't surrender.

I can't quickly find a more authoritative source, but even if greatly exagerrated, this American estimate of the casualties which would be incurred in defeating Japan by conventional means makes a powerful, if hardly compelling, case for justifying the use of the Bomb:

"The Japan Campaign was intended to provide staging areas and preparation for a possible Allied invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) and to support Allied air and naval campaigns against the Japanese mainland. Japan still had a homeland army of about two million soldiers and sufficient resources to cripple an Allied invasion. Consequently, had that invasion been necessary, it most likely would have resulted in a much higher death toll for both sides.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved many lives on both sides by causing the surrender of Japan before an invasion of the Japanese mainland was carried out. Estimates made at the time ran as high as 7,000,000 Japanese civilian and military casualties and as many as 500,000 American military casualties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_campaign

P.S. There is one other distinction I would make between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975. That is, the former was a democratically-elected Government which was fighting a war which had been forced upon it by its enemy's entirely unprovoked attack etc.
Whereas the latter were an unelected and self-selected bunch of criminals, fanatics and psychopaths etc, who were fighting a shabby little insurgency, entirely contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people (including even on their own  side) and completely regardless of any of the internationally-recognised Rules of War, such as the Geneva Convention etc.

[Nally Stand]

EG, Kingsmill was a disgusting attack in every way. You typically show yourself up though by talking bout it in the same context of, and making comparisons with, the people who did this:



And you probably expect your posts to be taken seriously. 

[Denn Forever]

[quote author=Rav67 link=topic=19559.msg976228#msg976228 date=1308583527]
That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.
[/quote]

EG didn't bring up Hiroshima/Nagasaki first.

[Evil Genius]

EG, Kingsmill was a disgusting attack in every way. You typically show yourself up though by talking bout it in the same context of, and making comparisons with, the people who did this:



And you probably expect your posts to be taken seriously. 

As Denn Forever points out, it was another poster (Rav 67) who, by implication, invited me to compare Kingsmills with Hiroshima.

I have made my position clear, namely that Kingsmill was entirely impossible to justify, either from pure Principle, or by Pragmatism (Ends justifying Means etc).

Whereas with Hiroshima/Nagasaki, I would be happy to condemn them unequivocally in Principle. were it not for the fact that the US use of the Bomb almost certainly saved more lives, Japanese and American, military and civilian, than it cost.

Or do you think burning to death in Tokyo preferable to being vaporised in Hiroshima?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm

And yes, I do hope my posts are taken seriously - at least by people whose own views are themselves worthy of serious consideration... 

[deiseach]

The terrorist is the one with the small bomb - Brendan Behan

[Nally Stand]

[quote author=Rav67 link=topic=19559.msg976228#msg976228 date=1308583527]
That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

EG didn't bring up Hiroshima/Nagasaki first.
[/quote]

Did I say he did? Another poster refered to a type of justification argument, which he termed the "Hiroshima/Nagasaki Defence".  EG however was the person who actually discussed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in relation to Kingsmill. We all know Kingsmill was an outrage, but lengthy posts like EGs, where he attempts to discuss it in the context of the killing of approximately 200,000 people in a double atomic bomb attack as in his last few posts, just reeks of the most absurd and ridiculous attempt at sensationalism.

[Oraisteach]

I am loath to leap into this discussion, especially since I regard Kingsmills, Glenanne, Le Mon, Darkley, Loughinisland, etc. as abominations, the darkest moments in a black night, but I wince when I read EG's P.S. to his post about the ends justifying the means, especially when he draws a distinction between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975.

He writes, "There is one other distinction I would make between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975. That is, the former was a democratically-elected Government which was fighting a war which had been forced upon it by its enemy's entirely unprovoked attack etc."

I am one of those on their "own" side who did not support the IRA and its methods, but at that time, 1975, many Nationalists felt torn, experienced a sort of wrenching ambivalence towards the IRA. 

First, EG trumpets that the American WWII action was at the behest of a democratically- elected government and by implication the IRA activity was not.  True, and I for one would not have voted for the Provos if they had contested elections.  But EG overlooks, once more, the fact that the will of a substantial majority of the people of Ireland was ignored by the British government after 1918 and an undemocratic statelet, both in origin and conduct, was forced upon it.  Some people would argue then that though the IRA was not elected, it was the armed offspring of the will of what should have been the post-1918 all-Irish government, and therefore had moral if not elected authority.  Its actions, the Abercorn etc., annulled that authority.

And second, use of the expression "the ends justifies the means" is especially apropos when discussing N.I. since, we all know, the state perpetuated itself by whatever Machiavellian means it could, leaving subjugated and victimized Nationalists nowhere to turn for protection except, of course, the IRA, and certainly not the RUC.  It certainly was very effective, to refer to EG's stated standard.

And what irks me further is EG's propensity for appropriating Paisley's habit of referring to "Sinn Fein-IRA" in his Donagh-Ulick references or in conveying his disdain for Sinn Fein over all. Undoubtedly Sinn Fein was at one time closely connected to the Provos, but look at the percentage of Nationalist votes it commands now.  It has renounced armed struggle and though not necessarily a a party to which I would be drawn, it is, to all intents and purposes, the voice of NI's sizeable minority and as such is deserving of more respect.  And no doubt a majority of its current support would not condone violence.

No, Kingmills was a horror, but with any luck those days are past, and voting has supplanted violence.

[Myles Na G.]

I am loath to leap into this discussion, especially since I regard Kingsmills, Glenanne, Le Mon, Darkley, Loughinisland, etc. as abominations, the darkest moments in a black night, but I wince when I read EG's P.S. to his post about the ends justifying the means, especially when he draws a distinction between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975.

He writes, "There is one other distinction I would make between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975. That is, the former was a democratically-elected Government which was fighting a war which had been forced upon it by its enemy's entirely unprovoked attack etc."

I am one of those on their "own" side who did not support the IRA and its methods, but at that time, 1975, many Nationalists felt torn, experienced a sort of wrenching ambivalence towards the IRA. 

First, EG trumpets that the American WWII action was at the behest of a democratically- elected government and by implication the IRA activity was not.  True, and I for one would not have voted for the Provos if they had contested elections.  But EG overlooks, once more, the fact that the will of a substantial majority of the people of Ireland was ignored by the British government after 1918 and an undemocratic statelet, both in origin and conduct, was forced upon it.  Some people would argue then that though the IRA was not elected, it was the armed offspring of the will of what should have been the post-1918 all-Irish government, and therefore had moral if not elected authority.  Its actions, the Abercorn etc., annulled that authority.

And second, use of the expression "the ends justifies the means" is especially apropos when discussing N.I. since, we all know, the state perpetuated itself by whatever Machiavellian means it could, leaving subjugated and victimized Nationalists nowhere to turn for protection except, of course, the IRA, and certainly not the RUC.  It certainly was very effective, to refer to EG's stated standard.

And what irks me further is EG's propensity for appropriating Paisley's habit of referring to "Sinn Fein-IRA" in his Donagh-Ulick references or in conveying his disdain for Sinn Fein over all. Undoubtedly Sinn Fein was at one time closely connected to the Provos, but look at the percentage of Nationalist votes it commands now.  It has renounced armed struggle and though not necessarily a a party to which I would be drawn, it is, to all intents and purposes, the voice of NI's sizeable minority and as such is deserving of more respect.  And no doubt a majority of its current support would not condone violence.

No, Kingmills was a horror, but with any luck those days are past, and voting has supplanted violence.

Some people would be wrong, in that case. The elected government of the Irish Free State was the only body with both moral and elected authority after the signing of the treaty. It was the only body, therefore, which had the right to declare and wage war on behalf of the Irish people. The IRA had no more right, in any decade, to take upon itself the authority to kill people in the name of the Irish people and in the cause of Irish reunification, than do republican dissidents today.