http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11641365
Read his book earlier this year, a book which resulted in him being ostracised from the republican 'family' of which he had been an active member for so long. His offence was to paint a picture of IRA life warts and all and to question what the struggle had actually achieved. Liam Clarke did a good piece on him last year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6860162.ece
No doubt Gerry Adams will be all praise and be at the funeral with his shoulder to the coffin for the photo Op like he did with Brendan Hughes and others.
Another sad addition to the never ending list of victims of the troubles. Hopefully he finds some peace now.
Only certain people like Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison are allowed to write books about the "struggle".
Why do you choose to believe one IRA man over another? Surely Adams and Morrison have as much credibilty as Bradley? Maybe none of them are credible.
At the risk of being accused of whataboutery, casting apostates out is standard practice in NI. How many prominent Unionist politicians gave Gordon Wilson a wide berth because he dared to talk to the Provos? You had to admire the way Joel Patton took exception to being expected by Eoghan Harris to share a stage with Sean O'Callaghan
Quote from: Zapatista on October 29, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
Why do you choose to believe one IRA man over another? Surely Adams and Morrison have as much credibilty as Bradley? Maybe none of them are credible.
I didn't say I choose to believe one IRA man over the other. I didn't know Adams was in the IRA. I haven't read Bradleys book. The point I am making is if you are "off message" or question the legitimacy of the armed struggle in any way you are on your own.
Most papers chose to omit the fact that this man has been suffering with depression for many years now, well before his book was published. Another sad victim of suicide, RIP.
Quote from: Kerry Mike on October 28, 2010, 10:42:29 PM
No doubt Gerry Adams will be all praise and be at the funeral with his shoulder to the coffin for the photo Op like he did with Brendan Hughes and others.
Another sad addition to the never ending list of victims of the troubles. Hopefully he finds some peace now.
Yes may he rest in peace,but what has it got to do with Gerry Adams who will not be at the funeral as it is a private cremation.You are like a lot of clowns on this forum who think they all know what Adams is thinking and what he will do in certain situations and to be honest you know sweet FA.RIP Whitey
was reading the opening post when I saw that the article was written by liam clarke.
straight inthe bin as this guy knows feck all and even then cant tell the truth or would even know the truth if it was tatooed on the inside of his eyelids!
Quote from: Trout on October 29, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 29, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
Why do you choose to believe one IRA man over another? Surely Adams and Morrison have as much credibilty as Bradley? Maybe none of them are credible.
I didn't say I choose to believe one IRA man over the other. I didn't know Adams was in the IRA. I haven't read Bradleys book. The point I am making is if you are "off message" or question the legitimacy of the armed struggle in any way you are on your own.
Sorry I was more commenting on the general opinion as I see it. It's perfectly logical that you are on your own if you are on your own. This is far from unique to the war. If I disagree with the majority then the automatically disagree with me. I am putting myself outside the fold every bit as much as I'm being put outside it.
The discription given is that he has been
ostracised from the republican 'family' but I think it's fair to say that he is as responsible for that as anyone else.
Quote from: glens abu on October 29, 2010, 09:16:32 AM
Quote from: Kerry Mike on October 28, 2010, 10:42:29 PM
No doubt Gerry Adams will be all praise and be at the funeral with his shoulder to the coffin for the photo Op like he did with Brendan Hughes and others.
Another sad addition to the never ending list of victims of the troubles. Hopefully he finds some peace now.
Yes may he rest in peace,but what has it got to do with Gerry Adams who will not be at the funeral as it is a private cremation.You are like a lot of clowns on this forum who think they all know what Adams
is thinking and what he will do in certain situations and to be honest you know sweet FA.RIP Whitey
Is he not getting all the trappings? Beret, tricolour and gloves on the coffin, the great and the good at his funeral?
Quote from: Trout on October 29, 2010, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: glens abu on October 29, 2010, 09:16:32 AM
Quote from: Kerry Mike on October 28, 2010, 10:42:29 PM
No doubt Gerry Adams will be all praise and be at the funeral with his shoulder to the coffin for the photo Op like he did with Brendan Hughes and others.
Another sad addition to the never ending list of victims of the troubles. Hopefully he finds some peace now.
Yes may he rest in peace,but what has it got to do with Gerry Adams who will not be at the funeral as it is a private cremation.You are like a lot of clowns on this forum who think they all know what Adams
is thinking and what he will do in certain situations and to be honest you know sweet FA.RIP Whitey
Is he not getting all the trappings? Beret, tricolour and gloves on the coffin, the great and the good at his funeral?
No his family want it private,which is their right dont you think?
Like the Dark this was a man betrayed by the organisation he had devoted his life to.
They will always be remembered as steadfast republicans betrayed by leaders who, in seeking to prosper in terms of their political careers, were prepared to jettison as a political entity the republicanism which they had utilised as leverage.
RIP
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 12:15:03 PM
Like the Dark this was a man betrayed by the organisation he had devoted his life to.
They will always be remembered as steadfast republicans betrayed by leaders who, in seeking to prosper in terms of their political careers, were prepared to jettison as a political entity the republicanism which they had utilised as leverage.
RIP
Do you think that the IRA should not have got involved in the peace process as Bradley and Hughes ended up disagreeing with it?
On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace. However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 01:01:31 PM
On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace. However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.
Getting a raw deal in negotiations is is a matter of opinion. Expecting a United Ireland in return for an end to the armed struggle is crazy.
So they are angry at Adams as Ireland is still divided? I think that's a little unreasonable.
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 01:01:31 PM
On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace. However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.
no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.
The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.
Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 29, 2010, 01:47:42 PM
Getting a raw deal in negotiations is is a matter of opinion. Expecting a United Ireland in return for an end to the armed struggle is crazy.
So they are angry at Adams as Ireland is still divided? I think that's a little unreasonable.
As far back as 1986 the British state was made aware of the likely direction in which Adams wished to steer the republican project. What concerned Hughes, Bradley and many others is the fact that SF entered into 'negotiations' full in the knowledge that strategic theatre was already set.
SF were to be encouraged into constitutional politics while facing no limits on their political growth in the North, so long as every concession ceded by the British was ring fenced in by the consent principle, long described by SF as the 'unionist veto '.
Anger is not an emotion which filters through in writings, instead one gets a feeling of the desolation they felt because, if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.
The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.
Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.
Yes in 1641,1798,1916,1956 or does the history of our country and it's illegal occupation by Britain begin in 1969.
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 02:43:03 PM
As far back as 1986 the British state was made aware of the likely direction in which Adams wished to steer the republican project. What concerned Hughes, Bradley and many others is the fact that SF entered into 'negotiations' full in the knowledge that strategic theatre was already set.
SF were to be encouraged into constitutional politics while facing no limits on their political growth in the North, so long as every concession ceded by the British was ring fenced in by the consent principle, long described by SF as the 'unionist veto '.
Anger is not an emotion which filters through in writings, instead one gets a feeling of the desolation they felt because, if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?
Adams wasn't alone is wishing to see the end of the armed conflict. You are conveniently separating SF and the IRA in 1986. There was no separation. SF was controlled by the IRA in 1986 and Hughes and Bradley were both members who give their support to the IRA with the Amalite and SF with the ballot box. Of course the Brits were made aware of the IRA's strategy as it involved their input. If they didn't know Adams and others were looking to steer towards politics away from the war there would have been no point to the strategy. If the IRA thought that the Brits the Brits weren't interested in steering themselves away from war it never would have ended either.
SF walked into politics with open eyes. Electoral success is a means to an end not an end in itself. With the absence of war (which we both accept was part of the intended direction) it leaves only politics. it's not possible to ignore the issue of consent when you are in politics. If you ignore the consent of the people then you are not involved in politics and therefore either dissapear or return to war. As ending the war was an objective there is no reason to return, it has been 'ring fenced'.
For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 29, 2010, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 02:43:03 PM
if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?
Adams wasn't alone is wishing to see the end of the armed conflict. You are conveniently separating SF and the IRA in 1986. There was no separation. SF was controlled by the IRA in 1986 and Hughes and Bradley were both members who give their support to the IRA with the Amalite and SF with the ballot box. Of course the Brits were made aware of the IRA's strategy as it involved their input. If they didn't know Adams and others were looking to steer towards politics away from the war there would have been no point to the strategy. If the IRA thought that the Brits the Brits weren't interested in steering themselves away from war it never would have ended either.
SF walked into politics with open eyes. Electoral success is a means to an end not an end in itself. With the absence of war (which we both accept was part of the intended direction) it leaves only politics. it's not possible to ignore the issue of consent when you are in politics. If you ignore the consent of the people then you are not involved in politics and therefore either dissapear or return to war. As ending the war was an objective there is no reason to return, it has been 'ring fenced'.
For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.
The intervening years I am referring to are 1986 - 1994. Your assertion that the IRA controlled SF in 1986 is untrue.
Brendan Hughes was released from jail 1986. He returned to a key role within the republican movement. By then Adams had risen to yet another prominent position within Sinn Fein. Hughes set about reinvigorating a weakened and highly compromised IRA structure, only to find that it had been intentionally run down.
How can you give your support to a policy of Armalite and Ballot Box when there is (soon to be) no Armalite? Don't swallow the party line listen to the man's own words.
Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering for in the intervening years (1994)?
From watching the programme the other night, the Dark clearly said that his problem with Adams et al was that they had abandoned the working class in their pursuit of political power. He didn't see any need for any war and wasn't calling for a return to war. When he was interviewed he was more concerned with going out to work
I met Hughes before, a long time ago now, he was working on a site I was doing a bit of labouring on. The craic was good, as you would imagine he had lots of stories to tell. In my view anyone who says he couldn't live with peace didn't know him. His war was to improve conditions for ordinary folk, sadly, he failed in that respect because the movement went in a middle-class direction
I hope Adams doesn't appear at Bradley's funeral the way he did with Hughes. It was wrong of him to go to Hughes's funeral as he knew the Dark didn't want him there.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 01:01:31 PM
On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace. However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.
no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.
The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.
Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.
So explain the IRA campaigns which took place in the decades before 1969. The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
Correct
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
Quote from: Trout on October 29, 2010, 08:16:06 AM
Only certain people like Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison are allowed to write books about the "struggle".
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/10/29/you-have-to-ask-yourself-are-they-the-leadership-the-only-ones-allowed-to-write-books/
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 29, 2010, 05:54:16 PM
His war was to improve conditions for ordinary folk, sadly, he failed in that respect because the movement went in a middle-class direction
Hughes never waivered in that respect,so in actual fact the movement(SF) failed him.Much in the same way as it has failed Gerry McGeough,Colin Duffy and others.
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 04:22:45 PM
The intervening years I am referring to are 1986 - 1994. Your assertion that the IRA controlled SF in 1986 is untrue.
Brendan Hughes was released from jail 1986. He returned to a key role within the republican movement. By then Adams had risen to yet another prominent position within Sinn Fein. Hughes set about reinvigorating a weakened and highly compromised IRA structure, only to find that it had been intentionally run down.
How can you give your support to a policy of Armalite and Ballot Box when there is (soon to be) no Armalite? Don't swallow the party line listen to the man's own words.
Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering for in the intervening years (1994)?
My assertion that SF and the IRA were one and the same is true. If not why would O'Brady have walked out when Adams became president of SF? Why would O'Brady have cared if the the IRA and SF were different? Why would Hughes have cared about Adams leadership of SF if the IRA were acting independent of SF?
I disagree that the structure of the IRA had been run down. Many of the Republicans who left prison couldn't go back to within the IRA structures as it would have endangered other volunteers. Many thought the best place for them was within SF. This weakened the structures of the IRA and made SF stronger. The long and hard protests in the H-Blocks and Armagh weakened the IRA structures too. The IRA fought a very long and hard battle in the prisons which strenghtened SF nationally and internationally it was very hard on the army. Even though the war continued SF's role was becoming more and more important.
Of course you can support the armalite and the ballot box. You are assuming the leadership and the volunteers wanted the armed struggle to continue forever? The protests and the Hungerstrikes would have been extremely difficult to recover from. Watching 10 comrades die after the years on protest had a lasting effect on every volunteer. It insppired a nation but it was a very high price to pay.
Eventually a decision was made that the IRA had achieved all it could with the armed struggle. It would have been stupid to continue the armed struggle if you thought it couldn't bring you any further. How do you not see this?
If Hughes was fighting a class struggle then there were ways of doing it outside SF. If you think that an active IRA today would further the cause of the worker then we are never going to agree.
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
I would strongly suspect that the British security forces, directly or indirectly, hold that little record. Unfortunately I doubt if they will own up to involvement in too many of them.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 11:14:56 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
I would strongly suspect that the British security forces, directly or indirectly, hold that little record. Unfortunately I doubt if they will own up to involvement in too many of them.
More republican mythology.
Zap you are forgetting the biggest thing that came into play and why the IRA were run down deliberately.
Touts.
So called military operations were sabotaged/exposed, key operators were taken out, both figuratively and literally. Hughes mentioned the murder of Joe Fenton, it was important because it indicated that there were higher placed informants. I wonder who gave the order to kill him and why they gave it before Hughes got to interrogate him. I also wonder if Donaldson or the driver were the informants or if there were others higher up
Everything was done to ensure that SF would become dominant over the IRA. I remember speaking to a shinner way back about the idea of a ceasefire, I was a very naive 20 year old who believed in the struggle for peace. This shinner laughed in my face at the idea of it. This was at a time, looking back, when there were very definite moves for peace on behalf of the shinners. Overtures were being made from graveyards and columns in AP/RN etc At around the same time, many people in republican communities were of the opinion that it looked like the IRA were talking to the Brits. One of Cahill's daughters, whom I knew quite well at the time through her partner, asked him if there were talks going on. He told her that there definitely were no talks going on as he would know if there were. As it turned out, either he was lying to his daughter or he was being lied to.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad they decided to stop killing, that created the space for the loyalists to do the same and now we have an imperfect peace. The hypocrisy of it these days really galls me though.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:08:08 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 11:14:56 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
I would strongly suspect that the British security forces, directly or indirectly, hold that little record. Unfortunately I doubt if they will own up to involvement in too many of them.
More republican mythology.
No it's not, unfortunately he's probably right, collusion was rife on both sides. The Brits were in it up to their ears
Widespread collusion with loyalists by the British government/security forces is just republican mythology?? As I've said before, who are you to tell almost a thousand families that they are wrong in suspecting collusion in the deaths of their loved ones?
So widespread collusion was a myth and the hunger strikers didn't inspire the people of Ireland?
How can anybody debate with this clown.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 12:18:34 PM
Widespread collusion with loyalists by the British government/security forces is just republican mythology?? As I've said before, who are you to tell almost a thousand families that they are wrong in suspecting collusion in the deaths of their loved ones?
So widespread collusion was a myth and the hunger strikers didn't inspire the people of Ireland?How can anybody debate with this clown.
Okay, I'll indulge you this once. In what way did they inspire the people of Ireland? What form did this take?
Quote from: TransitVanMan on October 29, 2010, 04:22:45 PM
Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering for in the intervening years (1994)?
....the obvious
a more equal status had been won , the systematic oppression and persecution had been mostly eradicated and there was no longer the virtually impossible to lead life for nationalists/Irish/Catholics/working class.
the attack had been staved off. I dont see where you are coming from here. obv we have different perspectives but I just cant get yours..
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
the usual bullsiht argument from you when you have nothing else to say.
even if this was true, it woul dindicate that the IRA etc were not 'sectarian' in their targetting - and they only picked military targets.
which one would you prefer !
either way your persistent moan and inaccuracy is yet again smashed !
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys.
of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 30, 2010, 12:16:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:08:08 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 11:14:56 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
I would strongly suspect that the British security forces, directly or indirectly, hold that little record. Unfortunately I doubt if they will own up to involvement in too many of them.
More republican mythology.
No it's not, unfortunately he's probably right, collusion was rife on both sides. The Brits were in it up to their ears
No, he's wrong and republicans shouldn't be allowed to put that crap across unchallenged, as it allows them to distract attention away from the central fact that the IRA killed more Catholics in the north than any other armed groups. No one is disputing that there was collusion, or that British forces were involved in some instances of clandestine murder. But to move from that position to claim that there was a widespread campaign of murder that resulted in the deaths of thousands is absolute drivel. It suits republicans to push this notion. The rest of us should condemn it for the crap that it is.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:31:49 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
the usual bullsiht argument from you when you have nothing else to say.
even if this was true, it woul dindicate that the IRA etc were not 'sectarian' in their targetting - and they only picked military targets.
which one would you prefer !
either way your persistent moan and inaccuracy is yet again smashed !
Well we know that bit isn't true.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 30, 2010, 12:14:57 PM
Zap you are forgetting the biggest thing that came into play and why the IRA were run down deliberately.
Touts.
So called military operations were sabotaged/exposed, key operators were taken out, both figuratively and literally. Hughes mentioned the murder of Joe Fenton, it was important because it indicated that there were higher placed informants. I wonder who gave the order to kill him and why they gave it before Hughes got to interrogate him. I also wonder if Donaldson or the driver were the informants or if there were others higher up
Everything was done to ensure that SF would become dominant over the IRA. I remember speaking to a shinner way back about the idea of a ceasefire, I was a very naive 20 year old who believed in the struggle for peace. This shinner laughed in my face at the idea of it. This was at a time, looking back, when there were very definite moves for peace on behalf of the shinners. Overtures were being made from graveyards and columns in AP/RN etc At around the same time, many people in republican communities were of the opinion that it looked like the IRA were talking to the Brits. One of Cahill's daughters, whom I knew quite well at the time through her partner, asked him if there were talks going on. He told her that there definitely were no talks going on as he would know if there were. As it turned out, either he was lying to his daughter or he was being lied to.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad they decided to stop killing, that created the space for the loyalists to do the same and now we have an imperfect peace. The hypocrisy of it these days really galls me though.
Yes informants played a part as they have throughout Irish history. I still think the armed struggle could have continued in spite of that had the will been there. The things I mentioned were different.
QuoteEverything was done to ensure that SF would become dominant over the IRA.
You are making this sound like a bad thing. The most of the IRA morphed into SF over the years. It was better than landing in a grave or landing the war on another generation.
THe eventual wind down of the IRA was intentional and it was for the better. That was built on good intentions regardless of who intended it. So there were shinners who thought there wouldn't be peace. So what there still are ex shinners who think like that. There are current shinners who thought like that. It's fair to say the guy you were talking to was wrong but really, so what? We have the GFA and for me that's better than having no SF and an active IRA.
I'd say Cahill new exactly what was going on and if he wasn't allowed to tell anyone then he was right not to tell his daughter. Maybe he was protecting her but just because she's Cahill's daughter doesn't mean he can tell her that the IRA are talking to the Brits nor does it mean that she can tell you. Maybe she was lying to you?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
The Brits out aspect was added later. The GFA has been accepted by most Republicans.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:44:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
The Brits out aspect was added later. The GFA has been accepted by most Republicans.
Yes, and seen as a fundamental compromise.
Myles, I never stated that the British Security were responsible for "thousands" of murders through collusion. Thypical of certain people in this board in that you feel that to back up your case you must resort to sensationalism. What I said was that that there are almost one thousand families who have reason to believe that the British State was involved in the murder of their loved ones.
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THESE FAMILIES THAT THEY ARE WRONG???
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:46:40 PM
Yes, and seen as a fundamental compromise.
I don't get your point? Of course it was a compromise.
Of course there could have been a solution without Brit withdrawal. If the Unionist state had have had treated both sides of the community equally there would have been no war in the first place. Happy people don't rebel.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
Fair enough. Jack Charlton and his boys did not inspire me and the Hungerstrike did not inspire you. We don't speak for eachother but we can both make generalise the nation.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 30, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
Add Canada the US, Cuba and many more have dedicated memorials to them.
Just looking there....Iran changed the name of the street the British embassy was on from Winston Churchill to Bobby Sand's street. The Brits sealed up the entrance on to that street and made another one on to another street so they wouldn't have bobby sands street in their address ;D
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:46:40 PM
Yes, and seen as a fundamental compromise.
I don't get your point? Of course it was a compromise.
Of course there could have been a solution without Brit withdrawal. If the Unionist state had have had treated both sides of the community equally there would have been no war in the first place. Happy people don't rebel.
So if reunification isn't actually a necessity for Republicans, and the constitutional issue wasn't actually the core issue at all, does that mean that the SDLP's repeatedly-slated 'post nationalism' concept is actually perfectly acceptable to Republicans as well?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
So if reunification isn't actually a necessity for Republicans, and the constitutional issue wasn't actually the core issue at all, does that mean that the SDLP's repeatedly-slated 'post nationalism' concept is actually perfectly acceptable to Republicans as well?
As Republican creating a Republic is the core issue. As Britian isn't a Republic it makes sense to Unite Ireland and create a new Republic. For many people this is a Nationalist ideal too. I thought that was pretty clear cut?
What Constitutional issue?
As a Republican I couldn't give a bollix about nationalism either pre or post. As the SDLP aren't Republican I suppose we all thought they were just Nationalists. Now that they're post nationalist I'm not sure what they are. Unionist maybe?
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 01:12:43 PM
Myles, I never stated that the British Security were responsible for "thousands" of murders through collusion. Thypical of certain people in this board in that you feel that to back up your case you must resort to sensationalism. What I said was that that there are almost one thousand families who have reason to believe that the British State was involved in the murder of their loved ones.
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THESE FAMILIES THAT THEY ARE WRONG???
I stated that the IRA was responsible for the deaths of more Catholics in the north than any other armed group. You stated that this 'honour' belonged instead to British forces, either directly or indirectly through collusion. I'm assuming you're referring to the murders carried out by loyalist paramiltaries, who killed nearly 800 Catholics. How many of those, then, do you put down to collusion?
If I think people are wrong, I will say so. The fact that they think something doesn't make it so. Thousands believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, but they're wrong too.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 30, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
There are more instances of suicide bombing in the middle east than in any other part of the world. It is, therefore, the home of the suicide bomber. That might be an insensitive comment / observation to make, but in what way is it racist? Do tell.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 02:11:28 PM
As Republican creating a Republic is the core issue. As Britian isn't a Republic it makes sense to Unite Ireland and create a new Republic. For many people this is a Nationalist ideal too. I thought that was pretty clear cut?
What Constitutional issue?
So are you saying that if the UK's monarchy was disbanded, Irish Republicans would be satisfied to be part of the
Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Or the
Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I was of the understanding that the goal of Republicans (in Ireland) was independence (from the UK) and reunificantion.
And surely that
is the constitutional issue.
Zap, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I have too many personal anecdotes and also been told too many stories by people I trust to ever think the way you do about the shinners
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 30, 2010, 01:12:43 PM
Myles, I never stated that the British Security were responsible for "thousands" of murders through collusion. Thypical of certain people in this board in that you feel that to back up your case you must resort to sensationalism. What I said was that that there are almost one thousand families who have reason to believe that the British State was involved in the murder of their loved ones.
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THESE FAMILIES THAT THEY ARE WRONG???
I stated that the IRA was responsible for the deaths of more Catholics in the north than any other armed group. You stated that this 'honour' belonged instead to British forces, either directly or indirectly through collusion. I'm assuming you're referring to the murders carried out by loyalist paramiltaries, who killed nearly 800 Catholics. How many of those, then, do you put down to collusion?
If I think people are wrong, I will say so. The fact that they think something doesn't make it so. Thousands believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, but they're wrong too.
We agree on something then
So the Hunger Strikes didn't inspire people Myles?
Tehran
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/may2006/bobby_sands_street.jpg (http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/may2006/bobby_sands_street.jpg)
Connecticut
http://hartford.homestead.com/files/hungerstrikermemorial.jpg (http://hartford.homestead.com/files/hungerstrikermemorial.jpg)
Paris
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2007/10/04/rue_bobby_sands.jpg (http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2007/10/04/rue_bobby_sands.jpg)
- Dr. Michael Thomas of the British Medical Association's News Review, as the chairman of the Association's Ethics Committee and a serving lieutenant-colonel in the British army said Bobby Sands was "like the piper walking in front of a highland battalion, the bloke who was prepared to be shot down first." Furthermore, in reference to Basil Hume (who had called Sand's sacrafice suicide), Dr. Thomas wrote: "Is it suicide for a soldier to charge a machine-gun nest, knowing that he was almost certain to get killed? Isn't it what we describe as laying down one's life for a brother? That's what Bobby Sands was doing..."
- Many US states passed resolutions honouring the sacrafice of Bobby Sands
- The New Jersey state legislature commended his "courage & convictions"
- The President of the Italian Senate offered sympathies to the Sands family
- 5,000 protesters burned the union flag in Milan after Sands' death
- Thousands more marched in Paris behind an "IRA will conquer" banner
- Le Mans named a street after Sands
- Sands' election as an MP was also the spark that ignited the rapid electoral growth of SF across Ireland
- Britain's handling of the Hunger Strike was criticised by the Hong Kong Standard
- The Hindustan Times remarked said Thatcher's allowing a fellow MP to die of starvation was an act which never had occurred before in a "civilized country."
- Iran sent a representative to the Sands funeral
- Supporters of the Hunger Strikers threw balloons of tomato sauce at queen Elizabeth in Oslo whilst on a state visit
- Further streets are named after Bobby Sands in French towns such as Nantes, St Etienne, Le Mans, Vierzon, and Saint-Denis.
- Sand's song "Back Home in Derry" was translated into Russian by his supporters
- The International Longshoremen's Association in New York announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships after Sands' death
- Over 1,000 people gathered in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral to hear Cardinal Terence Cooke offer a Mass of reconciliation for Ireland after the death while Irish bars in the city were closed for two hours in mourning.
-In Hartford, Connecticut a memorial was dedicated to Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers in 1997, the only one of its kind in the United States in a traffic circle known as "Bobby Sands Circle."
- A monument was erected to the Hunger Strikers in Havana, Cuba in 2001
- Another monument to them stands in Waverly Cemetery, Sydney
-A full twenty five years after their deaths,
- The Indian Parliament stood for a minutes silence in memory of Sands' after his death
Yeah, Myles. You're probably right.
'Okay, I'll indulge you this once. In what way did they inspire the people of Ireland? What form did this take?'
My original question to you still stands. When you get back off your world tour you'll maybe get round to answering it.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 30, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
There are more instances of suicide bombing in the middle east than in any other part of the world. It is, therefore, the home of the suicide bomber. That might be an insensitive comment / observation to make, but in what way is it racist? Do tell.
You've been back to the board several times, but have declined the opportunity to back up your statement. I'll take that as a withdrawal.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 10:50:48 AM
'Okay, I'll indulge you this once. In what way did they inspire the people of Ireland? What form did this take?'
My original question to you still stands. When you get back off your world tour you'll maybe get round to answering it.
OK so the hunger strikers inspired people across the world, but not in the very country in which they occurred?? Gotcha.
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:55 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 10:50:48 AM
'Okay, I'll indulge you this once. In what way did they inspire the people of Ireland? What form did this take?'
My original question to you still stands. When you get back off your world tour you'll maybe get round to answering it.
OK so the hunger strikers inspired people across the world, but not in the very country in which they occurred?? Gotcha.
That would be my conclusion and yours too, apparently, since you seem incapable of answering the question.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 30, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
There are more instances of suicide bombing in the middle east than in any other part of the world. It is, therefore, the home of the suicide bomber. That might be an insensitive comment / observation to make, but in what way is it racist? Do tell.
You've been back to the board several times, but have declined the opportunity to back up your statement. I'll take that as a withdrawal.
:D I'm not withdrawing anything - your mask slipped again, so we can add racist to everything else you are.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 11:01:55 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 10:50:48 AM
'Okay, I'll indulge you this once. In what way did they inspire the people of Ireland? What form did this take?'
My original question to you still stands. When you get back off your world tour you'll maybe get round to answering it.
OK so the hunger strikers inspired people across the world, but not in the very country in which they occurred?? Gotcha.
That would be my conclusion and yours too, apparently, since you seem incapable of answering the question.
You genuinely believe that the hunger strikers inspired people across the world but not in Ireland itself?? Are you 12 or something? Or just incapable of getting your head out of your ass?
Despite the fact that:
-There are hundreds if not thousands of hunger strike memorials/monuments across Ireland,
-The electoral growth of SF towards becoming the third largest party in Ireland was sparked by the election of Bobby Sands which totally transformed Republican strategy since
-Around 20-30,000 people from all over Ireland paraded in their memory through Belfast on the 25th anniversary of their deaths
-30,493 people voted for Bobby Sands as their MP
-10,063 people voted for Kieran Doherty as their T.D.
-Songs dedicated to their memory were written by countless Irish artists including Christy Moore and The Undertones
-Numerous Irish films have been made about the Hunger Strike, such as H3 and Some Mother's Son, while alongside it's Cannes Festival Awards, Hunger swept the boards at the Irish Film & TV awards.
-Bobby Sands' Funeral was the largest in Irish living memory with over 100,000 mourners attending
-Republicans all over Ireland cite the Hunger Strikers as having been their inspiration
-25 years after the event, books such as Ten Men Dead are still among the highest selling books on the conflict in Ireland (a book which The Observer newspaper described as 'probably the best book to come out of the Irish troubles in 20 years').
...you STILL maintain that the Hunger Strikers only inspired people across the world from Iran, to Norway, to America, but didn't inspire people in Ireland?!?
hhhmmmmm
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 10:54:40 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 30, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on October 30, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
'It inspired a nation...'
Absolute bollix.
Just because the political leadership at the time didn't agree doesn't mean the country didn't. It was inspired ordinary people throughout the world.
Jack Charlton and his boys were more of an inspiration to the Irish people than the hunger strikers ever were. Sorry if that grieves you, but it's the truth.
grand. that may be true for you.
but you cant speak for everyone else.
I think you will find clubs and things named after hunger strikers and even streets in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east named after some of these guys. of course they didnt inspire people !
::)
The middle east. Home of the suicide bomber. That makes sense.
Iran and France have streets named after Bobby Sands. France have several I believe.
Nice little bit of casual racism there though Myles.
There are more instances of suicide bombing in the middle east than in any other part of the world. It is, therefore, the home of the suicide bomber. That might be an insensitive comment / observation to make, but in what way is it racist? Do tell.
You've been back to the board several times, but have declined the opportunity to back up your statement. I'll take that as a withdrawal.
:D I'm not withdrawing anything - your mask slipped again, so we can add racist to everything else you are.
How was it racist? Explain.
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
'Republicans all over Ireland cite the Hunger Strikers as having been their inspiration'
I'll allow you that one. I don't doubt that republicans were inspired by the hunger strikers, but outside that republican core it made no difference. SF's electoral fortunes changed, not because of the hunger strikers, but because the organisation moved away from violence. In that regard, John Hume was more of an inspiration than Bobby Sands. All the rest of the stuff you cite as evidence - songs and marches, - can be put down to the republican 'family' celebrating one of its own. I read 10 Men Dead too and thought it an excellent book. That's a tribute to the writer and to the fact that it's a good story, not because I found the hunger strikes inspiring. Ireland didn't change because of Bobby Sands et al. Most people in Ireland didn't want to them die and were saddened by their deaths (young men throwing their lives away, deepening the trenches of bitterness in our society, etc) but that's a far cry from being 'inspired'. Read Sands' diary if you want a good insight into the man - morbid, obsessed with long-dead figures from the pantheon of Irish republican 'heroes'. Truly depressing rather than inspiring.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Most people there have probably never heard of Bobby Sands either, but that hasn't stopped you and Nally Stand claiming that he's an inspiration there.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Most people there have probably never heard of Bobby Sands either, but that hasn't stopped you and Nally Stand claiming that he's an inspiration there.
Nallystand making generalisations that people in the Middle East are inspired by Bobby Sands doesn't make him racist.
Your generalisation makes you a racist.
Ah Jaysus lads give it up FFS...or give other your home phone numbers and spare us,
I know it worked for Muppet and Hardly a while back ;) :D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Most people there have probably never heard of Bobby Sands either, but that hasn't stopped you and Nally Stand claiming that he's an inspiration there.
Nallystand making generalisations that people in the Middle East are inspired by Bobby Sands doesn't make him racist.
Your generalisation makes you a racist.
And if I'd claimed that everyone in the middle east was a suicide bomber, you'd have a point, but since I didn't, you don't. No great surprise there then. Much like Bobby Sands being revered in the home of the suicide bomber, which is where you started and where I'll finish.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:43:07 PM
'Republicans all over Ireland cite the Hunger Strikers as having been their inspiration'
I'll allow you that one. I don't doubt that republicans were inspired by the hunger strikers, but outside that republican core it made no difference. SF's electoral fortunes changed, not because of the hunger strikers, but because the organisation moved away from violence. In that regard, John Hume was more of an inspiration than Bobby Sands. All the rest of the stuff you cite as evidence - songs and marches, - can be put down to the republican 'family' celebrating one of its own. I read 10 Men Dead too and thought it an excellent book. That's a tribute to the writer and to the fact that it's a good story, not because I found the hunger strikes inspiring. Ireland didn't change because of Bobby Sands et al. Most people in Ireland didn't want to them die and were saddened by their deaths (young men throwing their lives away, deepening the trenches of bitterness in our society, etc) but that's a far cry from being 'inspired'. Read Sands' diary if you want a good insight into the man - morbid, obsessed with long-dead figures from the pantheon of Irish republican 'heroes'. Truly depressing rather than inspiring.
Why thank you for "allowing" me that one. As for SF's political direction, in general, Political commentators would tend to agree that it was the election of Sands which fundamentally changed the direction of Irish Republicanism in terms of strategy and tactics. Try to look past your bitterness in all this. Your reference to the ten men "throwing their lives away" and referring to Bobby Sands as "morbid" or "depressing" shows that you are looking it it from a point of extreme bitterness and are simply reusing to accept that their actions were not seen as "young men throwing their lives away" to most people in Ireland, as most people can objectively understand why they took up their strike. Likewise, most Irish people I'm sure, when asked to describe Bobby Sands, would use words like "brave" and "courageous" or "inspiring" more readily that "morbid" or "depressing" to describe the man. Claiming that the Hunger Strikers did not inspire people in Ireland is truly a non starter of an argument. You may not like that they inspired so many, but they still did.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Most people there have probably never heard of Bobby Sands either, but that hasn't stopped you and Nally Stand claiming that he's an inspiration there.
Nallystand making generalisations that people in the Middle East are inspired by Bobby Sands doesn't make him racist.
Your generalisation makes you a racist.
And if I'd claimed that everyone in the middle east was a suicide bomber, you'd have a point, but since I didn't, you don't. No great surprise there then. Much like Bobby Sands being revered in the home of the suicide bomber, which is where you started and where I'll finish.
You inferred it, racist.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
You rubbished the fact that there are streets in the middle east named after the hunger strikers because they're suicide bombers.
No, I can't see the racism there.
No, I pointed out that it was hardly surprising that Sands was revered in the home of the suicide bomber. I can't see the racism there either. We're agreed on something, at least.
Oh dear, digging deeper. Most people in the Middle East wouldn't be suicide bombers you know.
Most people there have probably never heard of Bobby Sands either, but that hasn't stopped you and Nally Stand claiming that he's an inspiration there.
Nallystand making generalisations that people in the Middle East are inspired by Bobby Sands doesn't make him racist.
Your generalisation makes you a racist.
And if I'd claimed that everyone in the middle east was a suicide bomber, you'd have a point, but since I didn't, you don't. No great surprise there then. Much like Bobby Sands being revered in the home of the suicide bomber, which is where you started and where I'll finish.
You inferred it, racist.
No, you inferred it, you twit. I imply, you infer. Easy peasy, Japanesee. Oops, there I go again with the rampant racism.
But you're still a racist.
Jaysus, it's like that Fr Ted episode round here:
(http://www.noisetosignal.org/images/posts/ted/rightthere.jpeg)
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:43:07 PM
'Republicans all over Ireland cite the Hunger Strikers as having been their inspiration'
I'll allow you that one. I don't doubt that republicans were inspired by the hunger strikers, but outside that republican core it made no difference. SF's electoral fortunes changed, not because of the hunger strikers, but because the organisation moved away from violence. In that regard, John Hume was more of an inspiration than Bobby Sands. All the rest of the stuff you cite as evidence - songs and marches, - can be put down to the republican 'family' celebrating one of its own. I read 10 Men Dead too and thought it an excellent book. That's a tribute to the writer and to the fact that it's a good story, not because I found the hunger strikes inspiring. Ireland didn't change because of Bobby Sands et al. Most people in Ireland didn't want to them die and were saddened by their deaths (young men throwing their lives away, deepening the trenches of bitterness in our society, etc) but that's a far cry from being 'inspired'. Read Sands' diary if you want a good insight into the man - morbid, obsessed with long-dead figures from the pantheon of Irish republican 'heroes'. Truly depressing rather than inspiring.
Why thank you for "allowing" me that one. As for SF's political direction, in general, Political commentators would tend to agree that it was the election of Sands which fundamentally changed the direction of Irish Republicanism in terms of strategy and tactics. Try to look past your bitterness in all this. Your reference to the ten men "throwing their lives away" and referring to Bobby Sands as "morbid" or "depressing" shows that you are looking it it from a point of extreme bitterness and are simply reusing to accept that their actions were not seen as "young men throwing their lives away" to most people in Ireland, as most people can objectively understand why they took up their strike. Likewise, most Irish people I'm sure, when asked to describe Bobby Sands, would use words like "brave" and "courageous" or "inspiring" more readily that "morbid" or "depressing" to describe the man. Claiming that the Hunger Strikers did not inspire people in Ireland is truly a non starter of an argument. You may not like that they inspired so many, but they still did.
People in Ireland were so inspired by Sands that they swept SF into power. Oh no, that's not right. They were so inspired that they took up arms in their thousands...no, that's wrong too. They were so inspired that they ignored SF in the 26 counties, while only voting for them in the north once they had abandoned the violence espoused by the...er...hunger strikers. Truly inspirational.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 31, 2010, 04:33:33 PM
But you're still a racist.
Are you implying that or inferring it? :D
Neither, stating a fact.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 31, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 31, 2010, 02:43:07 PM
'Republicans all over Ireland cite the Hunger Strikers as having been their inspiration'
I'll allow you that one. I don't doubt that republicans were inspired by the hunger strikers, but outside that republican core it made no difference. SF's electoral fortunes changed, not because of the hunger strikers, but because the organisation moved away from violence. In that regard, John Hume was more of an inspiration than Bobby Sands. All the rest of the stuff you cite as evidence - songs and marches, - can be put down to the republican 'family' celebrating one of its own. I read 10 Men Dead too and thought it an excellent book. That's a tribute to the writer and to the fact that it's a good story, not because I found the hunger strikes inspiring. Ireland didn't change because of Bobby Sands et al. Most people in Ireland didn't want to them die and were saddened by their deaths (young men throwing their lives away, deepening the trenches of bitterness in our society, etc) but that's a far cry from being 'inspired'. Read Sands' diary if you want a good insight into the man - morbid, obsessed with long-dead figures from the pantheon of Irish republican 'heroes'. Truly depressing rather than inspiring.
Why thank you for "allowing" me that one. As for SF's political direction, in general, Political commentators would tend to agree that it was the election of Sands which fundamentally changed the direction of Irish Republicanism in terms of strategy and tactics. Try to look past your bitterness in all this. Your reference to the ten men "throwing their lives away" and referring to Bobby Sands as "morbid" or "depressing" shows that you are looking it it from a point of extreme bitterness and are simply reusing to accept that their actions were not seen as "young men throwing their lives away" to most people in Ireland, as most people can objectively understand why they took up their strike. Likewise, most Irish people I'm sure, when asked to describe Bobby Sands, would use words like "brave" and "courageous" or "inspiring" more readily that "morbid" or "depressing" to describe the man. Claiming that the Hunger Strikers did not inspire people in Ireland is truly a non starter of an argument. You may not like that they inspired so many, but they still did.
People in Ireland were so inspired by Sands that they swept SF into power. Oh no, that's not right. They were so inspired that they took up arms in their thousands...no, that's wrong too. They were so inspired that they ignored SF in the 26 counties, while only voting for them in the north once they had abandoned the violence espoused by the...er...hunger strikers. Truly inspirational.
And what inspired the change of tactics used by this entire political philosophy?? The election of...???
That's right, Vol. Bobby Sands MP.
As for ignoring SF in the south...SF had no TD's in the south since 1957. Since the change of tactics brought about by the Election of Bobby Sands, Sinn Féin's tactics changed which gave it a platform which allowed it not just to gain five TD's but to the point where it became the third largest political party on the island. Only for the INSPIRATIONAL election of Bobby Sands, such a shift in political direction/tactics wouldn't have happened so soon.
As I keep saying Myles, to suggest the Hunger Strikers were inspirational to people around the world but not in Ireland, as you have suggested, is laughable in the extreme.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 29, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: red hander on October 29, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
'The Provos used the sectarian strife of 1969 as a platform from which to relaunch their ancient struggle. Little to do with conditions in the north at the time.'
In the Pantheon of steaming bullshit that constitutes your laughable contributions to this board, that is up their with the worst ... congratulations
So the provos were so concerned with the plight of northern Catholics that they proceeded to kill more of them than any other armed group? That makes sense.
The bit of your quote I Italicised may have given you a clue about the bit of your quote I was specifically referring to ... a pathetic piece of revisionism typical of arch-revisiionists like yourself who would like to portray the 40 years of the Troubles as having been started for no other reason that the republican desire to kill people, conveniently ignoring the ruling British class's continuing treatment of the Irish people as third class citizens in their own country ... something that had been going on for 800 years previously ... your evasion is another typically arch-revisionist tactic
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 02:39:49 PM
So are you saying that if the UK's monarchy was disbanded, Irish Republicans would be satisfied to be part of the Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Or the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I was of the understanding that the goal of Republicans (in Ireland) was independence (from the UK) and reunificantion.
And surely that is the constitutional issue.
I'm saying what I said. Don't rewrite what I said as something different.
The goal is reunification but I think you are just being awkward here and know what I'm saying. Reunification is the best way to create a Republic. It also satisfies the Nationalism in most Republicans but for me personally as a Republican nationalism isn't a factor. I would like to see power localised and I think having power in Dublin controlling the island would be much better for Irtish people than having it run in part from London, Dublin and even Brussels.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 30, 2010, 07:54:15 PM
Zap, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I have too many personal anecdotes and also been told too many stories by people I trust to ever think the way you do about the shinners
I distrust them all equally. What I said is my own opinion based on what I've seen. I've heard many stories too but I look at the result and come to my own decision. I'm not just backing the shinners here I'm just not accepting the word of others without questioning it.
But Zap, are you equally skeptical of the points of view of the shinners?
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 03:45:55 AM
But Zap, are you equally skeptical of the points of view of the shinners?
OK, prob not equally but there is a distrust. I think the Shinners (and Adams) want a united Ireland and don't think they sold out. I think that's a fair enough point of view.
Quote from: Zapatista on October 31, 2010, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 02:39:49 PM
So are you saying that if the UK's monarchy was disbanded, Irish Republicans would be satisfied to be part of the Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Or the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
I was of the understanding that the goal of Republicans (in Ireland) was independence (from the UK) and reunificantion.
And surely that is the constitutional issue.
I'm saying what I said. Don't rewrite what I said as something different.
The goal is reunification but I think you are just being awkward here and know what I'm saying. Reunification is the best way to create a Republic. It also satisfies the Nationalism in most Republicans but for me personally as a Republican nationalism isn't a factor. I would like to see power localised and I think having power in Dublin controlling the island would be much better for Irtish people than having it run in part from London, Dublin and even Brussels.
I didn't rewrite anything, I asked a question. It looked like your goal was to create a republic, but that doesn't necessarily require reunification.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 08:23:39 AM
I didn't rewrite anything, I asked a question. It looked like your goal was to create a republic, but that doesn't necessarily require reunification.
That's
my goal. I think the best way to do that is reunification (i'm repeating myself here). Reunification is ultimately a Nationalist goal but it doesn't need to be for Nationalist purposes alone.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
of course there were other options ...the nationalist/Irish/Catholic/working classes tried to talk but were ignored, then tried via civil rights and were met with more violence - in a land that was getting increasingly violent and murderous towards the Irish/nationalist/carholic/working class
- so they ended up having people turning to violence in retaliation.
All that was required was the end to the sectarian state practices, some equality, the cessation of persecution and oppression etc.
but these were not forthcoming.
it took violence to make them sit up and take notice, while the violent retaliation saved the people from further violent treatment.
but bitter idiots like myles will try to twist the reality.
you are either taking the p**s yourself or just have no clue about what transpired up there before you moved north of the border.
Quote from: Zapatista on November 01, 2010, 08:31:17 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 08:23:39 AM
I didn't rewrite anything, I asked a question. It looked like your goal was to create a republic, but that doesn't necessarily require reunification.
That's my goal. I think the best way to do that is reunification (i'm repeating myself here). Reunification is ultimately a Nationalist goal but it doesn't need to be for Nationalist purposes alone.
I realise you're repeating yourself - I just wanted to understand where you are coming from, given that your perspective would appear to be somewhat different to the mainstream republican position.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 01, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
of course there were other options ...the nationalist/Irish/Catholic/working classes tried to talk but were ignored, then tried via civil rights and were met with more violence - in a land that was getting increasingly violent and murderous towards the Irish/nationalist/carholic/working class
- so they ended up having people turning to violence in retaliation.
All that was required was the end to the sectarian state practices, some equality, the cessation of persecution and oppression etc.
but these were not forthcoming.
it took violence to make them sit up and take notice, while the violent retaliation saved the people from further violent treatment.
but bitter idiots like myles will try to twist the reality.
you are either taking the p**s yourself or just have no clue about what transpired up there before you moved north of the border.
I'm not taking the piss at all. I thought that the only solution (for republicans) was reunification. Given then that equality has now largely been achieved and that there won't be a return to the discrimination of the past, is an option other than reunification now adequate/satisfactory for republicans? I didn't think it was.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 01, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
of course there were other options ...the nationalist/Irish/Catholic/working classes tried to talk but were ignored, then tried via civil rights and were met with more violence - in a land that was getting increasingly violent and murderous towards the Irish/nationalist/carholic/working class
- so they ended up having people turning to violence in retaliation.
All that was required was the end to the sectarian state practices, some equality, the cessation of persecution and oppression etc.
but these were not forthcoming.
it took violence to make them sit up and take notice, while the violent retaliation saved the people from further violent treatment.
but bitter idiots like myles will try to twist the reality.
you are either taking the p**s yourself or just have no clue about what transpired up there before you moved north of the border.
History didn't start in 1969. The IRA was around before partition, in the 20's, the 30's, the 40's and the 50's. Republicans used the sectarian violence of the late 60's to relaunch their stalled campaign to drive the Brits out of Ireland. Protecting Catholics my arse. When the Catholics needed protecting, the IRA weren't around. 'IRA, I Ran Away, was the slogan in Catholic districts of Belfast at the time. When the provos did finally get organised, they were more interested in stopping housewives making cups of tea for British soldiers, or in tarring and feathering wee girls who made the mistake of dating soldiers, than in 'protecting' anybody. And how do you protect people by killing them? I keep asking that question on here and noone seems able to answer it. The IRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group. How the fcuk is that protection?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 01, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
of course there were other options ...the nationalist/Irish/Catholic/working classes tried to talk but were ignored, then tried via civil rights and were met with more violence - in a land that was getting increasingly violent and murderous towards the Irish/nationalist/carholic/working class
- so they ended up having people turning to violence in retaliation.
All that was required was the end to the sectarian state practices, some equality, the cessation of persecution and oppression etc.
but these were not forthcoming.
it took violence to make them sit up and take notice, while the violent retaliation saved the people from further violent treatment.
but bitter idiots like myles will try to twist the reality.
you are either taking the p**s yourself or just have no clue about what transpired up there before you moved north of the border.
History didn't start in 1969. The IRA was around before partition, in the 20's, the 30's, the 40's and the 50's. Republicans used the sectarian violence of the late 60's to relaunch their stalled campaign to drive the Brits out of Ireland. Protecting Catholics my arse. When the Catholics needed protecting, the IRA weren't around. 'IRA, I Ran Away, was the slogan in Catholic districts of Belfast at the time. When the provos did finally get organised, they were more interested in stopping housewives making cups of tea for British soldiers, or in tarring and feathering wee girls who made the mistake of dating soldiers, than in 'protecting' anybody. And how do you protect people by killing them? I keep asking that question on here and noone seems able to answer it. The IRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group. How the fcuk is that protection?
did they? Any figures to back that up?
Quote from: armagho9 on November 01, 2010, 08:12:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 01, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 30, 2010, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 30, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2010, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 29, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.
My understanding was that it was (at least seen by Republicans as) the only solution to the problem, and therefore the requirement.
well that wasnt the case for any of the members of IRA/INLA that I knew (and its more than a few!!).
chances are that they would know more about their motivation/objective than you or I !!
So you're telling me there could have been solutions to the situation that did not involve British withdrawal... and that such solutions would have been acceptable to Republicans?
of course there were other options ...the nationalist/Irish/Catholic/working classes tried to talk but were ignored, then tried via civil rights and were met with more violence - in a land that was getting increasingly violent and murderous towards the Irish/nationalist/carholic/working class
- so they ended up having people turning to violence in retaliation.
All that was required was the end to the sectarian state practices, some equality, the cessation of persecution and oppression etc.
but these were not forthcoming.
it took violence to make them sit up and take notice, while the violent retaliation saved the people from further violent treatment.
but bitter idiots like myles will try to twist the reality.
you are either taking the p**s yourself or just have no clue about what transpired up there before you moved north of the border.
History didn't start in 1969. The IRA was around before partition, in the 20's, the 30's, the 40's and the 50's. Republicans used the sectarian violence of the late 60's to relaunch their stalled campaign to drive the Brits out of Ireland. Protecting Catholics my arse. When the Catholics needed protecting, the IRA weren't around. 'IRA, I Ran Away, was the slogan in Catholic districts of Belfast at the time. When the provos did finally get organised, they were more interested in stopping housewives making cups of tea for British soldiers, or in tarring and feathering wee girls who made the mistake of dating soldiers, than in 'protecting' anybody. And how do you protect people by killing them? I keep asking that question on here and noone seems able to answer it. The IRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group. How the fcuk is that protection?
did they? Any figures to back that up?
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
Click on cross tabulation page and then enter organisation and religion summary..
There's a table at the following link that, if accurate, would suggest that the PIRA killed more Catholics than any other group:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html
The CAIN table is interesting. It indicates that the provos war was sectarian judging by the figures
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
What is your point? Inconvenient truth? Truth hurt etc?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
But the context of this was the argument that the IRA protected the Catholic community. Someone else contested that they had killed more Catholics than anyone else. As such, its the number of Catholics they killed that was relevant.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
But the context of this was the argument that the IRA protected the Catholic community. Someone else contested that they had killed more Catholics than anyone else. As such, its the number of Catholics they killed that was relevant.
I wonder how many of these catholics were security force members, prison wardens, udr members or informers. Hardly regular members of the catholic community. Also i wonder are catholics that were supposedly killed (but have since been proven otherwise)by the ira included in that chart. McGurks bar in Belfast being one incident, im sure its hardly the only one
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
But the context of this was the argument that the IRA protected the Catholic community. Someone else contested that they had killed more Catholics than anyone else. As such, its the number of Catholics they killed that was relevant.
Maguire you're so very naive if you think that the
actual number of dead Catholics is important. Its all relative sir.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
But the context of this was the argument that the IRA protected the Catholic community. Someone else contested that they had killed more Catholics than anyone else. As such, its the number of Catholics they killed that was relevant.
Maguire you're so very naive if you think that the actual number of dead Catholics is important. Its all relative sir.
Okay, so the proportion is relevant for analysis of who they targeted. Although I don't think you can conclude that the number isn't important. It's still a lot of deaths.
Nonsense. It was just a drop in the bucket in relative terms.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 10:06:49 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 01, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
Why would we look at in terms of percentages? We were talking about numbers. Is that not just spin?
On your first point, I mean Catholic deaths. I'm sure you knew that so why bother pointing it out or is that all you have to offer on the discussion?
On your second point - no it is not spin, it is looking at the killings in terms of proportion which gives a far more accurate summary of the way in which each group targeted it's victims. I'm sorry if that doesn't skewed agendas.
The stats tell their own story.
But the context of this was the argument that the IRA protected the Catholic community. Someone else contested that they had killed more Catholics than anyone else. As such, its the number of Catholics they killed that was relevant.
Maguire you're so very naive if you think that the actual number of dead Catholics is important. Its all relative sir.
Okay, so the proportion is relevant for analysis of who they targeted. Although I don't think you can conclude that the number isn't important. It's still a lot of deaths.
Absolutely the figures are important. Hugely important, Each number is not just a number, but a human being after all. But if we are into specifics of analysis and dissection and accurate comparisons then proportional analysis is the most useful, particularly when the discussion revolves around which organisation was responsible for most sectarian killings.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Absolutely the figures are important. Hugely important, Each number is not just a number, but a human being after all. But if we are into specifics of analysis and dissection and accurate comparisons then proportional analysis is the most useful, particularly when the discussion revolves around which organisation was responsible for most sectarian killings.
Or it could be said - particularly useful when trying to take the gloss of a grotesque number of Catholics murdered by the IRA. It all depends on how it needs to be spun to suit the relative agenda. You can do anything with statistics. Sure isnt Alcohol twice as dangerous as Heroin now apparently?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Absolutely the figures are important. Hugely important, Each number is not just a number, but a human being after all. But if we are into specifics of analysis and dissection and accurate comparisons then proportional analysis is the most useful, particularly when the discussion revolves around which organisation was responsible for most sectarian killings.
Or it could be said - particularly useful when trying to take the gloss of a grotesque number of Catholics murdered by the IRA. It all depends on how it needs to be spun to suit the relative agenda. You can do anything with statistics. Sure isnt Alcohol twice as dangerous as Heroin now apparently?
You have managed to write a reply without once facing up to the crux of my point. You reckon you can make statistics show anything, but they
irrefutably show that the IRA were the least common perpetrators of Catholic killings in proportion to their campaign (which as I said before it the key method of examining the specifics for comparisons of targeting activity). Therefor, why single out the IRA in your post? Where the moral outrage at the fact that there is bare proof that
all other armed paramilitaries
and both factions of the forces of "law and order" (to whom our taxes paid salaries for) carried out more murders along sectarian lines than the IRA.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
'The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?'
November 1, 2010 ... the day irony died
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was
destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially
lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also
deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC
attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however
a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire
deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which
included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
Quote from: armagho9 on November 01, 2010, 09:51:11 PM
I wonder how many of these catholics were security force members, prison wardens, udr members or informers. Hardly regular members of the catholic community. Also i wonder are catholics that were supposedly killed (but have since been proven otherwise)by the ira included in that chart. McGurks bar in Belfast being one incident, im sure its hardly the only one
Hardly "regular members of the catholic community", is it?
Like Michael Cassidy, a Prison Officer murdered in front of his wife and small children, as they all left his sister's wedding at the Catholic church in Clogher?
Or Mary Travers, daughter of a Judge, murdered as she and her parents left Mass on the Malone Road?
Or Paddy Joe Kerr, another Prison Officer murdered on the steps of Armagh Cathedral, as he and his young son left Mass?
Hugh McCormac, perhaps, an RUC Instructor murdered in front of his wife and children as they arrived for Mass at The Graan in Co.Fermanagh?
Hardly "Catholics" at all, considering their choice of occupation, I suppose.
The fact is, like all the other participants in The Troubles, the Provos killed anyone if they thought it would further their cause. Of course, it suited them to try to pretend that their methods were somehow "nobler" than those of more overtly sectarian murder gangs like the UVF etc - "protecting the Catholic community", or "getting the Brits out" etc. (If nothing else, it impressed 'Irish America' and kept the dollars flowing in)
Consequently, they tried to justify their murders by claiming that their victims were "collaborators" (when Catholic, above), or "the "enemy" (when Protestant members of the security forces etc). And when they could claim neither, they just denied involvement altogether, like eg The Disappeared.
But they were also quite prepared to let the mask slip, when it suited, eg with the Kingsmill or Tullyvallen Massacres, or the nakedly sectarian murder eg of Douglas Deering, for having the temerity of being the last Protestant shopkeeper in Rosslea - despite his being a member of a small Pacifist sect, which forbade its members from getting involved either in politics or militarism. Of course, they'd have preferred it had he been a member of the UDR or RUC, but hey, in their quest to cleanse the Fermanagh and Tyrone border area of all Protestants, "needs must", I suppose...
And, as has been correctly pointed out on this thread, they were also directly responsible for the deaths of more Catholics in the Troubles than any other organisation, including eg at the Claudy bombing, ironically directed and organised by the notorious Father Chesney.
But still, they assure us they weren't sectarian, so that's OK, I suppose.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on November 01, 2010, 09:51:11 PM
I wonder how many of these catholics were security force members, prison wardens, udr members or informers. Hardly regular members of the catholic community. Also i wonder are catholics that were supposedly killed (but have since been proven otherwise)by the ira included in that chart. McGurks bar in Belfast being one incident, im sure its hardly the only one
Hardly "regular members of the catholic community", is it?
Like Michael Cassidy, a Prison Officer murdered in front of his wife and small children, as they all left his sister's wedding at the Catholic church in Clogher?
Or Mary Travers, daughter of a Judge, murdered as she and her parents left Mass on the Malone Road?
Or Paddy Joe Kerr, another Prison Officer murdered on the steps of Armagh Cathedral, as he and his young son left Mass?
Hugh McCormac, perhaps, an RUC Instructor murdered in front of his wife and children as they arrived for Mass at The Graan in Co.Fermanagh?
Hardly "Catholics" at all, considering their choice of occupation, I suppose.
The fact is, like all the other participants in The Troubles, the Provos killed anyone if they thought it would further their cause. Of course, it suited them to try to pretend that their methods were somehow "nobler" than those of more overtly sectarian murder gangs like the UVF etc - "protecting the Catholic community", or "getting the Brits out" etc. (If nothing else, it impressed 'Irish America' and kept the dollars flowing in)
Consequently, they tried to justify their murders by claiming that they were "collaborators" when Catholic (above), or "the "enemy", when eg Protestant members of the security forces etc. And when they could claim neither, they just denied involvement altogether, like eg The Disappeared.
But they were also quite prepared to let the mask slip, when it suited, eg with the Kingsmill or Tullyvallen Massacres, or the nakedly sectarian murder eg of Douglas Deering, for having the temerity of being the last Protestant shopkeeper in Rosslea - despite his being a member of a small Pacifist sect, which forbade its members from getting involved either in politics or militarism. Of course, they'd have preferred it had he been a member of the UDR or RUC, but hey, in their quest to cleanse the Fermanagh and Tyrone border area of all Protestants, "needs must", I suppose...
And, as has been correctly pointed out on this thread, they were also directly responsible for the deaths of more Catholics in the Troubles than any other organisation, including eg at the Claudy bombing, ironically directed and organised by the notorious Father Chesney.
But still, they assure us they weren't sectarian, so that's OK, I suppose.
Evil Genius, your post makes a range of sweeping generalisations and you polish them off by alleging that the IRA were just plain and simply sectarian. Do you feel that most of the Protestant victims of the IRA were killed for their religion or for their membership of the security forces (who in conjunction with loyalists, murdered more Catholics than the IRA)? I have already pointed out that the stats show that the IRA carried out the least sectarian attacks in proportion to their overall attacks, so why single out them for criticism rather than any of the other vastly more sectarian groups?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PM
Evil Genius, your post makes a range of sweeping generalisations and you polish them off by alleging that the IRA were just plain and simply sectarian.
I did not claim that the Provos were "plain and simply sectarian". Rather, I said that they were quite prepared to murder anyone, Catholic, Protestant or neither, if that murder might further their cause. Of course, it suited them from a propaganda perspective, to try to portray their activities as non-sectarian, especially when they could contrast it with the activities of more overtly sectarian groups.
But as any number of incidents prove (of which I listed only a few), they were also quite prepared to murder Protestants, solely on the basis of their religion, when that was deemed by them to advancing "the armed struggle".
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PM
Do you feel that most of the Protestant victims of the IRA were killed for their religion or for their membership of the security forces (who in conjunction with loyalists, murdered more Catholics than the IRA) I have already pointed out that the stats show that the IRA carried out the least sectarian attacks in proportion to their overall attacks,
When the Provos murdered local members of the security forces, they knew were also murdering members of the local Protestant community. Which explains why they also murdered eg old men who had long since retired, indeed whose service had sometimes even preceeded the Troubles.
Or they knew that the younger security force members were often the oldest/only son, specifically targeted so that they might not inherit the family farm or business etc.
And when they couldn't get at people with even a tenuous connection, they turned their guns on "collaborators" eg bulding suppliers or cleaners at army bases etc.
And finally, when those couldn't be found, they simply murdered Protestants who lived in Republican areas, like Tommy and Emily Bullock of Aghalane, or the worshippers in a tiny Gospel Hall in Darkley..
As for your assertion about collusion etc, of course that was an element in many murders committed by (so-called) Loyalists .
However, in your desperate need to try to downplay the significance, extent and tacitly sectarian nature of the Provos' campaign, your exagerration of the extent of collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army etc, destroys what little credibility the rest of your argument may have.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PMso why single out them for criticism rather than any of the other vastly more sectarian groups?
This is a thread specifically about a Provo, Gerry Bradley, which has now expanded (as such threads usually do) to a wider discussion of the Provo campaign generally.
If you want to discuss murders by other armed Groups, such as Loyalist Paramilitaries or the British Army etc, then by all means open another thread and I might be prompted to contribute.
But in the meantime, I for one am not going to collude in the hijacking of this thread along some separate line such as "Whatabout the Loyalists, they committed more sectarian murders than the Provos etc", thereby allowing IRA apologists and propagandists like you to avoid confronting highly embarrassing and inconvenient discussion of atrocities committed by the likes of Bradley.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 02, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PM
Evil Genius, your post makes a range of sweeping generalisations and you polish them off by alleging that the IRA were just plain and simply sectarian.
I did not claim that the Provos were "plain and simply sectarian". Rather, I said that they were quite prepared to murder anyone, Catholic, Protestant or neither, if that murder might further their cause. Of course, it suited them from a propaganda perspective, to try to portray their activities as non-sectarian, especially when they could contrast it with the activities of more overtly sectarian groups.
But as any number of incidents prove (of which I listed only a few), they were also quite prepared to murder Protestants, solely on the basis of their religion, when that was deemed by them to advancing "the armed struggle".
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PM
Do you feel that most of the Protestant victims of the IRA were killed for their religion or for their membership of the security forces (who in conjunction with loyalists, murdered more Catholics than the IRA) I have already pointed out that the stats show that the IRA carried out the least sectarian attacks in proportion to their overall attacks,
When the Provos murdered local members of the security forces, they knew were also murdering members of the local Protestant community. Which explains why they also murdered eg old men who had long since retired, indeed whose service had sometimes even preceeded the Troubles.
Or they knew that the younger security force members were often the oldest/only son, specifically targeted so that they might not inherit the family farm or business etc.
And when they couldn't get at people with even a tenuous connection, they turned their guns on "collaborators" eg bulding suppliers or cleaners at army bases etc.
And finally, when those couldn't be found, they simply murdered Protestants who lived in Republican areas, like Tommy and Emily Bullock of Aghalane, or the worshippers in a tiny Gospel Hall in Darkley..
As for your assertion about collusion etc, of course that was an element in many murders committed by (so-called) Loyalists .
However, in your desperate need to try to downplay the significance, extent and tacitly sectarian nature of the Provos' campaign, your exagerration of the extent of collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army etc, destroys what little credibility the rest of your argument may have.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:48:13 PMso why single out them for criticism rather than any of the other vastly more sectarian groups?
This is a thread specifically about a Provo, Gerry Bradley, which has now expanded (as such threads usually do) to a wider discussion of the Provo campaign generally.
If you want to discuss murders by other armed Groups, such as Loyalist Paramilitaries or the British Army etc, then by all means open another thread and I might be prompted to contribute.
But in the meantime, I for one am not going to collude in the hijacking of this thread along some separate line such as "Whatabout the Loyalists, they committed more sectarian murders than the Provos etc", thereby allowing IRA apologists and propagandists like you to avoid confronting highly embarrassing and inconvenient discussion of atrocities committed by the likes of Bradley.
Yet you continue to refer to the IRA as "tacitly sectarian". This would imply that, despite the evidence, the IRA were a sectarian gang, just not open about their sectarianism. Of course the IRA targeted Protestants for no reason, and such murders were simply unjustifiable but they are still in the vast minority. When you come out with remarks like "when the Provos murdered local members of the security forces, they knew they were also murdering members of the local Protestant community" you are basically (tacitly) stating that their religion was as much a reason for their killings as the fact that they were security force members which is a ridiculous argument. If the IRA were tacitly sectarian and were all happy to murder Protestants for being Protestants, surely they would have been capable of sectarian murder on a massive scale? Why so few sectarian murders from a "tacitly sectarian" army?
You also say that threads expand, as threads do, therefor you are speaking about the entire campaign of the IRA. Why refuse to talk about loyalists then? Is it OK for the thread to expand in one direction but not in another, even when the discussion is directly related?
Finally, you claim I exaggerate the extent of murders which involved collusion. As I already explained to Myles, I did not pick the number 900 from a cloud. There are approximately 900 families who currently have reason to believe their loved ones were victims of the british governments collusion with loyalists. Who are you to tell any one of these families that they are wrong, or as Myles says, that the poor aul divils are just letting their imaginations run wild? If I'm an apologist for the IRA, then you must be an apologist for the british government. (And anyway, why are you even talking about collusion, I thought you didn't want to talk about loyalists as the thread shouldn't be allowed to expand that way?)
I'd agree with you nally that the percentage stats show and indeed prove that the IRA were not sectarian in their targetting.
However I believe we are still awaiting proper stats on the breakdown of killings by religion as the 'cain report ' was found to be critically and fundamentally flawed by various parties (one was the Finnucane centre from memory - could be wrong).
The thing here is that discussing killing , the thoughts of these now appall and abhor everyone - but the truth is, in the midst of the bad old 70's/80's and even early 90's the attitudes accross the board for a hell of a lot of people on both sides of the divide were not like this.
Thankfully we have come on a hell of a lot in terms of peace.
Its a pity it had to come to violence in the first place. but it did and thats history, with my blame as expected put fully on the sectarian overlord ruling classes of the time (contraversially I dont blame the british gov).
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:29:47 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Absolutely the figures are important. Hugely important, Each number is not just a number, but a human being after all. But if we are into specifics of analysis and dissection and accurate comparisons then proportional analysis is the most useful, particularly when the discussion revolves around which organisation was responsible for most sectarian killings.
Or it could be said - particularly useful when trying to take the gloss of a grotesque number of Catholics murdered by the IRA. It all depends on how it needs to be spun to suit the relative agenda. You can do anything with statistics. Sure isn't Alcohol twice as dangerous as Heroin now apparently?
You have managed to write a reply without once facing up to the crux of my point. You reckon you can make statistics show anything, but they irrefutably show that the IRA were the least common perpetrators of Catholic killings in proportion to their campaign (which as I said before it the key method of examining the specifics for comparisons of targeting activity). Therefor, why single out the IRA in your post? Where the moral outrage at the fact that there is bare proof that all other armed paramilitaries and both factions of the forces of "law and order" (to whom our taxes paid salaries for) carried out more murders along sectarian lines than the IRA.
Because Nally - I have zero interest in percentages, quotas, agendas, nor statistics regarding the killings, bar the actual numbers. Regardless of your claim that turning the actual numbers into a percentage of attacks is the key method for comparison (which I think is nonsense). I simply cant take one number of loss of human life and compare it against another - especially with a view point to somehow defending, or attempting to dilute the only statistic that matters in
this discussion. The discussion has taken this tangent because one poster asked if there was any evidence to back up another posters claim that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group during the troubles. Not if the IRA killed more catholics per attack, etc. The only poster who tried to spin it - was you. I didn't therefore single out the IRA in my post - I was simply stating my opinion on the thread at hand. If you want an opinion on other groups/collusion/or a higher standard of moral outrage about other groups - go ahead and ask. Ask independently however - as asking in a "what about them ones" kind of way in a thread where there is criticism of the IRA smacks of childishness.
BTW - If you want to use such words as "irrefutably", and underline words and phrases as if doing so makes them seem more concrete to the reader, or makes us believe them - here is one for you.
The same statistics that you have taken your percentages from
irrefutably show that the IRA were responsible for more Catholic deaths during the troubles than any other group.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 04:07:07 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:29:47 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 01, 2010, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Absolutely the figures are important. Hugely important, Each number is not just a number, but a human being after all. But if we are into specifics of analysis and dissection and accurate comparisons then proportional analysis is the most useful, particularly when the discussion revolves around which organisation was responsible for most sectarian killings.
Or it could be said - particularly useful when trying to take the gloss of a grotesque number of Catholics murdered by the IRA. It all depends on how it needs to be spun to suit the relative agenda. You can do anything with statistics. Sure isn't Alcohol twice as dangerous as Heroin now apparently?
You have managed to write a reply without once facing up to the crux of my point. You reckon you can make statistics show anything, but they irrefutably show that the IRA were the least common perpetrators of Catholic killings in proportion to their campaign (which as I said before it the key method of examining the specifics for comparisons of targeting activity). Therefor, why single out the IRA in your post? Where the moral outrage at the fact that there is bare proof that all other armed paramilitaries and both factions of the forces of "law and order" (to whom our taxes paid salaries for) carried out more murders along sectarian lines than the IRA.
Because Nally - I have zero interest in percentages, quotas, agendas, nor statistics regarding the killings, bar the actual numbers. Regardless of your claim that turning the actual numbers into a percentage of attacks is the key method for comparison (which I think is nonsense). I simply cant take one number of loss of human life and compare it against another - especially with a view point to somehow defending, or attempting to dilute the only statistic that matters in this discussion. The discussion has taken this tangent because one poster asked if there was any evidence to back up another posters claim that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group during the troubles. Not if the IRA killed more catholics per attack, etc. The only poster who tried to spin it - was you. I didn't therefore single out the IRA in my post - I was simply stating my opinion on the thread at hand. If you want an opinion on other groups/collusion/or a higher standard of moral outrage about other groups - go ahead and ask. Ask independently however - as asking in a "what about them ones" kind of way in a thread where there is criticism of the IRA smacks of childishness.
BTW - If you want to use such words as "irrefutably", and underline words and phrases as if doing so makes them seem more concrete to the reader, or makes us believe them - here is one for you.
The same statistics that you have taken your percentages from irrefutably show that the IRA were responsible for more Catholic deaths during the troubles than any other group.
Hardly much point in trying to be reasonable with you is there? You clearly don't want to know anything which doesn't suit your agenda but sure knock yourself out.
Now there is a cop out if ever I read one. I'll talk about it with you as much as the day is long - and yet I am unreasonable?
Don't take the ball away Nally - God forbid you'd turn in to that other poster who does the same when someone disagrees with them.
I didnt even know I had an agenda?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2010, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on November 01, 2010, 09:51:11 PM
I wonder how many of these catholics were security force members, prison wardens, udr members or informers. Hardly regular members of the catholic community. Also i wonder are catholics that were supposedly killed (but have since been proven otherwise)by the ira included in that chart. McGurks bar in Belfast being one incident, im sure its hardly the only one
Hardly "regular members of the catholic community", is it?
Like Michael Cassidy, a Prison Officer murdered in front of his wife and small children, as they all left his sister's wedding at the Catholic church in Clogher?
Or Mary Travers, daughter of a Judge, murdered as she and her parents left Mass on the Malone Road?
Or Paddy Joe Kerr, another Prison Officer murdered on the steps of Armagh Cathedral, as he and his young son left Mass?
Hugh McCormac, perhaps, an RUC Instructor murdered in front of his wife and children as they arrived for Mass at The Graan in Co.Fermanagh?
Hardly "Catholics" at all, considering their choice of occupation, I suppose.
The fact is, like all the other participants in The Troubles, the Provos killed anyone if they thought it would further their cause. Of course, it suited them to try to pretend that their methods were somehow "nobler" than those of more overtly sectarian murder gangs like the UVF etc - "protecting the Catholic community", or "getting the Brits out" etc. (If nothing else, it impressed 'Irish America' and kept the dollars flowing in)
Consequently, they tried to justify their murders by claiming that their victims were "collaborators" (when Catholic, above), or "the "enemy" (when Protestant members of the security forces etc). And when they could claim neither, they just denied involvement altogether, like eg The Disappeared.
But they were also quite prepared to let the mask slip, when it suited, eg with the Kingsmill or Tullyvallen Massacres, or the nakedly sectarian murder eg of Douglas Deering, for having the temerity of being the last Protestant shopkeeper in Rosslea - despite his being a member of a small Pacifist sect, which forbade its members from getting involved either in politics or militarism. Of course, they'd have preferred it had he been a member of the UDR or RUC, but hey, in their quest to cleanse the Fermanagh and Tyrone border area of all Protestants, "needs must", I suppose...
And, as has been correctly pointed out on this thread, they were also directly responsible for the deaths of more Catholics in the Troubles than any other organisation, including eg at the Claudy bombing, ironically directed and organised by the notorious Father Chesney.
But still, they assure us they weren't sectarian, so that's OK, I suppose.
i meant that those occupations were not a regular thing within the catholic community, which is a fact. I see you chose to ignore my point of informers, how many would you say were killed over the course of the troubles. Including the dissapeared. Whether you agree or not, the IRA targeted RUC, UDR, British Army, prison wardens. What difference does it make what religion they were? They were seen as working for the British Establishment in helping to terrorise the nationalist people. I would say members of the organisations mentioned above along with informers made up the vast majority of catholic victims of IRA killings. Someone made the point earlier that clearly they were not the defenders of the catholic people if they killed more catholics than anyone else. Fair enough, they just tried to defend the nationalist people then.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 04:12:27 PM
Hardly much point in trying to be reasonable with you is there? You clearly don't want to know anything which doesn't suit your agenda but sure knock yourself out.
are there any credible stats available on this ? i(e the people that died and their religion).
strange though , but people prev didnt actually ask or care about the religion of those killed.
the first I have ever seen it bandied about as some kind of weapon/tool has actually been on here !
still it does back up the IRA's claim to not have targetted people in a sectarian manner.
Small consolation to the families of those killed.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 04:17:01 PM
Now there is a cop out if ever I read one. I'll talk about it with you as much as the day is long - and yet I am unreasonable?
Don't take the ball away Nally - God forbid you'd turn in to that other poster who does the same when someone disagrees with them.
I didnt even know I had an agenda?
It's not the slightest bit of a cop out. I am highlighting a fact that you dismiss the most accurate means of analysis as "nonsense" which makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion. Maybe you do not have an agenda, but you have stated in the past that you are anti-IRA and you are now, as I say, dismissing the most accurate means of analysis/dissection of the way in which these organisations (not just the IRA) carried out their targeting. I don't think anyone COULD claim that the IRA didn't kill more Catholics than any other
single organisation because while the British government ultimately held responsibility for MUCH more Catholic deaths than the IRA, it's victims were through co-operation with a wide range of groups.
I am simply making the statement that while the IRA were the SINGLE organisation which killed most Catholics, it was the collusion by the British government with loyalists which was the biggest cause of death of Catholics in the north, and that the stats would indicate that the IRA were the least sectarian armed force (again, that includes the RUC and British army). As you say, the discussion came up because of the question by a poster over whether or not the IRA killed most Catholics. My points are being made to further the discussion which would bring it into perspective and relative to the proportion of the killings which occurred in order to prevent certain posters (read ardmhachaabu etc) from making sweeping generalisations such as "the statistics show that the IRA were sectarian". Why would it be OK for someone like that to make such remarks, yet if I make an argument to counter it, using stats, I am faced with criticism from various posters for suddenly trying to change the subject or having a "what about the loyalists" "childish" attitude. I only make points relevant to the flow of discussion which has gone before.
It's hardly a pleasant thing to be discussing.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 02, 2010, 04:43:15 PM
are there any credible stats available on this ? i(e the people that died and their religion).
I honestly don't know Lynchbhoy, I've only been reading through the stats posted up earlier in the thread. I can't imagine they would be too far off the mark but, how precise is hard to tell.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 02, 2010, 04:43:15 PM
strange though , but people prev didnt actually ask or care about the religion of those killed.
I wish that were true but there will always have been those who use such information for the purposes of records and those who have used it for pure naked sectarianism, and a range of reasons in between.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 02, 2010, 04:43:15 PM
the first I have ever seen it bandied about as some kind of weapon/tool has actually been on here !
My reasons for discussing it are to prevent it being used as a weapon and make an attempt to make sure things are looked at objectively and not for the sake of point scoring or making skewed generalisations.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 02, 2010, 04:43:15 PM
still it does back up the IRA's claim to not have targetted people in a sectarian manner.
Small consolation to the families of those killed.
True
Came across this...don't know if it helps or not
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#community
Quote from: Hedley Lamarr on November 02, 2010, 05:15:27 PM
Came across this...don't know if it helps or not
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#community
Aye, was posted a few pages back Hedley
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
You asked where the evidence is, and I explained to you all about evidence. Have you anything to counter the families with or is this all just pure refusal to face up to the truth about the british governments actions?
Nally - You are dead right, it isnt a pleasant thing to be discussing.
Why is turning the numbers into a statistic the "most accurate" means of analysis? It simply changes the view of the death toll to present a view that someone who agreeed with the IRA and doesnt want them painted into a corner as a sectarian group would want to present? That was why I said it was nonsense in my opinion.
I think the point was being made that the IRA were supposed to be a protector of the Catholic people - and that the number of Catholic murders by them was pretty staggering. Bringing percentages and claimed "intent" into it served only to muddy the waters in my opinon. It didnt take much to have a sectarian attitude in the 80s and 90s- and indeed it was almost harder to not have a sectarian attitude than to have one - and that was along both sides of the divide. You just had to look at even the clashes of school kids from different backgrounds in the streets and bus depots across the north to see that. If the kids in the street were sectarian - how can we claim the gangs roaming the streets were adverse to it? I kind of feel that as long as there were sectarian murders on either side of the "war" that no group can claim to be non sectarian, nor less sectarian than any other. It was widespread and no amount of statistics can really change it to be anything less than splitting hairs in my opinon. Both sides should be utterly ashamed at the sectarianism.
The IRA may have had a primarily military target mindset - but they certainly didnt follow that in the acutality of what happened.
I appreciate you at least acknowledging the fact that the IRA did kill more catholics than any other group as I had felt you were trying to skirt the issue with changing the numbers.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
You asked where the evidence is, and I explained to you all about evidence. Have you anything to counter the families with or is this all just pure refusal to face up to the truth about the british governments actions?
So you're saying is there no evidence? And yet you repeat the figure of 900 like a mantra, as if it's fact. Shame on you.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 05:46:05 PM
Nally - You are dead right, it isnt a pleasant thing to be discussing.
Why is turning the numbers into a statistic the "most accurate" means of analysis? It simply changes the view of the death toll to present a view that someone who agreeed with the IRA and doesnt want them painted into a corner as a sectarian group would want to present? That was why I said it was nonsense in my opinion.
I think the point was being made that the IRA were supposed to be a protector of the Catholic people - and that the number of Catholic murders by them was pretty staggering. Bringing percentages and claimed "intent" into it served only to muddy the waters in my opinon. It didnt take much to have a sectarian attitude in the 80s and 90s- and indeed it was almost harder to not have a sectarian attitude than to have one - and that was along both sides of the divide. You just had to look at even the clashes of school kids from different backgrounds in the streets and bus depots across the north to see that. If the kids in the street were sectarian - how can we claim the gangs roaming the streets were adverse to it? I kind of feel that as long as there were sectarian murders on either side of the "war" that no group can claim to be non sectarian, nor less sectarian than any other. It was widespread and no amount of statistics can really change it to be anything less than splitting hairs in my opinon. Both sides should be utterly ashamed at the sectarianism.
The IRA may have had a primarily military target mindset - but they certainly didnt follow that in the acutality of what happened.
I appreciate you at least acknowledging the fact that the IRA did kill more catholics than any other group as I had felt you were trying to skirt the issue with changing the numbers.
I am in no way trying to skirt the issue. It would be plainly thick ignorant or stupid to deny the bare figures. The IRA did kill more Catholics than any other single organisation. However, I would stress again, that this is ONLY if we refuse to lay responsibility for collusion singularly at the feet of the British Government as a single organisation and instead break up such collusion between the various groups the government colluded with.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 05:46:05 PM
Why is turning the numbers into a statistic the "most accurate" means of analysis? It simply changes the view of the death toll to present a view that someone who agreeed with the IRA and doesnt want them painted into a corner as a sectarian group would want to present? That was why I said it was nonsense in my opinion.
It is the most accurate means because what you have said could just as easily be turned on its head. I could put it to you that stating that 'the IRA killed more Catholics than anyone else' is a statement which could be made to paint the IRA in the worst possible light, as, while factually correct (if we ignore the British government's murders) it simply doesn't take into account the fact that the IRA was responsible for most killings overall and as a result, looking at the levels of killings by religion relative to the number killed in each organisation is unquestionably the most accurate method of examining how each organisation targeted it's victims.
I say this not to attempt to skew things, as I have repeatedly said the IRA had most Catholic victims (aside from the british government), but I say it in order to prevent stats being used to make pathetic claims like those of ardmhacha.
I suggest we agree to disagree.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
You asked where the evidence is, and I explained to you all about evidence. Have you anything to counter the families with or is this all just pure refusal to face up to the truth about the british governments actions?
So you're saying is there no evidence? And yet you repeat the figure of 900 like a mantra, as if it's fact. Shame on you.
In time more will surface Myles have no doubt about that. The real shame lies with the british Government for carrying out collusion. the shame lies with the British government for destroying evidence. the shame lies with the British Government for denying justice. the shame lies with you for having f**k all respect for the 900 or so families who feel they are victims of collusion and stating that most of them are just poor aul divils who have let their imagination run wild. I have no wish to continue discussing this with you Myles. Your attitude is pathetic.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
You asked where the evidence is, and I explained to you all about evidence. Have you anything to counter the families with or is this all just pure refusal to face up to the truth about the british governments actions?
So you're saying is there no evidence? And yet you repeat the figure of 900 like a mantra, as if it's fact. Shame on you.
In time more will surface Myles have no doubt about that. The real shame lies with the british Government for carrying out collusion. the shame lies with the British government for destroying evidence. the shame lies with the British Government for denying justice. the shame lies with you for having f**k all respect for the 900 or so families who feel they are victims of collusion and stating that most of them are just poor aul divils who have let their imagination run wild. I have no wish to continue discussing this with you Myles. Your attitude is pathetic.
I have sympathy for anyone bereaved as a result of violence, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with any notion or idea that they come up with. I don't doubt that, of that figure of 900 you keep quoting, some died as a result of collusion. I also don't doubt that some of the relatives of the 900 are strongly republican, and would blame the British if the wind blew in a direction they didn't like. Truth is, you don't know the true total any more than I do, or any more than the families of the 900 victims do. It's just something you would like to be true, and therefore you keep repeating it as if it was a fact, despite not having - by your own admission - any evidence to back it up. Pathetic just about sums it up.
The 900 does seem a bit hard to believe, given that stats show that loyalists killed less than 1000. Are we to believe that 90%+ of these were due to collusion? Seems odd, especially given that (a) a lot of their killings seemed random (i.e. anonymous Catholics) and (b) of those numbers, they killed a good handful of their own.
I know there doesn't appear to be any 'evidence', but can you show us where the '900' figure has been quoted?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 07:03:14 PM
The 900 does seem a bit hard to believe, given that stats show that loyalists killed less than 1000. Are we to believe that 90%+ of these were due to collusion? Seems odd, especially given that (a) a lot of their killings seemed random (i.e. anonymous Catholics) and (b) of those numbers, they killed a good handful of their own.
I know there doesn't appear to be any 'evidence', but can you show us where the '900' figure has been quoted?
Random murders in absolutely no way discount collusion. I could refer to how weapons supplied by the security forces were used in such attacks but instead I refer you again to the Stevens report:
"Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder......My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved...."As I have stated in previous posts, nobody can tell for certain if 900 people were victims of collusion however, and again this is something I have stressed repeatedly - it is not a number I pulled from the clouds. When the An Fhirinne website was online, it listed approximately 900 people who's families felt were victims of collusion. Robert McClenaghan, who was head of an Fhirinne in fact stated that he believes the combined total of murders by British security forces both directly and through collusion could well be more than this.
Anyway, if the number of victims was so small:
- Why would Stevens state that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces
"was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC" - Why, when Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, did the DPP not bring forward ANY prosecutions?
- Why would the British Secretary of State at the time of the report attempt to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence?
And most crucially of all:
- Why did the British Government censor all but TWENTY pages of his TWENTY THOUSAND page report? What information was withheld in those other 19,980 pages???
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 06:52:34 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 02, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 01, 2010, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 01, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 01, 2010, 09:28:09 PM
Would it not be fairly obvious that the IRA were responsible for more IRA deaths than any other SINGLE group considering it was responsible for most attacks?
1. If we look at it in terms of percentages, the IRA killed less Catholics relative to it's victims than any other group (since it's chief targets were security forces)
UFF - 89% Catholic Victims
Brits - 86% Catholic Victims
RUC - 79% Catholic Victims
UVF - 67% Catholic victims
IRA - 20% Catholic victims
2. Statistics like this do not take into account the collusion which, according to family numbers, accounted for approximately 900 deaths which could be attributed to one organisation... the british government.
Furthermore, Ardmhacaabu, to say the IRA's war was sectarian conveniently dismisses the fact that the vast majority of IRA targets were security forces who were targeted for that reason and not because most of these would have been Protestant. To suggest that the IRA attacked Protestants on a relative comparable scale to loyalists sectarian attacks is simply a pathetic bit of revisionism. Do you honestly suggest that the IRA's chief concern was to attack Protestants? If so, would it not be a MASSIVE coincidence that most of those Protestants were in the security forces?
See my post on the Margaret Thatcher thread. This figure of 900 is getting almost as many airings as Lynchbhoy's 'apartheid' crap.
and what's the figure?
I have absolutely no idea, and neither does Nally Stand, but that doesn't stop him throwing in the 900 deaths figure because it happens to suit his argument. Just because some unfortunate souls want to believe (for whatever reason) that their family member was killed as a result of collusion, does not make this the case.
Nobody knows Myles because the British Government have not come clean. All you or I have to go on is the number of families who have reason to believe that their loved ones fell victim to collusion. This figure stands somewhere in the region of 900. Unless you have a reason to thin that down other than "ah the poor divils are letting their imaginations run wild" then maybe it's time you, and unionism in general, faced up to it.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence??
Well some was destroyed by the British army's Force Research Unit in an arson attack on the offices of the Stevens Inquiry during his investigations into Collusion. The FRU was a unit which the British Army had initially lied to the inquiry about, claiming no such unit existed or operated in the north.
Brian Fitzsimmons, head of RUC Special Branch, in Stevens opinion, was also deliberately obtrusive to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the RUC attempted to prevent their data on agent Brian Nelson from getting into the hands of the enquiry team. When this did not succeed, a planned arrest of Nelson was to be made, however a leak to him from a certain shady source allowed him to flee to England. The fire deliberately started at the Stevens Inquiry offices to destroy the files was lit the same night, which included the alleged tampering with the sprinkler systems to stop water running through them.
In response to all this, Stevens replied:
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Brian Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."
The Stevens Enquiry concluded that all aspects of collusive behaviour was widespread, saying "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder."
If you wanted evidence, maybe the British Army shouldn't have destroyed it and maybe the RUC shouldn't have withheld it.
All very interesting and as usual you go to great lengths to answer a question I didn't ask. I've never said there wasn't any collusion. I've asked you to provide something to back up the '900 deaths due to collusion' figure which you keep pasting all over the board without a shred of evidence, other than the fact that some families believe this to be the case.
You asked where the evidence is, and I explained to you all about evidence. Have you anything to counter the families with or is this all just pure refusal to face up to the truth about the british governments actions?
So you're saying is there no evidence? And yet you repeat the figure of 900 like a mantra, as if it's fact. Shame on you.
In time more will surface Myles have no doubt about that. The real shame lies with the british Government for carrying out collusion. the shame lies with the British government for destroying evidence. the shame lies with the British Government for denying justice. the shame lies with you for having f**k all respect for the 900 or so families who feel they are victims of collusion and stating that most of them are just poor aul divils who have let their imagination run wild. I have no wish to continue discussing this with you Myles. Your attitude is pathetic.
I have sympathy for anyone bereaved as a result of violence, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with any notion or idea that they come up with. I don't doubt that, of that figure of 900 you keep quoting, some died as a result of collusion. I also don't doubt that some of the relatives of the 900 are strongly republican, and would blame the British if the wind blew in a direction they didn't like. Truth is, you don't know the true total any more than I do, or any more than the families of the 900 victims do. It's just something you would like to be true, and therefore you keep repeating it as if it was a fact, despite not having - by your own admission - any evidence to back it up. Pathetic just about sums it up.
would it also be possible that not all catholics that the RUC or British Army said was killed by the IRA were in fact victims of the IRA, because lets be honest it would have suited them to do so. Or maybe it was just a one way thing ::)
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 07:03:14 PM
The 900 does seem a bit hard to believe, given that stats show that loyalists killed less than 1000. Are we to believe that 90%+ of these were due to collusion? Seems odd, especially given that (a) a lot of their killings seemed random (i.e. anonymous Catholics) and (b) of those numbers, they killed a good handful of their own.
I know there doesn't appear to be any 'evidence', but can you show us where the '900' figure has been quoted?
Random murders in absolutely no way discount collusion. I could refer to how weapons supplied by the security forces were used in such attacks but instead I refer you again to the Stevens report:
"Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder......My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved...."
As I have stated in previous posts, nobody can tell for certain if 900 people were victims of collusion however, and again this is something I have stressed repeatedly - it is not a number I pulled from the clouds. When the An Fhirinne website was online, it listed approximately 900 people who's families felt were victims of collusion. Robert McClenaghan, who was head of an Fhirinne in fact stated that he believes the combined total of murders by British security forces both directly and through collusion could well be more than this.
Anyway, if the number of victims was so small:
- Why would Stevens state that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC"
- Why, when Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, did the DPP not bring forward ANY prosecutions?
- Why would the British Secretary of State at the time of the report attempt to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence?
And most crucially of all:
- Why did the British Government censor all but TWENTY pages of his TWENTY THOUSAND page report? What information was withheld in those other 19,980 pages???
I never said 'small'. I appreciate that it was a widespread issue. But there's a huge gulf between 'small' and 900 deaths.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 10:52:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 02, 2010, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 07:03:14 PM
The 900 does seem a bit hard to believe, given that stats show that loyalists killed less than 1000. Are we to believe that 90%+ of these were due to collusion? Seems odd, especially given that (a) a lot of their killings seemed random (i.e. anonymous Catholics) and (b) of those numbers, they killed a good handful of their own.
I know there doesn't appear to be any 'evidence', but can you show us where the '900' figure has been quoted?
Random murders in absolutely no way discount collusion. I could refer to how weapons supplied by the security forces were used in such attacks but instead I refer you again to the Stevens report:
"Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder......My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved...."
As I have stated in previous posts, nobody can tell for certain if 900 people were victims of collusion however, and again this is something I have stressed repeatedly - it is not a number I pulled from the clouds. When the An Fhirinne website was online, it listed approximately 900 people who's families felt were victims of collusion. Robert McClenaghan, who was head of an Fhirinne in fact stated that he believes the combined total of murders by British security forces both directly and through collusion could well be more than this.
Anyway, if the number of victims was so small:
- Why would Stevens state that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC"
- Why, when Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, did the DPP not bring forward ANY prosecutions?
- Why would the British Secretary of State at the time of the report attempt to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence?
And most crucially of all:
- Why did the British Government censor all but TWENTY pages of his TWENTY THOUSAND page report? What information was withheld in those other 19,980 pages???
I never said 'small'. I appreciate that it was a widespread issue. But there's a huge gulf between 'small' and 900 deaths.
Indeed. So I use the figure 900 based on any bit of statistics or evidence available.
'Indeed. So I use the figure 900 because it sounds mightily impressive, even though it isn't based on any reliable bit of statistics or evidence at all.'
Fixed that for you. ;)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 03, 2010, 05:03:38 PM
'Indeed. So I use the figure 900 because it sounds mightily impressive, even though it isn't based on any reliable bit of statistics or evidence at all.'
Fixed that for you. ;)
(http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/sound_sorting/initial_consonants/y/images/yawn.jpg)
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 03, 2010, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on November 03, 2010, 05:03:38 PM
'Indeed. So I use the figure 900 because it sounds mightily impressive, even though it isn't based on any reliable bit of statistics or evidence at all.'
Fixed that for you. ;)
(http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/sound_sorting/initial_consonants/y/images/yawn.jpg)
And the caption for that reads:
'Myles found Nally Stand's dubious use of statistics so hard to stomach, he just had to make himself retch'.
:)
Perhaps if the RUC had acted a little quicker to the coded
Warnings or in some cases acted at all....then the number of
Innocents killed by the IRA just might not have been so high!
Quote from: Tyrones own on November 03, 2010, 06:19:23 PM
Perhaps if the RUC had acted a little quicker to the coded
Warnings or in some cases acted at all....then the number of
Innocents killed by the IRA just might not have been so high!
Jesus wept.
Why?... explain :-\
*Opens thread*
*Usual suspects exchanging pleasantries*
*Shakes head*
*Vows never to open threads like this again*
*Leaves thread*