gaaboard.com

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/ira-blamed-for-kingsmill-massacre-16012691.html

When I was growing up I never heard about any sectarian attrocities committed by the IRA but knew about all the others committed by the 'other side'.  Was horrified when by father told me about them and this is one that obviously stands out.  Even to this day I be amazed at how many mates are shocked when I tell them about it, normally after they have been on about some loyalist attrocity.

Is it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Is it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Not in my experience, but they often preface with a line about the murders of Catholics on the night before this incident.

Quote from: AQMP on June 20, 2011, 11:59:22 AM

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Is it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Not in my experience, but they often preface with a line about the murders of Catholics on the night before this incident.

That and the "shouldn't have happened" weasel words.

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 11:13:27 AMIs it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Well obviously.

Remember, responsibility [sic] for this "operation" was claimed by the "Republican Action Force", so it couldn't have been the Provos...  :o

Quote from: AQMP on June 20, 2011, 11:59:22 AM

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Is it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Not in my experience, but they often preface with a line about the murders of Catholics on the night before this incident.

Ah yes, the brutal, sectarian muders of the Reaveys and O'Dowds the night before.

In fact, the IRA Republican Action Force claimed that Kingsmills was in direct retaliation for the previous night's atrocities.

Which means that in less than 18 hours, they were able to:
1) Mobilise 12 gunmen;
2) Arrange for them to be armed and equipped from secret weapons dumps etc;
3) Ensure they were able to get off work unnoticed, and/or arrange alibis;
4) Confirm when the workers' van would be leaving the mill and by what route etc;
5) Brief the 12 gunmen about their "mission", including that they should not strike at the van until after  the driver had dropped off four Catholic workers at the previous stop at Whitecross;
6) Arrange transport to the scene (3? 4? 5? vehicles), and then get them away afterwards, before returning the gunmen to wherever they needed to be and concealing the weapons and evidence etc.

I must say, that is some feat of planning, in so short a time, by a hitherto little-known "micro group".

Unless, of course, it was carried out by another, larger organisation, which had planned it sometime in advance and which subsequently put it into action (or brought it forward?), when they had the excuse of the previous night's atrocities to "justify" what all decent human beings would designate as nothing more than calculated and sectarian mass murder...  ::)

P.S. Having first been disclosed to the bereaved families, the full HET Report is due out tomorrow. I am given to understand that its findings will include the following:
(a ) When the van was stopped and the occupants told to get out on the road, the gang leader told any Catholics present to step forward. There was only one, the driver, but fearing that this might be a Loyalist murder gang, a (Protestant) workman next to him in line whispered to the driver to stay back. However, one of the gang recognised the driver and told him to clear off. Which means that if one or more of the gunmen knew the driver, he possibly knew some of the 10 murdered workers, since all were local. Further, it is likely that the gunmen (and/or the planners of the attack) will have known that none of the murdered men were in either the Security Forces or any Loyalist paramilitary organisation;
(b ) After the first volley of machine gun fire mowed the line of men down, the gang leader gave the order to "Finish them off", so that a further volley was unloaded at the bodies on the ground. This is known because, despite having been hit 18 times himself, one of the workers was miraculously to survive the massacre - apparently he was saved by the body of a colleague having fallen on him, thus shielding him from the second volley;
(c ) The weapons used in this operation had previously been used in nearly 100 attacks, involving over 30 murders, including a previous sectarian massacre, Tullyvallen: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/kingsmills_six_named_in_het_report_1_2782872
(d ) Some of weapons used at Kingsmills were recovered five months later from an IRA gang which was intercepted trying to ambush a security forces patrol. Included in this gang was a certain Raymond McCreesh, later to become more notorious as one of the 10 fanatics who starved themselves to death in the Maze...

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2011, 01:55:41 PM

Quote from: AQMP on June 20, 2011, 11:59:22 AM

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Is it common for the apologists for the Provos to deny responsibility for this atrocity?

Not in my experience, but they often preface with a line about the murders of Catholics on the night before this incident.

Ah yes, the brutal, sectarian muders of the Reaveys and O'Dowds the night before.

In fact, the IRA Republican Action Force claimed that Kingsmills was in direct retaliation for the previous night's atrocities.

Which means that in less than 18 hours, they were able to:
1) Mobilise 12 gunmen;
2) Arrange for them to be armed and equipped from secret weapons dumps etc;
3) Ensure they were able to get off work unnoticed, and/or arrange alibis;
4) Confirm when the workers' van would be leaving the mill and by what route etc;
5) Brief the 12 gunmen about their "mission", including that they should not strike at the van until after  the driver had dropped off four Catholic workers at the previous stop at Whitecross;
6) Arrange transport to the scene (3? 4? 5? vehicles), and then get them away afterwards, before returning the gunmen to wherever they needed to be and concealing the weapons and evidence etc.

I must say, that is some feat of planning, in so short a time, by a hitherto little-known "micro group".

Unless, of course, it was carried out by another, larger organisation, which had planned it sometime in advance and which subsequently put it into action (or brought it forward?), when they had the excuse of the previous night's atrocities to "justify" what all decent human beings would designate as nothing more than calculated and sectarian mass murder...  ::)

P.S. Having first been disclosed to the bereaved families, the full HET Report is due out tomorrow. I am given to understand that its findings will include the following:
(a ) When the van was stopped and the occupants told to get out on the road, the gang leader told any Catholics present to step forward. There was only one, the driver, but fearing that this might be a Loyalist murder gang, a (Protestant) workman next to him in line whispered to the driver to stay back. However, one of the gang recognised the driver and told him to clear off. Which means that if one or more of the gunmen knew the driver, he possibly knew some of the 10 murdered workers, since all were local. Further, it is likely that the gunmen (and/or the planners of the attack) will have known that none of the murdered men were in either the Security Forces or any Loyalist paramilitary organisation;
(b ) After the first volley of machine gun fire mowed the line of men down, the gang leader gave the order to "Finish them off", so that a further volley was unloaded at the bodies on the ground. This is known because, despite having been hit 18 times himself, one of the workers was miraculously to survive the massacre - apparently he was saved by the body of a colleague having fallen on him, thus shielding him from the second volley;
(c ) The weapons used in this operation had previously been used in nearly 100 attacks, involving over 30 murders, including a previous sectarian massacre, Tullyvallen: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/kingsmills_six_named_in_het_report_1_2782872
(d ) Some of weapons used at Kingsmills were recovered five months later from an IRA gang which was intercepted trying to ambush a security forces patrol. Included in this gang was a certain Raymond McCreesh, later to become more notorious as one of the 10 fanatics who starved themselves to death in the Maze...

At whom is this post directed? ???

Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

Quote from: Denn Forever on June 20, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

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

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on June 20, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

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

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

I thought I heard/ read the other day that one of the gunmen was believed to be involved in the Omagh bombing.

Who was disputing that it was carried out by the IRA on this thread?

tough not to see where EG is coming from here.

the fanatics comment is quite funny in an odd sort of way, was surprised nobody rose to the bait.

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on June 20, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

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

The point is that the Provos  denied responsibility (apparently it couldn't have been them since they were "On Ceasefire" at the time)

Beyond that, several Provo sorry, SF supporters on this Forum like to claim that the IRA never used sectarian murder as an element of their campaign for National Liberation etc. This gives the lie to that claim.

Moreover, there is at least one other poster on this Board, a certain "Ulick", who from the evidence of the following post on another forum in January may, shall we say, be less than unequivocal in his condemnation of Kingsmills (if only from an "Ends Justifying the Means" point of view):

"The perpetrators of Kingsmill achieved what they set out to do in that it put an end to the tit-for-tat sectarian killings which in happening in the area as Neill has outlined above. Frank Aiken as I remember used the same tactic in the same area for the same purpose in 1922 and it also worked then. Kingsmills was obviously a horrendous incident but if it had not happened would we have seen a continuation of the previous attrition rate with maybe 40 or 50 innocents killed in low impact incidents over a period of months? Probably."
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/01/05/35-years-after-kingsmills-het-report-due-next-week/

That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

Quote from: AQMP on June 20, 2011, 02:13:46 PM

Quote from: deiseach on June 20, 2011, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on June 20, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Does it have be directed at anyone?

Only new it as a name, not the details.

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

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

"Strangling"?  :o

Perish the thought!  ;)

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2006/11/03/blofeld1-toe.jpg)

At the risk of being accused of whataboutery : -


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

It was expected to have been been released in March.

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

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

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

I wondered how long it would be.

Quote from: Rav67 on June 20, 2011, 04:25:27 PM
That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mon 20th June

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

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

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

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

Quote from: HiMucker on June 20, 2011, 05:16:42 PMI hate to be comparing whats worse in instances like these, as both the Kingsmill, and Japan bombings are terrible and horiffic crimes against civilians and all connected to them.  They are both IMO war crimes.   But EG it seems like you are saying that the Kingsmill is worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings which killed hundreds of thousands of people and effected millions more!

Not really my intention (bold).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Atomic_bombing_of_Japan.jpg/800px-Atomic_bombing_of_Japan.jpg)

And you probably expect your posts to be taken seriously.  :-\

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

EG didn't bring up Hiroshima/Nagasaki first.

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2011, 06:51:22 PM
EG, Kingsmill was a disgusting attack in every way. You typically show yourself up though by talking bout it in the same context of, and making comparisons with, the people who did this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Atomic_bombing_of_Japan.jpg/800px-Atomic_bombing_of_Japan.jpg)

And you probably expect your posts to be taken seriously.  :-\

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Denn Forever on June 20, 2011, 07:04:04 PM
[quote author=Rav67 link=topic=19559.msg976228#msg976228 date=1308583527]
That sounds very like a Hiroshima/Nagasaki defence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PM
I am loath to leap into this discussion, especially since I regard Kingsmills, Glenanne, Le Mon, Darkley, Loughinisland, etc. as abominations, the darkest moments in a black night, but I wince when I read EG's P.S. to his post about the ends justifying the means, especially when he draws a distinction between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of moral rights, anything to say about the point raised in the sentence previous to the one you put in bold?

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2011, 09:32:12 PM
Speaking of moral rights, anything to say about the point raised in the sentence previous to the one you put in bold?

It's a fair point, but not one that stands up to close scrutiny. The partition of Ireland may have been formally enacted after the War of Independence, but in reality there had been a de facto partition of Ireland since the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. Voters in nationalist Ireland had no moral right to expect their wishes for self determination to override the wishes of one million unionists concentrated, for the most part, in the 6 north eastern counties of the island. That kind of 'majority rule' thinking is exactly the kind which led unionists to think they had a moral right to subject their fellow citizens in the north to 50 years of one party domination. We know what that led to: an all island state based on the nationalist majority vote of 1918 would have led inevitably to a similar cataclysmic outcome had any attempt been made to give it expression. Partition may have been an unsatisfactory outcome, but it was probably the only possible outcome at that time.

I see the master bullshitter is back  ::)

Quote from: red hander on June 20, 2011, 11:28:58 PM
I see the master bullshitter is back  ::)

I've just read your comments on the short strand thread. Intelligent as always.  :D

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PM
I am loath to leap into this discussion, especially since I regard Kingsmills, Glenanne, Le Mon, Darkley, Loughinisland, etc. as abominations, the darkest moments in a black night, but I wince when I read EG's P.S. to his post about the ends justifying the means, especially when he draws a distinction between the Americans in 1945 and the IRA in 1975.

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

The second part of the P.S. read as follows:
"Whereas the latter [IRA] were an unelected and self-selected bunch of criminals, fanatics and psychopaths etc, who were fighting a shabby little insurgency, entirely contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people (including even on their own  side) and completely regardless of any of the internationally-recognised Rules of War, such as the Geneva Convention etc."
Which part of my comparison of the US Government in 1945 with the IRA in 1975 was incorrect?

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMI am one of those on their "own" side who did not support the IRA and its methods, but at that time, 1975, many Nationalists felt torn, experienced a sort of wrenching ambivalence towards the IRA.

Just as there were people on the "other" side who were ambivalent towards "Loyalist" paramilitarism or Security Forces excesses etc.
Imo each were equally wrong, end of story.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMFirst, EG trumpets that the American WWII action was at the behest of a democratically- elected government and by implication the IRA activity was not.  True, and I for one would not have voted for the Provos if they had contested elections.

No "implication" whatever. I am stating quite clearly that from the first moment they took up the gun in 1969 (or whenever), the IRA forfeited all claims to legitimacy.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMBut EG overlooks, once more, the fact that the will of a substantial majority of the people of Ireland was ignored by the British government after 1918 and an undemocratic statelet, both in origin and conduct, was forced upon it.

I do not "overlook" it; rather I discount  it, since imo what went on in 1918 etc, has no relevance to the Provo attempt to claim justification or validation for the terror campaign which they launched during the Troubles.
If nothing else, I would never want to be in any way associated with the Provos' self-proclaimed successors, who also use the 1918-argument to attempt to justify eg their murderous assaults on Ronan Kerr, Peader Heffron or Massareene Barracks etc. 

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMSome people would argue then that though the IRA was not elected, it was the armed offspring of the will of what should have been the post-1918 all-Irish government, and therefore had moral if not elected authority.

Some people would argue that.
Imo they would be entirely wrong.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMIts actions, the Abercorn etc., annulled that authority.

Rather than annuling a legitimacy which they never had, Abercorn and the other atrocities of the period merely emphasised the IRA's essential lack of legitimacy ab initio.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMAnd second, use of the expression "the ends justifies the means" is especially apropos when discussing N.I. since, we all know, the state perpetuated itself by whatever Machiavellian means it could, leaving subjugated and victimized Nationalists nowhere to turn for protection except, of course, the IRA, and certainly not the RUC.  It certainly was very effective, to refer to EG's stated standard.

When have I ever denied/condoned/defended the excesses of the old Stormont administration?
You might make a better case if you concentrated on what I do believe/post, rather than ascribing to me opinions which I do not.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 20, 2011, 08:42:04 PMAnd what irks me further is EG's propensity for appropriating Paisley's habit of referring to "Sinn Fein-IRA" in his Donagh-Ulick references or in conveying his disdain for Sinn Fein over all. Undoubtedly Sinn Fein was at one time closely connected to the Provos, but look at the percentage of Nationalist votes it commands now.  It has renounced armed struggle and though not necessarily a a party to which I would be drawn, it is, to all intents and purposes, the voice of NI's sizeable minority and as such is deserving of more respect.  And no doubt a majority of its current support would not condone violence.

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

Re SF voters, they are not really my concern, since I am not one of them (although I am reminded of the old saying about "people getting the politicians they deserve etc")

Re. SF as a political party, when I consider it to be "respectable", then it will receive my complete respect.

In the meantime, I will accept SF's right to participate in the political process and urge that others who believe as I do continue to co-operate with them etc. But I will not be such a hypocrite as to join in with the whole DUP/Chuckle Brothers charade etc, whereby I agree to overlook their excesses and disgraceful behaviour, in return for their overlooking mine... ::)

And if that "irks" you further, too bad.

I have been looking at this thread with interest  :-\.

At the beginning EG is handed a large stick with which to beat those who would normally be first to defend the IRA and their legitimate political sucessors Sinn Fein  :-X.
From a seemingly invincible winning position he has managed a Rory McElroyesque collapse and within 2 pages he has managed to spin the thread so far off course he is within touching distance of invoking godwins law and knocking himself out :o

Quote from: LeoMc on June 21, 2011, 04:24:41 PM
I have been looking at this thread with interest  :-\.

At the beginning EG is handed a large stick with which to beat those who would normally be first to defend the IRA and their legitimate political sucessors Sinn Fein  :-X.
From a seemingly invincible winning position he has managed a Rory McElroyesque collapse and within 2 pages he has managed to spin the thread so far off course he is within touching distance of invoking godwins law and knocking himself out :o

;D

Seems to be the new buzzword. Truth.

SF: Kingsmills families need truth 'like other victims'

Sinn Fein has said it supports the relatives of the Kingsmills atrocity in their pursuit of justice.

The party spokesperson on victims Mitchel McLaughlin said other killings in the area need to be examined.

"I do not dispute the sectarian nature of the killings, it was entirely wrong and I have no problem in condemning what happened in Kingsmills," he said.

"What happened was not an isolated incident, what about the six people who were murdered the day before?" "The relatives of those killed in Kingsmills and the survivor are entitled to the truth," he added.

"Our approach is that we would like all of those who subscribed to the conflict and killing, and that includes the British government, to come forward, give the truth and provide answers."

On Tuesday the families of the 10 workmen called for a public inquiry into the killings.

The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) found the IRA was responsible and the victims were targeted because of their religion.

At the time of the massacre the IRA were on ceasefire and the South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed responsibility for the deaths.

Mr McMcLaughlin said he was prepared to accept the findings of an international reputable body that carried out an impartial truth process for everyone that had been involved in the conflict.

"I am prepared to accept the evidence if I have access to that independent process, I am prepared, even though I believe and have believed up to this point the denials by the IRA that they were involved in it," he said.

"If someone has proof that the denial does not stand up to examination then I would be obliged to consider it as a republican and I would, because I do not believe republican principals permit people to be involved in sectarian activity," he added.

"There are many incidences of disputed claims of fact so lets have the British government and all sides coming forward at the same time."

The HET report, which reinvestigated the killings as part of work spanning three decades of conflict, said the attack on the workmen had been carefully planned over a period of time.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2011, 10:13:36 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2011, 09:32:12 PM
Speaking of moral rights, anything to say about the point raised in the sentence previous to the one you put in bold?

It's a fair point, but not one that stands up to close scrutiny. The partition of Ireland may have been formally enacted after the War of Independence, but in reality there had been a de facto partition of Ireland since the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. Voters in nationalist Ireland had no moral right to expect their wishes for self determination to override the wishes of one million unionists concentrated, for the most part, in the 6 north eastern counties of the island. That kind of 'majority rule' thinking is exactly the kind which led unionists to think they had a moral right to subject their fellow citizens in the north to 50 years of one party domination. We know what that led to: an all island state based on the nationalist majority vote of 1918 would have led inevitably to a similar cataclysmic outcome had any attempt been made to give it expression. Partition may have been an unsatisfactory outcome, but it was probably the only possible outcome at that time.

Why not?  And why divide it up on county boundaries?  Unionists at the time of partition wanted to give south Armagh to the free state and take East Donegal, i know that was to strengthen their own majority in forming the north but.  Why was Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry not part of the Free State?  To my knowledge these counties have always been majority nationalist.   Why did Unionist wishes in these counties override the majority nationalist wishes?  Not that i would have wanted them to be part of the free state as it would have led Armagh, Antrim and Down to be totally f****d.  Plantation is not an excuse, that was Englands **** up not the nationalist people of the 6 counties.

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2011, 10:13:36 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2011, 09:32:12 PM
Speaking of moral rights, anything to say about the point raised in the sentence previous to the one you put in bold?

It's a fair point, but not one that stands up to close scrutiny. The partition of Ireland may have been formally enacted after the War of Independence, but in reality there had been a de facto partition of Ireland since the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. Voters in nationalist Ireland had no moral right to expect their wishes for self determination to override the wishes of one million unionists concentrated, for the most part, in the 6 north eastern counties of the island. That kind of 'majority rule' thinking is exactly the kind which led unionists to think they had a moral right to subject their fellow citizens in the north to 50 years of one party domination. We know what that led to: an all island state based on the nationalist majority vote of 1918 would have led inevitably to a similar cataclysmic outcome had any attempt been made to give it expression. Partition may have been an unsatisfactory outcome, but it was probably the only possible outcome at that time.

Why not?  And why divide it up on county boundaries?  Unionists at the time of partition wanted to give south Armagh to the free state and take East Donegal, i know that was to strengthen their own majority in forming the north but.  Why was Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry not part of the Free State?  To my knowledge these counties have always been majority nationalist.   Why did Unionist wishes in these counties override the majority nationalist wishes?  Not that i would have wanted them to be part of the free state as it would have led Armagh, Antrim and Down to be totally f****d.  Plantation is not an excuse, that was Englands **** up not the nationalist people of the 6 counties.

Why should Irish nationalist wishes for self determination be allowed, but Ulster British wishes for the self same thing be denied?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 22, 2011, 08:56:58 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2011, 10:13:36 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2011, 09:32:12 PM
Speaking of moral rights, anything to say about the point raised in the sentence previous to the one you put in bold?

It's a fair point, but not one that stands up to close scrutiny. The partition of Ireland may have been formally enacted after the War of Independence, but in reality there had been a de facto partition of Ireland since the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. Voters in nationalist Ireland had no moral right to expect their wishes for self determination to override the wishes of one million unionists concentrated, for the most part, in the 6 north eastern counties of the island. That kind of 'majority rule' thinking is exactly the kind which led unionists to think they had a moral right to subject their fellow citizens in the north to 50 years of one party domination. We know what that led to: an all island state based on the nationalist majority vote of 1918 would have led inevitably to a similar cataclysmic outcome had any attempt been made to give it expression. Partition may have been an unsatisfactory outcome, but it was probably the only possible outcome at that time.

Why not?  And why divide it up on county boundaries?  Unionists at the time of partition wanted to give south Armagh to the free state and take East Donegal, i know that was to strengthen their own majority in forming the north but.  Why was Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry not part of the Free State?  To my knowledge these counties have always been majority nationalist.   Why did Unionist wishes in these counties override the majority nationalist wishes?  Not that i would have wanted them to be part of the free state as it would have led Armagh, Antrim and Down to be totally f****d.  Plantation is not an excuse, that was Englands **** up not the nationalist people of the 6 counties.

Why should Irish nationalist wishes for self determination be allowed, but Ulster British wishes for the self same thing be denied?

Because Ireland has always been one Country, nationalists in the north are in the minority through no fault of our own. It was taken over as a nation, it should have been put to a vote as a country. What about the nationalist majoritys in three out of the six counties that make up the north?  Does their majoritys not count?  Not saying that they should have been part of the free state but if it was being divided up along county boundaries why not take into account other nationalist majoritys. Its simple really, it was (still is in my eyes) one country.  It should have went to a 32 county vote.  If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 22, 2011, 08:56:58 PM
Why should Irish nationalist wishes for self determination be allowed, but Ulster British wishes for the self same thing be denied?

Because the former were a majority, and the latter were a minority; unless of course some external power draws an arbitrary border to convert a minority into a majority. How about the Leinster, Munster and Connacht British? Why should it only be the Ulster British who are given the luxury of an arbitrary undemocratic line?


Kingsmill was a horrific event, an anathema to Republicanism, and I sincerely hope the survivor and relatives can secure closure.

EG, however, is up to his usual polluting tricks on this thread: the murders of the Catholics on the night before were not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a line of murderous attacks on innocent Kaflicks in that are of Armagh at that time, so any planning that the killers might have engaged in beforehand was not born out of serene co-existential bliss. Additionally, in the aftermath of Kingsmill, those attacks on Catholics stopped. No excuse, however, for ever taking the life of an innocent, never.

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 09:30:27 PM
If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

It would have been much worse. The Curragh mutiny demonstrated that the British would not have taken up arms against their Unionist brethren. They might even have weighed in behind them. Think the Tans were bad? Imagine what the whole British Army behaving that way would have been like

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 09:30:27 PMBecause Ireland has always been one Country, nationalists in the north are in the minority through no fault of our own. It was taken over as a nation, it should have been put to a vote as a country. What about the nationalist majoritys in three out of the six counties that make up the north?  Does their majoritys not count?  Not saying that they should have been part of the free state but if it was being divided up along county boundaries why not take into account other nationalist majoritys. Its simple really, it was (still is in my eyes) one country.  It should have went to a 32 county vote. If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

Worst. Whataboutery. Ever.

You may think Partition was unjustifiable, and though I disagree entirely, you may even be right - it's not something which anyone can ever "prove".

But whatever the case, how are the events of 1918 etc relevant to the massacre at Kingsmills in 1976?

Was Kingsmills ever going to make up for whatever wrongs were suffered over half a century previously?

Was Kingsmills ever likely to contribute to the reversal of Partition?

Was any newly United [sic] Ireland, achieved by tactics such as Kingsmills, going to leave Armagh (and the other Northern Counties) more prosperous and peaceable than before?

Of course not.

The simple fact is, Kingsmills was nothing but a nasty, brutal and sectarian atrocity, which contributed precisely nothing to Ireland, North or South, bar further misery, hurt and hatred.

And if you cannot accept that simple fact, then you have a very fcuked up view of the world.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Quote from: deiseach on June 22, 2011, 09:59:16 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 09:30:27 PM
If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

It would have been much worse. The Curragh mutiny demonstrated that the British would not have taken up arms against their Unionist brethren. They might even have weighed in behind them. Think the Tans were bad? Imagine what the whole British Army behaving that way would have been like

possibly but i cant help but think how quickly the unionists that found themselves on the wrong side of the border settled, how little resistance they put up and how quickly they began to regard themselves as Irish.  You're probably right though, the British probably would have weighed in behind the unionists (as they did in the past 40 years).  But sure we would have had a better chance with 32 counties fighting them than the 6 that happened 50 years later

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 22, 2011, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 09:30:27 PMBecause Ireland has always been one Country, nationalists in the north are in the minority through no fault of our own. It was taken over as a nation, it should have been put to a vote as a country. What about the nationalist majoritys in three out of the six counties that make up the north?  Does their majoritys not count?  Not saying that they should have been part of the free state but if it was being divided up along county boundaries why not take into account other nationalist majoritys. Its simple really, it was (still is in my eyes) one country.  It should have went to a 32 county vote. If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

Worst. Whataboutery. Ever.

You may think Partition was unjustifiable, and though I disagree entirely, you may even be right - it's not something which anyone can ever "prove".

But whatever the case, how are the events of 1918 etc relevant to the massacre at Kingsmills in 1975?

Was Kingsmills ever going to make up for whatever wrongs were suffered over half a century previously?

Was Kingsmills ever likely to contribute to the reversal of Partition?

Was any newly United [sic] Ireland, achieved by tactics such as Kingsmills, going to leave Armagh (and the other Northern Counties) more prosperous and peaceable than before?

Of course not.

The simple fact is, Kingsmills was nothing but a nasty, brutal and sectarian atrocity, which contributed precisely nothing to Ireland, North or South, bar further misery, hurt and hatred.

And if you cannot accept that simple fact, then you have a very fcuked up view of the world.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Read where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

But if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 09:31:20 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 22, 2011, 08:56:58 PM
Why should Irish nationalist wishes for self determination be allowed, but Ulster British wishes for the self same thing be denied?

Because the former were a majority, and the latter were a minority; unless of course some external power draws an arbitrary border to convert a minority into a majority. How about the Leinster, Munster and Connacht British? Why should it only be the Ulster British who are given the luxury of an arbitrary undemocratic line?


Kingsmill was a horrific event, an anathema to Republicanism, and I sincerely hope the survivor and relatives can secure closure.

EG, however, is up to his usual polluting tricks on this thread: the murders of the Catholics on the night before were not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a line of murderous attacks on innocent Kaflicks in that are of Armagh at that time, so any planning that the killers might have engaged in beforehand was not born out of serene co-existential bliss. Additionally, in the aftermath of Kingsmill, those attacks on Catholics stopped. No excuse, however, for ever taking the life of an innocent, never.

Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 22, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 09:31:20 PMEG, however, is up to his usual polluting tricks on this thread: the murders of the Catholics on the night before were not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a line of murderous attacks on innocent Kaflicks in that are of Armagh at that time, so any planning that the killers might have engaged in beforehand was not born out of serene co-existential bliss.

Of course the Reaveys and O'Loans were not isolated murders of Catholics - no objective person ever claimed they were.

Just as no objective person could claim that the Massacre of innocent Protestant civilians by the Provos at Kingsmills was an isolated incident, before and after 1976, in South Armagh, either.

Or have you forgotten eg Tullyvallen (1975) or Darkley (1983)?

The simple fact is, each side engaged in terrible and indiscriminate sectarian murders and each attempted to justify its own foul deeds on the basis that "Themmuns started it" - it's why it's called "Tit-For-Tat" for Gods sake.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 09:31:20 PMAdditionally, in the aftermath of Kingsmill, those attacks on Catholics stopped.

More Provo revisionism...

If the murder of innocent Catholics in south Armagh ended for a period immediately after Kingsmills, what grounds do you have for believing that this was entirely down to that one action? The facts are, after Kingsmills, the British Government poured loads of extra SAS into South Armagh, the RUC then arrested a number of "Loyalists", and Roy Mason, who was  the most "Law and Order" of Secretaries of State was appointed a few months later, leading to a shift to the "Ulsterisation" of security etc.

These undoubtedly restricted Loyalist paramilitaries' room for manoeuvre in South Armagh.

And in any case, just as David Ervine joined the UVF after witnessing the Provos' Bloody Friday Massacre in Belfast, so South Armagh-born Billy Wright was later to tell journalist Toby Harnden: "I was 15 when those workmen were pulled out of that bus and shot dead. I was a Protestant and I realised that they had been killed simply because they were Protestants. I left Mountnorris, came back to Portadown and immediately joined the youth wing of the UVF. I felt it was my duty to help my people and that is what I have been doing ever since."

Do you think it a consolation to the families of innocent Catholics subsequently butchered by him in North Armagh that the deaths of their loved ones were the price to be paid for saving [sic]  innocent Catholic lives in South Armagh?  ::)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 09:31:20 PMNo excuse, however, for ever taking the life of an innocent, never.

If you truly believe that, then why did you feel the need to point out that Catholics were being murdered before Kingsmills, or that such killings ceased in the immediate aftermath for a period, when no-one had been claiming anything to the contrary.

Unless, of course, by providing "context", you were also subtlely trying to provide some sort of justification as well?  ::)

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 10:36:14 PMRead where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

And you couldn't find another thread anywhere on this Board which deals with Partition?

Or start a new one of your own?

Yeah, right... ::)

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 10:36:14 PMBut if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

See?

Sticking to the point isn't exactly hard, is it?

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 22, 2011, 10:21:58 PM
But whatever the case, how are the events of 1918 etc relevant to the massacre at Kingsmills in 1976?

Aren't you the same 'Evil Genius' that went to great length earlier in the thread to discuss Kingsmill in the context of the USAs atomic bombings of Horoshima & Nagasaki?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 10:39:54 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 22, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 07:16:52 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

I think that's a 'yes', Fear ón Srath Bán :D

Quote from: deiseach on June 23, 2011, 08:49:39 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 07:16:52 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

I think that's a 'yes', Fear ón Srath Bán :D

Great summary deiseach!  :D

EG, when comparing loyalist and republican violence and attacks during the troubles the only variable that is identical is the impact that it has on the victims.  The taking of an innocent life is always wrong.  The end does not justify the means, whether that be Kingsmills, Hiroshima or anyother massacre of innocent civilians.
The ideology of republican violence during the troubles (note I am not justifying any actions) is in stark contrast with loyalist violence.  If anyone as any difficulty in understanding this then I suggest that they look at the figures for re offending by ex prisoners since the GFA, and ask why do they trend in such a specific way.

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 22, 2011, 11:27:08 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 10:36:14 PMRead where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

And you couldn't find another thread anywhere on this Board which deals with Partition? Or start a new one of your own?

Yeah, right... ::)

Quote from: armagho9 on June 22, 2011, 10:36:14 PMBut if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

See?

Sticking to the point isn't exactly hard, is it?

Why would i bother looking when someone was talking about it here, why didnt you start one about Hiroshima? 

You jumped in feet first, slabbering as usual.   ::)

Anyway, you seem like the sort of know it all that i couldnt be bothered talking to.  Good luck

Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance. 

And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 05:04:13 PM
Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance.  And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

And the exact thing will happen again if Nationalists are ever in the majority in the north GFA or not.  Cant imagine the sort of scum that invaded the short strand on Monday and Tuesday night accepting democracy.  Democracy is all well and good when they're in the majority

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 05:04:13 PM
Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance. 

And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

It was a lot more complicated than that. At one stage Craig et al were prepared to back a Dublin government and home rule with only mimimal safeguards against Chruch interference but intransigence from the Bishops, then the All Ireland council and the Northern Unionists and the whole thing spiralled.

Leo, I acknowledge that every situation is more complex than eight lines of text can convey, but do you agree that in the aftermath of signing the Solemn League and Covenant, the UVF were prepared to fight against Home Rule and that the British govt. buckled under what was really, in essence, a threat of terror, an example of might is right?

Quote from: deiseach on June 23, 2011, 08:49:39 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 07:16:52 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 22, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

I think that's a 'yes', Fear ón Srath Bán :D

The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives. Was might right in this case, or should the 1916 crowd have stayed at home? Genuine question. Hitler's armies didn't head back to Berlin because they were asked to do so by the countries they invaded. They were forced back, at the cost of millions of lives. Was might right in this case? Again, a genuine question. If I happen to be walking along a street when I spot a child being attacked by a lunatic, should I rush over and use 'might' to stop the attack, or should I stand beside the attacker and appeal to his better nature by asking him to stop his attack?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 08:51:24 PM
The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 06:04:54 PM
Leo, I acknowledge that every situation is more complex than eight lines of text can convey, but do you agree that in the aftermath of signing the Solemn League and Covenant, the UVF were prepared to fight against Home Rule and that the British govt. buckled under what was really, in essence, a threat of terror, an example of might is right?

Over 500,000 signed the covenant in 1912 and 100,000 pledged to fight. However negotiations were ongoing and there were 2 further attempts to at Home Rule bills. 6 years later they were still debating temporary opt out for 4, 6 ,or 9 counties.
Lets not forget we also had the IV and NV running about prepared to fight with the British Army to force Ulster into a UI. As you say it was a complex time with many nuances.
Add in the background of the Great war and  in my opinion if it were not for the requirement for cannon fodder the British Army would have been prepared to push through home rule armed resistance or not.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 23, 2011, 09:09:02 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 08:51:24 PM
The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

You're making my argument for me, which is nice of you, but not necessary. Reasoned debate failed, where violent uprising succeeded, you say. So might is right, then?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 09:35:11 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 23, 2011, 09:09:02 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 23, 2011, 08:51:24 PM
The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

You're making my argument for me, which is nice of you, but not necessary. Reasoned debate failed, where violent uprising succeeded, you say. So might is right, then?

I don't think that would be too difficult, since your argument seems to be all over the place. Might was WRONG to defy the wishes of the majority in 1913, but it was succumbed to by those uber-democrats, the British.

Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 10:38:18 PM
Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

I'm not sure that the concept of 'might is right' has much to do with moral authority, though certainly Fear seems to think it does. When I use the term, I use it to express the view that the greater power or force usually wins the day, regardless of where the morality of a given situation lies. For e.g, in that analogy of a child being attacked that I used - I could storm over and try to stop the attack by physically intervening, but there's always the possibility that the attacker could turn round and beat the crap out of me: the fact that I am morally in the right has no bearing on the situation, might prevails. The success of the Irish republic in winning its independence was not due to the 'rightness' of its cause. Many previous rebellions had failed and they were just as valid from a moral standpoint. The 2nd world war allied forces had no more moral authority as a group, than did the individual countries invaded by the Nazis, but the first were successful while the latter were not. In all situations, greater power prevails. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 24, 2011, 07:23:02 AM

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 10:38:18 PM
Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

I'm not sure that the concept of 'might is right' has much to do with moral authority, though certainly Fear seems to think it does. When I use the term, I use it to express the view that the greater power or force usually wins the day, regardless of where the morality of a given situation lies. For e.g, in that analogy of a child being attacked that I used - I could storm over and try to stop the attack by physically intervening, but there's always the possibility that the attacker could turn round and beat the crap out of me: the fact that I am morally in the right has no bearing on the situation, might prevails. The success of the Irish republic in winning its independence was not due to the 'rightness' of its cause. Many previous rebellions had failed and they were just as valid from a moral standpoint. The 2nd world war allied forces had no more moral authority as a group, than did the individual countries invaded by the Nazis, but the first were successful while the latter were not. In all situations, greater power prevails. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

So did "might" gain the 26 counties freedom from Britain? Who was the greater power?
Did might gain American independance?
Did the mighty Mexican Imperial Army defeat Sam Houstons Texan militias?

Yes might always wins out..... oh wait!

Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.   

I'm sure poverty was  a factor but the Brits mismanaged the situation badly though when it came to discrimination against catholics plus civil rights etc and our own govt just kinda stood back. There was a void left then for paramilitaries.

Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:19:14 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Top post of the entire thread (imo).

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 03:58:23 PM

Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:19:14 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Top post of the entire thread (imo).

Hmmmmm, I dunno. I reckon that the post of the thread was the one where you chastised a poster for mentioning events in Ireland in 1918 because "that has nothing to do with Kingsmill" despite the fact that a few posts earlier, you went to great length to discuss Kingsmill in the context of the US killing of around 200,000 people in their atomic bomings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yeah, that was definitely my favourite post of the entire thread.

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:12:20 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 03:58:23 PM

Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:19:14 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Top post of the entire thread (imo).

Hmmmmm, I dunno. I reckon that the post of the thread was the one where you chastised a poster for mentioning events in Ireland in 1918 because "that has nothing to do with Kingsmill" despite the fact that a few posts earlier, you went to great length to discuss Kingsmill in the context of the US killing of around 200,000 people in their atomic bomings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yeah, that was definitely my favourite post of the entire thread.

He has still not apologised or admitted he was wrong, chooses to ignore when he is wrong.  Typical unionist

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ? 

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 08:39:21 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

Yep only 20% Seafoid. He's fired out that impressive stat already. So we should be praising the provos for only killing one innocent in five apparently.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 24, 2011, 09:57:12 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 24, 2011, 07:23:02 AM

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 23, 2011, 10:38:18 PM
Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

I'm not sure that the concept of 'might is right' has much to do with moral authority, though certainly Fear seems to think it does. When I use the term, I use it to express the view that the greater power or force usually wins the day, regardless of where the morality of a given situation lies. For e.g, in that analogy of a child being attacked that I used - I could storm over and try to stop the attack by physically intervening, but there's always the possibility that the attacker could turn round and beat the crap out of me: the fact that I am morally in the right has no bearing on the situation, might prevails. The success of the Irish republic in winning its independence was not due to the 'rightness' of its cause. Many previous rebellions had failed and they were just as valid from a moral standpoint. The 2nd world war allied forces had no more moral authority as a group, than did the individual countries invaded by the Nazis, but the first were successful while the latter were not. In all situations, greater power prevails. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

So did "might" gain the 26 counties freedom from Britain? Who was the greater power?
Did might gain American independance?
Did the mighty Mexican Imperial Army defeat Sam Houstons Texan militias?

Yes might always wins out..... oh wait!

The side with the most soldiers and the biggest guns isn't always the most powerful in any given conflict.

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 08:39:21 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad.  ::)

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 10:50:41 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 08:39:21 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad.  ::)

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

Quote from: hardstation on June 24, 2011, 11:14:47 PM

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on June 24, 2011, 10:56:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 10:50:41 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 08:39:21 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad.  ::)

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

Just to bat it back...When did Nally Stand mention that Seafoid mentioned the Old IRA?

He quoted his post.........

Quote from: hardstation on June 24, 2011, 11:20:13 PM

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on June 24, 2011, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: hardstation on June 24, 2011, 11:14:47 PM

Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on June 24, 2011, 10:56:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 10:50:41 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 08:39:21 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on June 24, 2011, 04:05:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 24, 2011, 03:41:02 PM
Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad.  ::)

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

Just to bat it back...When did Nally Stand mention that Seafoid mentioned the Old IRA?

He quoted his post.........

He started that particular sentence with "I guess", which would infer that Seafoid didn't mention it in his post.

Fair enough. Different interpretations I suppose.

Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ? 

Quote from: seafoid on June 25, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ?

The book lost lives gives a break down of the deaths caused by each group, and what religion, organisation (or innocent) those victims belonged to. 

Strange that the IRA killed so many catholic police officers and prison wardens for a sectarian organisation

As an ecumenical outfit they did kill a shocking number of Protestants. 

Quote from: armagho9 on June 25, 2011, 01:40:54 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 25, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ?

The book lost lives gives a break down of the deaths caused by each group, and what religion, organisation (or innocent) those victims belonged to. 

Strange that the IRA killed so many catholic police officers and prison wardens for a sectarian organisation

As if that makes Provo slaughter of Protestants OK, then?  ::)

The simple fact is, the Provos were quite prepared to murder anyone  who stood in the way of their imposing their will upon the people of Ireland. And, of course, the single most numerous and homogeneous group standing in their way was the one million Protestants of NI (although the Provos preferred to term us "Brits", as in "Brits Out!")

Of course for propaganda reasons, they struck first at those Protestants who were in the Security Forces, Prison Service or Judiciary etc, on the basis that they were attacking members of "the British War Machine". But as we saw time and again, they were quite prepared to strike at civilian workers and contractors etc, or even ordinary shopkeepers whose customers included police officers and the like, in their campaign of terror.

So by murdering people for being "Brits", they were also inextricably mudering people for being "Prods", as this extract from the Eames Bradley Report of 2008 makes clear:

"In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.

Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way – as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.

They believe Republicans have not come to fully understand the hurt that still exists and they need to acknowledge and appreciate the damage they did to the prospect of reconciliation between our two communities.

Indeed if the aim of the Republican struggle was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, the brutal logic of their violence undermined this aim. The reality of the depth of division that has been caused between neighbours – who now need to share the future, needs to be acknowledged. Regardless of the uniform, the cause, countrymen killed fellow countrymen. While we realize Republicans have embarked on a process to address some of these issues we believe more needs to be done – apologizing to non-combatants just isn't good enough."


And when it came down to it, they were also quite prepared to murder Protestants with no connection whatever with the security forces etc, solely in order to "Balkanise" NI, so that they might operate with impunity in newly Protestant-free areas, the effect of which was de facto to push the Border further North and East.

One example amongst many was that of Douglas Deering of Rosslea. The Deering family had lived entirely peaceably amongst their neighbours for years. In 1977, an IRA gunman (almost certainly the psychopathic sectarian mass killer Seamus McIllwaine) walked into his shop in broad daylight and shot him through the head. His "crime"? Since the Deerings were members of a small pacifist sect which did not permit its members to get involved in any activity which bore arms, or even in politics, it cannot have been anything to do with "supporting the War Machine" etc. Rather, it was simply because his was the last Protestant business in the village. There are numerous other examples throughout the years of the Troubles, but since such people do not have a Party Machine like SF behind them, their relatives' voice is invariably unheard.

Of course, there is a subtle twist to the inherent sectarianism of the Provos, as alluded to by 'Armagh09', above. That is, the Provos also butchered brave Catholics who attempted to serve the whole community in various ways (police, prison service, judiciary etc). This was essentially for two reasons. First, such victims naturally often lived in Catholic (or mixed) areas, so their movements were known, thereby making them easier to target. For example, I knew a long-serving Catholic RUC man, who was posted to the East of NI. When his aged mother died, he was unable to come back for her funeral, since the family home was in a remote border area, very predominantly Catholic, and he knew the Provos would be waiting to murder him - in the Church or Graveyard, if necessary. And even if they had swamped the service with soldiers, which nobody wanted, the increased risk of attack etc would have frightened many of the dead woman's family and neighbours from attending.

And, of course, the second reason for murdering Catholic "collaborators" [sic], was as a deliberate tactic to make the security forces exclusively Protestant, so that they could be demonised, portrayed as "sectarian" and entirely excluded from Catholic areas, and the IRA could then put themselves forwards as sole "protectors" of the community. (Anyone too young or distant to comprehend the extent of this should consider the Catholic village of Donagh, Co. Fermanagh, where the McDermott brothers were able to rape and abuse local children for years, even though it was widely known, since they knew locals were too terrified to tell the RUC, for fear of being labelled "informants" by the IRA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3ORVK6i-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3ORVK6i-8) )

All of which explains one interesting statistic which I came across recently, namely that on its first day of active service (01 April, 1970), the Ulster Defence Regiment numbered 946 Catholic recruits amongst its total strength of 2,440. Which, to save reaching for the calculator, equals 38.8% of the force:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665

Sadly, it was these Catholics who were first to be targeted for intimidation and murder - shades of Stephen Carroll, Peadar Heffron and Ronan Kerr?  ::)  >:(

 

Not only is it marching season again, on this board it also seems to be historical revisionism season too.

On another thread we have  OO proponents seriously proposing that that august fraternity is benign—break out the candy floss, the wafers and the bouncy castles, it's Orange Blossom Special time, when a squint at just about any 11th night bonfire cloaked in tricolours daubed with "KAT" and "KAC" would indicate an altogether more sinister institution.

And now on this thread good old "ethnic cleansing" has reared its head again.

And so I have to say it again.  I do not support nor never have supported the PIRA.  Kingsmills (and incidents like it) was an abomination.  No ifs, ands or buts.

Whatever you think of the IRA, though,  it was certainly not engaged in ethnic cleansing.  In fact, to use the term is to diminish real examples as in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.  Isolated incidents, however vile, do not constitute ethnic cleansing.  Do you really think that if they wished to purge the country of the Protestant population they couldn't have targeted packed Sunday morning services and done a Loughinisland to the power of ten?  Whether or not you agree that the IRA was involved in a war is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.  And with rare exception they targeted members of the security forces or what they deemed their collaborators.  I had a schoolmate executed for doing some electrical work.  Sickening.  He was not Protestant, merely a fraternizer, in their view.  Still repulsive.  IRA sympathizers will argue that he should have known better.  Perhaps.  But not ethnic cleansing.
I don't have the stats on me any longer, but when this assertion first appeared on this board a couple of years ago, I reread every paragraph of "Lost Lives" to check the veracity of the claim and discovered that it definitely was not.  This, of course, in no way soothes the pain of those who lost loved ones, but this was definitely not Serbia at its lowest.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 25, 2011, 09:21:22 PM
Not only is it marching season again, on this board it also seems to be historical revisionism season too.

On another thread we have  OO proponents seriously proposing that that august fraternity is benign—break out the candy floss, the wafers and the bouncy castles, it's Orange Blossom Special time, when a squint at just about any 11th night bonfire cloaked in tricolours daubed with "KAT" and "KAC" would indicate an altogether more sinister institution.

I assume you aren't referring to me as being an "OO proponent".

Or did you somehow miss it when on the same 'other thread' you refer to, I posted:
"I am not a member of the OO, nor never would be, for a variety of reasons. Imo it is at best anachronistic, at worst it tolerates some very nasty characters within its ranks, whose disgraceful and anything-but-Loyal activites bring shame upon the organisation.", and "I am no apologist for the OO, nor never will be unless/until it goes about rooting out the troublemakers and bigots who inevitably destroy its reputation"

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 25, 2011, 09:21:22 PMAnd now on this thread good old "ethnic cleansing" has reared its head again.

And so I have to say it again.  I do not support nor never have supported the PIRA.  Kingsmills (and incidents like it) was an abomination.  No ifs, ands or buts.

Whatever you think of the IRA, though,  it was certainly not engaged in ethnic cleansing.  In fact, to use the term is to diminish real examples as in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.  Isolated incidents, however vile, do not constitute ethnic cleansing.  Do you really think that if they wished to purge the country of the Protestant population they couldn't have targeted packed Sunday morning services and done a Loughinisland to the power of ten?  Whether or not you agree that the IRA was involved in a war is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.  And with rare exception they targeted members of the security forces or what they deemed their collaborators.  I had a schoolmate executed for doing some electrical work.  Sickening.  He was not Protestant, merely a fraternizer, in their view.  Still repulsive.  IRA sympathizers will argue that he should have known better.  Perhaps.  But not ethnic cleansing.

For Protestants who were forced out of homes, farms and businesses which they had occupied for generations, it was very much "ethnic cleansing" of the type seen previously eg in Cork in 1922.
As such, it differed from Rwanda, Cambodia or Sudan only in extent, not intent. That is, in those other places, the "cleansers" had all the resouces of a state at their disposal, with no effective opposition to prevent them in their grisly work. Whereas the Provos had as many as 28k regular Army soldiers against them, plus nearly the same again in police/UDR, plus Special Forces etc.
But we saw their true colours in areas where they did have control, such as South Armagh, in naked sectarian massacres like Darkley, Kingsmills and Tullyvallen.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 25, 2011, 09:21:22 PMI don't have the stats on me any longer, but when this assertion first appeared on this board a couple of years ago, I reread every paragraph of "Lost Lives" to check the veracity of the claim and discovered that it definitely was not.  This, of course, in no way soothes the pain of those who lost loved ones, but this was definitely not Serbia at its lowest.

Hmmm. Serbia. Where did I hear reference to that, recently?
Oh I know, it was Malachi O'Doherty speaking on "Hearts and Minds" the other week, when commenting on the appointment by Caral Ni Chuillin of her old Prison Bitch, Mary McArdle:
"I wouldn't judge anyone on what they did at nineteen, unless they continue to stand over, defend, and justify what they did.
Sinn Fein thinks of the IRA gangs as political champions who fought a noble struggle. The rest of society largely indulges that view, in that they don't argue about it any more. But that doesn't mean that they accept it.
When Martin McGuinness says that those who parcipitated in a conflict are entitled to work for the improvement of society, he is right up to a point, otherwise, his argument is that Nelson Mandella would never otherwise been made president of South Africa. But then surely he would make an exception for Ratko Mladic, wouldn't he? And if for Mladic, then where does he draw the line? Because everybody draws it somewhere. Is Mary McArdle closer to the end of the spectrum occupied by Nelson Mandela, or the end that is occupied by the ruthless assasins of innocent civilians.?
Sinn Fein wants the IRA to have at least parity in the popular imagination, with the RUC and the British army, as participants in an unfortunate but necessary war. I don't buy that for a minute. Do you? I want children to be reminded that the IRA killed more people than any other during the Troubles. Gerry Adams says he wants a truth commission. Well there's a truth to be getting on with."

Ain't that the truth... >:(

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/eoghan-harris/eoghan-harris-following-iras-bloody-track-from-the-bandon-valley-to-south-armagh-2806081.html

First, Myles, thanks for posting that article.  Powerful and poignant.

Second, EG, I know that you're not a proponent of the OO.  You have said so frequently.  As a result, I'm both surprised and disappointed that you don't call it out for what it is, a hate-filled corps whose ethos is built on anti-Catholicism.  Shoot, it's 2011 and they won't even darken the doorstep of a Catholic service, with few exceptions.  I really thought you'd present a hard critique but opted instead for presenting the softer side of sectarianism.  Bennydorano's examples are more representative, I feel.

Third, the force of the indo article notwithstanding, I still question the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" because the term itself does imply extent, by definition, and so can only really be applied to examples like the ones I gave.   The term implies a systematic and wholescale attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group on the basis of that group's ethnicity.  Kingsmills, Darkley, Tullyvallen were repugnant and horrific, but were exceptions rather than the norm.  I was appalled when they happened and am appalled now, but ethnic cleansing is much more extensive in scope.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2011, 05:08:44 PMSecond, EG, I know that you're not a proponent of the OO.  You have said so frequently.  As a result, I'm both surprised and disappointed that you don't call it out for what it is, a hate-filled corps whose ethos is built on anti-Catholicism.  Shoot, it's 2011 and they won't even darken the doorstep of a Catholic service, with few exceptions.  I really thought you'd present a hard critique but opted instead for presenting the softer side of sectarianism.  Bennydorano's examples are more representative, I feel.

"Call it for what it is"?

One thing is abundantly clear and that is that I know a hell of a sight more about what the OO "is" than you do. For example, it is common (not "isolated") amongst the Orangemen that I know routinely to have attended the funerals of RC friends, colleagues and neighbours etc. Some of the more devout desist from actually going into the Church, since it conflicts with their deeply-held convictions, but they will wait outside, in hail, rain or sun, to express their sympathy and solidarity with the deceased and family.
Of course, you may think that this latter behaviour is somehow objectionable (I think it petty, myself), but the important fact is that they have show up, not what they do when they get there. Moreover, if you compare it with eg it RC doctrine on the (in)validity of other faiths, or the infamous "Ne Temere"  rule, I fail to see how it is any more unacceptable.
Of course as an Atheist, I find all such examples of religious Discrimination (true sense of the word) dispiriting; nonetheless I try to understand the principles behind them, and refuse to see only the failings of "Themmuns", whilst ignoring those by "Ussuns".

As for Bennydorano's examples of violence and triiumphalism etc, of course I deplore these, without reservation. However, I also know that what happens eg in Ardoyne, is entirely unrepresentative of the hundreds of parades and demonstrations etc which pass off entirely peaceably* every year, without comment or commotion. Which is not to say that the confrontational parades are thus somehow "cancelled out", but think of it this way.

Whenever there is a brawl at a GAA game, or a Referee gets chased from the field etc, and the newspapers and TV pick up on it, there is inevitably a rush by GAA fans to point out that there were another 50 games played the same day, which passed off entirely wouthout incident. And so long as they do not use the uneventful games to whitewash the rare controversial ones, that, imo, is a fair point.

But maybe you think that kind of perspective valid only when discussing something confined to your "own" side, but not when involving something from the "other" side?



* - Speaking of which, I invitred you to comment on Sligoman John Deignan's visit to The Twelfth in Brookeborough with his Riverbrooke Group, as an example of excellent community relations, but you still wilfully ignore it.

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2011, 05:08:44 PMThird, the force of the indo article notwithstanding, I still question the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" because the term itself does imply extent, by definition, and so can only really be applied to examples like the ones I gave.   The term implies a systematic and wholescale attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group on the basis of that group's ethnicity.  Kingsmills, Darkley, Tullyvallen were repugnant and horrific, but were exceptions rather than the norm.  I was appalled when they happened and am appalled now, but ethnic cleansing is much more extensive in scope.

I come from Fermanagh, where 87% of all killings in the Troubles were IRA/INLA murders. These were not in response to "anti-Catholic" pogroms, nor in defence of any community. Nor were they in any way confined to serving members of the Security Forces etc. Neither were they in response to Security Forces excesses, widespread street violence, or "Loyalist" paramilitary activity etc - there was virtually none of that in Fermanagh. And with a regular majority in elections etc, the old cry of "gerrymandering" did not come into play, either.

Rather, when faced with an isolated and vulnerable (minority) Protestant community, which often had little means of defending itself, never mind striking back in kind, the Provos systematically and consistently launched a concerted campaign against every aspect of that community, involving intimidation, extortion and murder. That is the reality of what those vermin were like, since I grew up witnessing it myself, on virtually a daily basis.

And no matter how Provo propagandists try to dress it up, the essence of this campaign was to nullify, by any and every means possible, anyone  who stood in the way of their attempt to impose a United [sic] Ireland. And on that score, the most difficult obstacle was not eg the Security Forces, the Law, or Westminster etc; rather it was the one million Protestants who were proving implacable in their determination to resist.

Of course, for Propaganda purposes if nothing else, the most prominent and important targets of this campaign were those most prominent in resisting it eg politicians, security forces, judiciary etc. But the evidence shows that when the Provos had eliminated all the "legitimate targets", or these proved too difficult to get, or posed too much of a risk to their own (Provo) skin, then they (Provos) were quite prepared to turn on the rest of the Protestant community.

And as far as I'm concerned, that attitude and mindset is identical to that of other fiends whose record is more commonly associated with "ethnic cleansing", such as eg the Serbs paramilitaries; the only difference being that Ratko Mladic was in a position to kill hundreds, or even thousands,  of innocents, whilst the Provos "only" massacred their opponents two, three, five or ten at a time. 

But if any of that is still alien to you, then perhaps this example of a "Fermanagh Gael" suffering at the hands of those savages might strike a chord:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n17/fintan-otoole/diary

I'll say it again.  You'd make wonderful PRO for even the most loathsome outfit.  You manage to paint an endearing image of Orangemen huddled in the rain outside Catholic churches.  A veritable greeting card scenario.

You ask me why I didn't respond to your Deignan example.  First, I thought I had by implication, and second, you followed that invitation with the following endearing  inclusive vitriol:

(Of course, if you aren't actually interested in constructive debate, but just want to let off some steam, why don't you just retire to a darkened room with a dirty book and a box of Kleenex?  I'm guessing that, er, relief would, ahem, come more quickly for you than by typing out a reply...  ) 

So welcoming.  And I just love the comic book dialogue with its use of "er", so Beano and Dandy.


Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Deignan had a wonderful day on the periphery of orangeism in Fermanagh, as he would have at orange parades in Donegal too, for example. 

It reminds me a little of a July 4th gatheing I came across at a public park on the shores of Lake Erie about fifteen years ago..  It was all beer, brats and balloons, kids squealing with joy, everyone having a grand time.  The only obvious indication that it was some sort of white supremacist get-together were the two or three Confederate flags draped on tree limbs.  No white hoods or anything like that, but a racist gathering nonetheless.  So caution Mr. Deignan not to let outward appearances deceive.

Instead, invite him to a day out in Portadown, and begin the night before with a tour of the bonfires, and be sure to tell him to pick up a Fermanagh GAA jersey on his way through Enniskillen, encouraging him to wear it proudly, even in the aftermath of the London debacle, and then ask him how his orange experience was.

You may well know individual Orangemen better than I, but as an Armagh Catholic, I bet I had an altogether different experience of them growing up, one not quite so Pollyanna as yours.  For one so overtly anti-OO, you seem to have a charming affection for them.

So let's all sit tight and watch them in operation over the next month.  Perhaps Short Strand is the overture to the symphony proper.

Quote from: Evil Genius on June 25, 2011, 05:35:11 PM

Quote from: armagho9 on June 25, 2011, 01:40:54 PM

Quote from: seafoid on June 25, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ?

The book lost lives gives a break down of the deaths caused by each group, and what religion, organisation (or innocent) those victims belonged to. 

Strange that the IRA killed so many catholic police officers and prison wardens for a sectarian organisation

As if that makes Provo slaughter of Protestants OK, then?  ::)

The simple fact is, the Provos were quite prepared to murder anyone  who stood in the way of their imposing their will upon the people of Ireland. And, of course, the single most numerous and homogeneous group standing in their way was the one million Protestants of NI (although the Provos preferred to term us "Brits", as in "Brits Out!")

Of course for propaganda reasons, they struck first at those Protestants who were in the Security Forces, Prison Service or Judiciary etc, on the basis that they were attacking members of "the British War Machine". But as we saw time and again, they were quite prepared to strike at civilian workers and contractors etc, or even ordinary shopkeepers whose customers included police officers and the like, in their campaign of terror.

So by murdering people for being "Brits", they were also inextricably mudering people for being "Prods", as this extract from the Eames Bradley Report of 2008 makes clear:

"In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.

Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way – as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.

They believe Republicans have not come to fully understand the hurt that still exists and they need to acknowledge and appreciate the damage they did to the prospect of reconciliation between our two communities.

Indeed if the aim of the Republican struggle was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, the brutal logic of their violence undermined this aim. The reality of the depth of division that has been caused between neighbours – who now need to share the future, needs to be acknowledged. Regardless of the uniform, the cause, countrymen killed fellow countrymen. While we realize Republicans have embarked on a process to address some of these issues we believe more needs to be done – apologizing to non-combatants just isn't good enough."


And when it came down to it, they were also quite prepared to murder Protestants with no connection whatever with the security forces etc, solely in order to "Balkanise" NI, so that they might operate with impunity in newly Protestant-free areas, the effect of which was de facto to push the Border further North and East.

One example amongst many was that of Douglas Deering of Rosslea. The Deering family had lived entirely peaceably amongst their neighbours for years. In 1977, an IRA gunman (almost certainly the psychopathic sectarian mass killer Seamus McIllwaine) walked into his shop in broad daylight and shot him through the head. His "crime"? Since the Deerings were members of a small pacifist sect which did not permit its members to get involved in any activity which bore arms, or even in politics, it cannot have been anything to do with "supporting the War Machine" etc. Rather, it was simply because his was the last Protestant business in the village. There are numerous other examples throughout the years of the Troubles, but since such people do not have a Party Machine like SF behind them, their relatives' voice is invariably unheard.

Of course, there is a subtle twist to the inherent sectarianism of the Provos, as alluded to by 'Armagh09', above. That is, the Provos also butchered brave Catholics who attempted to serve the whole community in various ways (police, prison service, judiciary etc). This was essentially for two reasons. First, such victims naturally often lived in Catholic (or mixed) areas, so their movements were known, thereby making them easier to target. For example, I knew a long-serving Catholic RUC man, who was posted to the East of NI. When his aged mother died, he was unable to come back for her funeral, since the family home was in a remote border area, very predominantly Catholic, and he knew the Provos would be waiting to murder him - in the Church or Graveyard, if necessary. And even if they had swamped the service with soldiers, which nobody wanted, the increased risk of attack etc would have frightened many of the dead woman's family and neighbours from attending.

And, of course, the second reason for murdering Catholic "collaborators" [sic], was as a deliberate tactic to make the security forces exclusively Protestant, so that they could be demonised, portrayed as "sectarian" and entirely excluded from Catholic areas, and the IRA could then put themselves forwards as sole "protectors" of the community. (Anyone too young or distant to comprehend the extent of this should consider the Catholic village of Donagh, Co. Fermanagh, where the McDermott brothers were able to rape and abuse local children for years, even though it was widely known, since they knew locals were too terrified to tell the RUC, for fear of being labelled "informants" by the IRA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3ORVK6i-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3ORVK6i-8) )

All of which explains one interesting statistic which I came across recently, namely that on its first day of active service (01 April, 1970), the Ulster Defence Regiment numbered 946 Catholic recruits amongst its total strength of 2,440. Which, to save reaching for the calculator, equals 38.8% of the force:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665

Sadly, it was these Catholics who were first to be targeted for intimidation and murder - shades of Stephen Carroll, Peadar Heffron and Ronan Kerr? 

Your a sick and bitter person Evil Clown, and a prime example as to why the northern part of this country is in such a mess.  Still waiting on your apology by the way

Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2011, 08:54:46 PM
I'll say it again.  You'd make wonderful PRO for even the most loathsome outfit.  You manage to paint an endearing image of Orangemen huddled in the rain outside Catholic churches.  A veritable greeting card scenario.

You ask me why I didn't respond to your Deignan example.  First, I thought I had by implication, and second, you followed that invitation with the following endearing  inclusive vitriol:

(Of course, if you aren't actually interested in constructive debate, but just want to let off some steam, why don't you just retire to a darkened room with a dirty book and a box of Kleenex?  I'm guessing that, er, relief would, ahem, come more quickly for you than by typing out a reply...  ) 

So welcoming.  And I just love the comic book dialogue with its use of "er", so Beano and Dandy.


Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Deignan had a wonderful day on the periphery of orangeism in Fermanagh, as he would have at orange parades in Donegal too, for example. 

It reminds me a little of a July 4th gatheing I came across at a public park on the shores of Lake Erie about fifteen years ago..  It was all beer, brats and balloons, kids squealing with joy, everyone having a grand time.  The only obvious indication that it was some sort of white supremacist get-together were the two or three Confederate flags draped on tree limbs.  No white hoods or anything like that, but a racist gathering nonetheless.  So caution Mr. Deignan not to let outward appearances deceive.

Instead, invite him to a day out in Portadown, and begin the night before with a tour of the bonfires, and be sure to tell him to pick up a Fermanagh GAA jersey on his way through Enniskillen, encouraging him to wear it proudly, even in the aftermath of the London debacle, and then ask him how his orange experience was.

You may well know individual Orangemen better than I, but as an Armagh Catholic, I bet I had an altogether different experience of them growing up, one not quite so Pollyanna as yours.  For one so overtly anti-OO, you seem to have a charming affection for them.

So let's all sit tight and watch them in operation over the next month.  Perhaps Short Strand is the overture to the symphony proper.

It's really quite simple.

I freely accept that the OO has members, even whole Lodges, in parts of NI whose behaviour is an utter disgrace. And just as bad is the inability or unwillingness of the leadership to root these ones out. Consequently, I believe that the OO is a severely discredited organisation, which needs major reform if it is to take its place properly and acceptably in normal society.

But that is not what I have been arguing on this thread. Rather, you and others have consistently tarred with the same brush the entire membership for being exactly as I have described (above). And I know from long and personal experience that that simply is not so.

Yet when I give examples to prove that eg. the testimony of the Riverbrooke Group from Sligo, you first ignore it, then dodge it (by taking mock offence at my dig) and finally you sneer at the group's leader for allowing himself to be "deceived" - as though someone who spends his time trying to build bridges between divided communities must inevitably be too stupid or naive to understand what he is seeing.

Consequently, when some drunken Orangeman at an 11th night bonfire roars about "fenians all being the same etc", and then people on here argue that "all Orangemen are the same etc", the volume, tone and even consequences of the two might be different, but the same prejudiced mindset and refusal to listen to argument is at the bottom of both.

Indeed, to bring the discussion back on thread, it is that self-same mindset which was behind atrocities like Kingsmills (or Loughinisland, to take another topical example).

Quote from: armagho9 on June 26, 2011, 10:27:30 PMYour a sick and bitter person Evil Clown

If you say so.

Quote from: armagho9 on June 26, 2011, 10:27:30 PM... and a prime example as to why the northern part of this country is in such a mess.  Still waiting on your apology by the way

Right.

Quote from: armagho9 on June 26, 2011, 10:27:30 PMStill waiting on your apology by the way

An apology for what, exactly?  ???

Your calling me a "p***k" in an earlier post, perhaps?  ::)

EG you still trying to peddle the 1 million prods in the six counties fallacy!!  :D :D :D

 :o :o
lovable oo
eldest/son/fathers of loyalists/unionists killed to push them out of their homes and farms
pre-planned kingsmills killings
have to believe this report stating the IRA/preplanned etc etc etc
meanwhile on another thread- another equal report declares there was no collusion regarding loughlinisland when crown forces arms were used etc etc

its hans christian re-invent history time on here alright !!

fairytale lengthy posts from our dup/oo loving (refuses to call them for what they are and even does the opposite and deends them !!!) old pal but nothing of substence as per usual.
ya just couldnt make it up - though he does...

:D :D :D

Some of the reponses here are way over the top.

EG's argument about the OO is perfectly reasonable whether one agrees with it or not.  Also, he is very, very right to urge caution about labelling such a large grouping of people with one brush.  Similar sweeping generalisations from unionist politicians and spokespeople cost innocent GAA members their lives and all here should be aware of that.

Disagree by all means but bear in mind that a conflicting opinion is not necessarily a bigotted opinion.

/Jim.

Meanwhile...

Kingsmills Massacre: Sectarian attack on memorial to IRA victims

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64529000/jpg/_64529999_pacemakerkingsmillmemorialwallattacked03.jpg)
IRA graffiti was scratched into the plaster of the new memorial to victims of the 1976 attack

A memorial to IRA murder victims has been vandalised in a sectarian attack in Bessbrook, County Armagh.

It commemorates the Kingsmills Massacre in which 10 Protestant workmen were shot dead as they travelled home from work together in 1976.

Sectarian graffiti has been scratched into the plaster of the memorial, which is undergoing construction work.

Danny Kennedy MLA, who has campaigned on behalf of the families, said he was "absolutely appalled by the attack".

The Ulster Unionist representative also claimed that there was an attempt to "intimidate" construction workers at the memorial site, prior to the graffiti which appeared on Friday.
(More at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20573217 )

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2012, 01:26:01 AM
A memorial to IRA murder victims has been vandalised in a sectarian attack in Bessbrook, County Armagh.

It commemorates the Kingsmills Massacre in which 10 Protestant workmen were shot dead as they travelled home from work together in 1976.

The Kingsmill memorial in Bessbrook was not vandalised over the weekend, in fact it has never been vandalised to the best of my knowledge.

This new memorial, I believe is close to, or at the sight of the Kingsmill massacre and I believe is being built and funded by Willie Frazer/FAIR. The families of those murdered at Kingsmill did not want another memorial built, maybe you should ask your mate Willie why he has undertaken this project, has he received funding from the EU?

Regardless of the need for another monument, those responsible for the attack at the weekend are nothing more than mindless idiots.

What needs to be clarified?

http://www.u.tv/News/Kingsmill-inquests-must-be-prioritised/8bf25737-9a7d-4fbf-8e4b-bbddfd4cb2c8

A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

There won't be a Truth Commission, too many vested interests have too much to lose.

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 08, 2013, 08:19:00 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

There won't be a Truth Commission, too many vested interests have too much to lose.

Yeah it's never gonna happen, and all the parties know that.

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

Nairac himself was even implicated as possibly being there on UTV tonight. The plot thickens.

Quote from: borderfox on August 08, 2013, 09:01:37 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

Nairac himself was even implicated as possibly being there on UTV tonight. The plot thickens.

If Nairac was on UTV tonight then the plot has definitely thickened!

Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 08, 2013, 09:19:45 PM

Quote from: borderfox on August 08, 2013, 09:01:37 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

Nairac himself was even implicated as possibly being there on UTV tonight. The plot thickens.

If Nairac was on UTV tonight then the plot has definitely thickened!

Lol.

Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

Few alright but not enough to stop a 30 year campaign,but of course once the IRA opened up its ranks it was bound to get the 30 pieces of silver men.

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

If God in your profile pic heard you talking like that he would hit you a slap ;D

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

If God in your profile pic heard you talking like that he would hit you a slap ;D

  Hopefully God has a slap or two arranged for Brolly at the Errigal cycle next month

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 02:36:47 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

If God in your profile pic heard you talking like that he would hit you a slap ;D

  Hopefully God has a slap or two arranged for Brolly at the Errigal cycle next month

;D ;D that's very possible.

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 02:36:47 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
Nairic was some boy alright

If any ex-Provo sat up and told the truth, his teeth would fall out !!!

loose lips sink ships,see you in Castlederg tomorrow. ;)

  There were plenty of loose lips in the RA ranks!

If God in your profile pic heard you talking like that he would hit you a slap ;D

  Hopefully God has a slap or two arranged for Brolly at the Errigal cycle next month

It is next weekend. He told Brolly he might be safer taking a motorbike!  ;D

SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Can't be true,sure Gaffer said if a Provo told the truth his teeth would fall out.

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 03:35:41 PM

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Can't be true,sure Gaffer said if a Provo told the truth his teeth would fall out.

An IRA leader from '83 may not have his own teeth by now anyway !

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 08, 2013, 08:19:00 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 08, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
A group calling themselves South Armagh Republican Action Force claimed this in retaliation for the murder of 6 Catholics the previous night,the HET say that the Provos were involved,there is talk the British Army may have been involved.The sooner there is a Truth commission that SF have been calling for to try and resolve all these issues the better.

There won't be a Truth Commission, too many vested interests have too much to lose.

Agreed, there won't be a Truth Commission, and anyone calling for it does so with the confidence that it won't materialise. It would be a pointless exercise - each side would continue to maintain that the other side hadn't told the whole truth and it's a lose / lose situation for all those with secrets to tell.

Take Gerry Adams for example - if, as part of a Truth Commission, the subject of Jean McConville is raised - if he admits to the allegation made by Dolours Price, then how does he maintain his position with any credibility? If he denies it, those who don't believe him now will maintain he isn't telling the truth, and that he's not playing ball with the Commission...

I can't see how it would possibly work.

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Took the horrible cowards long enough to admit they done it.

Quote from: laoislad on August 09, 2013, 07:08:54 PM

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Took the horrible cowards long enough to admit they done it.

Ah well at least now you know.

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM

Quote from: laoislad on August 09, 2013, 07:08:54 PM

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Took the horrible cowards long enough to admit they done it.

Ah well at least now you know.

Disgusting response.

Quote from: Hardy on August 09, 2013, 07:22:00 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 07:12:57 PM

Quote from: laoislad on August 09, 2013, 07:08:54 PM

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Took the horrible cowards long enough to admit they done it.

Ah well at least now you know.

Disgusting response.

Why's that

Go on. Keep it up.

Quote from: Hardy on August 09, 2013, 07:25:42 PM
Go on. Keep it up.

Lost here  ???

Sure.

Quote from: Hardy on August 09, 2013, 07:29:00 PM
Sure.

Whatever

Quote from: laoislad on August 09, 2013, 07:08:54 PM

Quote from: orangeman on August 09, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
SF are conducting their own Truth Commission it seems -


Admission that IRA killed prison officer Brian Stack Prison officer Brian Stack was shot in the back of the neck
The IRA has admitted killing the only prison officer murdered in the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles.

Thirty years after the attack on Brian Stack, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has expressed his "regret" to the Stack family over the killing.

The family of the former Portlaoise chief prison officer had mounted a long campaign to secure the admission.

It came after Mr Stack's sons Austin and Oliver held talks with Mr Adams and a former IRA commander.

Mr Adams said he accompanied the two brothers to a meeting with a former IRA leader, who admitted the IRA shot their father in the back of the neck on 25 March, 1983.

Mr Stack had been crossing a busy Dublin street after leaving a boxing contest at the National Stadium when he was attacked.

"I want to pay tribute to the Stack family, to Sheila Stack and her sons, Austin, Kieran and Oliver," said Mr Adams.

"On behalf of Sinn Féin I extend my regret at the killing of Brian.

"I hope that these recent developments will help them achieve the closure they have sought for 30 years."

Brian Stack was left paralysed and brain-damaged from the shooting and suffered for a further 18 months before dying from his injuries at the age of 47.

Took the horrible cowards long enough to admit they done it.

f**king shameful act.

It was a shameful act and what is even more shameful is that the Provos will see this as the end of the case as far as they are concerned

  We've admitted it so there you are , Move on !

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:24:39 PM
It was a shameful act and what is even more shameful is that the Provos will see this as the end of the case as far as they are concerned

  We've admitted it so there you are , Move on !

What would you want them to do.

Help to have the gunman procecuted.

Bottom line is that the Provos don t give 2 fiddlers about Mr Stack and the suffering that his family have suffered at their hands,

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:44:19 PM
Help to have the gunman procecuted.

Bottom line is that the Provos don t give 2 fiddlers about Mr Stack and the suffering that his family have suffered at their hands,

Wise up,who do you want to help get the gunman prosecuted,the person who sent him out to do the shooting or do you just want him to give himself up.Live in the real world.The Stack family asked Gerry Adams to get them answers which he did and they are happy with what he did,so just you relax.

 I would love to see everyone associated with the murder to be locked up for a long time . Don't care how it happens or who gives the information over.

Live in the real world? Do you apply this logic when Sinn Fein demand answers from the Brits regarding collusion?

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:56:54 PM
I would love to see everyone associated with the murder to be locked up for a long time . Don't care how it happens or who gives the information over.

Live in the real world? Do you apply this logic when Sinn Fein demand answers from the Brits regarding collusion?

Well it's not going to happen,and yes I expect the British government to admit they were involved in collusion the same as I expected and happy that the Provos have admitted the killing of Mr.Stack.

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 09:03:36 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:56:54 PM
I would love to see everyone associated with the murder to be locked up for a long time . Don't care how it happens or who gives the information over.

Live in the real world? Do you apply this logic when Sinn Fein demand answers from the Brits regarding collusion?

Well it's not going to happen,and yes I expect the British government to admit they were involved in collusion the same as I expected and happy that the Provos have admitted the killing of Mr.Stack.

Wise  up !

Live in the real world !

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 09:12:14 PM

Quote from: glens abu on August 09, 2013, 09:03:36 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 08:56:54 PM
I would love to see everyone associated with the murder to be locked up for a long time . Don't care how it happens or who gives the information over.

Live in the real world? Do you apply this logic when Sinn Fein demand answers from the Brits regarding collusion?

Well it's not going to happen,and yes I expect the British government to admit they were involved in collusion the same as I expected and happy that the Provos have admitted the killing of Mr.Stack.

Wise  up !

Live in the real world !

It's all about pressure,nobody ever believed that the truth would come out about Bloody Sunday and the pressure will make sure the truth comes out about Ballymurphy,Loughinisland,Finucane etc.that is the real world but you will be waiting a long time to see all these Provos locked up,the GFA made sure of that. ;)

You appear to be quite happy that the murderers of Mr Stack may never see prison.

If any of my relations were murdered by republicans or British/loyalists I would not be happy until those who did tit were behind bars. I can t imagine that the Stack family are much further on with the confession. Sure they knew it was them anyway.

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 09:33:07 PM
You appear to be quite happy that the murderers of Mr Stack may never see prison.

If any of my relations were murdered by republicans or British/loyalists I would not be happy until those who did tit were behind bars. I can t imagine that the Stack family are much further on with the confession. Sure they knew it was them anyway.

Well why did they go with Adams to meet an IRA leader if they knew it already and yes I supported the GFA and therefore was very happy with prisoner release and don't want anyone else to spend another night in prison.Thats why I support the peace process.I have lost family and friends during the troubles but will not be losing sleep waiting on those who killed them serving time.

They went to see what the man had to say for himself.

And as regards you not wanting to see British soldiers or RUC men serving a night in prison for  any crimes they committed during the troubles......do me a favour!!!!

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 10:11:29 PM
They went to see what the man had to say for himself.

And as regards you not wanting to see British soldiers or RUC men serving a night in prison for  any crimes they committed during the troubles......do me a favour!!!!

OK you know me better than I know myself.See ya ::)

Oh I know through  years of experience how IRA worshippers really think !!!

Quote from: Gaffer on August 09, 2013, 10:19:48 PM
Oh I know through  years of experience how IRA worshippers really think !!!

You should join MI5 :D :D

Thought you were away!!

Wouldn't t need me. They re coming down with RA men.

Who knows why Stack was killed, a prison guard, a part of a particularly brutal prison regime in a time of armed struggle, but the buck stops with the governor. That casualty doesn't really have any place in a thread to do with the Kingsmill slaughter.

Police reopening this case, dont know if this will affect the inquiry.

Alan Blacks testimony was brutal reading, reminds me of Srebrenica survivors stories, really harrowing stuff.

God help him and the families going through it all again and it will no doubt linger even longer with the criminal case being reinvestigated

All enquiries should be scrapped. Forget about the past and move on!

Quote from: Orior on June 01, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
All enquiries should be scrapped. Forget about the past and move on!

This isn't an enquiry per se, it's the legacy crime squad.  They review unsolved cases and see if anything was missed.  In this case new technology allowed then re-analyze a hand print.   

Obviously we have the inquest running too.  I don't think anyone who loses a loved one unexpectedly should be denied an inquest. 



/Jim.

Don't get me wrong it was a horrible crime but what is the point in an inquest into a paramilitary murder?

I can see why Bloody Sunday had an inquest because it was the army and they are supposed to have certain protocols etc. But this was a paramilitary killing where I presume the perpetrators have immunity through the GFA so what exactly is to be achieved, I doubt there are documents or tape recordings that cold be used to get to the truth?

Is it to highlight the fact the IRA did it to give the relatives a bit of peace rather than the other nonsense spouted about a Republicaan Action Force?

I think there has to come a time when this is all put in the past but I reckon it's another generation away yet. It's still too raw for a lot of people but we will get there as I think young people of today have much less baggage than they did in the late 60s/early 70s.

The families have a right to an inquiry same as anyone else who was killed by accident or otherwise.

What happened should be officially heard and recorded if for no other reason as a reminder of the brutality of the troubles.

Trying to move on is fine and well but not at the expense of the past, brushing the past under the carpet will only allow it to fester.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2014/02/26/on-the-runs-trickery-by-blair-shows-how-the-future-is-trapped-by-the-past/

It is all very typical of the chicanery and dissimulation that Blair employed when he played politics; all that mattered was the endgame. How you got there, who you lied to and what happened way in the future in terms of damage was secondary to getting results in the here and now. And even if people did eventually find him out, it would probably be too late to make a difference.Except the issue of the OTR's touches the third rail in NI politics, the unresolved issue of the past, of who did what to whom and why and who, ultimately, is to blame for the violence of three and a half decades? Unlike most of the domestic English and Welsh issues which Blair and New Labour dealt with in this way, the matter of blame for the Troubles is something that could only be dealt with honestly and openly.