The Southern "Irish"

[Roger]

nope yer 100% incorrect

The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.

[lynchbhoy]

nope yer 100% incorrect

The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.

so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time

cop on to yourself 
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders

[Roger]

so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time

cop on to yourself 
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders

Your comment that targets were never about religion was a bare-faced lie.  Nothing inaccurate about it.  Your disproportionate rabid reply follows a simple example of why you are iinaccurate and that republicans did indeed target people because of their religion, nothing more and nothing less.

FFS listen to yourself. Your cavalier attitude regarding murder is sad, inaccurate and far more dangerous.

[Evil Genius]

You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. 

I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.

Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.

Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.

Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power.  

[lynchbhoy]

so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time

cop on to yourself 
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders

Your comment that targets were never about religion was a bare-faced lie.  Nothing inaccurate about it.  Your disproportionate rabid reply follows a simple example of why you are iinaccurate and that republicans did indeed target people because of their religion, nothing more and nothing less.

FFS listen to yourself. Your cavalier attitude regarding murder is sad, inaccurate and far more dangerous.

your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.

republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.

[lynchbhoy]

You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. 

I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.

Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.

Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.

Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power. 

completely incorrect as ever. You obv are oblivious to the nature of republican thinking as you are to most other things outside your wee secular world!

[Roger]

republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.

Hang on a minute here.  As part of your propaganda and spin (more above again) you included a bare-faced lie that republicans never murdered people simply because of their religion. I gave two quick yet very clear and indisputable examples of when republicans massacred Protestants for nothing else but being Protestant, therefore making your "100% inaccurate" remark just another ridiculous outburst from you.

Btw, I didn't say anything else but you have gone off on a tangent make presumptions about my attitude being dangerous and ranting about God knows what. 

[Roger]

your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.

Please show me when I did this.

I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).

Please show me when I did this.


Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.

[lynchbhoy]

republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.

Hang on a minute here.  As part of your propaganda and spin (more above again) you included a bare-faced lie that republicans never murdered people simply because of their religion. I gave two quick yet very clear and indisputable examples of when republicans massacred Protestants for nothing else but being Protestant, therefore making your "100% inaccurate" remark just another ridiculous outburst from you.

Btw, I didn't say anything else but you have gone off on a tangent make presumptions about my attitude being dangerous and ranting about God knows what. 

two , a few instances - doesnt give any creedence to your notion that the republican mantra was to target protestants throughout the 35 years. It most certainly wasnt. Religion was of no consequence. Killing seemed tobe far too easy accomplished by both sides. Different motives though.

now please tell me why nationalists were targeted that caused them to fight back in the first place - would this be incorrect?

[lynchbhoy]

your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.

Please show me when I did this.

I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).

Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.

you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!

[Roger]

your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.

Please show me when I did this.

I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).

Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.

you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!

What are you talking about?  You simply came out with lies and smear.  Here it is again for you......

The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)

That is a lie and 100% inaccurate.

[lynchbhoy]

your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.

Please show me when I did this.

I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).

Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.

you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!

What are you talking about?  You simply came out with lies and smear.  Here it is again for you......

The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)

That is a lie and 100% inaccurate.

sheesh
the mantra of the provos in the 35 years was never to target protestants for their religion alone.
I would expect that  by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.
I presume you mean that kingsmills/darkley targets were selected just because they were protestant, I dont really think that is the case, but either way - the republican militant mantra is not observed by one or two cases.
So again , you are incorrect that republicans targets were solely protestant/religious motivated.

I used other examples as you dont seem to be able to take off the blinkers and was trying to 'help' to to see and understand.

Now, please confirm to me that the targetting of nationalists was religiously motivated by the perportrating unionist/loyalist/crown forces/b specials etc factions before/at the beginning/after 1968 periods - and that was the reason that caused nationalists/catholics to retaliate !

thanks

[Zapatista]

The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.

That's a contradiction in terms.

[Evil Genius]

You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. 

I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.

Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.

Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.

Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power.

completely incorrect as ever. You obv are oblivious to the nature of republican thinking as you are to most other things outside your wee secular world!

Whereas from your posts, you are an expert not just on Republican thinking, but on Unionist thinking as well...

In which case, would you like to provide me with what my answer should be to what was originally a rhetorical question of mine, namely:

"Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away?"

In the end, paramilitarism was nothing more than unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative groupings taking it upon themselves to impose their will by force upon those who would disagree with them.

For propaganda purposes, it suited IRA/INLA to characterise their "struggle" as being to get the "Brits" out, but as their sordid and murderous campaign unfolded, the definition of "Brits" was successively widened, so as effectively to include virtually anyone in NI who identified themselves as "British".

First it was the British Army. Then it was the locally recruited security forces - even when those included members who were Catholic. Next it was those who "collaborated" with the "British War Machine" (e.g. suppliers and contractors), regardless of the fact that these were ordinary people who were just trying to make a living and provide for their families, by pursuing a perfectly legal trade. And it wasn't long before the definition of "Brits" was widened to include people who, by merely trying to do business in NI, were "Brits" because they contributed to the economy which "supported the British War Machine blah blah blah"

An example of this was Jeffrey Agate, a Du Pont executive murdered by the IRA in 1977. As the following report explains, the IRA murdered him because he had "played a prominent part in stabilising the British-oriented economy" (or providing jobs for workers in Derry, as some others called it).  And the IRA went on to add that they would "remove the British presence even if it meant reducing Belfast to rubble" (no doubt this was the heroic motive of Bobby Sands when he was arrested later that year while trying to bomb that notorious British Military Installation, the Balmoral Furniture Company...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7162727.stm
Ditto the murder of James Nicholson, an Executive at Strathearn Audio in West Belfast.

And finally, whenever their struggle to get the "Brits Out" ran out of "legitimate targets" which might be attacked without serious risk to themselves, the IRA and INLA resorted to the "softest" of targets, despite this revealing the true nature of their campaign. This was best characterised by a ruthless campaign against vulnerable and isolated groups and individuals all along the border, or elsewhere where they could hope to strike with impunity.

Or have you forgotten e.g. the murder of Sir Norman Stronge at Tynan? He was murdered in his home alongside his son, by a gang of at least 8 IRA members. Austin Currie described him as "even at 86 years of age... still incomparably more of a man than the cowardly dregs of humanity who ended his life in this barbaric way" (Time Magazine). In his book "A Secret History of the IRA", Ed Moloney reported a Tyrone republican and Gaelic Athletic Association veteran as justifying it (and Kingsmills) as, "... a lesson you learn quickly on the football field...If you're fouled, you hit back". And Gerry Adams's terse response was "The only complaint I have heard from nationalists or anti-unionists is that he was not shot 40 years ago". (The Spectator).

Of course, IRA victims in their attempt to intimidate and coerce ordinary Unionists/Protestants etc weren't usually so well-known. I was reminded recently of Douglas Deering, murdered in Rosslea in 1977. It cannot have been his politics or his military service which caused him to be singled out, for he belonged to a small, effectively pacifist, religious sect which instructs its members to avoid both. Rather, when an IRA gunman walked into his shop in broad daylight and shot him through the head, he will doubtless have been aware that Deering ran the last Protestant business in the village.

Still, unimportant people like Deering were merely "unavoidable victims" of the IRA's noble campaign, and hence not really deserving of recognition or commemoration. As such, they hardly rank with other local heroes of the calibre of e.g. Seamus McEllwaine, regularly honoured by SF/IRA for his contribution to the struggle. McElwaine, coincidentally, was born and brought up near Scotstown, Co. Momaghan, not far over the border from Rosslea. And he subsequently died at the hands of the British Army in Rosslea, whilst on "active service". Of course, it is not known whether he was in Rosslea on the day Deering was singled out for sectarian murder. Well not officially, at least...  

 
 

[Maguire01]

Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.

you really are out of touch with reality yet again with incorrect self assumed presumptions on the rest of society.

Try telling that highlighted bit in bold to the hundreds of thousands of protestants south of the border !

Eh? Just noticed this! Hundreds of thousands of Protestants south of the border?

Population classified by religion and nationality 2006

Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant)  86,990
Other Christian Religion  16,327
Presbyterian 13,628
Methodist 5,077
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm

And surely you do know that the Protestant population in the south was much bigger? I think it's definitely a valid argument that in the past at least, being Irish meant "being Gaelic and Catholic". Much less so now, due to the diminishing role of the Church, but i don't think you can dismiss the perception that Protestants in the north may have.