The Southern "Irish"

[Roger]

yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.

No Maguire said that on occasion they probably did target Prods for their religion and that you had admitted it too. You have argued differently throughout this thread and said "never".  Well except on the one occasion you dropped your guard and seemed to agree and admit it.

Plus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!

Is that aimed at me?

[lynchbhoy]

yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.

No Maguire said that on occasion they probably did target Prods for their religion and that you had admitted it too. You have argued differently throughout this thread and said "never".  Well except on the one occasion you dropped your guard and seemed to agree and admit it.

Plus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!

Is that aimed at me?

I agreed with this
I don't think that anyone is saying that the IRA's sole or pure mission/objective was to kill Protestants
the rest is effectively irrelevent because this does not constitute the republican movement as being out to target people because of their religion.
The guard being dropped is my saying that there are instances where protestants have been killed that to some could be constituted as so, but as I made you aware of before , not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.
you certainly dont. I dont pretend to know.
So to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.
(did you see Main street's post)

Also I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!

[Main Street]

This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.

I know how you feel.

No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.

Yes, you may be right.
But this topic was regarding what was basically a sectarian headcount. It's about religious affilliation, not practice. It's like applying for public sector jobs in NI - regardless of whether you practice, your family/community background (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is asked for.
In this respect, the census does what it is supposed to do. And as the original figures at the turn of the last century (i.e. the 10% Protestant figure) came from a census, that's my rationale for comparing with current census figures - like with like (assuming a similar margin for error).
Furthermore, prior to the recent immigration influx, Catholic mass attendance was in similar freefall, yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.

You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy

Very patronising.
But i'll clarify - my issue is not with the research itself, but the fact that you're comparing like with like.
And just to clarify - i do not dispute the declining numbers of church attendance or religious practice.

Sorry for appearing patronising, it's more exasperation.

I think you might have understood that I did not dispute declining numbers of protestants in the South.
Get that clear.
I think you might have understood that I was trying to explain that numbers of Protestants have declined elsewhere, even that they declined in greater numbers in England. That the decline in the South was part of a wider trend.

You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.
You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.

Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.

The declining numbers in protestants in the South has been used as some sort of evidence of some sort of underhand pogrom.
The totally discredited Peter Hart, even proclaimed as some sort of historian  

Protestants married Catholics in England and in Ireland.
Protestants lost interest in England and they lost interest in Ireland
Protestants numbers have radically declined in England.
Nobody in England afaik comes out and uses the declining numbers as anything other than a natural phenonomen.

yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.

Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.

[Roger]

not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.

For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?

So to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.

To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion.  All identified Prods were shot.

You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all?  The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.

Also I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!

I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue.  I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.

[Rossfan]

I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967.

[lynchbhoy]

not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.

For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?

So to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.

To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion.  All identified Prods were shot.

You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all?  The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.

Also I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!

I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue.  I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.

telling lies  
there are a few examples of where protestants were killed, but this does not mean let alone prove that republicans targetted protestants specifically for their religion alone - far from it.
You wont understand or cannot understand. Its not a case of anyone saying it was right, again I dont think this, but you are attempting to re-write history her with these isolated incidents.
However you wont even reciprocate with answers to my questions, you could use your own words here when you dismiss the cause, beginning and genocidal aims of protestant ranked establishment .
As for targettin nationalists, I think there are a number of incidents and actual prescribed govenmental documents on shoot to kill policy, plus you are getting back to where I am asking you to start from - the pre 1968 era when nationalists were victimised, oppressed, persecuted - all of whch has been witnessed and noted by UN and various independent bodies plus the Brit gov archives speak volumes when these documents are annually released!
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted. The beginning, when there was no provocation no military /armed fightback.
then tell me about who was targetting who based solely on religion.
However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.

talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise

[lynchbhoy]

I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967.

I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank with 'lies and smokescreens' on that topic at the moment!

[Evil Genius]

I have no doubt that different members of the IRA and INLA etc had different motives for becoming involved in what they term the "armed struggle". Some of these motives will be understandable, some might even be thought "noble" (defending your homes etc) - at least until the reality of what that involvement required them to do kicked in.

Anyhow, I have no doubt that the motives of at least some other of those activists were essentially sectarian, no matter how much they or their colleagues would like to deny it.

The consequences are to be found in any number of massacres of people for no other reason than that they were Protestants. For how else can one explain the "Catholic Action Force" [sic] (INLA) entering a Gospel Hall in Darkley, South Armagh during a service and spraying the congregation - men, women and children - with machine guns? And it is not just by their deeds that they may be judged; the proof is to be found in the words of some of those activists, too.

One particular such example is Sean O'Callaghan, a Kerryman from an ardent, traditional Republic background, who became involved in his early teens. Eventually, of course, he came to regret his involvement and leave the Provos, subsequently rejecting them and "blowing the whistle" on what he and his colleagues had been up to. Here is one excerpt from his Memoirs, describing the naked sectarian hatred of some of them, including even direct involvement by individual members of the RC clergy:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n1_v49/ai_19071766/pg_3?tag=content;col1

"In May 1974 I was sent to the Mid Ulster Brigade of the IRA. On May 2, along with up to forty IRA men from the East Tyrone Brigade, I took part in an attack on an army/UDR [Ulster Defense Regiment] base at the Deanery in Clogher, County Tyrone. There was a heavy gun battle which lasted up to twenty minutes before we withdrew. We made our way to safe houses over the border in Monaghan. It was not until we listened to the early morning radio news that we heard that a UDR Greenfinch named Eva Martin had been killed. It would be wrong to say that any of us were disappointed at the news.

I stayed in Tyrone until August of 1975. During that period I took part in about seventy attacks, mainly against members of the security forces. In one of those attacks, I along with two others murdered a detective inspector in the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary] special branch called Peter Flanagan. We shot him dead in a public house in Omagh, County Tyrone. The two people who carried out this murder with me were both younger than me. Both were from Belfast. The driver was little more than a young girl. The other was 17 years old and had escaped from youth custody in Belfast while charged with murdering a soldier. He was arrested in 1975 and charged with attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and is still in custody today. He was transferred to Northern Ireland and will probably be released in the next year or so. He has never been charged with the murder which he committed with me.

BY the time that I murdered Flanagan doubts were already forming in my mind about the real nature of the Provisional IRA. IRA volunteers in Tyrone were on the whole far more sectarian than I was or ever could be. Their Catholicism was of a virulent and hate-filled brand. It is, in retrospect, hard to see how it could have been otherwise. Militant Irish nationalism and Irish Catholicism have a deep and complex relationship, nowhere more so than in rural areas of Northern Ireland like Tyrone, Fermanagh, and Armagh.

During this period I was involved in recruiting new IRA volunteers. One of our main safe houses was a parochial house outside Omagh. Sometimes we used that house to initiate new members. Imagine the effect on a young uneducated country lad brought to his parochial house under cover of darkness to be inducted into the IRA. Try telling him that the Church was not on his side. One of the local priests usually called on another house in that area where I and other IRA men often stayed. He took great delight in asking us to relate our latest escapades. He was also forever passing on information about local Protestants: usually members or ex-members of the UDR or RUC. At least one of these was later murdered by the Provisional IRA.

This was, in reality, a war against Protestants. There was a deep, ugly hatred, centuries old, behind all of this. The prods had the better farms, the better jobs that belonged by right to the Catholics, and they wanted them. If I wanted to attack a British army patrol or barracks, the local Provos wanted to shoot a part-time UDR or police reservist. They wanted to murder their neighbors. They wanted to drive the Protestants off the land and reclaim what they believed was their birthright. Gradually the reality was getting through to me. This was no romantic struggle against British imperialism but a squalid sectarian war directed against the Protestant people of Northern Ireland.

In March or April of 1975, I was in a flat in Monaghan town. The flat was a base for IRA men from the East Tyrone Brigade. That evening there were perhaps eight people, all full-time IRA activists, all on the run from Northern Ireland. I was making tea when a news item on the television about the death of an RUC woman in a bomb explosion was greeted with, "I hope she's pregnant and we get two for the price of one."

I felt utterly sickened and revolted. More so even when I realized who had spoken -- a Tyrone man who was second in command of the Provisional IRA and a man I held in the highest regard; a man to whom I had thought seriously about addressing my doubts and fears. I went to another room where I just wanted to cry my eyes out. That man later became the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA"

[Rossfan]

Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one  God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.

[Maguire01]

Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one  God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.

I'd love to know where you'd find an unbiased observer, either on this board or on this island!

[Maguire01]

You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.

For what purpose? For comparison. You're comparing 1900 census figures based on religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of research based on church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison.
I have also accepted that interfaith marriages played a big part in the diminishing number of Protestants. But it is also evident that many left the Republic following partition - presumably for various reasons. It is not simply the case that the same number/proportion of people from a Protestant background are still in the Republic, only they don't bother with religion anymore. It's probably a bit of both.

You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.

Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.

Again, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.

yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.

Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
92% of Irish people are Catholic / 87% of all people (including immigrants)
I'm not sure of the criteria, but my point is that it is the same criteria used to count the number of Protestants.

[Myles Na G.]

You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.

For what purpose? For comparison. You're comparing 1900 census figures based on religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of research based on church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison.
I have also accepted that interfaith marriages played a big part in the diminishing number of Protestants. But it is also evident that many left the Republic following partition - presumably for various reasons. It is not simply the case that the same number/proportion of people from a Protestant background are still in the Republic, only they don't bother with religion anymore. It's probably a bit of both.

You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.

Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.

Again, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.

yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.

Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
92% of Irish people are Catholic / 87% of all people (including immigrants)
I'm not sure of the criteria, but my point is that it is the same criteria used to count the number of Protestants.

What about the 20% in the north who are protestant? Are they not Irish too?

[Main Street]

You're comparing 1900 census figures based on religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of research based on church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison

No I am not just comparing a research from 2007/8.
I am using figures research throughout the 20C from a wide range of researchers, I gave you some of the more prominant links.
Figures produced through meticulous methods of research, published down through the decades and have not been disputed or discredited as proof that the numbers of Protestants have seriously dwindled in England, just like they have dwindled in number in Ireland.
If you accept those figures then there is no need to stretch this issue out any longer.

Again, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.

If you are not baptised into a mainstream religion you have no minimum connection with that religion, unless you are a Quaker or Salvation Army.

[Myles Na G.]

not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.

For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?

So to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.

To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion.  All identified Prods were shot.

You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all?  The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.

Also I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!

I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue.  I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.

telling lies  
there are a few examples of where protestants were killed, but this does not mean let alone prove that republicans targetted protestants specifically for their religion alone - far from it.
You wont understand or cannot understand. Its not a case of anyone saying it was right, again I dont think this, but you are attempting to re-write history her with these isolated incidents.
However you wont even reciprocate with answers to my questions, you could use your own words here when you dismiss the cause, beginning and genocidal aims of protestant ranked establishment .
As for targettin nationalists, I think there are a number of incidents and actual prescribed govenmental documents on shoot to kill policy, plus you are getting back to where I am asking you to start from - the pre 1968 era when nationalists were victimised, oppressed, persecuted - all of whch has been witnessed and noted by UN and various independent bodies plus the Brit gov archives speak volumes when these documents are annually released!
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted. The beginning, when there was no provocation no military /armed fightback.
then tell me about who was targetting who based solely on religion.
However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.Get over it.

talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise

Their motives weren't entirely sectarian, I agree. They were more racist, IMO.

[Main Street]

Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a  British Army review of the war.

"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe.  from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.

never heard of it MS
but I'd agree with al that especially the last line !

It is a British Army document, so the starting point of approach to its utterances  are one of serious disbelief.
Nevertheless it is an interesting account of the 30 year war from their perspective.
Where torture reads as "deep interrogation techniques"
The document was withdrawn from public access after protests about it wrongfully claiming that an unarmed Derry youth of 15 shot dead, was a "terrorist".