The Southern "Irish"

[Roger]

For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted.

Despite your diversionary accusations, at no stage have I used whataboutery. I have no doubt that Catholics were targeted because of their religion by 'Loyalist' paramilitaries.  I condemn them for the murdering bastards that they are.  To me all paramilitary groups are terrorist scum and cannot be excused or defended. However, for you to say "for all your wee incidents" and make light of some of the most heinous crimes is pathetic. 

I have also stated my view on the development of the Provos and how they shifted their targets and clarifying their 'enemy'

However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.

You can kid yourself about what you know if you like.  Their actions, particularly in the early 70s were extremely sectarian. 

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

Lynch, you have defended the indefensible saying you don't know republican motives for the atrocities they committed yet you seem to know the motives of "unionist/loyalist/crown forces".  See below the quote that I have singularly accused you of lying about were you stated that republicans NEVER targeted anyone because of their religion.

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

This is a bare faced lie and you subsequently tried to dilute your false statement by adding "mantra" into the whole things.  You then stated this.....

I would expect that  by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.

Your dilution is just hiding behind the word "default" which all paramilitaries could argue when the unionist / nationalist communities had been largely polarized into Prod / Catholic, and then you hide behind not knowing their motives yet when given clear evidence, which you yourself requested,  hide again by saying isolated incident etc. These men were murdered by republicans solely because of their religion which you said NEVER happened.

You have consistently peppered your silly position defending the indefensible before squirming with demands like this below.

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 !

I am happy to discuss causes of the terror campaigns or other historical events with you, "Rossfan" (btw why the inverted commas?) or others if a reasonable position is taken. But there is simply no point when you demand confirmation of your own opinion yet deny factual events that happened and add propaganda to your arguments mixed in with smug, condescending and patronising shite that plays to the gallery of nationalists who are predominant on this board. Maybe they are impressed, who knows? However, this is not running away, it's just there is point for either of us doing so for the reasons above. 

[lynchbhoy]

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.

yes - the testimony of one man (even if this was to be believed and not another hyped up episode) is now supposedly the rationale for all republicans?
thats what some of these people would like you to believe !
It fits in with their demonisation and how they can try to drag the story or retaliation down into the mire along with themselves who are already guilty for their crimes of death squads, apartheid,oppression etc and goes towards their desire to 'equalise' the retaliation with the original sin !

[lynchbhoy]

For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted.

Despite your diversionary accusations, at no stage have I used whataboutery. I have no doubt that Catholics were targeted because of their religion by 'Loyalist' paramilitaries.  I condemn them for the murdering b**tards that they are.  To me all paramilitary groups are terrorist scum and cannot be excused or defended. However, for you to say "for all your wee incidents" and make light of some of the most heinous crimes is pathetic. 

I have also stated my view on the development of the Provos and how they shifted their targets and clarifying their 'enemy'

However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.

You can kid yourself about what you know if you like.  Their actions, particularly in the early 70s were extremely sectarian. 

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

Lynch, you have defended the indefensible saying you don't know republican motives for the atrocities they committed yet you seem to know the motives of "unionist/loyalist/crown forces".  See below the quote that I have singularly accused you of lying about were you stated that republicans NEVER targeted anyone because of their religion.

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

This is a bare faced lie and you subsequently tried to dilute your false statement by adding "mantra" into the whole things.  You then stated this.....

I would expect that  by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.

Your dilution is just hiding behind the word "default" which all paramilitaries could argue when the unionist / nationalist communities had been largely polarized into Prod / Catholic, and then you hide behind not knowing their motives yet when given clear evidence, which you yourself requested,  hide again by saying isolated incident etc. These men were murdered by republicans solely because of their religion which you said NEVER happened.

You have consistently peppered your silly position defending the indefensible before squirming with demands like this below.

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 !

I am happy to discuss causes of the terror campaigns or other historical events with you, "Rossfan" (btw why the inverted commas?) or others if a reasonable position is taken. But there is simply no point when you demand confirmation of your own opinion yet deny factual events that happened and add propaganda to your arguments mixed in with smug, condescending and patronising shite that plays to the gallery of nationalists who are predominant on this board. Maybe they are impressed, who knows? However, this is not running away, it's just there is point for either of us doing so for the reasons above. 

As your examples have started to bring the bigger stage into the debate (after I mentioned that you cannot look at small isolated incidents without regarding the build up etc) you have proven that there is no diversion or side show when discussing the beginning and reasons for what happened afterwards. I have had this same argument with someone else on here in an almost exact manner. If it is yourself , then you really should take note or reality.
No one is rejoycing in any deaths, including myself. However I am pointing out yet again that republicans ethos and mantra was not one of killing protestants. Otherwise it would have been completly indiscriminate- which is on record by british army/UN etc that it wasnt.
You are now guilty of sidetracking by attempting to accuse me of backing up murder campaigns etc. I have to laugh at your wee idiocy!

you have yet to provide ANY evidence other than festered notions of 'what them bad boyz did' etc. Please provide some if this exists.
However unless you have a link to all IRA army council men in the 35 years war, I doubt if you will prove my point for me. I will just continue to let you know what the truth is as you seem to be under complete disillusionment inspired by hatred/sectarianism/fear/living in the past/retaining old blinkered values etc etc etc

its great you accept that killing is abhorrent, however you again run away from discussing he beginning of the 35 years war - who caused it, why did nationalists retaliate back etc etc
The role of the unionist/loyalist peoples in creating and enforcing the oppressive/supressive environment.
Its not playing to any gallery I would like to see if there are any unionist/loyalists out there that have been dragged into the new century and can now admit to their guilt. Its not any subjective view I have - its pretty obvious that something caused 35 years killing and I dont think the euro courts of justice and courts of human rights would differ on what I am saying based on a multitude of reviews and findings on the situation.
But make your excuses are run away again.
Some things never change.

[Roger]

There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.

[lynchbhoy]

There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.

so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)

[Roger]

There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.

so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)

FFS grow up and read the thread.

[lynchbhoy]

There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.

so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)

FFS grow up and read the thread.

Read it, I wrote most of it - well all the real aspects of it ! You have only entered fantasy !
Running away again I see 

You still never gave me the courtesy of an answer regarding the beginnings etc etc...

[Evil Genius]

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.

yes - the testimony of one man (even if this was to be believed and not another hyped up episode) is now supposedly the rationale for all republicans?
thats what some of these people would like you to believe !
It fits in with their demonisation and how they can try to drag the story or retaliation down into the mire along with themselves who are already guilty for their crimes of death squads, apartheid,oppression etc and goes towards their desire to 'equalise' the retaliation with the original sin !

Re. Rossfan's comment, I never claimed that O'Callaghan was "unbiased" - as Maguire01 rightly points out, no-one can be saidtruly to lack bias on such matters. But that is very different from whether or not he is being truthful in his account of the overt sectarianism he describes amongst his (former) colleagues in the East Tyrone IRA. Gerry Adams is "biased" - does that mean he never tells the truth when, eg, he is questioned about his IRA Membershi....   OK, poor example, but it's clear what I mean.
As for the man Rossfan alleges was killed to maintain O'Callaghan's cover, that attempt to discredit him is misplaced, since responsibility for that lies with his handlers, not him. Moreover, whether O'Callaghan mentions it or not does not affect the veracity (or otherwise) of what he says he witnessed whilst in the IRA in NI.

Re. LB's follow-up, to include so much lies, denial and distortion in just 3-4 lines is pretty good, even by his standards.
First, I did not say that O'Callaghan's testimony attempts to represent all Republicans, and neither does he. In fact, I specifically stated the following, conveniently ignored by LB and Rossfan:
"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."
Second, I am not condemning Republican atrocities in an attempt to avoid, excuse, deny or "cancel out" similar atrocities by e.g. their "Loyalist" counterparts; on the contrary, I am quite happy to condemn them utterly without reservation. (The same goes for Roger, btw).
Third, if LB or Rossfan etc wants a debate on the origins of The Troubles etc, then fire away - I have nothing to hide or avoid on such matters.

But whether for a separate thread, or as a continuation of this one, that wider issue should not be used to allow LB and Rossfan etc to avoid the simple point that I (and I think Roger) are attempting to make. Namely, amongst all the various activists on the Republican side during The Troubles, there was a faction which was motivated by little better than naked sectarian hatred. This has been graphically described by O'Callaghan* and others and the proof is there for all to see in all the murders etc of all the  people who had no connection with the Security Forces, British Government or "Establishment etc whom Roger and I and others have listed (there are very many others, btw).
More importantly, the leadership of the IRA and INLA were at least unable, if not unwilling, to curb or control the sectarian murderers within their ranks whom they had recruited, trained and deployed on such a wide scale. Then again, if O'Callaghan is accurate in his description of the "Two for the Price of One" Provo who went on to become "Chief of Staff" of the IRA, why should anyone be surprised by that?

* - I note that LB hasn't taking the obvious road of accusing O'Callaghan of simply making it all up. Might that be because this would present the other Members of this Board with a stark choice between whose account they believe: LB's or O'Callaghan's? After all, LB has not had too much support to date for his claim that Myles Na G and I are one and the same. Oh well, I'm sure he believes there's no damage to his credibility which cannot be repaired by another rant about "genocide" and "apartheid" in the "Occupied Six" etc...

[lynchbhoy]

evil myles , your entire argument there lies (sic) in the subjectiveness of one persons testimony. Not far removed from the 'reality' on some of your own ideas of proposed 'facts'  .

also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp - that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.

[Main Street]

My experience is that people rarely tell the truth when talking about themselves.
More especially so, when in the account, they paint themselves in a better light, akin to boasting about their humanity.

Also, some of us are quite good at sniffing out the spoofers

[Maguire01]

also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp

That's another thread - albeit a valid discussion, but one that would sidetrack what is being talked about here.

that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.

I don't think anyone is talking about the ethos or primary objective of the IRA.
But the fact is that things were done in the name of the IRA that were not entirely consistent with that ethos.

[lynchbhoy]

also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp

That's another thread - albeit a valid discussion, but one that would sidetrack what is being talked about here.

that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.

I don't think anyone is talking about the ethos or primary objective of the IRA.
But the fact is that things were done in the name of the IRA that were not entirely consistent with that ethos.

hardly a sidetrack when other elements roger is pulling up reference the bigger picture.

also I think you will find that these two chaps ARE saying this was the objective of republicans (its also pretty much the same blanket accusation by all unionists/loyalists people that dont want to admit the reality and who still live in the dark ages when it comes to truth and progression).

yes things were done, but that doesnt alter the mantra of republicans.

[nifan]

that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.

How do you know it was never never?
You have said that noone can know the motivation for kingsmill, so how can you say it wasnt based on religion?
Why do you suspect the catholics where let go?

[Evil Genius]

evil myles , your entire argument there lies (sic) in the subjectiveness of one persons testimony.

Bullshit! My argument is based on undeniable fact, namely overtly sectarian murders by the Provos (or "Republican Action Force") and the INLA (or "Catholic Action Force"), such as Kingsmill and Darkley respectively. And nor were these two sectarian massacres isolated incidents, either - there were many, many more where they deliberately targeted people with no connection with the British Government or Security Forces etc.
As for O'Callaghan, his opinions may be "subjective" (or objective), but his testimony is either truthful or untruthful. And I am saying I believe O'Callaghan in this instance, both because of the evidence of what his fellow Provos actually did and also because it is of no real benefit to him to lie about this. After all, if murderous sectarianism is to be abhorred, the question must be why he tolerated it for so long before deciding to leave.
By contrast, your need to reject O'Callaghan's testimony is obvious, since to accept it would make a lie out of everything else you have claimed.

Not far removed from the 'reality' on some of your own ideas of proposed 'facts'  .

Gibberish

also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do,

Start another thread on the origins of The Troubles and I may do just that. In the meantime I prefer to concentrate on your palpable lie that Republicans never murdered Protestants etc, solely on account of their religion.

the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.

During nearly 40 years of conflict, various Republic groups declared a number of different raisons d'etre: e.g United Ireland, Brits Out, Civil Rights, Marxism, Socialism etc etc etc.
However, many activists were motivated by little more than naked, sectarian hatred. And having recruited, armed and trained these people, the leadership of the IRA and INLA etc were either unwilling or unable (or both) to prevent the inevitable consequences. Indeed, there is clear evidence that at least some of those leaders (e.g. Dominic McGlinchey) shared those motives.
Below is an extract from an article by Fintan O'Toole, about the murderous sectarian activities of the Provos on the Fermanagh border. To take just one example of the dozens, when the IRA came to murder retired UDR man Tommy Bullock, it was not enough for them to kill him as he sat watching TV in his home. For when his wife unwittingly answered the door to a gang of heavily armed Provos in masks etc, they made no attempt to push past her to get to her husband. Instead, they simply murdered her in the hallway, then stepped over her body before seeking him out.

"Guilt for the murderous campaign against Border Protestants was kept at bay by the insistence that the victims were UDR men and therefore mere ciphers of British imperialism. The IRA, and the wider Catholic community that has made Sinn Féin its political voice, likes to see the IRA campaign in retrospect as a 'war' in the classic sense, a conflict in which soldier was pitted against soldier. While Loyalist paramilitaries killed Catholics out of psychotic sectarian hatred, Republican paramilitaries killed Protestants only because they were, in IRA-speak, 'part of the imperial war machine'. The formula magics away the inconvenient truth that the murders of UDR men like the Grahams were not military operations, but conducted and experienced as sectarian killings. Most UDR men, like the Grahams, were part-timers, who lived in their communities and worked in ordinary jobs. More than two hundred members or former members of the UDR, and of the Royal Irish Regiment which replaced it, were killed during the Troubles. The vast majority of them – 162 out of 204 – were off-duty at the time. One in five of them, indeed, had actually left the UDR. They were not heavily armed and uniformed combatants, on patrol or manning checkpoints. They were delivering letters, feeding cattle, serving in shops, driving school buses, working on building sites or sitting in their own kitchens or living-rooms.

Many, like David McQuillan, Winston McCaughey, Ritchie Latimer, Albert Beacom, Robert Bennett, Thomas Loughran and James McFall were with their children when they were attacked. William Gordon's 10-year-old-daughter, Lesley, and seven-year-old son, Richard, were beside him in the family car when an IRA booby-trap bomb exploded. He and Lesley were killed; Richard was blown out onto the footpath and seriously injured. Tommy Bullock was watching television with his wife when she answered the door to the IRA gunmen who had come for him. They killed her, stepped over her body, then went inside and killed him. Sean Russell's 10-year-old daughter was injured by the bullets that killed him as they watched television together. Victor Foster's girlfriend was blinded by the booby-trap bomb that killed him. They were both 18 years old. She left Northern Ireland shortly afterwards, having been repeatedly taunted when she went to the shops in the border town of Strabane. One man asked her the difference between a Twix bar and Victor Foster. When she didn't answer, he told her that a Twix lasted longer"  
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n17/otoo01_.html

P.S. The above article actually concentrates on the murders by the IRA of three Fermanagh brothers, Ronnie, Cecil and Jimmy Graham. GAA fans may not know much of those individuals, but should be familiar with Cecil's son, Darren...

[lynchbhoy]

superb, more of the same this time from evil myles!
So you have no more of a clue that our buddy roger as to this!
Its great you are digging out excerpts from fintan otoole, he really was drip fed a host of bullsh*it and he gobbled it all up.
You can attribute marxism , differing wee republican groups all you like but the status quo remains intact that you have yet to scratch - republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
So please try harder to prove something that is actually indisputable!

now are you going to answer my other question?
doubtful!