The Southern "Irish"

[Maguire01]

Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion.  It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.

Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance.  The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.

I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents.  I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.

Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.

and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?

It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)

[lynchbhoy]

Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion.  It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.

Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance.  The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.

I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents.  I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.

Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.

and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?

It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)

again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.

I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals

I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.

[nifan]

I read the celtic thread like i do all the soccer threads. I made one jibe on the celtic thread, and it was a light one, get over it. You have made a few gentle jibes about me before which dont really bother me, it is the implications that i am somehow bigted that get me.
I didnt bring your family into things.

[lynchbhoy]

I read the celtic thread like i do all the soccer threads. I made one jibe on the celtic thread, and it was a light one, get over it. You have made a few gentle jibes about me before which dont really bother me, it is the implications that i am somehow bigted that get me.
I didnt bring your family into things.

and I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.

but as for the other assertions, I had left you well alone for quite a while/quite a number of months thinking you'd reciprocate.

While this is a discussion board and everyone has theright to post where and when they want,
However you continue to jump in leaving remarks and so on where it makes no logical sense to do so.
I cite the Celtic thread as an example. you know yourself what you do so I dont have to tell you.

this and the other thread from last week only goes to prove that you are the 'equalising' type and not what you set out to portray.
Its not even that I dislike anyone. I dislke falseness.

[nifan]

and I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.

yet you still have comments related to them on here, and a post about how it is somehow proof of what you say about me but you cant say it.

Previously you used my first name (probably against board rules, or at least usual board protocol)  when i said you knew nothing about me, presumably to imply to me, and others that you DO know something about me.

Its obvious that your attempting to discredit me with handy, underhand posts that imply something without ever having the need to say it.

Im dissappointed only heganboy has taken you to task so far.

[lynchbhoy]

and I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.

yet you still have comments related to them on here, and a post about how it is somehow proof of what you say about me but you cant say it.

Previously you used my first name (probably against board rules, or at least usual board protocol)  when i said you knew nothing about me, presumably to imply to me, and others that you DO know something about me.

Its obvious that your attempting to discredit me with handy, underhand posts that imply something without ever having the need to say it.

Im dissappointed only heganboy has taken you to task so far.

wouldnt agree there ted

[nifan]

So are you not going to remove the underhand references?

[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.

I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank..... on that topic at the moment!

4 pages later and still waiting..........

[Maguire01]

Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion.  It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.

Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance.  The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.

I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents.  I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.

Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.

and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?

It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)

again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.

I never said it did! I'm not missing any point - you're just not reading my posts. I know what the mantra/ethos is/was - you don't need to keep repeating that bit. But the ethos/mantra wasn't always complied with.

I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals

I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.

Such an example is a bit of an insult to innocent people who are murdered. Did the 'republicans' have a 'bad game' on those occassions?

It's not even a suitable comparison anyway. A slightly more suitable comparison would be if one of those teams, 'known for their greatness', on occassion used underhand/unsporting tactics to 'win their games'.

[lynchbhoy]

Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion.  It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.

Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance.  The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.

I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents.  I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.

Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.

and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?

It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)

again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.

I never said it did! I'm not missing any point - you're just not reading my posts. I know what the mantra/ethos is/was - you don't need to keep repeating that bit. But the ethos/mantra wasn't always complied with.

I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals

I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.

Such an example is a bit of an insult to innocent people who are murdered. Did the 'republicans' have a 'bad game' on those occassions?

It's not even a suitable comparison anyway. A slightly more suitable comparison would be if one of those teams, 'known for their greatness', on occassion used underhand/unsporting tactics to 'win their games'.

but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc

which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)

call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?

I dont think it can get much worse for the people that were killed , on eithe side - no one is gloating in the death of anyone. Are you trying to 'sidetrack' now?
I am merely trying to give you an anser that you still dont seem to be able to assimilate

[Maguire01]

But again, does this...

but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc

which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)

not contradict this?

call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?

You're tying yourself in knots.
The bit highlighted would suggest that all republican killings (indeed all killings on any side) were wrong, regardless of mantra or ethos. That goes against all your previous attempts to downplay 'a few incidents' (not that it should boil down to a numbers game anyway).

And a mantra or ethos is worthless if it isn't adhered to.

[lynchbhoy]

But again, does this...

but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc

which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)

not contradict this?

call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?

You're tying yourself in knots.
The bit highlighted would suggest that all republican killings (indeed all killings on any side) were wrong, regardless of mantra or ethos. That goes against all your previous attempts to downplay 'a few incidents' (not that it should boil down to a numbers game anyway).

And a mantra or ethos is worthless if it isn't adhered to.

fairly obv that its yourself that is being self contradictory and tying all sorts of knots because of your lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise).

ok this shows you def do not undertand what I wrote and the point made.

all death is undesirable.
However what part of that interferes with what mantra/ethos republicans have
Also what aspect of a couple of instances over there years that deviated from the mantra constitute the 'change' of any ethos of mantra - dont think you are thinking rationally if at all here.

to clear up any ambiguity about my opinion of deaths, I wrote that other part - which seems to have confused you greatly for some reason.

We still seem to be waiting on any takers regarding the beginning the violence and what caused it, and why netionalists HAD to take up arms in defence of themselves after decades of abuse and persecution.
This debate would show what gave rise to the beginning of the retaliation by nationalists and why they/republicans retained the ethos of not to target protestants for their religion - as the memory of nationalists own persecution remaind steadfastly in their minds.
I belive it is a valid expansion of the immediate discussion (although off topic on this actual thread).

[Roger]

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..... on that topic at the moment!

4 pages later and still waiting..........

Aren't you clever "Rossfan"?  

Read this thread over the last lot of pages and you will see that I said I was happy to do so but as someone else also has stated it isn't for this thread as it is completely irrelevant.  If you start another thread I would be happy to contribute with my opinion.  

[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..... on that topic at the moment!

4 pages later and still waiting..........

Aren't you clever "Rossfan"?  

Read this thread over the last lot of pages and you will see that I said I was happy to do so but as someone else also has stated it isn't for this thread as it is completely irrelevant.  If you start another thread I would be happy to contribute with my opinion.  

so its 'irrelvent' so you refuse to debate on a point that a couple of people now have asked yo uabout.
Also for tha above reasons in my post above I believe this is part of what is being discussed.

If you are simply incapable of defending the indefensible or to even accept the guilt/apportion it to the unionist/loyalist run 'establisment' and would rather run away, then fine.
We understand 

[Puckoon]

Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.

I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?

No doubt they didnt. What does that have to do with Lynchbhoys assertion?

Does that make his assertion justifiable? Or is it still a huge mistruth?

For the context of this discussion I dont care what exactly the British armies, the loyalists or the republican movement did - there comes a time when the continued attempts by people from all sides to justify the unjustifiable becomes laughable at best.

we are not talking about justification we are talking about the ideology of the republicanmovement.
Never was it a strategy/motive/ethos/mantra etc call it what you will , to kill people purely because of religion.
End of

god help you if smiley faces put you off !

Fair enough ideology/ethos/mantra it is then. So would you agree that more often than it should that the ideology went right out the window?

Did the ideology include money from racketeering and drugs?