IRA Blamed for Sectarian Slaughter at Kingsmill

[Nally Stand]

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

[Myles Na G.]

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.

[red hander]

I see the master bullshitter is back 

[Myles Na G.]

I see the master bullshitter is back 

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

[Evil Genius]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

Its 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[LeoMc]

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  .
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

[Radda bout yeee]

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  .
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

[orangeman]

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.

[armagho9]

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.

[Myles Na G.]

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?

[armagho9]

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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.

[deiseach]

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

[Evil Genius]

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.

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.

[armagho9]

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