New BBC documentary asks ‘Who Won the War in North?’

[LCohen]

You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.

They just don't see it that way.

That is very true. There are plenty of unionist who do accept that all of these things happened but there isn't a unionist polictian who will stand up and say it. The splintered nature of unionist politics does not produce good leadership. There are unionist commentators who are prepared to say what needs to be said.

[LCohen]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.

[Applesisapples]

Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.

[LCohen]

You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.

They just don't see it that way.

They still have the blinkered ubermensch mentality that they were, are and always will be right, that the 6 Cos was a grand place till the IRA started using violence for no reason.
They still seem to see the starting point in any talks as
1- Republicans need to apologise ( "for starting all the trouble")
2- Orangemen to be allowed to walk where they want ( "Civil rights")
3- Union Jacks to fly everywhere ( "NI is an integral part of UK and totally British")

They totally ignore the demographics that will likely see the "Catholic/Nationalist/Irish" Community being a majority by 2021.

I agree that politcial leadership within unionism remains blinkered. There is a significant but too easily silenced unionist underbelly that would utterly reject points 2 and 3. They woud uphold point 1 but would not see that as the only apology that needs to be made.

As for the demographics. They are at best unclear and the the voting intent/future voting intent in a constitutional referendum is very much unclear. The point that is most troubling today and was touched upon in Taylor's documentary is the group within unionism that won't accept and vote for a united Ireland. The lack of leadership within unionism means that group are not being tackled and that is the backdrop to a violent reaction to any future united ireland.

As I have posted previously I consider the likelihood of a united ireland anytime soom very low. Any vote in NI will be very disruptive and highlight the basket case we are. That then would be the context of the southern referendum. They would run a bloody mile

[LCohen]

Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.

The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive. Sinn Fein can still tell the southern voters that they didn't implement the welfare cuts in the northern and everybody trundles along

[lynchbhoy]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.

its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!

[lynchbhoy]

You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.

They just don't see it that way.

They still have the blinkered ubermensch mentality that they were, are and always will be right, that the 6 Cos was a grand place till the IRA started using violence for no reason.
They still seem to see the starting point in any talks as
1- Republicans need to apologise ( "for starting all the trouble")
2- Orangemen to be allowed to walk where they want ( "Civil rights")
3- Union Jacks to fly everywhere ( "NI is an integral part of UK and totally British")

They totally ignore the demographics that will likely see the "Catholic/Nationalist/Irish" Community being a majority by 2021.

I agree that politcial leadership within unionism remains blinkered. There is a significant but too easily silenced unionist underbelly that would utterly reject points 2 and 3. They woud uphold point 1 but would not see that as the only apology that needs to be made.

As for the demographics. They are at best unclear and the the voting intent/future voting intent in a constitutional referendum is very much unclear. The point that is most troubling today and was touched upon in Taylor's documentary is the group within unionism that won't accept and vote for a united Ireland. The lack of leadership within unionism means that group are not being tackled and that is the backdrop to a violent reaction to any future united ireland.

As I have posted previously I consider the likelihood of a united ireland anytime soom very low. Any vote in NI will be very disruptive and highlight the basket case we are. That then would be the context of the southern referendum. They would run a bloody mile

until the economics change and a majority of unionists will prefer to reap the financial benefits of a reunified Ireland and again (like celtic tiger times) abandon their principles and vote yes.
Same for the southern contingent. we are all money mad and if its financially beneficial, the vote will be yes too.

a reunification might breathe life into the fg/sdlp/unionist parties as if/when they bandy together, they could be close to forming a gov!

that would be some craic, the unionists/loyalists in a coalition with power in the driving seat in a reunified Ireland!!
don't laugh.....imo its very real !

[johnneycool]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.

its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!

I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.

[lynchbhoy]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.

its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!

I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.

true. it was alright once we were confined to fighting in paddyland. different story once they saw this sihte firsthand.

[Applesisapples]

Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.

The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive. Sinn Fein can still tell the southern voters that they didn't implement the welfare cuts in the northern and everybody trundles along

But in that case it supports exactly the unionist charge that they aren't capable of taking the hard decisions which is what government is about.

[Rossfan]

The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive.

But in that case it supports exactly the unionist charge that they aren't capable of taking the hard decisions which is what government is about.

I await with baited breath for the day a Unionist Politician makes a hard decision........

[foxcommander]

I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.

Quite happy to let both sides fight over scraps in another country. When you demonstrate how to financially cripple a country it's a different ballgame. Looking back on it that was a hell of a chess move, especially since it broke the ceasefire.

[Myles Na G.]

Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.

Unionists will only care about Stormont until the moment there's a nationalist / republican majority and a SF First Minister. Then they'll collapse it and ask for direct rule again. They will never accept the reality of being a minority.

[orangeman]

It was very sad to see the wee lad who was interviewed 40 years ago who vowed back then to fight for his country and take on the Brits. Now 52 he looked much more, having served life for his part in the war.

For once, Blair seemed honest in his assessment that no one won the war but everyone one the peace.

The orange woman who seemed to have one too many on board was another sad case when she told the policeman that Rabbinson needed to grow a set and that Rabbinson had sold the orange order out.

Taylor's observation that he has watched parades for 40 plus years and back in 70s in Ardoyne the large marches were made up of Catholics looking for civil rights and now the large marches consist of Orangemen looking for what they feel they have lost was an intersting one.Full circle.

[Maguire01]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

They weren't moving anywhere fast, but that bit in bold is simply incorrect. Many Unionists were kicking and screaming, but the Housing Executive was formed in 1971 and the One Man, One Vote was legislated for by Stormont in 1969. That's two of the Civil Rights Association's 6 demands. It was nowhere close to being enough, but it was a start.