An investigation by the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team (HET) has found the SAS was within its rights to shoot dead eight IRA men during an attack on a County Armagh police station.
According to the Belfast Telegraph, the report has concluded the IRA unit opened fire first in the incident at Loughgall RUC station in 1987.
A civilian, Anthony Hughes, was also killed during the incident.
It had previously been believed that the SAS had fired first.
The shootings at Loughgall RUC station were among the most controversial of the Troubles.
Eight members of the IRA's so-called 'East Tyrone brigade' were shot dead by the SAS in a fierce gun battle at Loughgall on 8 May 1987.
They were killed as they approached the station with a 200lb bomb, its fuse lit, in the bucket of a hijacked digger.
The IRA men who died were the East Tyrone IRA 'Commander' Patrick Kelly, 32; Declan Arthurs, 21; Seamus Donnelly, 19; Michael Gormley, 25; Eugene Kelly, 25; James Lynagh, 31, Patrick McKearney, 32 and Gerard O'Callaghan, 29.
A civilian, Anthony Hughes, 36, was killed and his brother badly wounded when they were caught up in the crossfire.
The brother-in-law of Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff wife was one of those killed.
"I'm not going to disown Patrick Kelly or any of the other people killed at Loughall," he said.
"If it was a war then the British government are wrong - they have said all along it wasn't a war.
"They were bound by the laws of democracy, law enforcement and all of that, and if that's the case then they should have attempted to arrest them."
Accuracy questioned
Mairead Kelly said she accepted "fully" that her brother Patrick and the other "IRA men that night were armed".
However, she questioned the accuracy of the information given on Friday.
"The families are the point of contact with the HET regarding this review," she said.
"At no stage have the families been told that a report has been completed. As a matter of fact, I have been given assurances that this report is not completed and I have no hint about what is in the report."
Previously it was reported that the soldiers fired more than 600 bullets with the IRA men firing 70 shots.
According to the Belfast Telegraph, the HET has found that members of the IRA unit opened fire as they approached the police station.
The HET have refused to comment on the story.
Investigators are believed to have concluded that the IRA members could not have been arrested safely.
It is understood the full findings of the report are due to be released within weeks.
In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government should pay £10,000 compensation to each of the families of the IRA members killed in the Loughgall incident.
To what point or purpose does this "investigation" serve?
QuoteA civilian, Anthony Hughes, was also killed during the incident.
Regardless of who fired first, the killing of an unarmed civilian by armed forces is murder unless they were engaged in a war
QuoteEight members of the IRA's so-called 'East Tyrone brigade' were shot dead by the SAS in a fierce gun battle at Loughgall on 8 May 1987.
Trout is this your opinion or do you have evidence that these were not members of the IRA?
The report is from the bbc Windmill abu
QuoteThe report is from the bbc Windmill abu
You have been here long enough to know that you put quotation marks or references if these are not your personal opinions
QuoteThe report is from the bbc Windmill abu
Why would you post a B.B.C. reference here without some comment/opinion from yourself?
Have you now decided that you want the B.B.C. to justify the killing of innocent Irishmen because you can no longer do the same,?
Or do you think we can't get the BBC online?
Quote from: Trout on December 02, 2011, 11:39:07 PM
The brother-in-law of Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff wife was one of those killed.
"I'm not going to disown Patrick Kelly or any of the other people killed at Loughall," he said.
"If it was a war then the British government are wrong - they have said all along it wasn't a war.
"They were bound by the laws of democracy, law enforcement and all of that, and if that's the case then they should have attempted to arrest them."
So the hunger strikers were criminals after all then. Never thought I'd hear a shinner saying that.
Quote[The brother-in-law of Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff wife was one of those killed.
"I'm not going to disown Patrick Kelly or any of the other people killed at Loughall," he said.
"If it was a war then the British government are wrong - they have said all along it wasn't a war.
"They were bound by the laws of democracy, law enforcement and all of that, and if that's the case then they should have attempted to arrest them."
So the hunger strikers were criminals after all then. Never thought I'd hear a shinner saying that.
/quote]
The Men who gave their lives on hunger strike, or at Loughgall did so to play their part in the struggle for Irish Unity.
The desperate attemps to divide Irish Nationalists in their goal of a United Ireland may seem to be akin to dividing SDLP and SINN FEIN.
But we all know that when the Nationalists have the majority we will vote for a United Ireland and anyone who disagrees can either accept the will of the majorirty or go to Scotland and peddle their sectarian hatred there,
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 03, 2011, 01:05:58 AM
Quote from: Trout on December 02, 2011, 11:39:07 PM
The brother-in-law of Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff wife was one of those killed.
"I'm not going to disown Patrick Kelly or any of the other people killed at Loughall," he said.
"If it was a war then the British government are wrong - they have said all along it wasn't a war.
"They were bound by the laws of democracy, law enforcement and all of that, and if that's the case then they should have attempted to arrest them."
So the hunger strikers were criminals after all then. Never thought I'd hear a shinner saying that.
Well, you haven't ::)
Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?
Yes they did but it must have slipped their minds. I think this report like many others will be shown to be lies, in the future If as they say,they were shooting at the armed forces as they approached the police station,how was the bomd planted?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 03, 2011, 01:05:58 AM
Quote from: Trout on December 02, 2011, 11:39:07 PM
The brother-in-law of Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff wife was one of those killed.
"I'm not going to disown Patrick Kelly or any of the other people killed at Loughall," he said.
"If it was a war then the British government are wrong - they have said all along it wasn't a war.
"They were bound by the laws of democracy, law enforcement and all of that, and if that's the case then they should have attempted to arrest them."
So the hunger strikers were criminals after all then. Never thought I'd hear a shinner saying that.
Go on brainbox, explain how you worked out that one
There should be an enquiry into why the families of the IRA men were awarded £10,000 each in compensation.
One thing i could never understand or agree with the IRA or Sinn Fein on. If you agree this was a war and 2 armies fought it then surely you have to accept that the British army won this particular duel. If the IRA were the ones hiding in the ditch they would have done exactly the same as the SAS did. That is the risk of being a soldier is it not? What exactly are the IRA families unhappy about?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
One thing i could never understand or agree with the IRA or Sinn Fein on. If you agree this was a war and 2 armies fought it then surely you have to accept that the British army won this particular duel. If the IRA were the ones hiding in the ditch they would have done exactly the same as the SAS did. That is the risk of being a soldier is it not? What exactly are the IRA families unhappy about?
Good question, myles. I been wondering about the same thing myself.
If this was a war and and the combatants on both sides were solders, I don't think the question of who fired first is material.
been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?
Quote from: Square Ball on December 03, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?
True, its not like they will have any IRA men to give evidence. It is a nonsense and is all part of the media war. I would also question why the SAS were involved, were they just sitting there by the by? It was a f**king set up simple as that. There was a tout in the IRA in the area and they set up the gang.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on December 03, 2011, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
One thing i could never understand or agree with the IRA or Sinn Fein on. If you agree this was a war and 2 armies fought it then surely you have to accept that the British army won this particular duel. If the IRA were the ones hiding in the ditch they would have done exactly the same as the SAS did. That is the risk of being a soldier is it not? What exactly are the IRA families unhappy about?
Good question, myles. I been wondering about the same thing myself.
If this was a war and and the combatants on both sides were solders, I don't think the question of who fired first is material.
It is when it's the RUC investigating it, who, along with the British Army, always denied they were in a war with the IRA. But I agree that the families cannot pick and choose when they believe it is a war. I'm sure there are many families of IRA volunteers killed that would point blank even consider claiming compensation.
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 03:25:28 AM
Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?
Was it not the SAS they would have been investigating?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
One thing i could never understand or agree with the IRA or Sinn Fein on. If you agree this was a war and 2 armies fought it then surely you have to accept that the British army won this particular duel. If the IRA were the ones hiding in the ditch they would have done exactly the same as the SAS did. That is the risk of being a soldier is it not? What exactly are the IRA families unhappy about?
Agreed. McElduff is tying himself in knots here. If killing off-duty RUC / Army men (and many other targets) was seen as legitimate by the IRA, then surely there can be no argument about getting shot down when you're actually out 'in the field'.
1987 is so long ago. If it was now the SAS would call in the drones like they do in Afghanistan.
Some operator in the home counties would click on his mouse and the 8 would be dead instantly.
Like playing some computer game
I think it comes down to the fact that SF have changed/lost/watered down that many of their principles they find it hard to remember where they stand on alot of matters.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 03, 2011, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: Square Ball on December 03, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?
True, its not like they will have any IRA men to give evidence. It is a nonsense and is all part of the media war. I would also question why the SAS were involved, were they just sitting there by the by? It was a f**king set up simple as that. There was a tout in the IRA in the area and they set up the gang.
agree 100% BC1 about the set up, either a tout or the cell was infiltrated in some way.
Quote from: seafoid on December 03, 2011, 10:48:33 AM
1987 is so long ago. If it was now the SAS would call in the drones like they do in Afghanistan.
Some operator in the home counties would click on his mouse and the 8 would be dead instantly.
Like playing some computer game
Go on...
Quote from: seafoid on December 03, 2011, 10:48:33 AM
1987 is so long ago. If it was now the SAS would call in the drones like they do in Afghanistan.
Some operator in the home counties would click on his mouse and the 8 would be dead instantly.
Like playing some computer game
Would never happen in a country populated by white English speaking people, there would be too much uproar.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 03, 2011, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: Square Ball on December 03, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?
True, its not like they will have any IRA men to give evidence. It is a nonsense and is all part of the media war. I would also question why the SAS were involved, were they just sitting there by the by? It was a f**king set up simple as that. There was a tout in the IRA in the area and they set up the gang.
As far as I remember there were some some lads that got away that night, they will know the truth but going public with it is a different matter.
Cant remember if there was any that got away but I dont think so. in the fog or war it would be impossible to say who shot first imho, unless of course there is conclusive evidence that we dont know about.
If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, no country on Earth could compete with the Provisionals and their supporters.
Was it a war as PSF continually tell us? If so, people get killed in war and the whole 'who fired first' question is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Was is not a war as McElduff seems to be implying? If it wasn't, the IRA and all of their deeds were criminal.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Tonto on December 03, 2011, 12:25:39 PM
If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, no country on Earth could compete with the Provisionals and their supporters.
Was it a war as PSF continually tell us? If so, people get killed in war and the whole 'who fired first' question is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Was is not a war as McElduff seems to be implying? If it wasn't, the IRA and all of their deeds were criminal.
You can't have it both ways.
Totally agree with this. And as I said, SF has changed direction that much and that many times in recent years that it was inevitable that contradictions would arise.
Quote from: Tonto on December 03, 2011, 12:25:39 PM
If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, no country on Earth could compete with the Provisionals and their supporters.
Was it a war as PSF continually tell us? If so, people get killed in war and the whole 'who fired first' question is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Was is not a war as McElduff seems to be implying? If it wasn't, the IRA and all of their deeds were criminal.
You can't have it both ways.
Have to agree however the British are easily as guilty, i.e. shoot to kill (fighting a war) vs. no special status for prisoners (not fighting a war).
They can't have it both ways either.
I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo. So the question of who shot first in 1987 is irrelevant. I guess it will take another generation or 2 before all these reports cease and really dont matter anymore.
Because of the complexity and media manipulation both sides are guilty of hypocrisy and contraditions. It depends what your agenda is in terms of how you will perceive all this.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on December 03, 2011, 01:56:10 PM
I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.
Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.
In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 03:25:28 AM
Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?
The SAS are part of the army, not the police.
Quote from: Tonto on December 03, 2011, 02:00:47 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on December 03, 2011, 01:56:10 PM
I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.
Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.
In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
As well as Maggie T, John Major the Queen etc.?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 03, 2011, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: Square Ball on December 03, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
been listening to this on the news, maybe I am being stupid here but how do they know who fired first?is it from the testimony of the SAS members who were there?
True, its not like they will have any IRA men to give evidence. It is a nonsense and is all part of the media war. I would also question why the SAS were involved, were they just sitting there by the by? It was a f**king set up simple as that. There was a tout in the IRA in the area and they set up the gang.
Not necessarily, more likely underestimated the Brits by using the same tactic once too often. They hit the Birtches a month or two before using a stolen digger and off the top of my head I can remember Ballygawlley and Castlederg barracks being destroyed the same way before that. In hindsight it would seem fairly obvious when a digger was reported stolen then that would be the cue to start setting up the ambush. After thon oul fcuker Gibson got taken out the Brits were always going to hit back hard. They boys should have been more careful.
Quote from: MW on December 03, 2011, 02:17:09 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 03:25:28 AM
Did the HET not announce earlier in the week that it is illegal under European law for the police to investigate themselves?
The SAS are part of the army, not the police.
They RUC were there as well and ultimately they were all under the control of Herman.
Quote from: Tonto on December 03, 2011, 02:00:47 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on December 03, 2011, 01:56:10 PM
I dont think Bloody Sunday was a war, so the question of who fired first does matter here as unarmed civilians were targetted, but i believe everything after that was imo.
Well, actually the unarmed were targetted time and time again throughout the Troubles.
In war it is still illegal to kill the unarmed (whether or not you deem them to be "combatants"), so I guess Marty and co. can expect a call at some point from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
THe US called the invasion of Iraq a "war" & many unarmed civilians were killed.
I think people will see from this post , the difference between sf and the IRA.
sf (or some of them like mr mcelduff). We all know it was a war. thats why republicans accepted as well as mourned those killed at loughall.
I didnt realise that some republican families had received compo - not something that is pursued by republican families that I have heard of at least.
I know people are unhappy that those killed at loughall were done in an ambush, but again its a war and that the way war goes.
if it wasnt a war then the authorities would have tried to arrest them prior to this point.
Again it disproves the loyalist/unionst claims (from some of their posters on this board) that it wasnt a war.
Also that the war ended up in stalemate as they generally do with the republicans winning the sought after cessation of persecution to nationalist/Irish/republican peoples and winning the rights to move above second class citizenship.
The other aspect , the secondary aim - the reunification of Ireland - well thats ongoing as we see - and the recent media outbursts from dup conf and all other whinges against it are counter productive - as the more these unionist/loyalists highlight and talk about it the more it is going to gather momentum and when the world economy changes, this will partition will be rectified! I laugh at the unionists/loyalist over reaction to the inevitible on here and in the media - its obv they are running scared !
they doth protest WAY too much !! :D
as for this report - well if there was any truth in it, this chink would have been exploited long ago - so I cant see it being the truth, but it is irrelevent anyway.
The SAS unloaded over 600 rounds, the Provos 70 - that tells us enough about that particular incident. Not whinging about that ambush, it was war, though what would've sickened your shite was the incessant perfidious claims by the Brits that it wasn't war.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 03, 2011, 04:14:40 PM
The SAS unloaded over 600 rounds, the Provos 70 - that tells us enough about that particular incident. Not whinging about that ambush, it was war, though what would've sickened your shite was the incessant perfidious claims by the Brits that it wasn't war.
yeah - the flip flopping that the unionist/loyalist/ruc/establishment whingers annually do is nothing short of a joke - its not a war when it suits them, then again - oh ...it is !!
:D
youd think they would know by now their credibilty is non existent!
LB, they didn't get that for the deaths it was awarded by the European Court of Human Rights because the Brits didn't carry out an investigation or inquiry after the deaths.
Declan Aurthers had almost 40 rounds pumped into him and was unarmed. The SAS themselves later admited 4 or 5 of the men were shot while on the ground, executed.
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 04:54:20 PM
Declan Aurthers had almost 40 rounds pumped into him and was unarmed. The SAS themselves later admited 4 or 5 of the men were shot while on the ground, executed.
I don't doubt that but of course there are a few cases where IRA men probably emptied their guns into British Soldiers. here was also a certain SAS man who ventured into Crossmaglen and was never seen again. So SF or whoever should stop whinging about this particular battle and take the "defeat" on the chin. For the life of me I have no idea what they want to come out of this.
They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 06:10:11 PM
They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.
Maybe they are but it is hypocrisy. If like me you believe the conflict was a war then you can hardly expect to receive better than you give. For example, should the ira pay compensation to every off duty soldier or ruc man they "executed". IRA men knew what they signed up for and were well aware they would most likely end up dead or in jail. Compo for families is ridiculous.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 06:10:11 PM
They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.
Maybe they are but it is hypocrisy. If like me you believe the conflict was a war then you can hardly expect to receive better than you give. For example, should the ira pay compensation to every off duty soldier or ruc man they "executed". IRA men knew what they signed up for and were well aware they would most likely end up dead or in jail. Compo for families is ridiculous.
+1 Myles, total hypocricy.
These men were killed when they were actually in the process of attacking their target - it's not like they were shot when they were 'off-duty', around the house, at work, or just, say, coming out of mass... and we know that plenty of people
were killed in such circumstances. And I imagine some people on here would have thought that to be perfectly legitimate. But probably wouldn't be as quick to use words like 'execution' in those cases.
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/11/128972041253222224.jpg)
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 03, 2011, 06:10:11 PM
They're supporting the families Myles. The families believe the men could have been arrested instead of being killed and the fact that a number of them were summarily executed kind of supports their point.
Maybe they are but it is hypocrisy. If like me you believe the conflict was a war then you can hardly expect to receive better than you give. For example, should the ira pay compensation to every off duty soldier or ruc man they "executed". IRA men knew what they signed up for and were well aware they would most likely end up dead or in jail. Compo for families is ridiculous.
Myles, as I already said to lynchboy, the families didn't get compensation for the deaths - and it should be said, they didn't seek any.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 03, 2011, 04:08:55 PM
I think people will see from this post , the difference between sf and the IRA.
sf (or some of them like mr mcelduff). We all know it was a war. thats why republicans accepted as well as mourned those killed at loughall.
I didnt realise that some republican families had received compo - not something that is pursued by republican families that I have heard of at least.
I know people are unhappy that those killed at loughall were done in an ambush, but again its a war and that the way war goes.
if it wasnt a war then the authorities would have tried to arrest them prior to this point.
Again it disproves the loyalist/unionst claims (from some of their posters on this board) that it wasnt a war.
Also that the war ended up in stalemate as they generally do with the republicans winning the sought after cessation of persecution to nationalist/Irish/republican peoples and winning the rights to move above second class citizenship.
The other aspect , the secondary aim - the reunification of Ireland - well thats ongoing as we see - and the recent media outbursts from dup conf and all other whinges against it are counter productive - as the more these unionist/loyalists highlight and talk about it the more it is going to gather momentum and when the world economy changes, this will partition will be rectified! I laugh at the unionists/loyalist over reaction to the inevitible on here and in the media - its obv they are running scared !
they doth protest WAY too much !! :D
as for this report - well if there was any truth in it, this chink would have been exploited long ago - so I cant see it being the truth, but it is irrelevent anyway.
Republicans won nothing. The objective of their 'long war' was the removal of the British presence from the north of Ireland. Instead, they ended up taking their places in a devolved British assembly at Stormont and accepting that unionist consent (provos used to call it the unionist veto) was necessary before a united Ireland could be achieved. It took them 3500 deaths before they realised that what John Hume had been saying all along was right.
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
The thing is Nally, I personally would expect nothing less from the British. It's the apparent u turn that Sinn Fein have made on the matter that disappoints, yet doesn't surprise me. I'm more let down by the actions of SF in recent years than the Brits.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
If that is directed at me you are miles off. I know the shower of c***ts the brits are but I am a free thinker with no allegiance to any party. Soldiers in a war are at risk of being ambushed by the enemy and they should expect no quarter.
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on December 03, 2011, 11:32:46 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
The thing is Nally, I personally would expect nothing less from the British. It's the apparent u turn that Sinn Fein have made on the matter that disappoints, yet doesn't surprise me. I'm more let down by the actions of SF in recent years than the Brits.
Your own opinion to which you are perfectly entitled. My own thoughts is that it is shameful that people here on this thread are happy to lambaste sf and more importantly, the families, over this whole thing; while blissfully refusing to criticise the british for the EXACT same apparent 'hypocrisy'. It seems the message the families would get from the majority of the posts by their fellow Irishmen on this thread would be, "You can't have it both ways.....But Britain can."
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 11:35:09 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
If that is directed at me you are miles off. I know the shower of c***ts the brits are but I am a free thinker with no allegiance to any party. Soldiers in a war are at risk of being ambushed by the enemy and they should expect no quarter.
Not directed at anyone in particular. I just find it sad that people are using this thread as an opportunity to criticise the families of the eight Volunteers.
Alot of moral high brows apparent on this particular thread. Some folk just love Republican bashing, from an IRA attack where the SAS were lying in wait for those men who were basically lambs to the slaughter to the current Belfast Lord Mayor who'd have been born a year before this event. Only 25 years old and the Lord Mayor of a fairly large and certainly historical and high profile City who decided at the 11th hour not to hand out a British medal of honour to a British kid heading for a life in the forces... Shame on you pathetic folk who quite happily accept what those who have stood up and been counted in the face of Imperialism have given the rest of us.
That's a valid post Nally, I suppose I may be even only commenting on one side because, as I said, I would expect nothing less from the Brits. I just feel somewhat frustrated with some of SF recent actions and decisions. I'm not using this as a chance to have a pop at them I just feel let down at times and wonder what we can expect next. For example one of the saddest things I have heard to date is Marty calling anyone using arms "traitors to Ireland". I'm just afraid for where this could end up and how far it will go. Never mind where it has gone and ended up already :-\
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
My own thoughts is that it is shameful that people here on this thread are happy to lambaste sf and more importantly, the families, over this whole thing;
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:41:11 PM
Not directed at anyone in particular. I just find it sad that people are using this thread as an opportunity to criticise the families of the eight Volunteers.
Where's all this abuse towards the families you're alluding to?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 03, 2011, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 03, 2011, 04:08:55 PM
I think people will see from this post , the difference between sf and the IRA.
sf (or some of them like mr mcelduff). We all know it was a war. thats why republicans accepted as well as mourned those killed at loughall.
I didnt realise that some republican families had received compo - not something that is pursued by republican families that I have heard of at least.
I know people are unhappy that those killed at loughall were done in an ambush, but again its a war and that the way war goes.
if it wasnt a war then the authorities would have tried to arrest them prior to this point.
Again it disproves the loyalist/unionst claims (from some of their posters on this board) that it wasnt a war.
Also that the war ended up in stalemate as they generally do with the republicans winning the sought after cessation of persecution to nationalist/Irish/republican peoples and winning the rights to move above second class citizenship.
The other aspect , the secondary aim - the reunification of Ireland - well thats ongoing as we see - and the recent media outbursts from dup conf and all other whinges against it are counter productive - as the more these unionist/loyalists highlight and talk about it the more it is going to gather momentum and when the world economy changes, this will partition will be rectified! I laugh at the unionists/loyalist over reaction to the inevitible on here and in the media - its obv they are running scared !
they doth protest WAY too much !! :D
as for this report - well if there was any truth in it, this chink would have been exploited long ago - so I cant see it being the truth, but it is irrelevent anyway.
Republicans won nothing. The objective of their 'long war' was the removal of the British presence from the north of Ireland. Instead, they ended up taking their places in a devolved British assembly at Stormont and accepting that unionist consent (provos used to call it the unionist veto) was necessary before a united Ireland could be achieved. It took them 3500 deaths before they realised that what John Hume had been saying all along was right.
Your opinion is noted, but incorrect if you are trying to paraphrase objectives from the republican perspective - something you obv know nothing about!
No point in discussing anything further to be honest as it seems you just don't know, understand or won't accept reality!
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 03, 2011, 11:42:10 PM
Some folk just love Republican bashing, from an IRA attack where the SAS were lying in wait for those men who were basically lambs to the slaughter
As opposed to their plan, which was, presumably, that their targets would be 'slaughtered'?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 03, 2011, 11:42:10 PM
Only 25 years old and the Lord Mayor of a fairly large and certainly historical and high profile City who decided at the 11th hour not to hand out a British medal of honour to a British kid heading for a life in the forces...
She was in the Cadets. How do you know she was heading for a life in the forces? Do you know what proportion of Cadets who actually join the army?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 03, 2011, 11:42:10 PM
Shame on you pathetic folk who quite happily accept what those who have stood up and been counted in the face of Imperialism have given the rest of us.
People will have different perceptions as to what has been achieved, how it has been achieved, and who has achieved it.
Fcuk sake Maguire, you don't have to highlight my point even further with your indirect (or maybe just direct) West Brit / Anti Republican attitude.
It's my belief that if Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart were Catholics, they'd have been locked up within hours of their respective partners dying... But good honest living respectable Protestants, surely they could NEVER carry out such a heinous crime... ::)
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:12:30 AM
Fcuk sake Maguire, you don't have to highlight my point even further with your indirect (or maybe just direct) West Brit / Anti Republican attitude.
Or, you could play the ball...
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:12:30 AM
Fcuk sake Maguire, you don't have to highlight my point even further with your indirect (or maybe just direct) West Brit / Anti Republican attitude.
It's my belief that if Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart were Catholics, they'd have been locked up within hours of their respective partners dying... But good honest living respectable Protestants, surely they could NEVER carry out such a heinous crime... ::)
Not everyone swallows the SinnFein narrative/spin Sammy, is that not a good thing?Just because you don't doesn't make you West Brit (unless Martin McGuiness is saying it) or any less of an Irish man.
I think it's fair to say most Volunteers knew it was a case of kill or be killed so, what happened in Loughgall that night was another terrible incident in this country's history, same as all the IRA autrocities that were carried out in the name of Freedom.
Army Cadets... Do kids join that for honing the use of a Camogie stick? Or a rifle? Look it doesn't matter if only 1% of Cadets join the British forces, it's set up to make sure as many as possible do which, when that Lord Mayor found out the true extent of what was going on, put him in a very very difficult position. I think he handled it well, he has many many people to try and keep happy and inevitably some of those people will always be pissed off regardless.
My opinion on this won't change your Unionist slant-minded opinion on the whole thing anyway, that's ingrained in you now and good luck to ya. Just make sure you remember what side your bread is buttered the next time you go to a GAA match or when the lads stop you at some random border checkpoint some time in the future.
Not everyone swallows the Unionist media sway what's put out there either Minder... That's cos some just aren't that gullible, others are.
So if you don't swallow the Sinn Fein slant you are swallowing the Unionist agenda? Really ? As for the Lord Mayor, he had to ring to headquarters for advice and the awards ceremony was held up for 45 minutes, you could argue he is a puppet and a lot of the flak he had received this week was undeserved as he didn't make the decision not to present the award.
So are Sinn Fein and the Gaa someway intertwined? What are you smoking ?
Quote from: Minder on December 04, 2011, 12:44:12 AM
So if you don't swallow the Sinn Fein slant you are swallowing the Unionist agenda? Really ? As for the Lord Mayor, he had to ring to headquarters for advice and the awards ceremony was held up for 45 minutes, you could argue he is a puppet and a lot of the flak he had received this week was undeserved as he didn't make the decision not to present the award.
One of many being controlled by only a few hands.
Quote from: Tonto on December 03, 2011, 12:25:39 PM
If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, no country on Earth could compete with the Provisionals and their supporters.
Was it a war as PSF continually tell us? If so, people get killed in war and the whole 'who fired first' question is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Was is not a war as McElduff seems to be implying? If it wasn't, the IRA and all of their deeds were criminal.
You can't have it both ways.
Speaking of both ways, are you a proud supporter of the ideology that lead to the Great Irish Famine?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:39:27 AM
Just make sure you remember what side your bread is buttered the next time you go to a GAA match.
What the f**k does that mean?
Just curious. How many British soldiers (or unarmed contractors working for them) were ever arrested by the Provos? How many attempts at arrest were made?
If you've switched your mind over to the "oh but it was a war and therefore criminal law doesn't apply" mode (as some people do when this kind of question is asked) then let me ask in terms of how many POWs did the Provos take? Did their accommodation meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention and Associated Protocols?
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on December 03, 2011, 11:32:46 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
The thing is Nally, I personally would expect nothing less from the British. It's the apparent u turn that Sinn Fein have made on the matter that disappoints, yet doesn't surprise me. I'm more let down by the actions of SF in recent years than the Brits.
Your own opinion to which you are perfectly entitled. My own thoughts is that it is shameful that people here on this thread are happy to lambaste sf and more importantly, the families, over this whole thing; while blissfully refusing to criticise the british for the EXACT same apparent 'hypocrisy'. It seems the message the families would get from the majority of the posts by their fellow Irishmen on this thread would be, "You can't have it both ways.....But Britain can."
But the same argument could be made for the militant republican agenda. SF and their followers are happy to lambast and criticise the dissident republican movement but on the other hand defend and romanticise the actions of the provisional IRA. It seems the message the families would get from the statements by their fellow Irishmen would be "The deaths brought about by the dissident IRA are unjust and criminal . . . . . . but the provo's were grand."
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 03:03:11 AM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:39:27 AM
Just make sure you remember what side your bread is buttered the next time you go to a GAA match.
What the f**k does that mean?
I wonder what Aidan McAnespie's family think of the armed occupying forces of the North. Or even what Jerome Quinn another Tyrone man, what is his opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Two wrongs don't make a right but it's a matter of respect for the cause and those who stand up for their rights and beliefs
Quote from: Minder on December 04, 2011, 12:44:12 AM
So are Sinn Fein and the Gaa someway intertwined? What are you smoking ?
No. 2 completely separate organisations.
Sorry to bring this to your attention Minder but I think it's fair to say most sports loving Sinn Fein folk would attend GAA games and events and may even be members of some clubs and county boards. I also think its fair to say that most people in general who attend GAA games and events would have Sinn Fein as their political party of preference. I am sure you wouldn't see it that if Gerry Adams went to watch his son play for his county he'd be bringing the game into disrepute by even being there cos that's how it's coming across to me.
You said "just remember what way your bread is buttered the next time you go to a Gaa match"
What does that mean?
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 03:39:18 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on December 03, 2011, 11:32:46 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
The thing is Nally, I personally would expect nothing less from the British. It's the apparent u turn that Sinn Fein have made on the matter that disappoints, yet doesn't surprise me. I'm more let down by the actions of SF in recent years than the Brits.
Your own opinion to which you are perfectly entitled. My own thoughts is that it is shameful that people here on this thread are happy to lambaste sf and more importantly, the families, over this whole thing; while blissfully refusing to criticise the british for the EXACT same apparent 'hypocrisy'. It seems the message the families would get from the majority of the posts by their fellow Irishmen on this thread would be, "You can't have it both ways.....But Britain can."
But the same argument could be made for the militant republican agenda. SF and their followers are happy to lambast and criticise the dissident republican movement but on the other hand defend and romanticise the actions of the provisional IRA. It seems the message the families would get from the statements by their fellow Irishmen would be "The deaths brought about by the dissident IRA are unjust and criminal . . . . . . but the provo's were grand."
Your point is one that has already been brought up by numerous posters on the board. Can't you read? Or is it just that you cannot tolerate somone quietly pointing out that if Republicans are using double standards, then Britain must be to? Even me pointing out that Britain is doing the same thing has prompted you to try to quickly change the focus of criticism back to Republicans. Eight men dead due to British shoot-to-kill policy and you don't wish to talk about the inconsistency of their stated position of what the conflict was. Seems you can't stomach somone pointing out that Republicans weren't the only side involved. Pathetic. Keep talking like that and you'll suddenly find yourself leader of the sdlp. Or the TUV.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: Minder on December 04, 2011, 12:44:12 AM
So are Sinn Fein and the Gaa someway intertwined? What are you smoking ?
No. 2 completely separate organisations.
Sorry to bring this to your attention Minder but I think it's fair to say most sports loving Sinn Fein folk would attend GAA games and events and may even be members of some clubs and county boards. I also think its fair to say that most people in general who attend GAA games and events would have Sinn Fein as their political party of preference. I am sure you wouldn't see it that if Gerry Adams went to watch his son play for his county he'd be bringing the game into disrepute by even being there cos that's how it's coming across to me.
I seriously can't understand where you've been going with your posts on this thread. I don't know why the GAA was brought into the discussion, nor Jerome Quinn and the BBC, nor Colin Howell or Hazel Stewart.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
I also think its fair to say that most people in general who attend GAA games and events would have Sinn Fein as their political party of preference.
Limited to the six counties, obviously. Although as above, I'm not sure why we're discussing it on this thread.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:39:27 AM
Army Cadets... Do kids join that for honing the use of a Camogie stick? Or a rifle? Look it doesn't matter if only 1% of Cadets join the British forces, it's set up to make sure as many as possible do
The discussion was as follows:
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 04, 2011, 12:01:55 AM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 03, 2011, 11:42:10 PM
Only 25 years old and the Lord Mayor of a fairly large and certainly historical and high profile City who decided at the 11th hour not to hand out a British medal of honour to a British kid heading for a life in the forces...
She was in the Cadets. How do you know she was heading for a life in the forces? Do you know what proportion of Cadets who actually join the army?
You said the kid was
"heading for a life in the forces". That was mere speculation. It's probably more likely than not that she won't join the army.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:39:27 AM
I think it's fair to say most Volunteers knew it was a case of kill or be killed so, what happened in Loughgall that night was another terrible incident in this country's history, same as all the IRA autrocities that were carried out in the name of Freedom.
Army Cadets... Do kids join that for honing the use of a Camogie stick? Or a rifle? Look it doesn't matter if only 1% of Cadets join the British forces, it's set up to make sure as many as possible do which, when that Lord Mayor found out the true extent of what was going on, put him in a very very difficult position. I think he handled it well, he has many many people to try and keep happy and inevitably some of those people will always be pissed off regardless.
My opinion on this won't change your Unionist slant-minded opinion on the whole thing anyway, that's ingrained in you now and good luck to ya. Just make sure you remember what side your bread is buttered the next time you go to a GAA match or when the lads stop you at some random border checkpoint some time in the future.
Not everyone swallows the Unionist media sway what's put out there either Minder... That's cos some just aren't that gullible, others are.
Which lads would that be? Not the British Army, obviously, since they're off the streets. Not the RUC either, since it's gone too. You must mean the PSNI, the organisation which sent a GAA team to Croke last week. If they're setting up checkpoints on the border, it must be to catch either smugglers, or republican fuckwits who haven't yet realised that they're the Irish equivalent of Japanese soldiers still holding out in the forest. Either way, more power to the peelers!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 03, 2011, 11:56:50 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 03, 2011, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 03, 2011, 04:08:55 PM
I think people will see from this post , the difference between sf and the IRA.
sf (or some of them like mr mcelduff). We all know it was a war. thats why republicans accepted as well as mourned those killed at loughall.
I didnt realise that some republican families had received compo - not something that is pursued by republican families that I have heard of at least.
I know people are unhappy that those killed at loughall were done in an ambush, but again its a war and that the way war goes.
if it wasnt a war then the authorities would have tried to arrest them prior to this point.
Again it disproves the loyalist/unionst claims (from some of their posters on this board) that it wasnt a war.
Also that the war ended up in stalemate as they generally do with the republicans winning the sought after cessation of persecution to nationalist/Irish/republican peoples and winning the rights to move above second class citizenship.
The other aspect , the secondary aim - the reunification of Ireland - well thats ongoing as we see - and the recent media outbursts from dup conf and all other whinges against it are counter productive - as the more these unionist/loyalists highlight and talk about it the more it is going to gather momentum and when the world economy changes, this will partition will be rectified! I laugh at the unionists/loyalist over reaction to the inevitible on here and in the media - its obv they are running scared !
they doth protest WAY too much !! :D
as for this report - well if there was any truth in it, this chink would have been exploited long ago - so I cant see it being the truth, but it is irrelevent anyway.
Republicans won nothing. The objective of their 'long war' was the removal of the British presence from the north of Ireland. Instead, they ended up taking their places in a devolved British assembly at Stormont and accepting that unionist consent (provos used to call it the unionist veto) was necessary before a united Ireland could be achieved. It took them 3500 deaths before they realised that what John Hume had been saying all along was right.
Your opinion is noted, but incorrect if you are trying to paraphrase objectives from the republican perspective - something you obv know nothing about!
No point in discussing anything further to be honest as it seems you just don't know, understand or won't accept reality!
'IRA objectives had always been to force Britain to withdraw from Ireland and to follow this up with a tidal wave of popular support North and South, enough to sweep away the existing parliaments and replace them with one Dáil for a 32-County Socialist Republic.'
'The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Fein', Brendan O'Brien, 1999
Fed up now with it. I just can't be arsed with all the anti - republicanism / British Support / british sympathisers from so called Irish men on a GAA Forum, if that is what the majority of you claim to be. Utterly pathetic attitude that goes against what I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
Carry on
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Fed up now with it. I just can't be arsed with all the anti - republicanism / British Support / british sympathisers from so called Irish men on a GAA Forum, if that is what the majority of you claim to be. Utterly pathetic attitude that goes against what I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
Carry on
Before you go tell me what "next time you are at a Gaa match remember what side your bread is buttered on" means?
Sure. Some people in the crowd amongst you are prepared to stand up and be counted. Some, like yourself, will just stand back and let others shovel the shit but lap up the rewards when the work is done. I can't stand that kind of attitude, where some are happy to let others put their head on the block, knowing what is coming but would NEVER do it themselves but are first to pat them on the back when they come back with the readies :o
Sammy, you've lost the plot.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Fed up now with it. I just can't be arsed with all the anti - republicanism / British Support / british sympathisers from so called Irish men on a GAA Forum, if that is what the majority of you claim to be. Utterly pathetic attitude that goes against what I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
Depressing that you have such a homogeneous view of what Irish men and GAA members / fans should believe in and stand for. So much for diversity in our country and greatest sporting organisation.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 03, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
One thing i could never understand or agree with the IRA or Sinn Fein on. If you agree this was a war and 2 armies fought it then surely you have to accept that the British army won this particular duel. If the IRA were the ones hiding in the ditch they would have done exactly the same as the SAS did. That is the risk of being a soldier is it not? What exactly are the IRA families unhappy about?
Families have a different perspective and different issues on the death of their loved ones and the manner of the deaths, than the protagonists in a war.
Although this ambush has the hallmarks of an act of war, only one side in this conflict agree that there was a war. To this day you have elements decrying the republicans as a murderous rabble.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 12:02:53 PM
Sure. Some people in the crowd amongst you are prepared to stand up and be counted. Some, like yourself, will just stand back and let others shovel the shit but lap up the rewards when the work is done. I can't stand that kind of attitude, where some are happy to let others put their head on the block, knowing what is coming but would NEVER do it themselves but are first to pat them on the back when they come back with the readies :o
You need to have a lie down.
Quote from: Minder on December 04, 2011, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Fed up now with it. I just can't be arsed with all the anti - republicanism / British Support / british sympathisers from so called Irish men on a GAA Forum, if that is what the majority of you claim to be. Utterly pathetic attitude that goes against what I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
Carry on
Before you go tell me what "next time you are at a Gaa match remember what side your bread is buttered on" means?
Apparently you haven't sholleved enough shit in your time.
Quotewhat I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
And also you don't believe exactly what Sammy believes so therefore are a West Brit/anti-republican/british sympathising cnut.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Fed up now with it. I just can't be arsed with all the anti - republicanism / British Support / british sympathisers from so called Irish men on a GAA Forum, if that is what the majority of you claim to be. Utterly pathetic attitude that goes against what I personally believe Irish men and women should believe and stand for.
Carry on
I personally believe that Irish men should stand for pregnant women and old people on crowded buses. Aside from that, I'm easy.
:D maybe my point is a little on the extreme side so I will let you get back to your golden jubilee preparations and straighten that picture of King Billy in yer front room when you are there ha ha
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 01:02:28 PM
:D maybe my point is a little on the extreme side so I will let you get back to your golden jubilee preparations and straighten that picture of King Billy in yer front room when you are there ha ha
It's clear that you consider there to be the two extremes... and nothing in between.
It seems like a lot of johnny-come-lately unionists are taking delight in denouncing sammymaguire.
I suspect these newly converted british subjects dont rememeber the britsh army attrocities in the six counties, or have air-brushed them from memory. You would nearly think the Troubles was caused by the IRA.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2011, 10:39:12 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 03:39:18 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on December 03, 2011, 11:32:46 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 03, 2011, 11:20:56 PM
If it's double standards, it's just amazing how many Irishmen are on here happily ignoring the fact that Britain has also been applying the exact same double standards, and how these posters are happy to just criticise the families of these eight men instead.
The thing is Nally, I personally would expect nothing less from the British. It's the apparent u turn that Sinn Fein have made on the matter that disappoints, yet doesn't surprise me. I'm more let down by the actions of SF in recent years than the Brits.
Your own opinion to which you are perfectly entitled. My own thoughts is that it is shameful that people here on this thread are happy to lambaste sf and more importantly, the families, over this whole thing; while blissfully refusing to criticise the british for the EXACT same apparent 'hypocrisy'. It seems the message the families would get from the majority of the posts by their fellow Irishmen on this thread would be, "You can't have it both ways.....But Britain can."
But the same argument could be made for the militant republican agenda. SF and their followers are happy to lambast and criticise the dissident republican movement but on the other hand defend and romanticise the actions of the provisional IRA. It seems the message the families would get from the statements by their fellow Irishmen would be "The deaths brought about by the dissident IRA are unjust and criminal . . . . . . but the provo's were grand."
Your point is one that has already been brought up by numerous posters on the board. Can't you read? Or is it just that you cannot tolerate somone quietly pointing out that if Republicans are using double standards, then Britain must be to?
Through the laces pointed that out in a few quotes above as did another poster after him. I may spell it out for you again though. Hypocrisy? We expect nothing less from the British. You can't high-step your way around the world, claiming moral superiority, whilst simultaneously tramping the native population into the dirt without tying yourself in a few knots. It's the nationalist movement who should be a step above it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 04, 2011, 10:39:12 AM
Even me pointing out that Britain is doing the same thing has prompted you to try to quickly change the focus of criticism back to Republicans. Eight men dead due to British shoot-to-kill policy and you don't wish to talk about the inconsistency of their stated position of what the conflict was. Seems you can't stomach somone pointing out that Republicans weren't the only side involved. Pathetic. Keep talking like that and you'll suddenly find yourself leader of the sdlp. Or the TUV.
Sure if you can't format a reply just play the man and not the ball. Also where did I say I didn't wish to talk about the inconsistency of the British position on the conflict? Quote me if you can? The British are a crowd of hypocritical c***ts. Turns out though that the Shinners now aren't much better.
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 02:00:57 PM
Through the laces pointed that out in a few quotes above as did another poster after him. I may spell it out for you again though. Hypocrisy? We expect nothing less from the British. You can't high-step your way around the world, claiming moral superiority, whilst simultaneously tramping the native population into the dirt without tying yourself in a few knots. It's the nationalist movement who should be a step above it.
You expect nothing less, so you just don't like to talk about them? That is a mealy mouthed response. The fact of the matter is that this whole Loughgall incident demonstrated the fundamental inconsistency in Britain's description of what they were doing in Ireland. You seem to accept that as just a fact of life so why bother take them to task over it. You only mention the British inconsistency when prompted to give your opinion. Otherwise, you are content to use this glaring example of British inconsistency as a means to attack Republicans. Feeding into the myth that Republicans are the big baddies and it was all their fault.
"And the British trileacman? Ah yeah they weren't nice either, but I don't want to talk about them, let's just talk about the republicans."Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 02:00:57 PM
Sure if you can't format a reply just play the man and not the ball.
Says the man who made a thinly veiled accusation of sectarianism out of the blue against me when I was talking about incidents in the row at the Dromore/Carrickmore match a few weeks back...
...and only today posted the following on the GAA discussion section:
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2011, 02:08:16 PM
Quote from: zoyler on December 04, 2011, 12:25:49 PM
Can't get The Irish News in my part of the cpountry but here therewas ne're a mention of the 9th title win in his coloum on Friday - had he not heard? Maybe somebody should tell him!
Take your head out of your hole and someone might give you a Irish News.
...and then there was your short and sharp message to whishtup:
Quote from: trileacman on November 22, 2011, 01:36:52 AM
You are a bollocks.
You're clearly a real people person.
"IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall"
This has no relevance in a War zone, which was the case in the North! We lost men that day, we cant win every battle, name a war where the death toll is zero on one side.
Óglaigh na hÉireann
Quote from: LostInSpace on December 04, 2011, 03:53:36 PM
"IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall"
This has no relevance in a War zone, which was the case in the North! We lost men that day, we cant win every battle, name a war where the death toll is zero on one side.
Óglaigh na hÉireann
Take heart from the fact that these soldiers of Ireland did not die in vain.
British rule in Ireland is at an end! Partition of our country has been consigned to the dustbin of history! Republicans are, even as we speak, playing a vital role in the local assembly at Stormont!
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Interesting opinion of yours!
It would have been even more interesting to see what your opinion would have been if you had been subjected to these horrors of yesteryear! It's fairly obv you weren't or possibly you were part of the side of the oppressor!!!
Fear an SB is very correct with his last post and it's content!
Your opinion is however incorrect on the objectives of the republicans retaliation. You can't even blame Simon fein this time as you tend and like to do !!!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 04, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Interesting opinion of yours!
It would have been even more interesting to see what your opinion would have been if you had been subjected to these horrors of yesteryear! It's fairly obv you weren't or possibly you were part of the side of the oppressor!!!
Fear an SB is very correct with his last post and it's content!
Your opinion is however incorrect on the objectives of the republicans retaliation. You can't even blame Simon fein this time as you tend and like to do !!!
Here's Marty in 1985 still saying that votes for SF won't bring freedom, that only the cutting edge of the IRA can do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzvpMlHuIrs
No mention of one man, one vote or disbanding the B Specials, both of which had already happened before the emergence of the provos. No mention either of ending unionist hegemony, presumably because that had already happened too. The IRA only had one objective, you see, and that was Brits Out. Only when it became apparent to them that their long war was not going to have any more success in achieving this than their border campaign of the 50s had done, did they start looking at other options. Don't get me wrong. I'm as happy as anyone that the violence ended and the guns were put away. I just wish they'd realised the futility of their actions about 25 years earlier.
Wonder if Marty still thinks voting for SF's a waste of time?
Who gives a f**k?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Wow
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 04, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 04, 2011, 05:27:47 PM
One person, one vote; an admission from the Brits that they "have no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland; the disbandment of the B-Specials, UDR & RUC; an end to the Unionist political hegemony, etc.
No one's saying that the job is done - there is still institutionalised and endemic discrimination in certain spheres like, for example, Medicine, so it's very much a work in progress: a political world away, however, from the Unionist dominated horrors of the 60s.
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Interesting opinion of yours!
It would have been even more interesting to see what your opinion would have been if you had been subjected to these horrors of yesteryear! It's fairly obv you weren't or possibly you were part of the side of the oppressor!!!
Fear an SB is very correct with his last post and it's content!
Your opinion is however incorrect on the objectives of the republicans retaliation. You can't even blame Simon fein this time as you tend and like to do !!!
Here's Marty in 1985 still saying that votes for SF won't bring freedom, that only the cutting edge of the IRA can do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzvpMlHuIrs
No mention of one man, one vote or disbanding the B Specials, both of which had already happened before the emergence of the provos. No mention either of ending unionist hegemony, presumably because that had already happened too. The IRA only had one objective, you see, and that was Brits Out. Only when it became apparent to them that their long war was not going to have any more success in achieving this than their border campaign of the 50s had done, did they start looking at other options. Don't get me wrong. I'm as happy as anyone that the violence ended and the guns were put away. I just wish they'd realised the futility of their actions about 25 years earlier.
Wonder if Marty still thinks voting for SF's a waste of time?
...if that's your 'proof' then you might realize you need to sit down and have a big rethink on what to are posting on here - your opinion is fine but it doesn't scratch the surface of reality.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 04, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
Sorry to bring this to your attention Minder but I think it's fair to say most sports loving Sinn Fein folk would attend GAA games and events and may even be members of some clubs and county boards.
You'd be more likely to find them in Parkhead.
QuoteI also think its fair to say that most people in general who attend GAA games and events would have Sinn Fein as their political party of preference.
Jesus wept! ::)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Spot on. I had to laugh at the other post up above giving out about "people who didn't stick their necks out but then took all the credit for what was achieved." The Shinners are in a commanding position today because they finally woke up to the benefits of the SDLP's way of doing things, i.e. getting people on your side by persuasion rather than shooting at them. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out but it took the proves 30 odd years to get it into their heads and there's a handful of malcontents (Éirigi/32CSM/RIRA etc.) who still don't get it. Why? Because if they had two heads they'd be twice as stupid.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 04:33:06 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Spot on. I had to laugh at the other post up above giving out about "people who didn't stick their necks out but then took all the credit for what was achieved." The Shinners are in a commanding position today because they finally woke up to the benefits of the SDLP's way of doing things, i.e. getting people on your side by persuasion rather than shooting at them. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out but it took the proves 30 odd years to get it into their heads and there's a handful of malcontents (Éirigi/32CSM/RIRA etc.) who still don't get it. Why? Because if they had two heads they'd be twice as stupid.
This is simply wrong. So you're telling me SF would still be in such a commanding position had the IRA not fired one bullet? Waken up. I'm no longer a SF supporter, nor do I support the SDLP. I wouldn't be too harsh on Éirigi/32CSM/RIRA etc., they are only following on from what they've been taught by the big boys up on the hill.
Biggest nationalist party during Troubles: SDLP
Biggest nationalist party after Troubles: SF
Conclusion: Nationalists in general are opposed to armed force and felt better about voting for SF after they ditched the violence.
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on December 05, 2011, 04:55:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 04:33:06 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 04, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
One person, one vote came in around 1969, just as the B Specials were being disbanded. The unionist one party state was effectively dismantled in the early 70s and again owed more to the civil rights people and constitutional nationalism than militant republicanism. The IRA's campaign was directed at removing the British presence from Ireland, not about reforming a state they thought shouldn't exist in the first place. Now republicans are trying to rewrite history and steal the laurels that rightly belong to others. Shameful, but typical.
Spot on. I had to laugh at the other post up above giving out about "people who didn't stick their necks out but then took all the credit for what was achieved." The Shinners are in a commanding position today because they finally woke up to the benefits of the SDLP's way of doing things, i.e. getting people on your side by persuasion rather than shooting at them. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out but it took the proves 30 odd years to get it into their heads and there's a handful of malcontents (Éirigi/32CSM/RIRA etc.) who still don't get it. Why? Because if they had two heads they'd be twice as stupid.
This is simply wrong. So you're telling me SF would still be in such a commanding position had the IRA not fired one bullet? Waken up. I'm no longer a SF supporter, nor do I support the SDLP. I wouldn't be too harsh on Éirigi/32CSM/RIRA etc., they are only following on from what they've been taught by the big boys up on the hill.
would agree with that.
However I wouldnt be too fond of eirigi/32csm/RIRA or sf for that matter !
sf or the nationalist people wouldnt be out of the second class citizenship if sadly the retaliation didnt happen. pity it took that to gain equality.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 05:34:20 AM
Biggest nationalist party during Troubles: SDLP
Biggest nationalist party after Troubles: SF
Conclusion: Nationalists in general are opposed to armed force and felt better about voting for SF after they ditched the violence.
>:( I am getting sucked in again. I am a pretty liberal and tolerant guy and would have no issues whatsoever with John Smith, aged 43, from Bristol. or Julie Owen, aged 29 from Wolverhampton. The normal English man or woman are good decent people, not to far flung from ourselves in many ways.
But please do me a favour. Wise up. Who, in their right mind feels good when they hear about someone being killed?? Unfortunately some people had to go to extreme measures to stand up for one side of the community in the 6 counties that were being treated like cnuts by those who were the ruling power. Look what the hunger strikers had to go through. Look what the people of the Bogside had to go through. You cant tell me or anyone else that the actions of those who took up arms did not have the impact that was needed to gain the desired effect. It did.
Talking. You think Irish people talking to the British govt of the 1980's especially would have got what the IRA managed to get? Did the miners get much luck talking to Maggie Thatcher and they were her own good English folk, so what chance to you think Gerry Adams et al had? Grow A Brain.
Some of the attitudes and opinions of people on this thread are so PC its quite funny in one way, very sad in another. Its just the pure old ideology of I cant associate, support, sympathise or be connected in any way shape or form with murderous criminals whether they wear balaclavas or shirts and ties. "I would feel dirty just subconsciously agreeing that what some people FOUGHT to get for the benefit of so many people (of which I belong) was a good thing, I am far too intelligent and forthright for all that kind of nonsense!"
I am not saying everyone should be out there are the Easter marches etc, but they should accept that respect is due where respect is due and dont take the side of the Brits, if they were that great then they would be in charge of the whole country of Ireland today, and maybe that wouldnt be a bad thing considering the mess it is in :D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 05:34:20 AM
Biggest nationalist party during Troubles: SDLP
Biggest nationalist party after Troubles: SF
Conclusion: Nationalists in general are opposed to armed force and felt better about voting for SF after they ditched the violence.
And French people felt better about the French resistance after they were liberated and the resistance put away their guns.
Conclusion?
Violent resistance does not need a popular mandate, it just needs conditions.
Sinn Fein did not seriously engage in a political process until after they called the ceasefire.
There are many factors why the SF electoral base grew.
One could also consider that the SDLP profile has lessened in value.
Play me the world's smallest violin. All the armed campaign did was deepen divisions between catholics and protestants and make it even harder to achieve an eventual united Ireland. The reforms that were made in the north in favor of nationalists owe far more to the civil rights marches and the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the SDLP than any bombs and bullets. Anyone giving credit for that progress to armed republicans is just re-writing history.
And as for Maggie Thatcher, thanks to the work of the SDLP and a few enlightened souls down south, the most stubborn British Prime Minister in living memory eventually wised up after the hunger strike debacle and faced down unionist opposition (much of it violent) to give the south a say in the affairs of the north via the Anglo Irish Agreement.
Are you still asleep over there in America?? Here you go:
(http://cdn.bikechatforums.com/files/worlds-smallest-violin_190.jpg)
Whatever ya say Eamonn. Right ya be. :D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
Play me the world's smallest violin. All the armed campaign did was deepen divisions between catholics and protestants and make it even harder to achieve an eventual united Ireland. The reforms that were made in the north in favor of nationalists owe far more to the civil rights marches and the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the SDLP than any bombs and bullets. Anyone giving credit for that progress to armed republicans is just re-writing history.
And as for Maggie Thatcher, thanks to the work of the SDLP and a few enlightened souls down south, the most stubborn British Prime Minister in living memory eventually wised up after the hunger strike debacle and faced down unionist opposition (much of it violent) to give the south a say in the affairs of the north via the Anglo Irish Agreement.
The armed struggle brought Britain to the negotiating table and as a result, led to the level of peace and equality that we simply would not have today otherwise. And before some bright spark starts pedaling the myth that Sunningdale was the wonderful answer to all the problems, just remember that Sunningdale didn't mention the word equality once; and even if it did, the social conditions of the day would not have allowed it to succeed. Things were a lot safer in the six counties for nationalists at the time the GFA was signed in 1998, and it still took a further 9 years of Unionist vetos and collapses/re-introduction of the assembly before it got going in any kind of stability. To believe that Sunningdale would have been a success is about as credible as believeing we could have just closed our eyes and
wished really hard...
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
And as for Maggie Thatcher, thanks to the work of the SDLP and a few enlightened souls down south, the most stubborn British Prime Minister in living memory eventually wised up after the hunger strike debacle and faced down unionist opposition (much of it violent) to give the south a say in the affairs of the north via the Anglo Irish Agreement.
Haha, tell me another Eamonn, cause that one was :D :D :D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
The reforms that were made in the north in favor of nationalists owe far more to the civil rights marches and the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the SDLP than any bombs and bullets....
Ha, ha, ha!... Yeah, the SDLP were just
so persuasive! :D
Maggie trembled at the mighty power of the SDLP :D
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 06:22:18 PM
Maggie trembled at the mighty power of the SDLP :D
Scoff all you want. The Anglo Irish Agreement would not have happened without John Hume and you know it. Fact.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 06:22:18 PM
Maggie trembled at the mighty power of the SDLP :D
And she faced down the Provos and lived to tell the tale !
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Canary Wharf is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations. You honestly think if there was no armed struggle, that Unionists would have been happy to consider a United Ireland? Catch a grip. If there was no armed campaign, the unionist community would still be enjoying first class citizenship over a second class nationalist community. The peaceful route was tried and Bloody Sunday & Burntollet happened. No amount of fanciful make believe will change the fact that it took the bomb and the bullet to bring Britain to the table.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations. You honestly think if there was no armed struggle, that Unionists would have been happy to consider a United Ireland? Catch a grip. If there was no armed campaign, the unionist community would still be enjoying first class citizenship over a second class nationalist community. The peaceful route was tried and Bloody Sunday & Burntollet happened. No amount of fanciful make believe will change the fact that it took the bomb and the bullet to bring Britain to the table.
Where they proceeded to run rings round the Provos.....total decommissioning, administering British rule in Ireland etc etc
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations. You honestly think if there was no armed struggle, that Unionists would have been happy to consider a United Ireland? Catch a grip. If there was no armed campaign, the unionist community would still be enjoying first class citizenship over a second class nationalist community. The peaceful route was tried and Bloody Sunday & Burntollet happened. No amount of fanciful make believe will change the fact that it took the bomb and the bullet to bring Britain to the table.
See what I mean? Completely missed the point about negotiating with the unionists.
Your attempt to justify the murder of two children in Warrington is beneath contempt.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I
mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations. You honestly think if there was no armed struggle, that Unionists would have been happy to consider a United Ireland? Catch a grip. If there was no armed campaign, the unionist community would still be enjoying first class citizenship over a second class nationalist community. The peaceful route was tried and Bloody Sunday & Burntollet happened. No amount of fanciful make believe will change the fact that it took the bomb and the bullet to bring Britain to the table.
See what I mean? Completely missed the point about negotiating with the unionists.
Your attempt to justify the murder of two children in Warrington is beneath contempt.
Though not surprising.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
The armed struggle has successfully created an entire generation of northern protestants who won't even consider Irish unity. When you consider that getting a decent number of northern protestants on our side is the pathway to Irish unity, you really have to question the wisdom of the "bomb em, shoot em" brigade.
There was no substantial negotiation until after the bombing stopped. By "substantial negotiation" I mean between the parties in the north, the people who actually need to be working together. All this talk about "Provos v the Brits" as if they're the only two players in the system and as if northern unionists don't exist just shows you that some people still don't get it.
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations. You honestly think if there was no armed struggle, that Unionists would have been happy to consider a United Ireland? Catch a grip. If there was no armed campaign, the unionist community would still be enjoying first class citizenship over a second class nationalist community. The peaceful route was tried and Bloody Sunday & Burntollet happened. No amount of fanciful make believe will change the fact that it took the bomb and the bullet to bring Britain to the table.
See what I mean? Completely missed the point about negotiating with the unionists.
Your attempt to justify the murder of two children in Warrington is beneath contempt.
Jaysus, now I'm trying to justify child killing? How is rational debate possible :-\ In case it wasn't clear by the context, I made a typo and was referring to the Canary Wharf. Either you didn't get the context (which would have made it clear what IRA attack I was referring to), in which case why are you trying to debate like you know what you are talking about; or you
did realise and still attempted to accuse me of justifying the killing of children. Which is pathetic.
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations.
Unbelieveable. So we have the IRA and their murders of a 3 year-old and a 12 year-old boy to thank for bringing the Brits to the table. You are one sick bastard to believe that's justified Nally.
The british high horse brigade still out in force I see :o :o ::)
Fair play lads
Quote from: trileacman on December 05, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations.
Unbelieveable. So we have the IRA and their murders of a 3 year-old and a 12 year-old boy to thank for bringing the Brits to the table. You are one sick b**tard to believe that's justified Nally.
Shocking indeed !
Quote from: trileacman on December 05, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
Warrington is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations.
Unbelieveable. So we have the IRA and their murders of a 3 year-old and a 12 year-old boy to thank for bringing the Brits to the table. You are one sick b**tard to believe that's justified Nally.
Read the post at the top of the page before you start your personal abuse ::)
Even your weasel words won't get you out of this Nally, you are scum, plain and simple.
Typo my hole.
My post earlier should have read:
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
There was negotiations from early on. Plenty of them. Canary Wharf is the prime example of what I'm talking about. It happened due to the British not committing to the negotiations....
And for those who inevitably will refuse to accept it was a typo when I originally typed Warrington, here's me making the same point I was trying to make several months ago:
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 02:14:50 PM
The British had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a peace process. Canary Wharf was the result of their refusal to take it seriously...
and on another thread before that:
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 25, 2010, 03:30:59 AM
...As i already pointed out, there was no stability then, the IRA felt it was 1994 before it believed the british govn was prepared to talk and yet Canary wharf in 1996 was the result of the british govn not taking republican attempts to talk seriously.
and on another occasion:
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 02, 2010, 08:36:31 PM
When I say an alternative wasn't viable, I'm going by events. The IRA sent secret delegations to talk peace with the british gov a number of times to no avail. Ceasefires fell when the british gov didn't live up to agreements. Most notably in the case of Canary Wharf.
and again (in reference to Sunningdale just like in this thread :o) :
Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM
....talking as if Sunningdale was ever going to last is totally fanciful and absurd.....The Docklands bombing only took place due to the British Government not taking peace talks seriously:
Sorry to disappoint all the moral high-grounders who like to accuse people of trying to justify child killing. The level to which some people will stoop when trying to appear to take moral high ground is incredible.
Come on, lads, I know this topic is fraught with emotional overtones, but let's not be suggesting that Nally Stand thinks that the death of children in Warrington was either commendable or effective.
Eamonn, like you I admire John Hume and think that he did much to promote equal rights and to foster detente between the two communities, but I also believe that one of the SDLP's most significant acts, one that was politically suicidal for them, was opting not to contest the Bobby Sands Fermanagh-South Tyrone election, thereby showing SF that it might achieve its aims constitutionally rather than confrontationally, ultimately allowing SF to take control of the ground formerly held by the SDLP.
Eamonn, though I agree that guns and bombs did nothing to soften unionist attitudes toward a United Ireland, I also believe that bombs or no bombs that community would have been and still is largely unwilling to consider a UI.
If I could return for a second to the Loughgall topic. Can anyone tell me where the HET got its information that the IRA shot first? The SAS? Informants? Bystanders? And at whom did they allegedly shoot? The SAS? The RUC? I'm sorry that I don't know more particulars about the incident, but if what Ulick says is true, then I am deeply troubled by it. The discussion of whether or not this was a wartime incident is moot. The riddling of a body with bullets is, plainly and simply, execution, wrong even in wartime, but especially so when the wounded could have presumably been arrested.
What bothers me also in this is an apparent attempt to gloss over the shoot-to-kill policy so clearly the law of the land. It is less important who shot first; rather, it is more important who shot last and under what circumstances.
Nally, have you not got some nasal hair to trim or something important like that rather than getting into an Internet debate with the British / Irish high horse brigade over the justification of killing kids which they seem to think you agree with. These same folk thinking armed British soldiers running around our streets firing indiscriminately at unarmed innocent people whilst on a peaceful process is fair game.
I don't think there is any doubt that the IRA's armed struggle forced the british government to sit up and realise that things had to change. The armed struggle kick started the equality we now have.
"Typo", eh? Well I suppose it's easy enough done, mis-spelling Canary Wharf as Warrington. I do it all the time.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 09:46:49 PM
"Typo", eh? Well I suppose it's easy enough done, mis-spelling Canary Wharf as Warrington. I do it all the time.
Have you ever called someone by the wrong name?
Eamon, my last post clearly proves my point, where I gave numerous examples over time of me making the same point I was trying to make. The fact that you are ignoring it out of some perverse desire to accuse me of supporting the killing of children is disappointing.
The berst thing to do, Nally , to to condemn the murder of the two children at Warrington by the IRA !!
OK, you fluffed your lines. Big deal. Let's get back to a more interesting point. You keep talking about negotiations with the Brits as if there are only two parties in the conflict, namely the Brits (that is, HMG) and the Provos. Now my point is that this is an outmoded way of thinking. The problem has always been a lack of dialog between unionists and nationalists in the north (or prods and catholics or whichever label you prefer). The problem has always been the divide between the peoples of the north. Physical force republicanism has made those divisions even deeper.
Look at the progress that was made
HMG had been persuaded to set up a power-sharing executive at Sunningdale and establish a Council of Ireland which would give the south a say in the affairs of the north. This was in 1974. Who do you think persuaded the Brits (and a decent number of Official Unionists) to go along with that? Do you think they did it at the behest of the IRA? No, the Provies carried on bombing and shooting regardless because they were too intellectually-challenged to see the opportunity for political reform that was being handed to the Irish people on a silver plate, they were too busy keeping the pot boiling and guaranteeing that unionists would go on blocking any progress, which they succeeded in doing. They went for the "all or nothing" approach of opposing any bit of progress that didn't result in an overnight British withdrawal and establishment of a 32 county socialist republic. And in going for all-or-nothing they got nothing. But at least they kept to their "principles," right? Nice going, Provies.
The Anglo Irish Agreement was a curious example of one of nature's most stubborn creatures actually giving a formal say to the south in the affairs of the north, going over the heads of the unionists to do it, and facing down their opposition. John Hume was instrumental in it. Sinn Fein and Provo reaction? Oppose the agreement and carry on with the bombing and shooting business as normal, just to make sure that the unionists stay nice and hostile to the cause of Irish nationhood.
IRA ceasefire and The Good Friday Agreement - well we all know the history of that and John Hume's central role in it, don't we? We all know that the SDLP was still by far the biggest nationalist party at the time of the ceasefire and stayed that way until long afterwards. It was here that the only negotiations that matter took place - namely those between the unionists and nationalists of the north. None of it could have happened without the IRA ceasefire, and that would never have happened without the likes of John Hume.
If it weren't for John Hume the troubles would have dragged on for years longer, maybe decades longer, until the provos wised up and saw how stupid their campaign was. Remember how people call the GFA "Sunningdale for slow learners"? They're not just talking about the unionists. They're talking about you too.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 10:49:01 PM
OK, you fluffed your lines. Big deal....
How very flippant, after your accusations.
No further interest in this thread with the type of disgusting posts and vicious personal abuse that have thrown thrown around.
He's bate! He's bate!
(http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0511-1001-2519-4221_Cartoon_Depicting_the_Metaphor_for_Tail_Between_Your_Legs_or_Chicken_clipart_image.jpg)
You're peddling a whole load of Stooper propaganda there Eamonn, so full of holes that it's obviously futile at this stage to attempt to shine a light for you. One example, you say the military campaign drove a (bigger) wedge between Unionism and Irish Nationalism: explain, ergo, why it was that Paisley eventually was all brotherly with arch Republican Mc Guinness but was marching up the Falls Road with his raggle-taggle band of bigots in the mid 60s to antagonise the local Taigs with not a whiff of IRA cordite wafting on the northern air?
The sad reality is that the British have never, in respect of any of the countries she occupied, negotiated in the absence of an armed campaign (Hong Kong, for example, was a residency contract expiry). You can try to repaint your own version of historical reality, but it won't change that immutable fact.
Nice try, but I never said that the IRA created the divisions in the first place. They deepened them.
As for British withdrawal, where was the armed insurrection that drove them out of Australia? Canada?
In fairness Eamonnca you make great GAA videos.
Thank you sir.
Quote from: EC Unique on December 05, 2011, 09:29:51 PM
I don't think there is any doubt that the IRA's armed struggle forced the british government to sit up and realise that things had to change. The armed struggle kick started the equality we now have.
Catholics / nationalists in the north started to achieve equality with the introduction of one man, one vote and the disbanding of the protestant militia, the B Specials. Both these events happened in 1969, on the foot of the Civil Rights protests, and before the emergence of the provisional IRA. Also in 1969, the decision was taken to establish the Housing Executive in response to allegations of discrimination in housing, though it would be a couple of years after that before the Executive was up and running.
The armed struggle kick started nothing but death and destruction and the further polarisation of an already polarised society. Not only did the armed struggle fail to achieve its objective of forcing the British out of Ireland, it deepened partition by turning people in the republic off the north, and by confirming in the minds of unionists that their future in any united Ireland would be an unpleasant one.
Republicans attempts to rewrite history are truly breathtaking.
TRULY BREATHTAKING :o breathtaking like this?? A thing of beauty...
(http://zuzutop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Breathtaking-Photographs-of-Nature-16.jpg)
Very dramatic indeed Myles :P
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 07:17:54 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on December 05, 2011, 09:29:51 PM
I don't think there is any doubt that the IRA's armed struggle forced the british government to sit up and realise that things had to change. The armed struggle kick started the equality we now have.
Catholics / nationalists in the north started to achieve equality with the introduction of one man, one vote and the disbanding of the protestant militia, the B Specials. Both these events happened in 1969, on the foot of the Civil Rights protests, and before the emergence of the provisional IRA. Also in 1969, the decision was taken to establish the Housing Executive in response to allegations of discrimination in housing, though it would be a couple of years after that before the Executive was up and running.
The armed struggle kick started nothing but death and destruction and the further polarisation of an already polarised society. Not only did the armed struggle fail to achieve its objective of forcing the British out of Ireland, it deepened partition by turning people in the republic off the north, and by confirming in the minds of unionists that their future in any united Ireland would be an unpleasant one.
Republicans attempts to rewrite history are truly breathtaking.
Hear hear.
Quote from: Gaffer on December 05, 2011, 06:33:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 06:22:18 PM
Maggie trembled at the mighty power of the SDLP :D
And she faced down the Provos and lived to tell the tale !
just about...
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 01:41:19 AM
As for British withdrawal, where was the armed insurrection that drove them out of Australia? Canada?
Erm... Australia, Canada -- checked who their monarch is recently, respectively? Not exactly 'driven out' I'd say.
This thread has descended into a tit-for-tat argument between SF and SDLP apologists.
Unity has always been a key republican demand and the vols. at Loughall fought a war for independence, not political institutions and a process which fail to tackle the issue of Irish Sovereignty.
Neither the SDLP nor SF (is there any difference now) achieved anything in the way of progressing unification.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 07:17:54 AM
Catholics / nationalists in the north started to achieve equality with the introduction of one man, one vote and the disbanding of the protestant militia, the B Specials. Both these events happened in 1969, on the foot of the Civil Rights protests, and before the emergence of the provisional IRA. Also in 1969, the decision was taken to establish the Housing Executive in response to allegations of discrimination in housing, though it would be a couple of years after that before the Executive was up and running.
Yeah, the British really capitulated and yielded contritely to the 'simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play' and Bloody Sunday, for example, was really just a horrible Civil Rights' nightmare.
Tell us, did you get many scratches on that pristine ivory tower of yours with all those uppity Taigs running amok below in pursuit of something approaching parity?
I was responding to a poster who claimed that the 'armed struggle' kick started the process of equality for Catholics in the north. I pointed out that the first significant steps to reform happened in 1969, before the IRA was on the scene, therefore the 'armed struggle' had nothing to do with this, rather it was the Civil Rights movement which embarrassed Britain down the road to reform. Then you step in with a reference to Bloody Sunday which happened in 1972 and which happened when the 'armed struggle' was in its bloodiest year, thus reinforcing my point that 'armed struggle' kick started nothing but death and destruction.
Thank you for making my points for me, but really, there's no need...
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 11:23:06 AM
Then you step in with a reference to Bloody Sunday which happened in 1972 and which happened when the 'armed struggle' was in its bloodiest year, thus reinforcing my point that 'armed struggle' kick started nothing but death and destruction.
You bleat on incessantly about how the Civil Rights Movement was all that was necessary, yet Bloody Sunday very clearly demonstrated Britain's 'commitment' to Irish Civil Rights. Yeah, '72 was the bloodiest year -- do you know how many months there are in a year, and do you know the month of Bloody Sunday? Surely not even you is too deluded to work that one out?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 11:23:06 AM
Then you step in with a reference to Bloody Sunday which happened in 1972 and which happened when the 'armed struggle' was in its bloodiest year, thus reinforcing my point that 'armed struggle' kick started nothing but death and destruction.
You bleat on incessantly about how the Civil Rights Movement was all that was necessary, yet Bloody Sunday very clearly demonstrated Britain's 'commitment' to Irish Civil Rights. Yeah, '72 was the bloodiest year -- do you know how many months there are in a year, and do you know the month of Bloody Sunday? Surely not even you is too deluded to work that one out?
I have no clue what that post means. Take a deep breath, compose yourself, then try again.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 12:05:57 PM
I have no clue what that post means. Take a deep breath, compose yourself, then try again.
Not just delusional, but thick with it: 1972 erupted
after Bloody Sunday! D'oh!
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 08:49:01 AM
TRULY BREATHTAKING :o breathtaking like this?? A thing of beauty...
(http://zuzutop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Breathtaking-Photographs-of-Nature-16.jpg)
Very dramatic indeed Myles :P
Beautiful indeed ....do you know where this is?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:09:37 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 06, 2011, 12:05:57 PM
I have no clue what that post means. Take a deep breath, compose yourself, then try again.
Not just delusional, but thick with it: 1972 erupted after Bloody Sunday! D'oh!
Oh right, now I get it. Maybe you'd have preferred it if I'd mentioned 1971 instead? There was 'only' 171 deaths that year.
Do you have a point to make? Or is your policy just to be personally offensive in the hope that noone notices that your argument doesn't stack up?
You just keep digging your bottomless holes there.
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
'Embarrassing Britain'... now that's just so ridiculous that it's almost humorous, almost! Rather, it's just pathetic.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
So you believe the best answer was to reply in kind? Mow down innocent people and blow children to pieces?
Quote from: trileacman on December 06, 2011, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
So you believe the best answer was to reply in kind? Mow down innocent people and blow children to pieces?
I posted this before but this is for the benefit of those who didn't see it. This clearly shows by far that the British were the most monsterous.
The children who died in Ireland and Britain since 1968 because of the troubles.
(141 Irish Catholic children)
Murdered by British
Patrick Barnard (13), Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, killed along with James McCaughey (13) and three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Daniel Barrett (15), Ardoyne, Belfast; shot in his home from a nearby BA observation post.
John Beattie (17), West Belfast, shot in his father's van by a British army sniper.
James Joseph Boyle (16), West Belfast, abducted and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Boyle (16), Dunloy, Co. Antrim, shot by SAS near an arms dump he had earlier discovered and reported to authorities.
Francis Bradley (16), Ardoyne, Belfast, killed along with three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Marian Brown (17), West Belfast, shot in face by British paramilitary terrorists on Roden Street after she kissed her boyfriend goodnight.
Michael Bernard Browne (16), Bangor, Co. Down, shot twice in head by British paramilitary terrorists.
Martha Campbell (13), Ballymurphy Road, Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Collins (17), West Belfast, shot by Parachute Reg't soldier at a checkpoint.
Michael Patrick Connors (14), Central Belfast, shot along with John Mahon by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Patrick Crawford (15), West Belfast, while walking with two others, shot by British soldiers.
James Cromie (13), Belfast, killed along with fourteen other Catholics by British paramilitary car bomb outside McGurk's Pub.
Alphonsus Cunningham (13), West Belfast, during disturbances, run over by a vehicle.
Manus Deery (15), Derry, shot by army sniper as he brought supper home from nearby shop.
Bridget Anne Dempsey (10 months), North Belfast, burned to death along with her mother and father when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed their house at night.
John Dempsey (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldier in disturbances following hunger-strike death of Joe McDonnell.
Breda Devine (20 months), Omagh, killed along with twenty-eight others in a car-bomb massacre by the RUC, Brit army Int. and MI5 and its Chicago FBI operatives.
David Devine (16), Strabane, Tyrone, shot along with two adult Catholics by SAS.
Oran Doherty , Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed, along with his friend, Sean McLaughlin, in Omagh bombing.
Pauline Doherty (17), North Belfast, in her house, shot six times by British paramilitary terrorists.
James Doherty (4), West Belfast, shot outside his home.
Gerald Donaghy (17), Derry, in civil rights march, killed along with five other Catholic minors and eight Catholic adults on Bloody Sunday, by British soldiers of the Parachute reg't and Royal Anglian reg't, shot in back.
Thomas Donaghy (16), North Belfast, shot dead on way to work along with 18-year-old Margaret McErlean, by British paramilitary terrorists.
Michael Francis Donnelly (14), Silverbridge, Armagh, killed along with two adult Catholics in bomb-and-bullet attack on Donnelly's Bar; by RUC, UDR and British paramilitary terrorists.
John Dougal (16), West Belfast, shot from British army observation bunker.
Jack Duddy (17), Derry, on Bloody Sunday, by British soldiers, shot in back.
Brian Duffy (15), North Belfast, in a taxi stand, died along with driver, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Seamus Duffy (15), North Belfast, shot at close range by RUC rubber bullet.
Bernard Samuel Fox (16), North Belfast, shot by British soldiers.
Margaret Gargan (13), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers who also shot dead Fr. Noel Fitzpatrick as he gave her Last Rites. The bullet that killed Fr. Fitzpatrick passed through him and also killed Patrick Butler. While trying to drag Fr. Fitzpatrick to safety David McCafferty was also shot dead by the soldiers. (The first priest killed was Fr. Hugh Mullan, West Belfast, shot, twice, by British soldiers as he gave Last Rites to another of their victims. An attempt to drag him to safety ended when Frank Quinn was shot dead by the soldiers.)
Rosaleen Gavin eight, North Belfast, shot by British soldiers from an observation post.
Stephen Geddes (10), West Belfast, shot in head at close range by British soldier with rubber bullet.
Gerald Gibson (17), West Belfast, shot in head by British soldiers.
Hugh Gilmore (17), Derry, one of fourteen shot dead on Bloody Sunday.
Rory Gormley (14), West Belfast, while being driven to school by his father, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Desmond Healey (14), West Belfast, shot in back by Parachute Reg't soldier.
Kevin Heatley (12), Newry, Co. Down, shot by British soldier. Kevin's father later committed suicide.
Daniel Hegarty (16), Derry, shot twice in the head by British soldiers.
Terrence Hennebry (17), South Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Clare Hughes (4), North Belfast, in blast of British paramilitary car-bomb outside Benny's Pub.
Michael James Hughes (16), Newry, Co. Down, shot by Royal Marine.
Charles Irvine (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Carol Ann Kelly (11), West Belfast, shot in head by British soldier's rubber bullet as she brought milk home from a nearby shop.
Michael Kelly (17), Derry, shot on Bloody Sunday.
Paul Kelly (17), West Belfast, Shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
James Kennedy (15), South Belfast, killed, along with four Catholic adults, in British paramilitary gun attack on betting shop.
James Kerr (17), South Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Julia Livingstone (14), shot in head at close range by a rubber bullet gun mounted on a British armored vehicle.
Brenda Logue (17), Carrickmore, Co. Tyrone, in Omagh atrocity.
Colin Lundy (16), Glengormley, Co. Antrim, burned to death along with his mother when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed their home at 4 a.m.
Eileen Mackin (14), West Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Anne Magee (15), North Belfast, while at work in a grocery, shot in face by British paramilitary terrorists.
Gerald Martin Maginn (17), shot repeatedly in head by RUC.
Andrew Maguire (6 weeks),
Joanne Maguire eight and
John Maguire (2), West Belfast, all crushed by a car when its driver was shot dead by a British soldier. Their mother later committed suicide.
Hugh Maguire (9), West Belfast, hit by British armored vehicle.
John Mahon (16) Belfast, joyriding in stolen car, shot by RUC.
Jolene Marlow (17), Co. Tyrone, in Omagh bomb blast.
Shane McArdle (17), Markethill, Co. Armagh, at a taxi stand, shot along with Gavin McShane, by RUC/British paramilitary terrorists.
Gerald McAuley (15), West Belfast, shot dead along with an adult Catholic, by British paramilitary terrorists who were also burning down the homes of Catholics on Bombay Street and adjacent streets.
Patrick McCabe (17), North Belfast, shot from a nearby Parachute Reg't observation post.
Siobhan McCabe (4), West Belfast, shot near her house by British soldiers.
David McCafferty (14), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers while trying to drag to safety Fr. Fitzpatrick who the soldiers had just shot.
James McCallum (16), West Belfast, in British paramilitary bombing of Murtagh's Pub.
Gary McCartan (17), South Belfast, shot when he opened his front door to British paramilitary terrorists. (British paramilitary terrorists separately murdered his brother, three uncles and a cousin.)
Michael McCartan (16), South Belfast, brother of Gary McCartan, while painting a republican slogan on a wall, shot by RUC.
James Francis McCaughey (13), Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, killed in street along with his friend, Patrick Barnard (13).
David McClenaghan (15), North Belfast, at night in his home, shot by British paramilitary terrorists who also raped his widowed mother.
Stephen McConomy (11), Derry, shot in head by plastic bullet fired from a nearby armored vehicle.
Sean McConville (17), North Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists from car after asking him directions.
Eamonn McCormick (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers during a joint army/British paramilitary attack on a Catholic gathering.
Cornelius McCrory (17), West Belfast, abducted and killed by a British paramilitary terror gang.
Patrick McCullough (17), North Belfast, in a group returning from church, shot by British paramilitary terror gang in a car.
Robert McCullough (17), Belfast, while on lunch-break at work, shot twice in head by British paramilitary terror gang.
Michael McDaid (17), Derry, murdered in custody by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
Arthur McDonnell (16) shot along with Charles Irvine, by British soldiers and died years later as a direct consequence.
Anthony McDowell (12), North Belfast, while a passenger in a car, attributed to Parachute Reg't soldiers who deny it.
Kevin McElhinney (17), Derry, shot in the back by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
Bernard McErlean (16), West Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorist gang abetted by British army.
Annette McGavigan (14), Derry, shot by British soldiers.
James McGerrigan (17), Co. Armagh, in custody, shot by British soldier.
Anthony McGrady (16), North Belfast, at work in auto repair shop, killed along with two Catholic adults in British paramilitary bomb-and-gun attack.
Patrick McGreevey (16), North Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terror gang from a passing car.
Leo McGuigan (16), North Belfast, while walking along Estoril Park, shot by British soldiers.
Doreen McGuinness (16), West Belfast, shot by soldiers at checkpoint.
Francis McGuinness (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldier.
Joseph McGuinness (13), North Belfast, walking with friends to a fish and chip shop, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Maria McGurk (14), North Belfast, daughter of owner of McGurk's Bar, killed along with fourteen others by British paramilitary terrorist bomb attack on the bar.
Geraldine McKeown (14), North Belfast, shot through her window by British paramilitary terrorists.
Sean McLaughlin (12), Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed in Omagh atrocity.
Kevin McMenamin (10), West Belfast, in blast of a bomb placed by British paramilitary terrorists.
Carol McMenamy (15), North Belfast, shot in head and neck by British paramilitary terrorists in front of her cousin's house. Her brother and cousin were murdered earlier.
Gavin Patrick McShane (17), Keady, Co. Armagh, shot by British paramilitary.
Martin McShane (16), Coalisland, Co. Tyrone, at a GAA club, killed by a burst from a Royal Marine Commando's machine gun.
Paul Jason McWilliams (16), West Belfast, shot in back by British soldier.
Paul Moan (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Maura Monaghan (18 months) Omagh, killed in Omagh bombing described above.
John Mooney (17), North Belfast, shot by British soldiers near his home.
James Morgan (16), Castlewellan, Co. Down, thumbed a lift from strangers who proved to be British paramilitary terrorists who beat him to death and dumped his corpse in a pit used for disposal of dead animals.
Ciaran Gerard Murphy (16), North Belfast, beaten and shot six times by British paramilitary terrorists.
Darren Murray (12), Portadown, Co. Armagh, chased by British paramilitary terrorists into traffic where a car killed him.
Denis Michael Neill (16), North Belfast, while walking home, shot by British soldiers.
Leo Norney (17), West Belfast, shot by British army who first denied then admitted guilt.
Jacqueline O'Brien (17 months) and
Anne Marie O'Brien (5 months), along with their mother, Anna, and father, John, among the thirty-three killed in the car-bomb blasts of 17May74 in Dublin and Monaghan streets placed by BA/RUC/"The Jackal."
Michelle O'Connor (3), South Belfast, killed by a bomb attached to her father's car by British paramilitary terrorists.
Dwayne O'Donnell (17), Co. Tyrone, in front of Boyle's Pub in Cappagh, killed along with four other Catholics by British paramilitary bullet and bomb attack.
Majella O'Hare (12), Whitecross, Co. Armagh, on way, with friends, to Confession, shot by 3 Parachute Reg't soldier.
Geraldine O'Reilly (14), Belturbet, Co. Cavan, while walking with her boyfriend, Patrick Stanley, outside Belturbet Post Office, killed by British paramilitary car-bomb.
Sean O'Riordan (13), West Belfast, shot in back of head by British soldier.
Michelle Osborne (13), Hannahstown, Co. Antrim, killed by British paramilitary terror bomb placed in Ballymacaward Kennel Club.
Martin Peake (17), West Belfast, shot at a checkpoint by a soldier of the Parachute Reg't.
Richard Quinn (10),
Mark Quinn (9) and
Jason Quinn eight, Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, burned to death by British paramilitary terrorists who fire-bombed them in their beds. Their mother had tried to protect them from just such Anti-Catholic attacks by raising them as Protestants; but they were deemed Catholic enough to merit death.
Philip Rafferty (14), South Belfast, abducted from near his home and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Anthony Reavey (17), Whitecross, Co. Armagh, while hiding under a bed from home invaders, shot dead, along with his two brothers, by British paramilitary terrorists.
Katrina Rennie (16), Craigavon, Co. Armagh, while working in a mobile shop, shots to the head, along with two adults, by a four-man RUC/British paramilitary gang chauffeured by Billy "King Rat" Wright.
James Joseph Reynolds (16), North Belfast, while talking with friends on corner, shot by British paramilitary terrorists on a passing motorcycle.
Francis Anthony Rice (17), Castlewellan, Co. Down, stabbed to death by RUC agent Robin "The Jackal" Jackson.
John Patrick Rolston (16), North Belfast, returning home afoot, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Patrick Rooney (9), West Belfast, while in bed, shot by RUC machine gun through wall.
Daniel Rouse (17), South Belfast, abducted from near home and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Francis Rowntree (11), West Belfast, shot in the head at close range by British soldiers.
Gabriel Savage (17), South Belfast, while talking with his girlfriend on the sidewalk, abducted and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Joseph Savage (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers.
Michael Scott (10), North Belfast, while visiting his grandmother, burned to death along with her when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed her house.
Patrick Stanley (16), Co. Clare, killed in Belturbet, Co. Cavan along with
Geraldine O'Reilly, by British paramilitary car bomb.
Brian Stewart (13), West Belfast, shot in head by plastic bullet at close range by British soldier.
Paula Stronge (6), North Belfast, while playing in street, killed along with four-year-old Clair Hughes, in British paramilitary bombing of Benny's Bar.
Francis Taggart (17), Lisburn, Co. Antrim, while walking home, stabbed by British paramilitary gang.
James Templeton (15), South Belfast, while walking in front of Catholic bar that British paramilitary terrorists shot up after it was opened following an earlier British paramilitary bombing that killed eight adults.
Michael Tighe (17), Craigavon, Co. Armagh, shot by RUC (later exposed by John Stalker as an example of Britain's policy of assassination).
Ronald Trainor (17), Portadown, Co. Armagh, at home, in a British paramilitary gun and bomb attack. His mother, a convert to Catholicism, was consequently murdered by British paramilitary terrorists a year earlier, as was a brother.
Michael Vincent Turner (16), North Belfast, shot in head by British paramilitary terrorists.
Damien Walsh (17), West Belfast, while at work in a shop, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Peter Joseph Watterson (15), West Belfast, in front of his mother's shop, shot in back by British paramilitary terrorists from passing car.
Paul Whitters (15), Derry, shot at close range by RUC plastic bullet.
John Young (17) Derry, shot on Bloody Sunday by British soldiers.
BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN (10)
James Barker (15), Buncrana, Co. Donegal, in Omagh bomb atrocity),
William Crawford (17) North Belfast, while in a club, shot by British paramilitary ejected earlier.
Henry Cunningham (17), Collon, Co. Donegal, for associating with Catholics, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Norman Hutchinson (17), South Belfast, for associating with Catholics and dating a Catholic, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Samantha McFarland (17), in Omagh atrocity.
Alex Moorehead (16), Newtownstewart, Co. Tyrone, shot by British soldier.
Alan Radford (16), in Omagh atrocity.
Gary Reid (17) East Belfast, shot, along with an adult, by Brit soldier),
William Warnock (15) East Belfast, run over by Brit army vehicle),
Lorraine Wilson (15), in Omagh atrocity.
BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN (20)
Murdered by Irish Republicans
John Smyth Bailey (17), North Belfast, while walking near home, shot by republicans.
Jonathan Ball* (3), Warrington, England, killed by IRA bomb set in a trash can.
Linda Boyle (17), West Belfast, in IRA gun and bomb attack on Bayardo Bar in Shankill Road that killed three adults.
Nicholas Brabourne (14), London, aboard Lord Mountbatten's boat in Co. Sligo, killed by IRA bomb, along with Lord Mountbatten (his grandfather) and Paul Maxwell.
Alan Glenn Callaghan (17), Derry, in IRA gun and bomb attack that killed eleven British soldiers in Droppin Well Pub but also killed Valerie Ann McIntyre and three adult civilians.
Danielle Carter (15), Essex, England, while visiting London's financial district, killed, along with two adults, by IRA bomb.
Graeme Dougan (15 months), North Belfast, inadequate warning of IRA bomb.
Mark Frizzell (17), East Belfast, attacked and killed in Catholic district.
Andrew Johnson (17), North Belfast, while working, shot by republicans.
Alan Jack (5 months), Strabane, Co. Tyrone, killed in IRA bomb blast, inadequate warning.
Maurice Knowles (17), North Belfast, while wild-fowling, shot by two 16-year-old Catholics for refusing to hand over his gun.
Paul Maxwell (15) of Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh, killed on Mountbatten's boat.
Alan McCrum (11), Banbridge, Co. Down, killed by IRA car bomb.
Valerie Anne McIntyre (17), Derry, killed in the IRA attack on Bayardo Bar.
Harold Morris (15), West Belfast, near his home, shot by republicans.
Stephen Parker (14), North Belfast, killed by republican car bomb that also killed an adult.
Timothy Perry* (12), Warrington, England, along with Jonathan Ball in IRA bombing.
Joseph Taylor (17), West Belfast, at work, shot by republicans.
Heather Thompson (17), North Belfast, at work in filling station, shot, along with an adult, by republicans.
Francis James Walker (17) Templepatrick, Co. Antrim, killed along with two adult Protestants in IRA gun attack on a bar frequented by Protestants.
FOREIGN CHILDREN (1)
Fernando Velasco Baselga (13), visitor from Spain, killed in Omagh atrocity.
Quote from: trileacman on December 06, 2011, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
So you believe the best answer was to reply in kind? Mow down innocent people and blow children to pieces?
You'll not put your weasel words into my mouth: and debating with one cerebrally challenged individual at a time is plenty for me! :D
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 06, 2011, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
So you believe the best answer was to reply in kind? Mow down innocent people and blow children to pieces?
You'll not put your weasel words into my mouth: and debating with one cerebrally challenged individual at a time is plenty for me! :D
So you can't reply or you won't?
Does the internet reach them Tyrone caves now?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 06, 2011, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
The point is fairly clear: Civil Rights marchers were mown down, and you think that this was after they 'embarrassed Britain' into conceding basic human rights, though obviously not the right of peaceful assembly.
So you believe the best answer was to reply in kind? Mow down innocent people and blow children to pieces?
You'll not put your weasel words into my mouth: and debating with one cerebrally challenged individual at a time is plenty for me! :D
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/talking-to-yourself-is-it-normal/ ;)
Quote(141 Irish Catholic children)
Murdered by British
Patrick Barnard (13), Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, killed along with James McCaughey (13) and three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Daniel Barrett (15), Ardoyne, Belfast; shot in his home from a nearby BA observation post.
John Beattie (17), West Belfast, shot in his father's van by a British army sniper.
James Joseph Boyle (16), West Belfast, abducted and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Boyle (16), Dunloy, Co. Antrim, shot by SAS near an arms dump he had earlier discovered and reported to authorities.
Francis Bradley (16), Ardoyne, Belfast, killed along with three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Marian Brown (17), West Belfast, shot in face by British paramilitary terrorists on Roden Street after she kissed her boyfriend goodnight.
Michael Bernard Browne (16), Bangor, Co. Down, shot twice in head by British paramilitary terrorists.
Martha Campbell (13), Ballymurphy Road, Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Collins (17), West Belfast, shot by Parachute Reg't soldier at a checkpoint.
Michael Patrick Connors (14), Central Belfast, shot along with John Mahon by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Patrick Crawford (15), West Belfast, while walking with two others, shot by British soldiers.
James Cromie (13), Belfast, killed along with fourteen other Catholics by British paramilitary car bomb outside McGurk's Pub.
Alphonsus Cunningham (13), West Belfast, during disturbances, run over by a vehicle.
Manus Deery (15), Derry, shot by army sniper as he brought supper home from nearby shop.
Bridget Anne Dempsey (10 months), North Belfast, burned to death along with her mother and father when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed their house at night.
John Dempsey (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldier in disturbances following hunger-strike death of Joe McDonnell.
Breda Devine (20 months), Omagh, killed along with twenty-eight others in a car-bomb massacre by the RUC, Brit army Int. and MI5 and its Chicago FBI operatives.
David Devine (16), Strabane, Tyrone, shot along with two adult Catholics by SAS.
Oran Doherty , Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed, along with his friend, Sean McLaughlin, in Omagh bombing.
??
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 05, 2011, 10:53:46 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 05, 2011, 10:49:01 PM
OK, you fluffed your lines. Big deal....
How very flippant, after your accusations.
No further interest in this thread with the type of disgusting posts and vicious personal abuse that have thrown thrown around.
Just you just condemn the murders by the IRA of the two children in Warringstown. That ll convince everyone that it was just 'typo' last night .
Otherwise, you see, it may leave the impression that you didn't see them as murders and that would be a pity.
Quote from: Geoff Tipps on December 06, 2011, 03:06:39 PM
Quote(141 Irish Catholic children)
Murdered by British
Oran Doherty , Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed, along with his friend, Sean McLaughlin, in Omagh bombing.
??
You just beat me to it, Geoff.
I haven't had time to study this list, but this entry brought me up short:
"Breda Devine (20 months), Omagh, killed along with twenty-eight others in a car-bomb massacre by the RUC, Brit army Int. and MI5 and its Chicago FBI operatives."In other words, along with the two deaths you highlighted, "iseal" clearly thinks 'Da Brits' were responsible for the Omagh Bomb, not the Real IRA :o
I note that he/she also cites these deaths as being all the fault of the British Army, too:
"Andrew Maguire (6 weeks), Joanne Maguire eight and John Maguire (2), West Belfast, all crushed by a car when its driver was shot dead by a British soldier. Their mother later committed suicide."What he/she omits to mention is that the car in question was being driven by an IRA man on "active service" when the soldier opened fire. (These deaths were the catalyst for "The Peace People", btw.)
And this entry also caught my eye:
"Michelle Osborne (13), Hannahstown, Co. Antrim, killed by British paramilitary terror bomb placed in Ballymacaward Kennel Club."A curious use of the term "placed", considering CAIN lists this death as being the result of a "premature" UFF bomb explosion in a car park i.e. that this 13 year old was not specifically targeted (not that that in any way excuses the scum who were behind it, btw).
And I have no doubt that the list of
"BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN (20) Murdered by Irish Republicans" is rather shorter than it should be, considering, for instance, the lack of reference to the Shankill Bombing (Frizzells Fish Bar), where the nine innocent victims included two girls aged 7 and 13:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/dyndeaths.pl?querytype=date&day=23&month=10&year=1993
It is also disgusting that several of the (Protestant) victims on the paltry list were described in such a way as to imply that it was somehow their own fault, eg, the reference to two children blown to pieces at Rossnowlagh
when they were on Mountbatten's boat ("collaborators", no doubt); or
"Maurice Knowles (17), North Belfast, while wild-fowling, shot by two 16-year-old Catholics for refusing to hand over his gun."; or
"Mark Frizzell (17), East Belfast, attacked and killed in Catholic district."; or
"Francis James Walker (17) Templepatrick, Co. Antrim, killed along with two adult Protestants in IRA gun attack on a bar frequented by Protestants."This re-writing of history is utterly, utterly repugnant, even by the usual gutter standards of Republican Terrorist apologists... >:(
Late Edit: In the list of (10) "BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN" killed by the British, I note the following:
James Barker (15), Buncrana, Co. Donegal, in Omagh bomb atrocity),
Samantha McFarland (17), in Omagh atrocity.
Alan Radford (16), in Omagh atrocity.
Lorraine Wilson (15), in Omagh atrocity.Unbelievable... :o
Quote from: trileacman on December 06, 2011, 01:36:38 PM
So you can't reply or you won't?
I don't have to explain myself to you, suffice it to say that you were way off the mark.
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Unbelievable... :o
whats 'unbelievable ' is that instead of condemning the deaths of all these kids - disgrace on both sides - yer trying to make a few alterations (some with the discredited cain source) on a couple of the figures that make no inroads on the large figures listed.
no surprise though - its the usual carry on from you.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 06, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Unbelievable... :o
whats 'unbelievable ' is that instead of condemning the deaths of all these kids - disgrace on both sides - yer trying to make a few alterations (some with the discredited cain source) on a couple of the figures that make no inroads on the large figures listed.
no surprise though - its the usual carry on from you.
What I'm saying is this.
That list is totally unreliable, when even the most cursory examination reveals that several of the entries are plain wrong. Worse, it is clear that the inaccuracies do not stem from simple error, but have been deliberately distorted in order both to make the British look worse, whilst exonerating or whitewashing Republicans.
Yet how typical it is that you completely ignore this deliberate falsification by 'Íseal agus crua isteach a' and instead concentrate on having a pop at me for exposing him/her.
Such is your partisanship that you are little better than he/she (imo).
P.S. It is a constant refrain of yours that CAIN is "discredited", yet you produce no independent, expert evidence that it is so. No doubt this is because when it comes down to it, the enormous amount of information contained thereon can be distilled as follows:
Organisation Responsible for the death:
Organisation_Responsible Count
British Army (BA) 297
British Police (BP) 1
Catholic Reaction Force (CRF) 3
Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD) 5
Garda Siochana (GS) 4
Irish Army (IA) 1
Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) 113
Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) 22
Irish People's Liberation Organisation Belfast Brigade (IPLOBB) 2
Irish Republican Army (IRA) 1711
Loyalist Retaliation and Defence Group (LRDG) 2
Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) 18
non-specific Loyalist group (LOY) 247
non-specific Republican group (REP) 89
not known (nk) 85
Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) 52
People's Liberation Army (PLA) 3
People's Republican Army (PRA) 4
Protestant Action Force (PAF) 37
Protestant Action Group (PAG) 5
real Irish Republican Army (rIRA) 29
Red Hand Commando (RHC) 13
Red Hand Defenders (RHD) 8
Republican Action Force (RepAF) 24
Royal Air Force (RAF) 1
Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) 55
Saor Eire (SE) 3
Ulster Defence Association (UDA) 113
Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) 8
Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) 147
Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) 1
Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) 426
TOTAL 3529
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html
Quote from: Arthur_Friend on December 06, 2011, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 08:49:01 AM
TRULY BREATHTAKING :o breathtaking like this?? A thing of beauty...
(http://zuzutop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Breathtaking-Photographs-of-Nature-16.jpg)
Very dramatic indeed Myles :P
Beautiful indeed ....do you know where this is?
Fermanagh ;D
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 06, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Unbelievable... :o
whats 'unbelievable ' is that instead of condemning the deaths of all these kids - disgrace on both sides - yer trying to make a few alterations (some with the discredited cain source) on a couple of the figures that make no inroads on the large figures listed.
no surprise though - its the usual carry on from you.
What I'm saying is this.
3500 dead kids?
either way only you would gloss over this and try to justify/explain away this.
its a disgrace whoever killed the kids (as the killing of adults is also)
if it was the other way around (eg the 'other side' killed more :9 ) then it wouldnt change this woeful fact.
stop digging.
a few wrong figures here or there (or even the reverse entirely) isnt something to try and explain/apologise away ffs.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 06, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Unbelievable... :o
whats 'unbelievable ' is that instead of condemning the deaths of all these kids - disgrace on both sides - yer trying to make a few alterations (some with the discredited cain source) on a couple of the figures that make no inroads on the large figures listed.
no surprise though - its the usual carry on from you.
How is CAIN discredited? It is known how many people were killed, when and for the most part by whom (at least who took responsibility). How is a list of facts discredited? Facts win cases.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 06, 2011, 05:56:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 06, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Evil lying myles on December 06, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Unbelievable... :o
whats 'unbelievable ' is that instead of condemning the deaths of all these kids - disgrace on both sides - yer trying to make a few alterations (some with the discredited cain source) on a couple of the figures that make no inroads on the large figures listed.
no surprise though - its the usual carry on from you.
How is CAIN discredited? It is known how many people were killed, when and for the most part by whom (at least who took responsibility). How is a list of facts discredited? Facts win cases.
Not when LB is involved. What he says is true, especially when it's backed up with exclamation marks!!
This thread is becoming more and more deplorable as the British high horse brigade attack in their droves using the gutter tactics of bringing in the awful deaths of innocent children as some kind of points scoring system that wins the day! Shocking stuff from Irish folk lads. No call for that kind of shit on here. There are no rights and wrongs in bringing that topic into the debate, we all know it was wrong, end of.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 07:11:15 PM
This thread is becoming more and more deplorable as the British high horse brigade attack in their droves using the gutter tactics of bringing in the awful deaths of innocent children as some kind of points scoring system that wins the day! Shocking stuff from Irish folk lads. No call for that kind of shit on here. There are no rights and wrongs in bringing that topic into the debate, we all know it was wrong, end of.
.
Typical Provo comment. Any nationalist who critizes the Provos are dubbed as being pro British.
You'll have to enlighten me there Tyrone man. What's a typical Provo?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
You'll have to enlighten me there Tyrone man. What's a typical Provo?
Typical Provo comment not a comment by a typical Provo. Can you see the difference?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 07:11:15 PM
This thread is becoming more and more deplorable as the British high horse brigade attack in their droves using the gutter tactics of bringing in the awful deaths of innocent children as some kind of points scoring system that wins the day! Shocking stuff from Irish folk lads. No call for that kind of shit on here. There are no rights and wrongs in bringing that topic into the debate, we all know it was wrong, end of.
Are you getting sponsored for every time you mention 'high horse'?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 06, 2011, 07:56:24 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
You'll have to enlighten me there Tyrone man. What's a typical Provo?
Typical Provo comment not a comment by a typical Provo. Can you see the difference?
Very poor English grammar, needs to stay off forums if the oul English ain't that tarra. I did refer to the fact that it was coming from Irish lads on a GAA forum so his silly comment would not equate to much in reference to my main point prior to his remark. Who is the main SDLP councillor in Middletown? Is he/she doing a good job for ya Tony?
Get off your high horse Maguire and say what you really wanna say you snivelling little rat. :'(
On the wider debate, I don't understand why people are so convinced that equality in NI could only have been achieved via an the armed campaign (other than to justify a campaign that didn't achieve its constitutional objectives).
The wider world has changed beyond recognition over that same period. I don't believe for a minute that in 1997 (or whatever year equality was supposedly delivered) we'd still be living in the same 'orange state' as in 1969, if a peaceful path had been pursued.
In the context of changing demographics (i.e. increasing Catholic population against a decreasing Protestant population) and an increasingly educated Catholic population (in comparison to the Protestant population), I think equality was inevitable.
I'm not saying that equality could have been achieved in 2 or 3 years, but we're talking about a 30 year period. To what extent did 3,000+ deaths and countless injuries and destroyed lives on all sides expedite delivery of equality?
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 08:09:54 PM
Get off your high horse Maguire and say what you really wanna say you snivelling little rat. :'(
When your argument fails, there's always personal abuse!
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2011, 08:23:10 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 08:09:54 PM
Get off your high horse Maguire and say what you really wanna say you snivelling little rat. :'(
When your argument fails, there's always personal abuse!
Were you arguing with me? I thought you were just having a go at the fact I was referring to the British/unionist sympathisers as folk on their high horse. I think it's quite an adept description as I cannot fathom why nationalists would side with Brits rather than Republicans other than side with what is seen as the ruling body vs the revolt. I think anyone would accept that both sides were wrong in many incidents that happened during the Troubles
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2011, 08:21:22 PM
On the wider debate, I don't understand why people are so convinced that equality in NI could only have been achieved via an the armed campaign (other than to justify a campaign that didn't achieve its constitutional objectives).
The wider world has changed beyond recognition over that same period. I don't believe for a minute that in 1997 (or whatever year equality was supposedly delivered) we'd still be living in the same 'orange state' as in 1969, if a peaceful path had been pursued.
In the context of changing demographics (i.e. increasing Catholic population against a decreasing Protestant population) and an increasingly educated Catholic population (in comparison to the Protestant population), I think equality was inevitable.
I'm not saying that equality could have been achieved in 2 or 3 years, but we're talking about a 30 year period. To what extent did 3,000+ deaths and countless injuries and destroyed lives on all sides expedite delivery of equality?
Maybe hundreds of years of oppression and broken promises. The only thing the brits ever understood was aggression. Anyone who thinks the brits would have stood up to unionists without ira intervention lives in a bubble in ny opinion.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 06, 2011, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 06, 2011, 08:21:22 PM
On the wider debate, I don't understand why people are so convinced that equality in NI could only have been achieved via an the armed campaign (other than to justify a campaign that didn't achieve its constitutional objectives).
The wider world has changed beyond recognition over that same period. I don't believe for a minute that in 1997 (or whatever year equality was supposedly delivered) we'd still be living in the same 'orange state' as in 1969, if a peaceful path had been pursued.
In the context of changing demographics (i.e. increasing Catholic population against a decreasing Protestant population) and an increasingly educated Catholic population (in comparison to the Protestant population), I think equality was inevitable.
I'm not saying that equality could have been achieved in 2 or 3 years, but we're talking about a 30 year period. To what extent did 3,000+ deaths and countless injuries and destroyed lives on all sides expedite delivery of equality?
Maybe hundreds of years of oppression and broken promises. The only thing the brits ever understood was aggression. Anyone who thinks the brits would have stood up to unionists without ira intervention lives in a bubble in ny opinion.
I think that the 'developed' world has probably changed a lot more in the last 30-40 years than in the hundreds of years before it in terms of equality and the extent of tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia and sectarianism. I can't see how the NI of 1969 could have remained unchanged in the context of the changes in the wider world, as well as the internal context I mentioned (demographics and education).
Really maguire. I thought the brits were recently involved in an illegal invasion of Iraq based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. How many men, women and children did they slaughter there to get their grubby hands on oil. Developed world me arse.
These people were living in the here and now Maguire. If your neighbour took over your house and told you to sleep on the sofa, eat the scraps off your table and do all the shit jobs around the house, would you give him 30 years, talking to him all the while and knowing he was laughing at you but at least you knew that things would be better as the whole neighbourhood is becoming a more tolerant place to live?? Now would you? Or would you stand up for yourself and tell the **** to get the fcuk out?
And give him a good kick in the hole for trying it so he got the message not to even think about doing it again.
If we're going to use household metaphors the least we can do is get them accurate.
Your neighbour takes over your house and kicks your crap out. While he's there he has a son who stays in one of the rooms. You fight the neighbour while he's going through an unrelated mid-life crisis and eventually he leaves, but his son stays in one of the rooms and keeps paying rent to your neighbour rather than you. His son roughs up your son, so you go next door throwing punches at your neighbour (who is 12 times your size) and ordering him to take his son away. For various reasons his son can't leave (the main reason being he was born there and doesn't see why he should leave) so you're stuck with him in your house whether you like it or not. But you still want him to pay rent to you rather than the neighbour. How do you persuade him to pay rent to you rather than his dad? By A continuing to kick the crap out of him and his dad, or B being nice to him and persuading him that the house he lives in will be a whole lot nicer if he pays rent to you instead of his dad?
For those who are lost:
House=Ireland
Unrelated mid-life crisis=First World War
Neighbour's son=Northern unionists
Neighbour's son's room=Northern Ireland
House next door=Britain
Rent=National affiliation
I'm struck by the absence of all consideration of northern protestants in almost every comment made here by the provo fans, this despite the fact that we have a deal that guarantees a united Ireland as soon as we can convince enough northern prods to come on board. Always with them it's just "us v the evil Brits."
As if the Provos gave the Brits a good kick in the hole. Dream on .
The Provos gave up their war in 1994 due mainly to the pressure put on them by the nationalist community because of the relentless murders by the Combined Loyalist Military Command from the late 1980's. onwards
Jeez Eamonn, you really know how to suck the life out of a decent online debate don't ya?
I never said they did, did i Gaffer? You reading things that are not written there? However, I think you can admit that the Provo's, for a crowd of thick, spud picking Paddies taught the English crown forces a lesson or three :o
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:17:08 PM
Jeez Eamonn, you really know how to suck the life out of a decent online debate don't ya?
I never said they did, did i Gaffer? You reading things that are not written there? However, I think you can admit that the Provo's, for a crowd of thick, spud picking Paddies taught the English crown forces a lesson or three :o
Did what?
Is this what you thought of the Provos, eh? I thought you admired them,
They taught the Brits bog all, The brits have fought wars since the year dot,
Where did I say I admired the IRA? Nowhere. I respect what they were doing for the repressed catholic minority of the 6 counties of Nothern Ireland who were suffering at the hands of the Unionist led / British rule during the time they were most active.
Desperate times called for desperate measures. I think the catholic folk siding with the Unionist/British/Loyalist cause needs their heads seem to. Must be living in some kind of bubble as the Cavan man said earlier on.
British have been fighting wars since year dot. And who have the Irish fought against apart from the Brits? Does that tell you something too?
Are there actually Irishmen criticising their own people for standing up to the British??? Just remember, you`s would still be second class citizens if it weren't for those men who had the balls to put up a fight. An army of 800 up against a very heavily armed force of 15,000 odd(not including loyalists), it is pretty obvious that the Provo`s got the better of the utter scum that is the British Army
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:17:08 PM
Jeez Eamonn, you really know how to suck the life out of a decent online debate don't ya?
Sorry for complicating things by introducing accuracy. Let me know when you've had time to digest the information.
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:35:51 PM
Are there actually Irishmen criticising their own people for standing up to the British??? Just remember, you`s would still be second class citizens if it weren't for those men who had the balls to put up a fight. An army of 800 up against a very heavily armed force of 15,000 odd(not including loyalists), it is pretty obvious that the Provo`s got the better of the utter scum that is the British Army
Says the man with the logo of a British club in a British sport as his avatar.
(http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp342/pot_belly89/attachment.jpg)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:35:51 PM
Are there actually Irishmen criticising their own people for standing up to the British??? Just remember, you`s would still be second class citizens if it weren't for those men who had the balls to put up a fight. An army of 800 up against a very heavily armed force of 15,000 odd(not including loyalists), it is pretty obvious that the Provo`s got the better of the utter scum that is the British Army
Says the man with the logo of a British club in a British sport as his avatar.
(http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp342/pot_belly89/attachment.jpg)
What has that got to do with it????
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:17:08 PM
Jeez Eamonn, you really know how to suck the life out of a decent online debate don't ya?
Sorry for complicating things by introducing accuracy. Let me know when you've had time to digest the information.
Anyone ever accuse you of being ever so slightly boring? If not, let me be the first. Stick to the videos
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
What has that got to do with it????
It's the comedy value of a Brit hater being sucked into supporting a British club in a British sport. It's not relevant to the debate at all. It's just funny.
Carry on.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:57:01 PM
Anyone ever accuse you of being ever so slightly boring?
Nope.
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:34:14 PMBritish have been fighting wars since year dot. And who have the Irish fought against apart from the Brits? Does that tell you something too?
Themselves? :D
P.S. That certainly tells me something, like why the Irish people of a Nationalist persuasion are still fighting so hard amongst themselves on this thread!
I'd love to hear the theory of how we would have reached a fair political settlement without the ira campaign. The freedom loving brits would have come in and told off the unionists for being unfair and would have jolly well told them to be nice or else! Then big Ian would have stopped calling civil rights protestors fenians and pope rule and would have shared his power along with the ulster unionists and the traitor nationalists in their midst. There is zero evidence to support this outcome as a possibility and in fact all evidence points to the opposite, ie unionist policy was to keep the croppie down just like his ancestors did. They were just like the Israelis and if they had won I reckon Palestine would be more akin to what would have happened here.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 10:58:01 PM
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
What has that got to do with it????
It's the comedy value of a Brit hater being sucked into supporting a British club in a British sport. It's not relevant to the debate at all. It's just funny.
Carry on.
I don't hate Britain. I hate the British Army for the atrocities they have committed in this country and the way they have treated our own people. I feel very sad that there are Irishmen criticising the IRA for standing up to the British throughout the years. Sure, they made mistakes but it was a war and mistakes happen.
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:35:51 PM
Are there actually Irishmen criticising their own people for standing up to the British??? Just remember, you`s would still be second class citizens if it weren't for those men who had the balls to put up a fight. An army of 800 up against a very heavily armed force of 15,000 odd(not including loyalists), it is pretty obvious that the Provo`s got the better of the utter scum that is the British Army
Says the man with the logo of a British club in a British sport as his avatar.
(http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp342/pot_belly89/attachment.jpg)
What has that got to do with it????
Ever heard of Willie Maley? Or where he was born? And to whom?
"Utter scum", indeed...
"And if. You know. Your History. It's enough to make your heart go woahhhhhh"
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 06, 2011, 11:08:22 PM
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 06, 2011, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Forever Green on December 06, 2011, 10:35:51 PM
Are there actually Irishmen criticising their own people for standing up to the British??? Just remember, you`s would still be second class citizens if it weren't for those men who had the balls to put up a fight. An army of 800 up against a very heavily armed force of 15,000 odd(not including loyalists), it is pretty obvious that the Provo`s got the better of the utter scum that is the British Army
Says the man with the logo of a British club in a British sport as his avatar.
(http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp342/pot_belly89/attachment.jpg)
What has that got to do with it????
Ever heard of Willie Maley? Or where he was born? And to whom?
"Utter scum", indeed...
"And if. You know. Your History. It's enough to make your heart go woahhhhhh"
Indeed I have and it doesn't change my opinion of the British Army. Quite a few Celtic players served in the British forces during the WW`s and that doesn't change my opinion of Celtic and my love for them.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 06, 2011, 11:03:48 PMI'd love to hear the theory of how we would have reached a fair political settlement without the ira campaign. The freedom loving brits would have come in and told off the unionists for being unfair and would have jolly well told them to be nice or else! Then big Ian would have stopped calling civil rights protestors fenians and pope rule and would have shared his power along with the ulster unionists and the traitor nationalists in their midst. There is zero evidence to support this outcome as a possibility and in fact all evidence points to the opposite, ie unionist policy was to keep the croppie down just like his ancestors did. They were just like the Israelis and if they had won I reckon Palestine would be more akin to what would have happened here.
If you actually knew anything about the early years of the Civil Rights campaign in NI, you'd know that it actually helped produce a very significant and sustained process of reform, both in Westminster
and Stormont, over several years.
However as successive Unionist political leaders (O'Neill and Faulkner especially) rolled out these reforms, they were met by opposition from the extremes, pulling or pushing them back towards their old, entrenched positions.
Of course Paisley and his sectarian mob were to the forefront, but you'll find that they were just as enthusiastically joined at the other extreme by Republican agitators, for whom the establishment of a fair and peaceable NI was the
last thing on their agenda. Consequently, as the Paisleyites and (so-called) Loyalist Terrorists pushed otherwise moderate Nationalists into the arms of the extremists in their own community etc, so Republican violence pushed otherwise moderate Unionists towards
their extremes, at the expense of the moderate centre.
Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement (from a position of greater discrimination btw) in the USA. [Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
Anyhow, below is an extract from CAIN of some of the reforms which were introduced in NI between 1969 and 1971. Of course there were also many regressive steps during this period, but as I've pointed out, these last were invariably a result of pressure on the moderate centre from the violent extremes (plural):
1967
1 February 1967
The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was formed. The Civil Rights Movement called for a number of reforms one of which was for 'one man, one vote', that is, a universal franchise for local government elections. At the time only rate-payers were entitled to votes, and there were other anomalies to do with additional votes for companies. The association also campaigned for the end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. Other reforms pressed for included: the end to perceived discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing and appointments to, particularly, public sector employment; the repeal of the Special Powers Act; and the disbandment of the 'B-Specials' (Ulster Special Constabulary) which was a paramilitary style reserve police force which was entirely Protestant in its makeup.
November 1967
The Derry Housing Action Committee (DHAC) was formed.
1968
Saturday 24 August 1968
First Civil Rights March
The Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ), the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), and a number of other groups, held the first 'civil rights march' in Northern Ireland from Coalisland to Dungannon. Loyalists organised a counter demonstration in an effort to get the march banned (a tactic that was to be used throughout the period of 'the Troubles') and in fact the planned rally was banned.
Despite this the march passed off without incident. The publicity surrounding the march acted as encouragement to other protesting groups to form branches of the NICRA.
Friday 4 October 1968
A Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) delegation met with the march organisers and tried to have the march cancelled. Eventually it was decided to go ahead with the march.
Saturday 5 October 1968
Civil Rights March in Derry
[Considered by many as the start date of the current 'Troubles']
Friday 8 November 1968
Londonderry Corporation agreed to a Nationalist request to introduce a points system in the allocation of public sector housing.
Friday 22 November 1968
Reforms Package Announced
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, announced a package of reform measures which had resulted from meetings in London with Harold Wilson, then British Prime Minister, and James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary. The five point reform plan included:
a nine member 'Development Commission' to take over the powers of the Londonderry Corporation;
an ombudsman to investigate complaints against government departments;
the allocation of houses by local authorities to be based on need;
the Special Powers Act to be abolished as it was safe to do so; and
some reform of the local government franchise (the end of the company votes).
Thursday 28 November 1968
The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law and abolished university representation and the business vote in Stormont elections. It also created four new constituencies and a permanent Boundary Commission.
Saturday 30 November 1968
A Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march in Armagh was stopped by Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) because of the presence of a Loyalist counter demonstration led by Ian Paisley and Ronald Bunting. The Loyalist crowd then took over the centre of Armagh.
[Both Paisley and Bunting were imprisoned in January 1969 for unlawful assembly during this counter protest.]Monday 9 December 1968
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, made a television appeal for moderate opinion in what became known as the 'Ulster stands at the Crossroads' speech. The speech gained a lot of public support. The Derry Citizen's Action Committee (DCAC) called a halt to all marches and protests for a period of one month.
Friday 20 December 1968
The People's Democracy (PD) announced that its members would undertake a protest march from Belfast to Derry beginning on 1 January 1969 [Burntollet etc].
1969
Sunday 5 January 1969
Terence O'Neill, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, issued a statement on the events since 1 January 1969.
Monday 3 February 1969
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, announced the dissolution of the Stormont parliament and the holding of an election on 24 February 1969.
Monday 24 February 1969
Stormont Election
An election to the Stormont parliament was held. The main feature of this election was the fragmentation of the Unionist party into 'Official Unionist' and 'Unofficial Unionist'.
Of the 39 unionist candidates returned in the election 27 were in support of the policies of Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, while 12 were against or undecided.
Friday 28 February 1969
Terence O'Neill was re-elected as leader of the Unionist Parliamentary Party and thus was confirmed as Northern Ireland Prime Minister.
Tuesday 11 March 1969
The Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was introduced which would allow for the appointment of an Ombudsman to investigate complaints against Stormont government departments.
Wednesday 23 April 1969
The Unionist Parliamentary Party voted by 28 to 22 to introduce universal adult suffrage in local government elections in Northern Ireland. The demand for 'one man, one vote' had been one of the most powerful slogans of the civil rights movement.
Monday 28 April 1969
As he was unable to regain the confidence of the Unionist party Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, resigned to be replaced later by James Chichester-Clark.
Thursday 1 May 1969
James Chichester-Clark was elected as leader of the Unionist party and succeeded Terence O'Neill as the Northern Ireland Prime Minister. Brian Faulkner was appointed as Minister of Development. Chichester-Clark announced that he would continue the reforms began by Terence O'Neill.
Tuesday 24 June 1969
The Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The act provided for a Commissioner to investigate complaints of maladministration against government departments.
Friday 29 August 1969
Following the visit to Northern Ireland by James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary, a communiqué on behalf of the Stormont and British governments was released. This communiqué set out a number of further reforms mainly in the area of government administration.
Thursday 9 October 1969
James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary, made a second visit to Northern Ireland between 9 and 10 October 1969. Following meetings between Callaghan and the Stormont government, plans for further reforms were agreed in a communiqué. The matters covered included: the establishment of a central housing authority; reforms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in light of the Hunt Report; reforms to the legal system; and the issue of fair employment.
Friday 10 October 1969
The Hunt Report was published. The Report recommends that: the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) should become an unarmed force; the Ulster Special Constabulary (the 'B Specials') should be disbanded; a new RUC Reserve should be set up; and a new locally recruited part-time force should be established under the control of the British Army [this force was to become the Ulster Defence Regiment, UDR].
Tuesday 11 November 1969
The act establishing a Ministry for Community Relations was passed.
Tuesday 25 November 1969
The Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The act allowed for the establishment of a Commissioner to deal with complaints against local councils and public bodies.
The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The main provision of the act was to make the franchise in local government elections in Northern Ireland the same as that in Britain.
Thursday 27 November 1969
A Commissioner for Complaints, John Benn, was appointed to deal with matters related to local government and public bodies.
1970
Thursday 26 March 1970
The Police (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The act provided for the disarmament of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the establishment of an RUC reserve force. The Act established the Police Authority of Northern Ireland (PANI) which was meant to contain representatives from across the community.
Thursday 30 April 1970
The 'B-Specials' (the Ulster Special Constabulary) were officially disbanded. The USC had been replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) on 1 April 1970.
Friday 29 May 1970
The Macrory Report Review Body on Local Government in Northern Ireland (Cmd 546) dealing with local government structures was published. The main recommendation is the abolition of the old structure of local government and its replacement with 26 new district councils. The new system would also involve the creation of area boards to manage the health, education, and library services in Northern Ireland. It was envisaged that the control of the new system would rest with the Northern Ireland government. [Following the introduction of direct rule on 30 March 1972 much of the control of the main services passed effectively to Westminster. Elected councillors only had responsibility for a number of matters including refuse collection, public conveniences, crematoria and cemeteries ('bins, bogs and burials' as it was termed in Northern Ireland). The term 'the Macrory Gap was coined to highlight the lack of local accountability on the part of those controlling the centralised services.]
Monday 10 August 1970
Reginald Maulding, then British Home Secretary, threatened to impose direct rule on Northern Ireland if the agreed reform measures were not carried out.
Friday 21 August 1970
The Social and Democratic Labour Party (SDLP) was established.
Thursday 8 October 1970
The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) proposed that a system of Proportional Representation (PR) should be used in elections in Northern Ireland. [PR was introduced on 30 May 1973 for local government elections.]
Sunday 11 October 1970
A claim of maladministration in housing allocation against Dungannon Rural District Council was upheld by the Commissioner for Complaints.
Thursday 12 November 1970
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) was formed. [The NIHE gradually took over control of the building and allocation of public sector housing in Northern Ireland. The responsibility for public sector housing had previously rested with local government and the Northern Ireland Housing Trust (NIHT). There had been many allegations of discrimination in the provision and allocation of housing by the various local government councils in Northern Ireland and this was the main reason for setting up the Housing Executive.]
1971
Wednesday 20 January 1971
It was announced that an independent commissioner would decide on the boundaries of the new district council areas.
Thursday 25 February 1971
The Housing Executive (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The Act provided for the establishment for a central authority for public sector housing in Northern Ireland and to also oversee the provision of grants for improvement to the private sector. James Chichester-Clark, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, held a meeting with William Conway, then Catholic Cardinal of Ireland; the first such meeting since 1921.
Thursday 4 March 1971
The first meeting of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was held at Stormont. [The headquarters and regional offices of the NIHE were to be the target of paramilitary attacks on many occasions during 'the Troubles'.]
Tuesday 23 March 1971
Brian Faulkner succeeds James Chichester-Clark as Northern Ireland Prime Minister after defeating William Craig in a Unionist Party leadership election. [Faulkner's tenure of office was to prove very short.] The Local Government Boundaries (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The Act provided for the appointment of a Boundaries Commissioner to recommend the boundaries and names of district council and ward areas.
Thursday 13 May 1971
The decision to appoint a Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland was announced.
Wednesday 22 June 1971
A system of committees to oversee control of key government departments was proposed by Brian Faulkner, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister. This system was seen as a way of providing a role for opposition parties at Stormont. [The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) initially welcomed the proposal but events were to result in the withdrawal of the SDLP from Stormont.]
Friday 16 July 1971
The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) withdrew from Stormont because no inquiry had been announced into the shooting dead of Seamus Cusack and Desmond Beatty in Derry on 8th July 1971.
Tuesday 16 November 1971
The report of the Compton inquiry was published. Report of the enquiry into allegations against the security forces of physical brutality in Northern Ireland arising out of events on the 9th August, 1971. (November 1971; Cmnd. 4832). The report acknowledged that there had been ill-treatment of internees (what was termed 'in-depth interrogation') but rejected claims of systematic brutality or torture.
Friday 31 December 1971
Edmund Compton, then Northern Ireland Ombudsman, was replaced by John Benn.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
The
Indian Independence Movement (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 07, 2011, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
The Indian Independence Movement (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.
They also had sex in India at the time so it would be untrue to say freedom was won without sex.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 06, 2011, 11:03:48 PMI'd love to hear the theory of how we would have reached a fair political settlement without the ira campaign. The freedom loving brits would have come in and told off the unionists for being unfair and would have jolly well told them to be nice or else! Then big Ian would have stopped calling civil rights protestors fenians and pope rule and would have shared his power along with the ulster unionists and the traitor nationalists in their midst. There is zero evidence to support this outcome as a possibility and in fact all evidence points to the opposite, ie unionist policy was to keep the croppie down just like his ancestors did. They were just like the Israelis and if they had won I reckon Palestine would be more akin to what would have happened here.
If you actually knew anything about the early years of the Civil Rights campaign in NI, you'd know that it actually helped produce a very significant and sustained process of reform, both in Westminster and Stormont, over several years.
However as successive Unionist political leaders (O'Neill and Faulkner especially) rolled out these reforms, they were met by opposition from the extremes, pulling or pushing them back towards their old, entrenched positions.
Of course Paisley and his sectarian mob were to the forefront, but you'll find that they were just as enthusiastically joined at the other extreme by Republican agitators, for whom the establishment of a fair and peaceable NI was the last thing on their agenda. Consequently, as the Paisleyites and (so-called) Loyalist Terrorists pushed otherwise moderate Nationalists into the arms of the extremists in their own community etc, so Republican violence pushed otherwise moderate Unionists towards their extremes, at the expense of the moderate centre.
Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement (from a position of greater discrimination btw) in the USA. [Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
Anyhow, below is an extract from CAIN of some of the reforms which were introduced in NI between 1969 and 1971. Of course there were also many regressive steps during this period, but as I've pointed out, these last were invariably a result of pressure on the moderate centre from the violent extremes (plural):
1967
1 February 1967
The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was formed. The Civil Rights Movement called for a number of reforms one of which was for 'one man, one vote', that is, a universal franchise for local government elections. At the time only rate-payers were entitled to votes, and there were other anomalies to do with additional votes for companies. The association also campaigned for the end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. Other reforms pressed for included: the end to perceived discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing and appointments to, particularly, public sector employment; the repeal of the Special Powers Act; and the disbandment of the 'B-Specials' (Ulster Special Constabulary) which was a paramilitary style reserve police force which was entirely Protestant in its makeup.
November 1967
The Derry Housing Action Committee (DHAC) was formed.
1968
Saturday 24 August 1968
First Civil Rights March
The Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ), the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), and a number of other groups, held the first 'civil rights march' in Northern Ireland from Coalisland to Dungannon. Loyalists organised a counter demonstration in an effort to get the march banned (a tactic that was to be used throughout the period of 'the Troubles') and in fact the planned rally was banned. Despite this the march passed off without incident. The publicity surrounding the march acted as encouragement to other protesting groups to form branches of the NICRA.
Friday 4 October 1968
A Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) delegation met with the march organisers and tried to have the march cancelled. Eventually it was decided to go ahead with the march.
Saturday 5 October 1968
Civil Rights March in Derry
[Considered by many as the start date of the current 'Troubles']
Friday 8 November 1968
Londonderry Corporation agreed to a Nationalist request to introduce a points system in the allocation of public sector housing.
Friday 22 November 1968
Reforms Package Announced
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, announced a package of reform measures which had resulted from meetings in London with Harold Wilson, then British Prime Minister, and James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary. The five point reform plan included:
a nine member 'Development Commission' to take over the powers of the Londonderry Corporation;
an ombudsman to investigate complaints against government departments;
the allocation of houses by local authorities to be based on need;
the Special Powers Act to be abolished as it was safe to do so; and
some reform of the local government franchise (the end of the company votes).
Thursday 28 November 1968
The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law and abolished university representation and the business vote in Stormont elections. It also created four new constituencies and a permanent Boundary Commission.
Saturday 30 November 1968
A Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march in Armagh was stopped by Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) because of the presence of a Loyalist counter demonstration led by Ian Paisley and Ronald Bunting. The Loyalist crowd then took over the centre of Armagh. [Both Paisley and Bunting were imprisoned in January 1969 for unlawful assembly during this counter protest.]
Monday 9 December 1968
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, made a television appeal for moderate opinion in what became known as the 'Ulster stands at the Crossroads' speech. The speech gained a lot of public support. The Derry Citizen's Action Committee (DCAC) called a halt to all marches and protests for a period of one month.
Friday 20 December 1968
The People's Democracy (PD) announced that its members would undertake a protest march from Belfast to Derry beginning on 1 January 1969 [Burntollet etc].
1969
Sunday 5 January 1969
Terence O'Neill, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, issued a statement on the events since 1 January 1969.
Monday 3 February 1969
Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, announced the dissolution of the Stormont parliament and the holding of an election on 24 February 1969.
Monday 24 February 1969
Stormont Election
An election to the Stormont parliament was held. The main feature of this election was the fragmentation of the Unionist party into 'Official Unionist' and 'Unofficial Unionist'. Of the 39 unionist candidates returned in the election 27 were in support of the policies of Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, while 12 were against or undecided.
Friday 28 February 1969
Terence O'Neill was re-elected as leader of the Unionist Parliamentary Party and thus was confirmed as Northern Ireland Prime Minister.
Tuesday 11 March 1969
The Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was introduced which would allow for the appointment of an Ombudsman to investigate complaints against Stormont government departments.
Wednesday 23 April 1969
The Unionist Parliamentary Party voted by 28 to 22 to introduce universal adult suffrage in local government elections in Northern Ireland. The demand for 'one man, one vote' had been one of the most powerful slogans of the civil rights movement.
Monday 28 April 1969
As he was unable to regain the confidence of the Unionist party Terence O'Neill, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, resigned to be replaced later by James Chichester-Clark.
Thursday 1 May 1969
James Chichester-Clark was elected as leader of the Unionist party and succeeded Terence O'Neill as the Northern Ireland Prime Minister. Brian Faulkner was appointed as Minister of Development. Chichester-Clark announced that he would continue the reforms began by Terence O'Neill.
Tuesday 24 June 1969
The Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The act provided for a Commissioner to investigate complaints of maladministration against government departments.
Friday 29 August 1969
Following the visit to Northern Ireland by James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary, a communiqué on behalf of the Stormont and British governments was released. This communiqué set out a number of further reforms mainly in the area of government administration.
Thursday 9 October 1969
James Callaghan, then British Home Secretary, made a second visit to Northern Ireland between 9 and 10 October 1969. Following meetings between Callaghan and the Stormont government, plans for further reforms were agreed in a communiqué. The matters covered included: the establishment of a central housing authority; reforms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in light of the Hunt Report; reforms to the legal system; and the issue of fair employment.
Friday 10 October 1969
The Hunt Report was published. The Report recommends that: the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) should become an unarmed force; the Ulster Special Constabulary (the 'B Specials') should be disbanded; a new RUC Reserve should be set up; and a new locally recruited part-time force should be established under the control of the British Army [this force was to become the Ulster Defence Regiment, UDR].
Tuesday 11 November 1969
The act establishing a Ministry for Community Relations was passed.
Tuesday 25 November 1969
The Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The act allowed for the establishment of a Commissioner to deal with complaints against local councils and public bodies.
The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) became law. The main provision of the act was to make the franchise in local government elections in Northern Ireland the same as that in Britain.
Thursday 27 November 1969
A Commissioner for Complaints, John Benn, was appointed to deal with matters related to local government and public bodies.
1970
Thursday 26 March 1970
The Police (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The act provided for the disarmament of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the establishment of an RUC reserve force. The Act established the Police Authority of Northern Ireland (PANI) which was meant to contain representatives from across the community.
Thursday 30 April 1970
The 'B-Specials' (the Ulster Special Constabulary) were officially disbanded. The USC had been replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) on 1 April 1970.
Friday 29 May 1970
The Macrory Report Review Body on Local Government in Northern Ireland (Cmd 546) dealing with local government structures was published. The main recommendation is the abolition of the old structure of local government and its replacement with 26 new district councils. The new system would also involve the creation of area boards to manage the health, education, and library services in Northern Ireland. It was envisaged that the control of the new system would rest with the Northern Ireland government. [Following the introduction of direct rule on 30 March 1972 much of the control of the main services passed effectively to Westminster. Elected councillors only had responsibility for a number of matters including refuse collection, public conveniences, crematoria and cemeteries ('bins, bogs and burials' as it was termed in Northern Ireland). The term 'the Macrory Gap was coined to highlight the lack of local accountability on the part of those controlling the centralised services.]
Monday 10 August 1970
Reginald Maulding, then British Home Secretary, threatened to impose direct rule on Northern Ireland if the agreed reform measures were not carried out.
Friday 21 August 1970
The Social and Democratic Labour Party (SDLP) was established.
Thursday 8 October 1970
The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) proposed that a system of Proportional Representation (PR) should be used in elections in Northern Ireland. [PR was introduced on 30 May 1973 for local government elections.]
Sunday 11 October 1970
A claim of maladministration in housing allocation against Dungannon Rural District Council was upheld by the Commissioner for Complaints.
Thursday 12 November 1970
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) was formed. [The NIHE gradually took over control of the building and allocation of public sector housing in Northern Ireland. The responsibility for public sector housing had previously rested with local government and the Northern Ireland Housing Trust (NIHT). There had been many allegations of discrimination in the provision and allocation of housing by the various local government councils in Northern Ireland and this was the main reason for setting up the Housing Executive.]
1971
Wednesday 20 January 1971
It was announced that an independent commissioner would decide on the boundaries of the new district council areas.
Thursday 25 February 1971
The Housing Executive (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The Act provided for the establishment for a central authority for public sector housing in Northern Ireland and to also oversee the provision of grants for improvement to the private sector. James Chichester-Clark, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, held a meeting with William Conway, then Catholic Cardinal of Ireland; the first such meeting since 1921.
Thursday 4 March 1971
The first meeting of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was held at Stormont. [The headquarters and regional offices of the NIHE were to be the target of paramilitary attacks on many occasions during 'the Troubles'.]
Tuesday 23 March 1971
Brian Faulkner succeeds James Chichester-Clark as Northern Ireland Prime Minister after defeating William Craig in a Unionist Party leadership election. [Faulkner's tenure of office was to prove very short.] The Local Government Boundaries (Northern Ireland) Act became law. The Act provided for the appointment of a Boundaries Commissioner to recommend the boundaries and names of district council and ward areas.
Thursday 13 May 1971
The decision to appoint a Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland was announced.
Wednesday 22 June 1971
A system of committees to oversee control of key government departments was proposed by Brian Faulkner, then Northern Ireland Prime Minister. This system was seen as a way of providing a role for opposition parties at Stormont. [The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) initially welcomed the proposal but events were to result in the withdrawal of the SDLP from Stormont.]
Friday 16 July 1971
The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) withdrew from Stormont because no inquiry had been announced into the shooting dead of Seamus Cusack and Desmond Beatty in Derry on 8th July 1971.
Tuesday 16 November 1971
The report of the Compton inquiry was published. Report of the enquiry into allegations against the security forces of physical brutality in Northern Ireland arising out of events on the 9th August, 1971. (November 1971; Cmnd. 4832). The report acknowledged that there had been ill-treatment of internees (what was termed 'in-depth interrogation') but rejected claims of systematic brutality or torture.
Friday 31 December 1971
Edmund Compton, then Northern Ireland Ombudsman, was replaced by John Benn.
Good post.
You stopped at 1971, why not consider 73 too
The Ulster Workers' Council (UWC) strike was a general strike that took place in Northern Ireland between 15 May and 28 May 1974, during "The Troubles". The strike was called by loyalists and unionists who were against the Sunningdale Agreement, which had been signed in December 1973. Specifically, the strikers opposed the sharing of political power with nationalists, and the proposed role for the Republic of Ireland's government in running Northern Ireland
The strike was organised and overseen by the Ulster Workers' Council and Ulster Army Council, which were formed shortly after the Agreement's signing. Both of these groups included loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).[1] These groups helped to enforce the strike by blocking roads and intimidating workers.[1][2][3][4] During the two-week strike, loyalist paramilitaries killed 39 civilians, of which 33 died in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Stormont(1) should have been abolished in 1969.
Instead of that it was left in existence and the Brit army ( which MIGHT if left alone have become an honest broker) was put under the control of Stormont(1) /RUC leading to one sided arms searches , one sided Internment and of course Bloody Sunday.
They abolished Stormont (1) then but it was 2 and a half to three years too late.
ahhhh the discredited cain report again....
:D
I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *
* if I could be arsed.
I take it that we can safely say that the 'fact'/'finding' that the IRA fired first in loughgall is a load of 'cain' (ie rubbish) also?
The role of the RUC cannot be ignored in the events of 69-71. As a paramilitary force of the state they murdered Francis McCloskey in Dungiven on 14th July 1969. They went on to murder a further five people in the following month. You can quote all the 'reforms' you like, but things were never going to be the same after that. The state had shown its true colours and a line was finally crossed in the minds of many people.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 06, 2011, 11:02:29 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:34:14 PMBritish have been fighting wars since year dot. And who have the Irish fought against apart from the Brits? Does that tell you something too?
Themselves? :D
P.S. That certainly tells me something, like why the Irish people of a Nationalist persuasion are still fighting so hard amongst themselves on this thread!
War is a terrible thing. It creates all sorts of unnatural emotion in people thats why some people respect what the Republican movement did in the dark old days, but some people cannot stomach it in any way, shape or form.
Do catholics and protestants not live in relative harmony all over Ireland? I havent heard of any recent rifts in Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan over religious differences. ::)
Quote from: sheamy on December 07, 2011, 03:40:31 PM
The role of the RUC cannot be ignored in the events of 69-71. As a paramilitary force of the state they murdered Francis McCloskey in Dungiven on 14th July 1969. They went on to murder a further five people in the following month. You can quote all the 'reforms' you like, but things were never going to be the same after that. The state had shown its true colours and a line was finally crossed in the minds of many people.
....and yet some still believe that suningdale was going to give parity or equality and have this oppressive policy as well as systematic persecution miraculously halted ...not on yer nelly.
Bombay Street was a friendly (inter) communal bonfire, and Sunningdale was a political panacea.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 07, 2011, 03:20:40 PM
ahhhh the discredited cain report again....
:D
I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *
* if I could be arsed.
So you were talking out of your hole, then? :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 07, 2011, 03:20:40 PM
ahhhh the discredited cain report again....
:D
I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *
* if I could be arsed.
I take it that we can safely say that the 'fact'/'finding' that the IRA fired first in loughgall is a load of 'cain' (ie rubbish) also?
I'd be interested in reading where this has been discredited. From what i've seen, it's a list of 'facts' rather than 'analysis', so it's contents are either right or wrong surely? If it's wrong, it shouldn't be too difficult to give examples.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 07, 2011, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
The Indian Independence Movement (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.
That's bullsh1t.
There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
3. Gandhi's consistent campaign of non-violence meant that the British could stage an "honourable" withdrawal, rather than being seen to have been forced out.
For you to claim the events in the 20's and 30's were influential, when WWII had changed everything immeasurably, is both crass and ignorant. I assume you do so because India's example comprehensively rebuts your claim that the Brits would never leave anywhere, including Ireland, until forced out.
But if you really insist on drawing parallels, I would suggest that those who fought for Irish Independence post-1916 might have been better served had they had the vision and principle demonstrated by the people of India in No.s 2 and 3 (above)... ::)
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 07, 2011, 11:03:02 AM
You stopped at 1971, why not consider 73 too
The reason why I stopped after 1972 was three-fold.
1. Before 1972, the lead in the struggle for Civil Rights was clearly with NICRA and PD etc. And as my long list of reforms proves, they achieved some significant successes, both from Stormont and Westminster, even against a background of considerable street violence which was always liable to harden attitudes in both those legislatures;
2. The Provos, who like to claim their methods were the only ones which would force concessions from the British, were not actually formed until 1971;
3. Stormont was prorogued in early 1972 and replaced by Direct Rule, which changed everything immeasurably.
Therefore my point stands, which was that it is simply lies and propaganda for SF/IRA supporters to claim that peaceful political means were never going to achieve any significant concessions towards fair play and civil rights etc in NI.
On the contrary, much was achieved, so that some sort of overall settlement such as we eventually saw with the GFA might have been achieved a quarter of a century earlier, had it not been for the sustained campaigns of violence mounted by both Republicans and (so-called) "Loyalists" (along with Security Forces excesses such as Bloody Sunday etc.), which polarised attitudes and de-railed genuinely motivated efforts to bring peace.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 07, 2011, 03:20:40 PM
ahhhh the discredited cain report again....
:D
I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *
* if I could be arsed.
I take it that we can safely say that the 'fact'/'finding' that the IRA fired first in loughgall is a load of 'cain' (ie rubbish) also?
Bullsh1t like the above only discredits
you - if you only had the brains to realise it... ::)
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:34:14 PM
Desperate times called for desperate measures. I think the catholic folk siding with the Unionist/British/Loyalist cause needs their heads seem to. Must be living in some kind of bubble as the Cavan man said earlier on.
So if you don't agree with the armed conflict, you're siding with the Unionist/Loyalist/British cause? How do you work that one out?
Remember that throughout the troubles, the vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population opposed violence, so i'm not exactly going out on a limb.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 07:09:51 PM
Therefore my point stands, which was that it is simply lies and propaganda for SF/IRA supporters to claim that peaceful political means were never going to achieve any significant concessions towards fair play and civil rights etc in NI.
On the contrary, much was achieved, so that some sort of overall settlement such as we eventually saw with the GFA might have been achieved a quarter of a century earlier, had it not been for the sustained campaigns of violence mounted by both Republicans and (so-called) "Loyalists" (along with Security Forces excesses such as Bloody Sunday etc.), which polarised attitudes and de-railed genuinely motivated efforts to bring peace.
Good post. There's hope for you yet!
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2011, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 06, 2011, 10:34:14 PM
Desperate times called for desperate measures. I think the catholic folk siding with the Unionist/British/Loyalist cause needs their heads seem to. Must be living in some kind of bubble as the Cavan man said earlier on.
So if you don't agree with the armed conflict, you're siding with the Unionist/Loyalist/British cause? How do you work that one out?
Remember that throughout the troubles, the vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population opposed violence, so i'm not exactly going out on a limb.
Indeed. Voting patterns and the SF/SDLP share of the vote before and after the ceasefire indicate that the majority of nationalists have
always opposed violence.
We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread. Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s if it weren't so inaccurate and symptomatic of a growing historical revisionism that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides. That was simply not the case.
By the late 60s, republicanism was more aspirational than actual, and becoming increasingly irrelevant as it was reduced to a very small, virtually weaponless, and aging group, largely reduced to distributing copies of the Republican News, handing out Easter lilies and singing Wolfe Tone songs. Its political representatives, the Nationalist Party, were impotent and disengaged, their sole legislative coup a single piece of legislation relating to birds!
And along came the Civil Rights movement, drawing heavily on the American model as well as Gandhi's efforts. And in the face of reason and righteousness, how did the unionist establishment react—that's right, beat the crap out of them. There was no tugging by extremists from both sides. The only extremist was the entire unionist monolith that had kept Nationalists under thumb, supported enthusiastically by its ultra-extremist mob incited by the likes of Paisley to believe that poor but Protestant, they were of superior stock than those shiftless Fenians. Some fair-minded Protestants did find their way into NICRA, but the vast majority were aligned to that catchphrase of compromise—No Surrender.
So let's not perpetuate the lie that if it weren't for those darn Loyalist and Republican extremists, unionism would have done the right thing. It wouldn't have and didn't. Brian Faulkner as the epitome of reason! Are you serious?
You include in your scroll of the CAIN chronology the Armagh civil rights march, which typifies the state of affairs at the time. What happened that day (and by the way I lived in Armagh then)? A peaceful Civil Rights march was stopped in Thomas Street, faced down by a throng of blackthorn-wielding Loyalists at the corner of Scotch Street. And what did the RUC do? Did they arrest the mob that was threatening the peace? Hell no! Why would they arrest their own? They were one and the same. I can hear you scoff, but they arrested Paisley and Bunting later, but one of the indelible memories of my life at that time was being in Marco's café in Thomas Street watching a gang of police and Tartans chasing after a gang of Taigs. Impartiality my arse. And don't forget Burntollet, where police in and out of uniform either did nothing to prevent the ambush or, worse yet, participated in the attack.
Given the feet-dragging intransigence of the Stormont regime coupled with the make-up of the police force, it should be of little surprise that the Nationalist community turned to the only group it could to seek protection—the Provos—a group formed in the aftermath of Bombay Street etc. etc. There was no Republican extremist group until unionists gave birth to it by their violent acts of commission or their egregious acts of omission.
So, please do not twist the facts of history to make your fellow unionists feel good about themselves by writing: "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement"
There were not two extremes until unionists caused the second to come into being, and then when the army arrived and it was used exclusively against the Nationalist population, unionists gave the Provos their ultimate raison-d'etre.
But back to Loughgall. This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.
Excellent post Oraisteach. Hats off to you.
Remorse? Not even for a young man as he gets 600 rounds of ammunition pumped in to him. talk about double standards.
We could debate this til the cows come home but I can't see many areas of agreement on this
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 07, 2011, 09:11:44 PM
Remorse? Not even for a young man as he gets 600 rounds of ammunition pumped in to him. talk about double standards.
One man took 600 rounds?
Quote from: Maguire01 on December 07, 2011, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on December 07, 2011, 09:11:44 PM
Remorse? Not even for a young man as he gets 600 rounds of ammunition pumped in to him. talk about double standards.
One man took 600 rounds?
Sorry 600 rounds at the 8 men.
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
But back to Loughgall. This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.
Great post, would agree with it all.
Great post oraisteach, we are seeing more and more of this waffle revisionism. Anyone who thinks the unionist state had any interest in being fair and reasonable to the "enemy within" is away with the fairies.
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread. Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s if it weren't so inaccurate and symptomatic of a growing historical revisionism that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides. That was simply not the case.
By the late 60s, republicanism was more aspirational than actual, and becoming increasingly irrelevant as it was reduced to a very small, virtually weaponless, and aging group, largely reduced to distributing copies of the Republican News, handing out Easter lilies and singing Wolfe Tone songs. Its political representatives, the Nationalist Party, were impotent and disengaged, their sole legislative coup a single piece of legislation relating to birds!
And along came the Civil Rights movement, drawing heavily on the American model as well as Gandhi's efforts. And in the face of reason and righteousness, how did the unionist establishment react—that's right, beat the crap out of them. There was no tugging by extremists from both sides. The only extremist was the entire unionist monolith that had kept Nationalists under thumb, supported enthusiastically by its ultra-extremist mob incited by the likes of Paisley to believe that poor but Protestant, they were of superior stock than those shiftless Fenians. Some fair-minded Protestants did find their way into NICRA, but the vast majority were aligned to that catchphrase of compromise—No Surrender.
So let's not perpetuate the lie that if it weren't for those darn Loyalist and Republican extremists, unionism would have done the right thing. It wouldn't have and didn't. Brian Faulkner as the epitome of reason! Are you serious?
You include in your scroll of the CAIN chronology the Armagh civil rights march, which typifies the state of affairs at the time. What happened that day (and by the way I lived in Armagh then)? A peaceful Civil Rights march was stopped in Thomas Street, faced down by a throng of blackthorn-wielding Loyalists at the corner of Scotch Street. And what did the RUC do? Did they arrest the mob that was threatening the peace? Hell no! Why would they arrest their own? They were one and the same. I can hear you scoff, but they arrested Paisley and Bunting later, but one of the indelible memories of my life at that time was being in Marco's café in Thomas Street watching a gang of police and Tartans chasing after a gang of Taigs. Impartiality my arse. And don't forget Burntollet, where police in and out of uniform either did nothing to prevent the ambush or, worse yet, participated in the attack.
Given the feet-dragging intransigence of the Stormont regime coupled with the make-up of the police force, it should be of little surprise that the Nationalist community turned to the only group it could to seek protection—the Provos—a group formed in the aftermath of Bombay Street etc. etc. There was no Republican extremist group until unionists gave birth to it by their violent acts of commission or their egregious acts of omission.
So, please do not twist the facts of history to make your fellow unionists feel good about themselves by writing: "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement"
There were not two extremes until unionists caused the second to come into being, and then when the army arrived and it was used exclusively against the Nationalist population, unionists gave the Provos their ultimate raison-d'etre.
But back to Loughgall. This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.
The Black Civil Rights people in the States got exactly the same treatment as the CRA did here. They were beaten off the streets, arrested, murdered in some cases.
It was at this point that Martin Luther King founded the Black Freedom Army and proceeded to wage a 25 year campaign of armed struggle that saw thousands of innocent civilians killed or maimed...Sorry, that last bit's not right.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 07, 2011, 03:20:40 PM
ahhhh the discredited cain report again....
:D
I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *
* if I could be arsed.
I take it that we can safely say that the 'fact'/'finding' that the IRA fired first in loughgall is a load of 'cain' (ie rubbish) also?
There is no "CAIN report", and there are no "findings". It's an academic database which contains a chronology of the Troubles, among many other things.
Still I'm sure the intellectual might of lynchbhoy will be able to come up with some actual counter-points...
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 07, 2011, 10:00:57 PM
Great post oraisteach, we are seeing more and more of this waffle revisionism. Anyone who thinks the unionist state had any interest in being fair and reasonable to the "enemy within" is away with the fairies.
I'm sure plenty of US states had very little interest in being fair and reasonable to their black population either.
Myles, you misunderstand the intent of my post. I was not justifying the actions of the IRA nor endorsing their campaign, merely explaining how they came to be and correcting misinterpretations of the unionist mindset.
Still, the 1960s is the US was a powder keg that could easily have erupted into its own wholescale civil strife. Don't forget the Watts riots in LA, the Detroit riots, the Hough riots in Cleveland as well as the emergence of groups such as the Black Panthers that saw violence as a more suitable way to redress social injustice.
Shoot, all they would have needed would have been gangs of whites burning blacks out of their homes, the police and National Guard doing squat, and the introduction of internment without trial, and Bob's your uncle.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 07, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread. Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s if it weren't so inaccurate and symptomatic of a growing historical revisionism that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides. That was simply not the case.
By the late 60s, republicanism was more aspirational than actual, and becoming increasingly irrelevant as it was reduced to a very small, virtually weaponless, and aging group, largely reduced to distributing copies of the Republican News, handing out Easter lilies and singing Wolfe Tone songs. Its political representatives, the Nationalist Party, were impotent and disengaged, their sole legislative coup a single piece of legislation relating to birds!
And along came the Civil Rights movement, drawing heavily on the American model as well as Gandhi's efforts. And in the face of reason and righteousness, how did the unionist establishment react—that's right, beat the crap out of them. There was no tugging by extremists from both sides. The only extremist was the entire unionist monolith that had kept Nationalists under thumb, supported enthusiastically by its ultra-extremist mob incited by the likes of Paisley to believe that poor but Protestant, they were of superior stock than those shiftless Fenians. Some fair-minded Protestants did find their way into NICRA, but the vast majority were aligned to that catchphrase of compromise—No Surrender.
So let's not perpetuate the lie that if it weren't for those darn Loyalist and Republican extremists, unionism would have done the right thing. It wouldn't have and didn't. Brian Faulkner as the epitome of reason! Are you serious?
You include in your scroll of the CAIN chronology the Armagh civil rights march, which typifies the state of affairs at the time. What happened that day (and by the way I lived in Armagh then)? A peaceful Civil Rights march was stopped in Thomas Street, faced down by a throng of blackthorn-wielding Loyalists at the corner of Scotch Street. And what did the RUC do? Did they arrest the mob that was threatening the peace? Hell no! Why would they arrest their own? They were one and the same. I can hear you scoff, but they arrested Paisley and Bunting later, but one of the indelible memories of my life at that time was being in Marco's café in Thomas Street watching a gang of police and Tartans chasing after a gang of Taigs. Impartiality my arse. And don't forget Burntollet, where police in and out of uniform either did nothing to prevent the ambush or, worse yet, participated in the attack.
Given the feet-dragging intransigence of the Stormont regime coupled with the make-up of the police force, it should be of little surprise that the Nationalist community turned to the only group it could to seek protection—the Provos—a group formed in the aftermath of Bombay Street etc. etc. There was no Republican extremist group until unionists gave birth to it by their violent acts of commission or their egregious acts of omission.
So, please do not twist the facts of history to make your fellow unionists feel good about themselves by writing: "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement"
There were not two extremes until unionists caused the second to come into being, and then when the army arrived and it was used exclusively against the Nationalist population, unionists gave the Provos their ultimate raison-d'etre.
But back to Loughgall. This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.
The Black Civil Rights people in the States got exactly the same treatment as the CRA did here. They were beaten off the streets, arrested, murdered in some cases. It was at this point that Martin Luther King founded the Black Freedom Army and proceeded to wage a 25 year campaign of armed struggle that saw thousands of innocent civilians killed or maimed...Sorry, that last bit's not right.
To a degree though the American government supported the CRA and incidents such as the civil rights act and James Meredith. In other american regions, New York /Miami /California, discrimination was not as pronounced and the majority of the American people sympathised with the civil rights association. As Oraisteach said the reality in the North was different and not as simplistic as you make out.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 06:52:46 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 07, 2011, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
The Indian Independence Movement (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.
That's bullsh1t.
There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
3. Gandhi's consistent campaign of non-violence meant that the British could stage an "honourable" withdrawal, rather than being seen to have been forced out.
For you to claim the events in the 20's and 30's were influential, when WWII had changed everything immeasurably, is both crass and ignorant. I assume you do so because India's example comprehensively rebuts your claim that the Brits would never leave anywhere, including Ireland, until forced out.
But if you really insist on drawing parallels, I would suggest that those who fought for Irish Independence post-1916 might have been better served had they had the vision and principle demonstrated by the people of India in No.s 2 and 3 (above)... ::)
You state that:
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
So it's all down to Gandhi... but wait:
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 06:52:46 PM
There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
No mention of Gandhi there (your number 3 nothwithstanding)... D'oh! :D
So WWII changed everything, well I never (that's still not Gandhi)! :D
Despite Gandhi, the absence of violence was not proof of future absence as the British were only too aware. Yes, Gandhi gave them a literal 'get-out clause', but only because militancy awaited in the shadows, and violence
had played a part with the Independence Movement in the past (that's an immutable fact).
Anyway, I think you've tied yourself in enough knots for one thread (even you)! :D
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 11:00:26 PM
Myles, you misunderstand the intent of my post. I was not justifying the actions of the IRA nor endorsing their campaign, merely explaining how they came to be and correcting misinterpretations of the unionist mindset.
Still, the 1960s is the US was a powder keg that could easily have erupted into its own wholescale civil strife. Don't forget the Watts riots in LA, the Detroit riots, the Hough riots in Cleveland as well as the emergence of groups such as the Black Panthers that saw violence as a more suitable way to redress social injustice.
Shoot, all they would have needed would have been gangs of whites burning blacks out of their homes, the police and National Guard doing squat, and the introduction of internment without trial, and Bob's your uncle.
Excellent Oraisteach (with your previous post), nothing like a bit of the stark unpalatable reality to put a pollyanna or two in their places.
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread. Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s... ... that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides. That was simply not the case.
Where have I ever tried to claim that (
bold), or anything like it?
Until or unless you can demonstrate that that was my argument, then your subsequent rant in rebuttal is worthless (as are the subsequent plaudits of your supporters, who lack even the basic literacy to construct a rant like yours.)
Back to you.
Quote from: Oraisteach on December 07, 2011, 08:34:06 PMBut back to Loughgall. This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.
There are two ways of viewing Loughgall:
1. It was a terrorist enterprise which failed utterly, most likely because of a tout amongst their ranks; or
2. It was an "act of war" which went badly wrong, most likely because of a tout amongst their ranks.
I much prefer No.1, but either way I am delighted it failed and am relieved and pleased that the scum involved in prosecuting it got done to them exactly what they would have done to their victims, had their enterprise succeeded.
Or, more simply: "Hell Slap It Up Them".
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 07, 2011, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 06:52:46 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 07, 2011, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
The Indian Independence Movement (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.
That's bullsh1t.
There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
3. Gandhi's consistent campaign of non-violence meant that the British could stage an "honourable" withdrawal, rather than being seen to have been forced out.
For you to claim the events in the 20's and 30's were influential, when WWII had changed everything immeasurably, is both crass and ignorant. I assume you do so because India's example comprehensively rebuts your claim that the Brits would never leave anywhere, including Ireland, until forced out.
But if you really insist on drawing parallels, I would suggest that those who fought for Irish Independence post-1916 might have been better served had they had the vision and principle demonstrated by the people of India in No.s 2 and 3 (above)... ::)
You state that:
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]
So it's all down to Gandhi... but wait:
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 07, 2011, 06:52:46 PM
There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
No mention of Gandhi there (your number 3 nothwithstanding)... D'oh! :D
So WWII changed everything, well I never (that's still not Gandhi)! :D
Despite Gandhi, the absence of violence was not proof of future absence as the British were only too aware. Yes, Gandhi gave them a literal 'get-out clause', but only because militancy awaited in the shadows, and violence had played a part with the Independence Movement in the past (that's an immutable fact).
Anyway, I think you've tied yourself in enough knots for one thread (even you)! :D
No contradiction whatever.
There were three "legs to the stool" in the struggle for Indian independence. Had any one been missing, including Gandhi's campaign of non-violence, it would have toppled over.
All things considered, it would have been very easy for the mass of the Indian population to have chosen the route of violence, with who-knows-what consequences for their struggle.
But most observers agree that thanks to Gandhi's outstanding leadership of the strategy of peaceful civil disobediance (the "third leg"), Independence was achieved much sooner, and with much less loss of life, than it otherwise might have been.
Well, EG, I tried to quote the relevant section of your post in which you convey an optimistic/unrealistic perspective, so here it is again: "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement . . ."
First, there is an essential flaw in your view, a flaw that betrays a deliberate misrepresentation of unionist thinking at the time. At no time before the eruption of violence (CRA Derry) did the unionist hierarchy show the slightest interest in according fundamental rights to Nationalists, and why would they when Northern Ireland was established intentionally to exclude those very people.
The implication of your statement is that without extremist pressure unionist leadership would have had a Road to Damascus epiphany and righted the wrongs of half a century. Would that that were true, but sadly those who hold absolute power are usually loath to relinquish it unless faced with potential or actual threat of violence.
Second, there was no real or substantial Nationalist extremism until unionist action gave birth to it. Consider, for example, the actions of one of the enlightened unionists whom you mention, Brian Faulkner, and his equitable brainchild—internment.
As historian J J Lee writes,"The dedication with which Ulster Protestants labored to sustain a sense of racial superiority . . . eloquently expressed the racist cast of their minds."