IRA Blamed for Sectarian Slaughter at Kingsmill

[armagho9]

Because Ireland has always been one Country, nationalists in the north are in the minority through no fault of our own. It was taken over as a nation, it should have been put to a vote as a country. What about the nationalist majoritys in three out of the six counties that make up the north?  Does their majoritys not count?  Not saying that they should have been part of the free state but if it was being divided up along county boundaries why not take into account other nationalist majoritys. Its simple really, it was (still is in my eyes) one country.  It should have went to a 32 county vote. If that led to violence then so be it, hardly have been much worse than the war of independence then the civil war.

Worst. Whataboutery. Ever.

You may think Partition was unjustifiable, and though I disagree entirely, you may even be right - it's not something which anyone can ever "prove".

But whatever the case, how are the events of 1918 etc relevant to the massacre at Kingsmills in 1975?

Was Kingsmills ever going to make up for whatever wrongs were suffered over half a century previously?

Was Kingsmills ever likely to contribute to the reversal of Partition?

Was any newly United [sic] Ireland, achieved by tactics such as Kingsmills, going to leave Armagh (and the other Northern Counties) more prosperous and peaceable than before?

Of course not.

The simple fact is, Kingsmills was nothing but a nasty, brutal and sectarian atrocity, which contributed precisely nothing to Ireland, North or South, bar further misery, hurt and hatred.

And if you cannot accept that simple fact, then you have a very fcuked up view of the world.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Read where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

But if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

[Myles Na G.]

Why should Irish nationalist wishes for self determination be allowed, but Ulster British wishes for the self same thing be denied?

Because the former were a majority, and the latter were a minority; unless of course some external power draws an arbitrary border to convert a minority into a majority. How about the Leinster, Munster and Connacht British? Why should it only be the Ulster British who are given the luxury of an arbitrary undemocratic line?


Kingsmill was a horrific event, an anathema to Republicanism, and I sincerely hope the survivor and relatives can secure closure.

EG, however, is up to his usual polluting tricks on this thread: the murders of the Catholics on the night before were not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a line of murderous attacks on innocent Kaflicks in that are of Armagh at that time, so any planning that the killers might have engaged in beforehand was not born out of serene co-existential bliss. Additionally, in the aftermath of Kingsmill, those attacks on Catholics stopped. No excuse, however, for ever taking the life of an innocent, never.

Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

[Evil Genius]

EG, however, is up to his usual polluting tricks on this thread: the murders of the Catholics on the night before were not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a line of murderous attacks on innocent Kaflicks in that are of Armagh at that time, so any planning that the killers might have engaged in beforehand was not born out of serene co-existential bliss.

Of course the Reaveys and O'Loans were not isolated murders of Catholics - no objective person ever claimed they were.

Just as no objective person could claim that the Massacre of innocent Protestant civilians by the Provos at Kingsmills was an isolated incident, before and after 1976, in South Armagh, either.

Or have you forgotten eg Tullyvallen (1975) or Darkley (1983)?

The simple fact is, each side engaged in terrible and indiscriminate sectarian murders and each attempted to justify its own foul deeds on the basis that "Themmuns started it" - it's why it's called "Tit-For-Tat" for Gods sake.

Additionally, in the aftermath of Kingsmill, those attacks on Catholics stopped.

More Provo revisionism...

If the murder of innocent Catholics in south Armagh ended for a period immediately after Kingsmills, what grounds do you have for believing that this was entirely down to that one action? The facts are, after Kingsmills, the British Government poured loads of extra SAS into South Armagh, the RUC then arrested a number of "Loyalists", and Roy Mason, who was  the most "Law and Order" of Secretaries of State was appointed a few months later, leading to a shift to the "Ulsterisation" of security etc.

These undoubtedly restricted Loyalist paramilitaries' room for manoeuvre in South Armagh.

And in any case, just as David Ervine joined the UVF after witnessing the Provos' Bloody Friday Massacre in Belfast, so South Armagh-born Billy Wright was later to tell journalist Toby Harnden: "I was 15 when those workmen were pulled out of that bus and shot dead. I was a Protestant and I realised that they had been killed simply because they were Protestants. I left Mountnorris, came back to Portadown and immediately joined the youth wing of the UVF. I felt it was my duty to help my people and that is what I have been doing ever since."

Do you think it a consolation to the families of innocent Catholics subsequently butchered by him in North Armagh that the deaths of their loved ones were the price to be paid for saving [sic]  innocent Catholic lives in South Armagh? 

No excuse, however, for ever taking the life of an innocent, never.

If you truly believe that, then why did you feel the need to point out that Catholics were being murdered before Kingsmills, or that such killings ceased in the immediate aftermath for a period, when no-one had been claiming anything to the contrary.

Unless, of course, by providing "context", you were also subtlely trying to provide some sort of justification as well? 

[Evil Genius]

Read where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

And you couldn't find another thread anywhere on this Board which deals with Partition?

Or start a new one of your own?

Yeah, right...

But if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

See?

Sticking to the point isn't exactly hard, is it?

[Nally Stand]

But whatever the case, how are the events of 1918 etc relevant to the massacre at Kingsmills in 1976?

Aren't you the same 'Evil Genius' that went to great length earlier in the thread to discuss Kingsmill in the context of the USAs atomic bombings of Horoshima & Nagasaki?

[Myles Na G.]

Had this minority been distributed evenly about the island, you might have a point. However, you can't coerce 1m people concentrated in a small area into doing something they don't want to do. Had the British decided to pull out of Ireland in 1921 and shake the dust of this country off its feet forever, we would still have ended up with a partitioned island. Might not have been exactly the same as the partition we ended up with, but it wouldn't have been a kick in the arse off it. Unionists were never going to lie down and accept an independent, 32 county Ireland, and nationalists were never going to be in a position to force them into accepting such an idea - ergo, we would've had a divided island no matter what.

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

[deiseach]

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

I think that's a 'yes', Fear ón Srath Bán

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

To paraphrase: might is right, right?

Whatever you might think about it morally, in the real world that's the case. Republicans should know this already. Their entire history is based on violence and 'armed struggle'.

I think that's a 'yes', Fear ón Srath Bán

Great summary deiseach! 

[HiMucker]

EG, when comparing loyalist and republican violence and attacks during the troubles the only variable that is identical is the impact that it has on the victims.  The taking of an innocent life is always wrong.  The end does not justify the means, whether that be Kingsmills, Hiroshima or anyother massacre of innocent civilians.
The ideology of republican violence during the troubles (note I am not justifying any actions) is in stark contrast with loyalist violence.  If anyone as any difficulty in understanding this then I suggest that they look at the figures for re offending by ex prisoners since the GFA, and ask why do they trend in such a specific way.

[armagho9]

Read where i joined the conversation you p***k.  The conversation had long since changed from Kingsmill (which is why i never as much as mentioned it in my post).

And you couldn't find another thread anywhere on this Board which deals with Partition? Or start a new one of your own?

Yeah, right...

But if you want my opinion on Kingsmill, i will give it.  It was a brutal sectarian killing that was wrong.

See?

Sticking to the point isn't exactly hard, is it?

Why would i bother looking when someone was talking about it here, why didnt you start one about Hiroshima? 

You jumped in feet first, slabbering as usual.   

Anyway, you seem like the sort of know it all that i couldnt be bothered talking to.  Good luck

[Oraisteach]

Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance. 

And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

[armagho9]

Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance.  And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

And the exact thing will happen again if Nationalists are ever in the majority in the north GFA or not.  Cant imagine the sort of scum that invaded the short strand on Monday and Tuesday night accepting democracy.  Democracy is all well and good when they're in the majority

[LeoMc]

Myles, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because "might is right" is the way the world is, whatever its morality, we have to accept it?  I hope I'm misconstruing what you're saying.  Such a mindset would surrender to everything from Pinochet to Pol Pot.

Much has been written on this site on various threads about terrorist atrocities—Kingsmills, Tullyvallen, Darkley-- most contributors expressing appropriate outrage, but though much has also been written about the formation of NI, little has been said about its resulting from perhaps the greatest terrorist act of all. Isn't the fact that the UVF was armed to the teeth, its gun-running uninterrupted by the British govt., and was threatening all-out war if the democratically-expressed wishes of the people were upheld, a threat of terrorism on a very wide scale?  An if-we-don't-get-what-we-want-we'll-kill-all-and-sundry-even-though-the- majority-doesn't-share-our-view sort of stance. 

And isn't it further unsettling that a significant segment of the British army in Ireland at the time was unwilling to enforce its own govt.'s wishes, choosing virtual mutiny instead (Curragh mutiny).

So, despite the quite reasonable moral outrage expressed about the above-mentioned relatively recent massacres, little has been said about how an entire govt. acquiesced not only to the imminent violence promised by the putative defenders of loyalism, but to the mutiny promised by those who would have been entrusted to apply that govt.'s  bidding.

So, might is right, as Fear o'n SrathBhan points out, and screw morality, I guess.  A mindset that would defend such acts of terror and insubordination should not be terribly uncomfortable with the UVF's antics in Loughinisland and elsewhere, I imagine.

It was a lot more complicated than that. At one stage Craig et al were prepared to back a Dublin government and home rule with only mimimal safeguards against Chruch interference but intransigence from the Bishops, then the All Ireland council and the Northern Unionists and the whole thing spiralled.

[Oraisteach]

Leo, I acknowledge that every situation is more complex than eight lines of text can convey, but do you agree that in the aftermath of signing the Solemn League and Covenant, the UVF were prepared to fight against Home Rule and that the British govt. buckled under what was really, in essence, a threat of terror, an example of might is right?