IRA Blamed for Sectarian Slaughter at Kingsmill

[Myles Na G.]

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

The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives. Was might right in this case, or should the 1916 crowd have stayed at home? Genuine question. Hitler's armies didn't head back to Berlin because they were asked to do so by the countries they invaded. They were forced back, at the cost of millions of lives. Was might right in this case? Again, a genuine question. If I happen to be walking along a street when I spot a child being attacked by a lunatic, should I rush over and use 'might' to stop the attack, or should I stand beside the attacker and appeal to his better nature by asking him to stop his attack?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

[LeoMc]

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?

Over 500,000 signed the covenant in 1912 and 100,000 pledged to fight. However negotiations were ongoing and there were 2 further attempts to at Home Rule bills. 6 years later they were still debating temporary opt out for 4, 6 ,or 9 counties.
Lets not forget we also had the IV and NV running about prepared to fight with the British Army to force Ulster into a UI. As you say it was a complex time with many nuances.
Add in the background of the Great war and  in my opinion if it were not for the requirement for cannon fodder the British Army would have been prepared to push through home rule armed resistance or not.

[Myles Na G.]

The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

You're making my argument for me, which is nice of you, but not necessary. Reasoned debate failed, where violent uprising succeeded, you say. So might is right, then?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

The Irish republic wasn't formed after a reasoned debate on the subject: the 26 counties were taken from the British by force, wrenched from their hands after a bloody struggle which cost many lives.

Irish Home Rule was rejected by the minority after a 'reasoned debate', continually. Oh, and the occupation and Plantation of Ireland in the first place were all politeness and picnics, were they?

You're making my argument for me, which is nice of you, but not necessary. Reasoned debate failed, where violent uprising succeeded, you say. So might is right, then?

I don't think that would be too difficult, since your argument seems to be all over the place. Might was WRONG to defy the wishes of the majority in 1913, but it was succumbed to by those uber-democrats, the British.

[Oraisteach]

Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

[Myles Na G.]

Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

I'm not sure that the concept of 'might is right' has much to do with moral authority, though certainly Fear seems to think it does. When I use the term, I use it to express the view that the greater power or force usually wins the day, regardless of where the morality of a given situation lies. For e.g, in that analogy of a child being attacked that I used - I could storm over and try to stop the attack by physically intervening, but there's always the possibility that the attacker could turn round and beat the crap out of me: the fact that I am morally in the right has no bearing on the situation, might prevails. The success of the Irish republic in winning its independence was not due to the 'rightness' of its cause. Many previous rebellions had failed and they were just as valid from a moral standpoint. The 2nd world war allied forces had no more moral authority as a group, than did the individual countries invaded by the Nazis, but the first were successful while the latter were not. In all situations, greater power prevails. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Myles, I'm always leery about tackling arguments from analogy because though the analogy often has one or more elements in common with the given situation, usually it differs in significant ways
.
For example, I might say that marriage is like riding a bike.  First, you practice on a few wrecks, and then when you get good at it you get a new one.  Ooops, maybe that isn't such a good example.

Anyway, you present three unique analogies, each different from the other, but each having, I think, one common demominator—the concept of moral authority.

The first, the 1916 uprising, didn't simply occur because a handful of thugs got together in a pub in Rathgar and said, "Oh, blast, let's get rowdy."  It was, instead, the culmination of not just years but centuries of oppression, coming to a boil after the defeat of several Home Rule bills, often because of British politicians playing the Orange card.  So when the institutions of government fail to act as they ought to, after years of chances to do so, sometimes ordinary people seize the moral authority to right the wrong.

Of course, Unionists may argue that that's exactly what they did in supporting Partition.  I would say that they lacked the moral authority since in the 1918 election, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed independence.  Just as it's right for each community to stand behind the GFA today, so too it was proper for all Ireland to adhere to the will of the people of Ireland as a whole (Drat, another analogy).

Your second analogy is different from the NI scenario since it involves the issue of the invasion of a sovereign territory by a foreign country.  The people of what would come to be NI were not invaded as Poland was, for example.  The Poles, of course, had the moral authority to resist such an incursion. Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, was part of Ireland. Oddly, the invasion analogy has probably more in common with Ireland's history as a whole, though EG will probably clarify that the English were not invaders but were "invited" (McMurrough et al).  But when you think about it, said by an Australian, the words "invited" and "invaded" are really the same thing.

Your third analogy, child abuse, strangely enough, has nothing to do with Ireland at all.  Not only would it be right for you to defend the child, you would have a moral duty to do so.  The circumstances in Ireland at the time of Partition had nothing to do with child endangerment.

I've no doubt that pro-Partionists  will shape the moral authority argument to fit their worldview, or part-of-the-worldview, and so will begin the table tennis tournament again.

I'm not sure that the concept of 'might is right' has much to do with moral authority, though certainly Fear seems to think it does. When I use the term, I use it to express the view that the greater power or force usually wins the day, regardless of where the morality of a given situation lies. For e.g, in that analogy of a child being attacked that I used - I could storm over and try to stop the attack by physically intervening, but there's always the possibility that the attacker could turn round and beat the crap out of me: the fact that I am morally in the right has no bearing on the situation, might prevails. The success of the Irish republic in winning its independence was not due to the 'rightness' of its cause. Many previous rebellions had failed and they were just as valid from a moral standpoint. The 2nd world war allied forces had no more moral authority as a group, than did the individual countries invaded by the Nazis, but the first were successful while the latter were not. In all situations, greater power prevails. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

So did "might" gain the 26 counties freedom from Britain? Who was the greater power?
Did might gain American independance?
Did the mighty Mexican Imperial Army defeat Sam Houstons Texan militias?

Yes might always wins out..... oh wait!

[seafoid]

Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

[ross matt]

Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

[seafoid]

Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.   

[ross matt]

I'm sure poverty was  a factor but the Brits mismanaged the situation badly though when it came to discrimination against catholics plus civil rights etc and our own govt just kinda stood back. There was a void left then for paramilitaries.

[Evil Genius]

Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Top post of the entire thread (imo).

[Nally Stand]

Magnum produced a book of photos of Ireland from the 50s to 2005  and the 1970s section is more or less full of pictures from the breakdown of the political system in the north. What stands out in many of the pictures is the poverty. The paramilitaries thrived in those conditions.  I imagine it is the same today in the Short Strand.

As far as Nationalist areas go, try not to forget that that was a time shortly after a Catholic could not get a job, so their areas weren't exactly going to be wealthy. Try not to simplify things, the social deprevation of Catholic areas back then was solely down to the nature of the sectarian state. As for you IRA 'sectarian' remarks, is there a side in the conflict which didnt carry out sectarian attacks? I ask that not to excuse them, but to point out that things cannot be looked at by todays standards. The IRAs targets were made up of approximately 80% willing participants in the conflict (see the Lost Lives book). I cant imagine too many groups in any long drawn out conflict anywhere could say the same. Considering that nationalist communities lived in fear of loyalist sectarian assasinations (assisted by british state collusion) for thirty years or more, isolated incidents of totally disgusting reprisals were always going to occur. It was the times we lived in. But does the fact that the IRA, (a group regarded by the british army as "professional" and one which they "could not defeat militarily") did not carry out widespread and frequent assasinations of Protestants when they so easily could have, not then debunk the simified nonsense that the IRA were just a sectarian gang? Try to be objective instead of coming out with simplified distortions of the truth.

[Nally Stand]

Gosh. IRA involved in sectarian murder.
I had them down for prayer meetings. I never knew.

Tell me about it Seafoid. I'm as shocked as you are. Think I might have brought it up here previously and was savaged by provo poets and apologists as being ignorant.
Still though I'm sure Kingsmill was "a tragedy for all concerned" and there is "much regret" about it but its important the victims relatives "get closure" and "move on" so they dont "bore" some people.

Top post of the entire thread (imo).

Hmmmmm, I dunno. I reckon that the post of the thread was the one where you chastised a poster for mentioning events in Ireland in 1918 because "that has nothing to do with Kingsmill" despite the fact that a few posts earlier, you went to great length to discuss Kingsmill in the context of the US killing of around 200,000 people in their atomic bomings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yeah, that was definitely my favourite post of the entire thread.