IRA Blamed for Sectarian Slaughter at Kingsmill

[armagho9]

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.

He has still not apologised or admitted he was wrong, chooses to ignore when he is wrong.  Typical unionist

[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.

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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ? 

[ross matt]

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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

Yep only 20% Seafoid. He's fired out that impressive stat already. So we should be praising the provos for only killing one innocent in five apparently.

[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.

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!

The side with the most soldiers and the biggest guns isn't always the most powerful in any given conflict.

[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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad. 

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

[Donnellys Hollow]

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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad. 

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

[Donnellys Hollow]

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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad. 

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

Just to bat it back...When did Nally Stand mention that Seafoid mentioned the Old IRA?

He quoted his post.........

[Donnellys Hollow]

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.

Only 20% were innocent. Is that all? just one in 5?   How many were Protestant?
Would a higher catholic percentage be better for your argument?   
How were they killed, the catholics ?

As always, reasonable discussion about it is too much to ask. I guess its the usual story of shameless hypocracy just - Old IRA = good, PIRA = bad. 

As for the religious breakdown, the IRA's chief target was the state security forces. The sectarian nature of the sectarian designed state meant those people were almost exclusively Protestant. Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that almost all Protestants killed by the IRA just happened to work in the security forces? What are the odds!

Where did seafoid make mention of the Old IRA?

Just to bat it back...When did Nally Stand mention that Seafoid mentioned the Old IRA?

He quoted his post.........

He started that particular sentence with "I guess", which would infer that Seafoid didn't mention it in his post.

Fair enough. Different interpretations I suppose.

[seafoid]

Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ? 

[armagho9]

Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ?

The book lost lives gives a break down of the deaths caused by each group, and what religion, organisation (or innocent) those victims belonged to. 

Strange that the IRA killed so many catholic police officers and prison wardens for a sectarian organisation

[seafoid]

As an ecumenical outfit they did kill a shocking number of Protestants. 

[Evil Genius]

Nally Stand

Can you give a credible link to your 'only 20% of people murdered by the IRA were innocent stat" ?
How many people did they kill in total and how did you classify an innocent? 

Do people killed when they walked into a booby trap designed for the police count?

How many of the people murdered in  Enniskillen and Birmingham would count as innocent ?

The book lost lives gives a break down of the deaths caused by each group, and what religion, organisation (or innocent) those victims belonged to. 

Strange that the IRA killed so many catholic police officers and prison wardens for a sectarian organisation

As if that makes Provo slaughter of Protestants OK, then? 

The simple fact is, the Provos were quite prepared to murder anyone  who stood in the way of their imposing their will upon the people of Ireland. And, of course, the single most numerous and homogeneous group standing in their way was the one million Protestants of NI (although the Provos preferred to term us "Brits", as in "Brits Out!")

Of course for propaganda reasons, they struck first at those Protestants who were in the Security Forces, Prison Service or Judiciary etc, on the basis that they were attacking members of "the British War Machine". But as we saw time and again, they were quite prepared to strike at civilian workers and contractors etc, or even ordinary shopkeepers whose customers included police officers and the like, in their campaign of terror.

So by murdering people for being "Brits", they were also inextricably mudering people for being "Prods", as this extract from the Eames Bradley Report of 2008 makes clear:

"In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.

Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way – as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.

They believe Republicans have not come to fully understand the hurt that still exists and they need to acknowledge and appreciate the damage they did to the prospect of reconciliation between our two communities.

Indeed if the aim of the Republican struggle was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, the brutal logic of their violence undermined this aim. The reality of the depth of division that has been caused between neighbours – who now need to share the future, needs to be acknowledged. Regardless of the uniform, the cause, countrymen killed fellow countrymen. While we realize Republicans have embarked on a process to address some of these issues we believe more needs to be done – apologizing to non-combatants just isn't good enough."


And when it came down to it, they were also quite prepared to murder Protestants with no connection whatever with the security forces etc, solely in order to "Balkanise" NI, so that they might operate with impunity in newly Protestant-free areas, the effect of which was de facto to push the Border further North and East.

One example amongst many was that of Douglas Deering of Rosslea. The Deering family had lived entirely peaceably amongst their neighbours for years. In 1977, an IRA gunman (almost certainly the psychopathic sectarian mass killer Seamus McIllwaine) walked into his shop in broad daylight and shot him through the head. His "crime"? Since the Deerings were members of a small pacifist sect which did not permit its members to get involved in any activity which bore arms, or even in politics, it cannot have been anything to do with "supporting the War Machine" etc. Rather, it was simply because his was the last Protestant business in the village. There are numerous other examples throughout the years of the Troubles, but since such people do not have a Party Machine like SF behind them, their relatives' voice is invariably unheard.

Of course, there is a subtle twist to the inherent sectarianism of the Provos, as alluded to by 'Armagh09', above. That is, the Provos also butchered brave Catholics who attempted to serve the whole community in various ways (police, prison service, judiciary etc). This was essentially for two reasons. First, such victims naturally often lived in Catholic (or mixed) areas, so their movements were known, thereby making them easier to target. For example, I knew a long-serving Catholic RUC man, who was posted to the East of NI. When his aged mother died, he was unable to come back for her funeral, since the family home was in a remote border area, very predominantly Catholic, and he knew the Provos would be waiting to murder him - in the Church or Graveyard, if necessary. And even if they had swamped the service with soldiers, which nobody wanted, the increased risk of attack etc would have frightened many of the dead woman's family and neighbours from attending.

And, of course, the second reason for murdering Catholic "collaborators" [sic], was as a deliberate tactic to make the security forces exclusively Protestant, so that they could be demonised, portrayed as "sectarian" and entirely excluded from Catholic areas, and the IRA could then put themselves forwards as sole "protectors" of the community. (Anyone too young or distant to comprehend the extent of this should consider the Catholic village of Donagh, Co. Fermanagh, where the McDermott brothers were able to rape and abuse local children for years, even though it was widely known, since they knew locals were too terrified to tell the RUC, for fear of being labelled "informants" by the IRA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3ORVK6i-8 )

All of which explains one interesting statistic which I came across recently, namely that on its first day of active service (01 April, 1970), the Ulster Defence Regiment numbered 946 Catholic recruits amongst its total strength of 2,440. Which, to save reaching for the calculator, equals 38.8% of the force:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665

Sadly, it was these Catholics who were first to be targeted for intimidation and murder - shades of Stephen Carroll, Peadar Heffron and Ronan Kerr?   

 

[Oraisteach]

Not only is it marching season again, on this board it also seems to be historical revisionism season too.

On another thread we have  OO proponents seriously proposing that that august fraternity is benign—break out the candy floss, the wafers and the bouncy castles, it's Orange Blossom Special time, when a squint at just about any 11th night bonfire cloaked in tricolours daubed with "KAT" and "KAC" would indicate an altogether more sinister institution.

And now on this thread good old "ethnic cleansing" has reared its head again.

And so I have to say it again.  I do not support nor never have supported the PIRA.  Kingsmills (and incidents like it) was an abomination.  No ifs, ands or buts.

Whatever you think of the IRA, though,  it was certainly not engaged in ethnic cleansing.  In fact, to use the term is to diminish real examples as in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.  Isolated incidents, however vile, do not constitute ethnic cleansing.  Do you really think that if they wished to purge the country of the Protestant population they couldn't have targeted packed Sunday morning services and done a Loughinisland to the power of ten?  Whether or not you agree that the IRA was involved in a war is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.  And with rare exception they targeted members of the security forces or what they deemed their collaborators.  I had a schoolmate executed for doing some electrical work.  Sickening.  He was not Protestant, merely a fraternizer, in their view.  Still repulsive.  IRA sympathizers will argue that he should have known better.  Perhaps.  But not ethnic cleansing.
I don't have the stats on me any longer, but when this assertion first appeared on this board a couple of years ago, I reread every paragraph of "Lost Lives" to check the veracity of the claim and discovered that it definitely was not.  This, of course, in no way soothes the pain of those who lost loved ones, but this was definitely not Serbia at its lowest.

[Evil Genius]

Not only is it marching season again, on this board it also seems to be historical revisionism season too.

On another thread we have  OO proponents seriously proposing that that august fraternity is benign—break out the candy floss, the wafers and the bouncy castles, it's Orange Blossom Special time, when a squint at just about any 11th night bonfire cloaked in tricolours daubed with "KAT" and "KAC" would indicate an altogether more sinister institution.

I assume you aren't referring to me as being an "OO proponent".

Or did you somehow miss it when on the same 'other thread' you refer to, I posted:
"I am not a member of the OO, nor never would be, for a variety of reasons. Imo it is at best anachronistic, at worst it tolerates some very nasty characters within its ranks, whose disgraceful and anything-but-Loyal activites bring shame upon the organisation.", and "I am no apologist for the OO, nor never will be unless/until it goes about rooting out the troublemakers and bigots who inevitably destroy its reputation"

And now on this thread good old "ethnic cleansing" has reared its head again.

And so I have to say it again.  I do not support nor never have supported the PIRA.  Kingsmills (and incidents like it) was an abomination.  No ifs, ands or buts.

Whatever you think of the IRA, though,  it was certainly not engaged in ethnic cleansing.  In fact, to use the term is to diminish real examples as in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.  Isolated incidents, however vile, do not constitute ethnic cleansing.  Do you really think that if they wished to purge the country of the Protestant population they couldn't have targeted packed Sunday morning services and done a Loughinisland to the power of ten?  Whether or not you agree that the IRA was involved in a war is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.  And with rare exception they targeted members of the security forces or what they deemed their collaborators.  I had a schoolmate executed for doing some electrical work.  Sickening.  He was not Protestant, merely a fraternizer, in their view.  Still repulsive.  IRA sympathizers will argue that he should have known better.  Perhaps.  But not ethnic cleansing.

For Protestants who were forced out of homes, farms and businesses which they had occupied for generations, it was very much "ethnic cleansing" of the type seen previously eg in Cork in 1922.
As such, it differed from Rwanda, Cambodia or Sudan only in extent, not intent. That is, in those other places, the "cleansers" had all the resouces of a state at their disposal, with no effective opposition to prevent them in their grisly work. Whereas the Provos had as many as 28k regular Army soldiers against them, plus nearly the same again in police/UDR, plus Special Forces etc.
But we saw their true colours in areas where they did have control, such as South Armagh, in naked sectarian massacres like Darkley, Kingsmills and Tullyvallen.

I don't have the stats on me any longer, but when this assertion first appeared on this board a couple of years ago, I reread every paragraph of "Lost Lives" to check the veracity of the claim and discovered that it definitely was not.  This, of course, in no way soothes the pain of those who lost loved ones, but this was definitely not Serbia at its lowest.

Hmmm. Serbia. Where did I hear reference to that, recently?
Oh I know, it was Malachi O'Doherty speaking on "Hearts and Minds" the other week, when commenting on the appointment by Caral Ni Chuillin of her old Prison Bitch, Mary McArdle:
"I wouldn't judge anyone on what they did at nineteen, unless they continue to stand over, defend, and justify what they did.
Sinn Fein thinks of the IRA gangs as political champions who fought a noble struggle. The rest of society largely indulges that view, in that they don't argue about it any more. But that doesn't mean that they accept it.
When Martin McGuinness says that those who parcipitated in a conflict are entitled to work for the improvement of society, he is right up to a point, otherwise, his argument is that Nelson Mandella would never otherwise been made president of South Africa. But then surely he would make an exception for Ratko Mladic, wouldn't he? And if for Mladic, then where does he draw the line? Because everybody draws it somewhere. Is Mary McArdle closer to the end of the spectrum occupied by Nelson Mandela, or the end that is occupied by the ruthless assasins of innocent civilians.?
Sinn Fein wants the IRA to have at least parity in the popular imagination, with the RUC and the British army, as participants in an unfortunate but necessary war. I don't buy that for a minute. Do you? I want children to be reminded that the IRA killed more people than any other during the Troubles. Gerry Adams says he wants a truth commission. Well there's a truth to be getting on with."

Ain't that the truth...

[Myles Na G.]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/eoghan-harris/eoghan-harris-following-iras-bloody-track-from-the-bandon-valley-to-south-armagh-2806081.html