IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall

[Nally Stand]

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.

[trileacman]

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.

[sammymaguire]

The british high horse brigade still out in force I see     

Fair play lads

[Gaffer]

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 !

[Nally Stand]

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 

[Trout]

Even your weasel words won't get you out of this Nally, you are scum, plain and simple.

Typo my hole.

[Nally Stand]

My post earlier should have read:

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:

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:

...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:

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  ) :

....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.

[Oraisteach]

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.

[sammymaguire]

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.

[EC Unique]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

"Typo", eh? Well I suppose it's easy enough done, mis-spelling Canary Wharf as Warrington. I do it all the time.

[Nally Stand]

"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.

[Gaffer]

The berst thing to do, Nally , to to condemn the murder of the two children at Warrington by the IRA !!

[Eamonnca1]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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.