IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Bombay Street was a friendly (inter) communal bonfire, and Sunningdale was a political panacea.

[Myles Na G.]

ahhhh the discredited cain report again....


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? 

[Maguire01]

ahhhh the discredited cain report again....


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.

[Evil Genius]

...[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)...   

[Evil Genius]

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. 

[Evil Genius]

ahhhh the discredited cain report again....


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...

[Maguire01]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

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!

[Eamonnca1]

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.

[Oraisteach]

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.

[sammymaguire]

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

[Maguire01]

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?

[sammymaguire]

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.

[trileacman]

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.

[mylestheslasher]

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.