Free Staters and their hypocrisy on their violent, bloody past

[mouview]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

[Louther]

Show me war where there are no innocent victims?  Show me a conflict where there are no mistakes? Every war has to also be seen in the context of what is happening around the world and the various different Governments that are ruling. I firmly believe if Labour had been more competent in the early 80's and prevented Thatcher from getting back to back victories there would have been an earlier end to the Troubles. Thatcher ramped it up and this re-radicalised an awful lot of young men to go harder again. The hunger strikes then coupled with army policy in the ground, and the underlying sectarian nature of the rule of law in the North ensured that there was a catholic/nationalist/republican community who actively or passively kept the fight going. Thatcher was dividing England at the time also between the working class and the upper class so NI was an afterthought. Thatcherism was a big contributor to the bombing campaign of the 80's and 90's as it was the only way to get them to the table. Hit them in their heart lands, like Canary Wharf, then they will have to talk.

Was it right? In my opinion, it was inevitable and if there were innocent victims that was wrong but the Government would not come to the table unless their own people were really being targeted. Such is the way of war. Horrible, dirty, nasty, vicious, wicked, but no different to any war that was ever fought.

On the comments on Labour, on other side of Atlantic when the peace talks did come about the US and Clinton played a masssive part.

If JFK had of stayed in power in the era when the sectarian violence was going to different level and then the army was sent across, do you think that internationally there may have been more influence onto UK in those days. Was always the chance that Robert may have followed him into the White House and with their influence and Irish connections may more have been done?

America also faced into Vietnam at this time so focus may not have been there too.

[Angelo]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.

Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.

[Snapchap]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?

[johnnycool]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

SF as a political party only realised their voting support base with Bobby Sands and the hunger strikes and the publicity that gave them IMO. They also set up their local advice centre structures which would build their base from there and prove very successful at it.
The SDLP probably relied on all nationalist votes as a given during this period and to an extent lived up to their middle class ethos which alienated them further in working class nationalist area's with Hume probably being the only exception.
Joe Hendron famously has his West Belfast victory celebrated in South Belfast rather than in the constituency.
All helped in creating the Shinners as the main party for the nationalists in the wee six.

[mouview]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?

Most certainly not. But my point is, if we take the GFA as a milestone and a game-changer, what in practical terms did SF do to bring about it's achievement? Wasn't it due massively to the patience, perseverance and political skill of John Hume that it was realised?

[seafoid]

One or two were being returned during the troubles , Sands most notably and Adams in West Belfast, the Armalite and ballot box became the slogan and the first real attempts at politics started, it was rough and eventually it started to gain traction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite_and_ballot_box_strategy

NI politics seem to run in long cycles . Each community has 2 parties, one moderate and one hardline. The SDLP were dominant until a few years after the GFA. 
On the Prod side the UUP were dominant. The GFA was worked out primarily between the SDLP and the UUP. The DUP replaced the UUP shortly after.
At some point presumably the moderates will take over. Parties run out of ideas. Maybe the DUP is at that stage now.

[mouview]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.

Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.

You appear to have no difficulty on lecturing those from the south on their history or politics.

[Angelo]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.

Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.

You appear to have no difficulty on lecturing those from the south on their history or politics.

On their failings to northern natioanlists?

Certainly.

[dublin7]

What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?

Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?

Was it OK back then?

Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok

I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.

I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA  killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?

Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about?  The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?

I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.

You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.

Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?

So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?

Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.

I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.

I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign

Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.

The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this

There's 

[smelmoth]

"The armed campaign was a campaign of killing" - You don't say. Can you tell me an armed campaign anywhere in history that wasn't?

For ease of reading i have deleted the posts leading up to your last response but they are all there for anyone who wants to read them

As for this beauty above it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you

Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?

I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.

Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.

Or is it perhaps possible that they felt there was no realistic alternative to resist, for instance, a sectarian regime specifically designed to keep them as a second class citizen?

If you will forgive the expression that argument is riddled with holes.

An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms. A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms. Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.

Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.

You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitmate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?

[Snapchap]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?

Most certainly not. But my point is, if we take the GFA as a milestone and a game-changer, what in practical terms did SF do to bring about it's achievement? Wasn't it due massively to the patience, perseverance and political skill of John Hume that it was realised?

So you wouldn't have stood for a party if it meant putting your life in danger, yet you still think the performance of a party that did exists un der that threat, should be used as an appropriate yardstick to measure it's popularity? Are you for real?

And you want to know what republicans did to bring about the GFA? Why do you think John Hume eventually sat down and took peace talks seriously? I assure you, it wasn't down to pressure from the SDLP, nor do I think many objective and open minded people believe so. If you don't believe me, take a look at the British Government demands for coming to the talks table before the Canary Wharf attack, and after. That change didn't come about because of the SDLP. I mean, were you seriously that naive to think that the British Government came to the table to republicans without being forced to do so?

[smelmoth]

Show me war where there are no innocent victims?  ........

Was it right? In my opinion, it was inevitable and if there were innocent victims that was wrong but the Government would not come to the table unless their own people were really being targeted. Such is the way of war. Horrible, dirty, nasty, vicious, wicked, but no different to any war that was ever fought.

You have natigated the first hurdle by simply ignoring it.

If you go to war KNOWING that that there will be innocent victims you have really got to be sure of your grounds for war and that the outcome is assured. Otherwise you are playing with innocent peoples lives.

I can just imagine what the reaction would be if Tony Blair's retort to a challenge in the loss of innocent lives in the second Irag war was to say "well of course there were innocent casualties, we were at war!"

[Snapchap]

What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?

Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?

Was it OK back then?

Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok

I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.

I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA  killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?

Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about?  The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?

I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.

You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.

Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?

So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?

Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.

I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.

I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign

Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.

The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this

There's

They wanted to kill as many people as possible in Canary Wharf? Well ringing in a warning to evacuate the place 90 minutes before the explosion was an odd thing to do when they were actively trying to kill as many civilians as they could, wouldn't you agree?

The bottom line is, the Old IRA still targeted and killed as many civilians (and likely more) than the PIRA. Targeted. Not accidentally killed. Targeted. If that was a terrorist thing to do in 1969, then why wasn't it in 1921? Why don't you just answer that instead of running away form the debate?

[smelmoth]

Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.

So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?

Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.

So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?

Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?