Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
RIRA make new years statement- Threaten to "expand its campaign in 2011"
Comments
-
Are you joking? There was PLENTY of targets they could of aimed for and killed thousands of catholics. A lot of it was tit for tat. Simple as that.0
-
-
The context may be different, but the motivations remain the same.
I don't agree. If the motivations are about reuniting the island through some claimed "mandate" then the fact that the people of the island have voted means that they are now 100% certain that they are not fulfilling any mandate.
If the motivation is that they want their own way and f**k the rest of us, then they are scum like any other organisation that robs, injures, murders or otherwise subverts the will of the people.Out of interest, what are your opinions on the men of 1916, Wolfe Tone etc?
Deserves a response.
Hard to say, to be honest, given the way history has written it. If they left bombs in places where innocent civilians would be killed, I would have no respect for them; that I will be 100% consistent with.
I can only rely on anecdotal evidence from my grandmother and mother, etc, who would say that "the old IRA" never targetted civilians; given how they raised me, I would be reasonably sure that they wouldn't be particularly biased and wouldn't intentionally mislead me on that point of history, but that's not a given and it's not first-hand info, so I can't be 100% definite on the stance.
The country may have been born from violence, but whatever about the objectionable tactics pre-70s or even between the 70s and the GFA, it is 100% certain that the people of the island have now made their preferences clear, and so the RIRA have absolutely no right to subvert that preference or threaten the citizens of this country.0 -
No, I meant the IRA could attack the army etc, but loyalists couldnt see their "enemy" so to speak, so they just killed catholics.
The thread is about RIRA & dissidents, and I don't remember Omagh targetting anyone.....the bomb was just left there to murder anyone who just happened to be in the town that day.0 -
In that case you simply do not understand. They are doing it for the same reason the men of 1916 did.Liam Byrne wrote: »I don't agree. If the motivations are about reuniting the island through some claimed "mandate" then the fact that the people of the island have voted means that they are now 100% certain that they are not fulfilling any mandate.
If the motivation is that they want their own way and f**k the rest of us, then they are scum like any other organisation that robs, injures, murders or otherwise subverts the will of the people.
Sure innocents died during 1916, such is war. Has there ever been a war where only soldiers died?Hard to say, to be honest, given the way history has written it. If they left bombs in places where innocent civilians would be killed, I would have no respect for them; that I will be 100% consistent with.
Never deliberately targeted civilians would be a better way of putting it I would say.I can only rely on anecdotal evidence from my grandmother and mother, etc, who would say that "the old IRA" never targetted civilians; given how they raised me, I would be reasonably sure that they wouldn't be particularly biased and wouldn't intentionally mislead me on that point of history, but that's not a given and it's not first-hand info, so I can't be 100% definite on the stance.
While I think they have every right to be unhappy with the GFA(not everyone agreed remember, nor does it make them fascists to disagree with it, are pro abortion people fascists?) I agree they shouldn't be using violence.The country may have been born from violence, but whatever about the objectionable tactics pre-70s or even between the 70s and the GFA, it is 100% certain that the people of the island have now made their preferences clear, and so the RIRA have absolutely no right to subvert that preference or threaten the citizens of this country.0 -
Advertisement
-
Omagh is a tricky one and there is certainly more to it than mets the eye. It wasnt sectarian, lots of catholics where hurt etc, Omagh certainly wasnt the place to bomb if you wanted to kill protestants.Liam Byrne wrote: »The thread is about RIRA & dissidents, and I don't remember Omagh targetting anyone.....the bomb was just left there to murder anyone who just happened to be in the town that day.0 -
-
You're comparing modern day Ireland (North and South) to Apartheid South Africa??
No I'm comparing apartheid South Africa with the modern ("troubles" stage) Northern Ireland
as explained in several reports which statistically show how discrimination was endemic and institutionalised. I gave an example of one report and informed you that there are many more.There is no relevant comparison whatsoever. None.
Actually there are several nee dI point them out again and supply the statistics? You didnt read the reports did you? Well you are arguing from ignorance then.Thats the solid-as-water moral relativism you keep bandying about with your Pilgerlist.
It isnt moral relativism in any sense? How is it?
And in spite of the fact I have met him and do discuss his work elsewhere I never referred to him in this thread. The reference i gave as a list of military actions ( and you also would have known this if you had bothered to read the link as from Zoltan Grossman an academic in Hawaii I believe and an academic who teaches and publishes in this very field)
You would also note if you were aware of my postings elsewhere that I have opposed all sorts of philosophical relativism. In particular I can see no evidence at all of moral relativism on my part. i have never claimd something is right in one instance which is totally wrong in another. I fail to see how comparing like with like is somehow saying that they are not similar and depend on context.I mean, the Chago Islands??? East Timor?? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with these stupid comparisons.
so the British didn't use their military to evict the population of the Chagos islands did they not?
The indonesian impreialists didnt wipe out a significant proportion of the Island of East Timor in order to maintain their Archipeligo island dominance. They didnt do palsy walsy deals with superpowers and rich countries in order for the treatment of the civil rights of the locals to be ignored?
Care to please explain to me how the chagos people were not kicked out of thie islanmd and it given to pals for profit and power politics and the struggle of the locals to have this acknowledged ignored and buried including silly tactics of evoking Royal perogatives in order to avoid publishing the truth?
Or how genocide was downplayed and ignored in Timor?
Similar to brushing all the discrimination against Catholics under the carpet.0 -
lan Black recalls the banter between the 12 men on the minibus as they made their way home from Glenanne textile factory on that dark, rainy night. They were debating whether Manchester United or Leeds would challenge Liverpool for glory at the top of the English first division.
Then their vehicle was stopped on a deserted part of the road at Kingsmill by a group of men with combat jackets and blackened faces. The workers thought it was the British army.
"They ordered us out onto the road," Black says. "Even then, we didn't suspect anything. One man asked for the Catholic among us to step forward."
Fearing they'd been stopped by loyalists and the sole Catholic, Richard Hughes, was to be killed – his protestant colleague, Walter Chapman, whispered to Hughes to stay silent. But a man in combat jacket recognised Hughes and ordered him to "clear off down the road". Then the shooting started. "After the initial screams, there was silence," Black says. "It was all over in a minute." A total of 136 shots were fired. Despite being hit 18 times, Black survived.
Colin Worton's brother Kenneth (24) did not. "He left a wife and two young children," Worton says. "I don't know how the gunmen lived with themselves. They shot their victims first from three feet, then finished them off with a bullet to the head as they lay on the ground.
"Kenneth had no face left, it was blown away in the gunfire. You wouldn't do that to a dog. In war, both sides are meant to be evenly matched. But these men had nothing to fight with except their lunch boxes and flasks."
Colin Worton met Alan Black several times but has never been able to ask him about his brother's last moments. "I know it's wrong, but I resented that Alan lived and Kenneth didn't."
The HET report into Kingsmill is due imminently. The IRA figure behind the massacre is widely believed to be a man who lives in the Republic and is a major suspect in the Omagh bombing.
The IRA, officially on ceasefire, admitted the attack under the name of the Republican Action Force. Its claim that Kingsmill was in retaliation for the Reavey and O'Dowd killings is rejected by the Kingsmill families who believe the atrocity was planned much earlier.
Following Kingsmill, the Glenanne gang wanted massive retaliation on a Catholic school or convent but the Belfast UVF leadership prevented it, fearing further IRA retaliation. After the atrocity, loyalist sectarian killings in south Armagh ceased for some time.
But even republicans couldn't claim the dead weren't totally innocent. None were security force members, let alone paramilitaries. The night before the Reavey brothers were killed, they'd played darts with the two Chapman brothers who would themselves be murdered 48 hours later at Kingsmill. "When I was in the hospital morgue getting my brothers' bodies, the Kingsmill relatives arrived," recalls Eugene Reavey. "Our family knew them all. I offered my condolences. The Kingsmill victims weren't our enemies, they were our friends. They were ordinary decent people, just like us."
Is this guy still running the RIRA?0 -
You think you know "what's true and what's not".
If you attempt to defend what they intend to do with nothing more than a contrarian, apathetic attitude then don't be surprised if your line is easily lumped in as bupkis.
The people of the island spoke and overwhelmingly so. A pocket of animals not liking this doesn't excuse them the right to ignore via a deluded misguided campaign of violence. They represent no-one but themselves. In short, they're attempting to usurp, through murder, the democratic wishes of an huge majority. That is Fascism and nothing else, fella.
Sure the stupid people of Ireland voted for Lisbon 2 which actually meant the germans got control of theIrish government...Open your ****kkking eyes young ireland...............And ifthats Fascism....Isay maybe good government is needed0 -
Advertisement
-
Didnt someone post that up earlier?lan Black recalls the banter between the 12 men on the minibus as they made their way home from Glenanne textile factory on that dark, rainy night. They were debating whether Manchester United or Leeds would challenge Liverpool for glory at the top of the English first division.
Then their vehicle was stopped on a deserted part of the road at Kingsmill by a group of men with combat jackets and blackened faces. The workers thought it was the British army.
"They ordered us out onto the road," Black says. "Even then, we didn't suspect anything. One man asked for the Catholic among us to step forward."
Fearing they'd been stopped by loyalists and the sole Catholic, Richard Hughes, was to be killed – his protestant colleague, Walter Chapman, whispered to Hughes to stay silent. But a man in combat jacket recognised Hughes and ordered him to "clear off down the road". Then the shooting started. "After the initial screams, there was silence," Black says. "It was all over in a minute." A total of 136 shots were fired. Despite being hit 18 times, Black survived.
Colin Worton's brother Kenneth (24) did not. "He left a wife and two young children," Worton says. "I don't know how the gunmen lived with themselves. They shot their victims first from three feet, then finished them off with a bullet to the head as they lay on the ground.
"Kenneth had no face left, it was blown away in the gunfire. You wouldn't do that to a dog. In war, both sides are meant to be evenly matched. But these men had nothing to fight with except their lunch boxes and flasks."
Colin Worton met Alan Black several times but has never been able to ask him about his brother's last moments. "I know it's wrong, but I resented that Alan lived and Kenneth didn't."
The HET report into Kingsmill is due imminently. The IRA figure behind the massacre is widely believed to be a man who lives in the Republic and is a major suspect in the Omagh bombing.
The IRA, officially on ceasefire, admitted the attack under the name of the Republican Action Force. Its claim that Kingsmill was in retaliation for the Reavey and O'Dowd killings is rejected by the Kingsmill families who believe the atrocity was planned much earlier.
Following Kingsmill, the Glenanne gang wanted massive retaliation on a Catholic school or convent but the Belfast UVF leadership prevented it, fearing further IRA retaliation. After the atrocity, loyalist sectarian killings in south Armagh ceased for some time.
But even republicans couldn't claim the dead weren't totally innocent. None were security force members, let alone paramilitaries. The night before the Reavey brothers were killed, they'd played darts with the two Chapman brothers who would themselves be murdered 48 hours later at Kingsmill. "When I was in the hospital morgue getting my brothers' bodies, the Kingsmill relatives arrived," recalls Eugene Reavey. "Our family knew them all. I offered my condolences. The Kingsmill victims weren't our enemies, they were our friends. They were ordinary decent people, just like us."
Is this guy still running the RIRA?
Seriously, if you think it would add to the discussion, should I throw up a bunch of accounts of loyalist attacks?0 -
This is about the RIRA. Not about the Ulster Volunteer force or any other organisation of a loyalist link.0
-
-
-
In that case you simply do not understand. They are doing it for the same reason the men of 1916 did.
There is an argument that the men of 1916 were doing it "for the people", because there was no mechanism for the people to indicate what they wanted. 99% hadn't indicated their preference because they couldn't.
It's a vague argument, but it is a factor.
So the men of 1916 could argue that they were acting in the people's interest.
The dissidents are only acting to impose their own personal preference on all of us. Despite the fact that 99% indicated their preference.
Therefore their motivation is not the same.
And given that they think it's OK to threaten and maim and murder (traits that I detest in any person, whether terrorist or otherwise) I would want no part of an Ireland that they create.
They are identical to a local drug-dealer who believes that he should have the right to impose his wishes on everyone else regardless of the consequences or the fact that sufficient people are opposed.
In fact, given that more than 1% of people avail of the services of the drug dealer by buying drugs, it could be argued that the local drug dealer has more legitimacy than RIRA.0 -
Pearse certainly thought it was ok to murder and maim.Liam Byrne wrote: »There is an argument that the men of 1916 were doing it "for the people", because there was no mechanism for the people to indicate what they wanted.
It's a vague argument, but it is a factor.
So the men of 1916 could argue that they were acting in the people's interest.
The dissidents are only acting to impose their own personal preference on all of us.
Therefore their motivation is not the same.
And given that they think it's OK to threaten and maim and murder (traits that I detest in any person, whether terrorist or otherwise) I would want no part of an Ireland that they create.
I know exactly where you are coming from, however I feel it is incorrect to hide behind the "oh but these guys are just bad people" then say what you did about the men of 1916.
Following your logic it seems the PIRA where justified then. Or at least violence was. With gerrymandering etc
If you want to understand the dissdents it is essential to realize that they are doing it for the exact same reasons as the men of 1916, the same ideals that wolfe tone had. Thats how they are able to sleep at night, do what they do. Thats why it ticks me off when people call them things the aren't, drug dealers etc, its simply incorrect, and ignorant.
Its a cop out to basically say "they are just bad". A convenient one too.0 -
Now I realise......................Your allunder 50 and have the reveniosist History,,,ffs read history not The pricks Eoghan Harrris history0
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »In the 19th century, there wasn't that much difference.
No the Irish were to busy starving at home to be filling up the ranks.You also forgot the 800,000 British people that died.
Unlike the Irish they were fighting to defend their own soil from their cousins in Germany - about 2 per cent of the population.
France at 1.4 million about 4 and a half per cent
Ireland - more VC's per capita than any other country.
# 1926
# The first Northern Ireland census revealed a population of 1,257,000.
# 1911
# The census of Ireland revealed the population as 4,400,000 – almost halved since 1841.
Thats about 1.3 per cent Irish casualties.
Rowland Fielding "War Letter to a wife" Londoon (1929) p. 179 in Morale in
the 16 th Irish Division 1916-18 Lynn Speer Lemisko Irish Sword n 81 p 217" One of my companies has produced an enormous green flag with a yellow
Irish harp upon it, which the men carry about with them on the march, and
fly outside their billets. It has not got hte Crown, and therefore would be
ranked by some prople as 'Sinn Fein', I feel sure."
Fieldings feelings proved accurate. In an incident which took place in the
spring of 1918 , men of the 16th division were harassed by other BEF
soldiers who shouted 'there go the Sinn Feiners!'
Five counties having the highest percentage of WWI casualties
Down 2056 3.97%
Derry 1343 3.81%
Armagh 1128 3.74 %
Dublin 4973 3.69 %
Antrim 5122 3.37%
If a British person says "the
invasion of Ireland was in the past (not a good argument since part of
Ireland is still under British juristiction) but I can't be blamed for
that" i say though the current generation
can not be blamed for plantation they can be blamed for not sorting out
the problems of the consequences of it.
Either you have N Ireland as part of Britian and take
responsibility for it and deal with it and not let it stagnate for five
decades by doing nothing as you have in the past or you dismiss your claim
on it and leave someone else deal with the problem.0 -
Pearse certainly thought it was ok to murder and maim.
Innocent people ? Then Pearse was a rat that I have no time for.I know exactly where you are coming from, however I feel it is incorrect to hide behind the "oh but these guys are just bad people" then say what you did about the men of 1916.
I said that because - as I pointed out - I don't have first-hand knowledge and there's also the issue of the referendum which told the terrorists that no, people don't want it or them.Following your logic it seems the PIRA where justified then. Or at least violence was. With gerrymandering etc
I dislike violence, but I could agree that targetted violence against the "enemy" might be understandable. Again, if an innocent people are targetted or even "accidentally" killed, then I would change my view. And PIRA used every lame excuse in the book to disavow every civilian that they maimed or killed, meaning that not even they accepted responsibility.If you want to understand the dissdents it is essential to realize that they are doing it for the exact same reasons as the men of 1916, the same ideals that wolfe tone had. Thats how they are able to sleep at night, do what they do.
I don't care whether they're able to sleep or want to realise what their supposed "reasons" are. The people have voted, and it wasn't a slim or debateable majority.
I just want them to stop killing and stop deluding themselves that it's somehow "for Irish people"; it's not "for" me and they cannot claim my support.Thats why it ticks me off when people call them things the aren't, drug dealers etc, its simply incorrect, and ignorant.
If you're referring to my post that mentioned drug-dealers, then re-read it. I didn't accuse them of being drug-dealers, I said that drug dealers have more than 1% support and therefore could be viewed as more legitimate.Its a cop out to basically say "they are just bad". A convenient one too.
I don't need any "convenience". I just want murder and bombing and violence to stop, or at the very least for these thugs to stop pretending that they are doing it for Irish people.0 -
You can have that one, the fact is the PIRA were the biggest murderers out of the lot.
indeed and road deaths and alcoholism killed even more than that.
Assume there were two serial killers who had killed one hundred people
each and I was looking into the reasons why. If I found one killer had
killed 75 per cent women and the other a little less less than 50 per cent women I would
not think that it was a co incidence. Might you think one is targeting women and the other might not be targeting men or women?
discovering the reasons for a crime does
not constitute justification for it but may help in preventing similar
crimes in the future.
I am pointing for THEIR REASONS for terrorism. The Loyalist groups are much
more secterian even tioday. The IRA are not.
Just because I shopw their reasons does not mean I justify their actions.
But it does mean that the Loyalist groups who claim that Protestants are
"under seige " are wrong. It removes the fear of "Catholics trying to
exterminate you " which drives their secterian agenda and gives them their
power. Just as "well if a majority want a United Ireland then you can have
it" removes the Republican Agenda for killing people. THAT is why it is
important to dispell the secterian myth which propagates Loyalist violence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is this a points scoring argument? The fact is BOTH sides did tit for tat murdering for decades. That is fact. I don't care for the reasons to be honest.indeed and road deaths and alcoholism killed even more than that.
Assume there were two serial killers who had killed one hundred people
each and I was looking into the reasons why. If I found one killer had
killed 75 per cent women and the other a little less less than 50 per cent women I would
not think that it was a co incidence. Might you think one is targeting women and the other might not be targeting men or women?
discovering the reasons for a crime does
not constitute justification for it but may help in preventing similar
crimes in the future.
I am pointing for THEIR REASONS for terrorism. The Loyalist groups are much
more secterian even tioday. The IRA are not.
Just because I shopw their reasons does not mean I justify their actions.
But it does mean that the Loyalist groups who claim that Protestants are
"under seige " are wrong. It removes the fear of "Catholics trying to
exterminate you " which drives their secterian agenda and gives them their
power. Just as "well if a majority want a United Ireland then you can have
it" removes the Republican Agenda for killing people. THAT is why it is
important to dispell the secterian myth which propagates Loyalist violence.0 -
I'm not against any country having an army for defence purposes. Given the history of our country, I'd be a very naive fool if that were the case.
On the other hand, I have serious issues with a country having an army whose intent is invasion of a sovereign nation, where that nation poses no threat to the invading nation.
so you opposed the invasion of Iraq?An army, however, is not the same thing as the RIRA.
Well it is but it is not a legitimate Army.The old IRA fought to free their country, and resist an occupying force. They fought for civil rights for an oppressed people. Nationalists have made great strides towards equality in Northern Ireland, hence the motivation is no longer the same.
But this is not the way RIRA view it. They dont view N Ireland being a separate state as equality.It is a fact that years of violence in Northern Ireland has caused the Unionists to forget/refuse to acknowledge because of (rightly or wrongly) perceived wrongs perpetrated against them.
Yes and it is something worth doing something about
But as regards this discussion ..... so what?
If Loyalists were persecuted so what? that isn't at issue. The issue is why RIRA are persecuting anyone.I've read local histories, detailing the injustices that were carried out in my area, and against some of my ancestors. In all honesty - they made my blood boil.
Most if not all sectarian atrocities by the IRA were in the 1970s. Loyalist killings come later and more recent.However, you cannot blame people who have had their home in Northern Ireland for generations for the murdering campaigns of the likes of the Black and Tans, any more than some Loyalists should blame every Nationalist/Republican/Taig for injuries and deaths in their Community.That will only lead to more bitterness on both sides.
Except for the fact that the IRA didnt carry out such a proportion of attacks against Protestants. Two thirds of their killings were of military and of the other third it splits about 65/35 protestant to catholic which isnt evidence of sectarianism since Loyalists were more then 65 per cent Protestant.This is why I believe that further violence will achieve absolutely nothing except more pointless deaths.
Pity about the million dead in Iraq then? and the millions currently being wiped out in Palestine. REmind me who sells then weapons again?It's not that I don't recognise the injustice of Ireland having been invaded in the first place. It makes me as angry as anyone else to think of what people suffered. Another thing that annoys me is the fact that some Unionists refuse to recognise, or at least acknowledge, that any injustices were perpetrated by Britain.
In spite of the evidence i posted - published academic sources. University of Ulster no less.
And they continue.Having said that, if the Nationalist community indulges in the same blinkered approach, by engaging in violence, they are refusing to acknowledge - in the exact same manner as the more extreme Unionists - that both sides perceive themselves as defending their own communities.
They don't have the same reasons for violenceOnly when both Communities recognise - publicly - that wrongs were committed by both sides - will we have true peace, and real, mixed communities, where your choice of home does not depend on whether your neighbours are loyalists or nationalists.
I think that's a goal worth pursuing.
i agree. But the Republicans have ceased fire and admitted to mistakes.0 -
Well he harped on about the glories of war, Denerick would be the man to discuss that with. Innocents die in war, always has been the way.Liam Byrne wrote: »Innocent people ? Then Pearse was a rat that I have no time for.
The men of 1916 got stuff thrown at them, seems they weren't wanted until they were made martyrs.I said that because - as I pointed out - I don't have first-hand knowledge and there's also the issue of the referendum which told the terrorists that no, people don't want it or them.
I agree with that, I would have MUCH preferred if the IRA stuck to things like warrenpoint. With that said the IRA didnt go out and target people with the bombs, they targeted infrastructure, like the allies dropping bombs. The idea was hit the Brits where it hurt, ie in the pocket. A perfect example o this is the Bishopsgate bombing which caused a billion Pounds worth of damage. One person dead, a camera man who ran past police warnings. That in my mind is one of the most important IRA operations, the British where very eager to talk then.I dislike violence, but I could agree that targetted violence against the "enemy" might be understandable. Again, if an innocent people are targetted or even "accidentally" killed, then I would change my view. And PIRA used every lame excuse in the book to disavow every civilian that they maimed or killed, meaning that not even they accepted responsibility.
Of course they went and did sectarian attacks, which where despicable. Or blew up innocent people for little reason. The IRAs biggest asset was the moral high ground, they pissed that away to a great degree.
The cause of the problem is always important is it not? The motivatons for crime are too. Do you not think it is important to know the motivations, the reasons why? I've tried to explain them on here before and been lablled a supporter when I am not. These men are prepared to risk over fourteen years in jail(it re portably terrible conditions!) to throw a glorified banger(pipe bomb) at a cop shop.I don't care whether they're able to sleep or want to realise what their supposed "reasons" are. The people have voted, and it wasn't a slim or debateable majority.
Im just referring to the trend to label them as drug dealers in threads such as this. The dissidents have a bit of support now in fairness. I wonder if there are membership numbers of their political wings? They do have some support.If you're referring to my post that mentioned drug-dealers, then re-read it. I didn't accuse them of being drug-dealers, I said that drug dealers have more than 1% support and therefore could be viewed as more legitimate.
Same here.I don't need any "convenience". I just want murder and bombing and violence to stop, or at the very least for these thugs to stop pretending that they are doing it for Irish people.0 -
Why do you reply so often with articles which are not relevant really to the thread?
I could just as easily stick stuff up about the Ballymurphy massacre.
More importantly all of the stuff involving Republicans will be in the 1970s. Loyalists atrocities for smaller military forces come more recent, more numerous and more sectarian and more bloody.0 -
What? The worst loyalist attack took part in 74. The latest worst republican attack happened in 1998. Is this more re writting of history?More importantly all of the stuff involving Republicans will be in the 1970s. Loyalists atrocities for smaller military forces come more recent, more numerous and more sectarian and more bloody.0 -
Since people are trying to claim that the pira were / are nonsectarian I think the articules are very relevant. Parhaps you can try and tell how the kingsmill murders were nit sectarian and were a legitimate operation in the armed struggle?
I ddint claim that.
I accepot some of the IRA did commit sectarian killings but in the 1970s and there was not policy of killing Protestants.
I claimed that saying something like "The IRA are as sectarian as Loyalists" is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign_1969%E2%80%931997#Accusations_of_sectarian_attacks
In late 1976, the IRA leadership met with representatives of the loyalist paramilitary groups and agreed to halt random sectarian killings and car bombings of civilian targets. The loyalists revoked the agreement in 1979, after the IRA killing of Lord Mountbatten but the pact nevertheless halted the cycle of sectarian revenge killings until the late 1980s, when the loyalist groups began killing Catholics again in large numbers.[41]0 -
-
-
0
-
Advertisement
-
But you aren't being specific. Your saying loyalists but not a group.I was discussing stats on Loyalist and IRA attacks earlier in relation to sectarianism.
But in relation to RIRA continuing "the struggle" I am differentiating between them who are outside of and the PIRA who agree to the GFA.0
Advertisement