Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

KeithAFC

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

But you're not - you're a member of the "PUL community" and yet you don't seem to be so eager to admit your shame around the reasons why there was the need for a civil rights movement in the first place!! :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone has denied the legitimacy of the civil rights movement. The PIRA actually done more damage to how it was viewed than any one else.


Some really thick leadership in the PIRA at the time. Lets not focus on civil rights, lets go for the pipe dream which is a United Ireland. Laughable and tragic at the same time. Was never going to work.

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Chuck's percentages view

It's not my view. It's an observation.

I didn't invent percentages.

KeithAFC

maccored wrote: »

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the UDA just called themselves the UFF when they wanted to kill a few people. When they llegally wanted to kill people they called themselves the UDR. All the same thing. Miami Showband killings is proof of that.

Do you know how many people had joined the UDR? A lot more than the UDA. The UDR was not the UDA and of course there was Loyalist volunteers using in the UDR but that was always going to happen.

The PIRA was slaughtering Protestants, UDR, British Army, RUC and so on. And people in the Republican movement actually expect for everyone in the UDR or British Army to just accept that and for some to not use Loyalists?

It would be very naive to think like that.

trendyvicar

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do you know how many people had joined the UDR? A lot more than the UDA. The UDR was not the UDA and of course there was Loyalist volunteers using in the UDR but that was always going to happen.

The PIRA was slaughtering Protestants, UDR, British Army, RUC and so on. And people in the Republican movement actually expect for everyone in the UDR or British Army to just accept that and for some to not use Loyalists?

It would be very naive to think like that.

Irish Republicans couldn't give a damn about slaughtered members of the security forces - they regarded them as legitimate targets despite the fact they operated under civil law and the 'yellow card' system - ie as glorified policemen. Those Republicans carrying out the murder of members of the security forces whilst wearing no uniform were guilty of murder under the rules of war.

As you say, it escapes the attention of Irish Republicans that most murdered members of The UDR and RUC came from the local Protestant community (not from Mars or Venus) and the impact on their friends and relatives was every bit as severe as the murder of Nationalists by Loyalists was on the local RC community.

It's a miracle that bereaved UDR men didn't assist Loyalists in targeting Republicans to a far greater extent than is alluded to on this forum.

Anyway, here are some facts regarding The UDR:

The UDR lost 196 of it's members to terrorist action (mostly IRA) and a staggering 40 ex-members. The ex-members were simply Protestant civilians. 10 of the UDR casualties were Catholics.

The UDR killed only 8 people during 'The Troubles'. Three were terrorists, including a UVF man (?)

18% of the initial UDR membership was Catholic. This was whittled down by Republican intimidation and murder.

Denis Ormerod was an RC leader of The UDR in 71/73
Harry Baxter was a ROI leader of The UDR in 73/76

Only 4 Loyalist terrorists were members of The UDR when they were killed.

Of the 40,000 persons recorded as having served in the UDR from 1970 to 1992, 18 were later convicted of murder, 11 for manslaughter. The regiment was responsible for the shooting deaths of nine people: three members of the IRA, one loyalist hijacker, two joyriders, an alleged thief, a deaf youth who could not hear the warnings shouted at him, and a man shot accidentally in a confrontation with a patrol.

LordSutch

Dotsey wrote: »

look at the original post I made there's a slight typing error, change the word "demographs" to "demographics" and there's your answer!!

I was refering to all your 'Empire' rubbish from post#426, in which you said > "it's feasible that in 10 to 15 years the "British empire" will be made up of just England, Wales, Gibraltar and the Malvinas". unquote.

Chuck Stone

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)

Joint membership of the UDA (which had objectives incompatible with those of HMG) and the UDR, became widespread, and at the same time the rate of UDR weapons losses greatly increased. Subsequently a number of UDR members with traces in other subversive organisations have come to note.

Some members of the UDR, who also belong to subversive groups, undoubtedly lead 'double lives', and even with the aid of intelligence it is occasionally difficult to persuade a CO that one of his men is a risk. Indicative, but not typical, is the case of a member of 1 UDR, apparently a good citizen (the Deputy Chairman of a District Council) who had the following traces:
a. Subject was OC of Ballymena UDA
b. Subject had obtained ammunition for the UDA
c. Subject was suspected of illegal arms dealings, and of acquiring an SLR and an SMG in Scotland, and of selling them to the UDA.

He was however described by his CO as 'a model soldier'.

It seems likely that a significant proportion (perhaps five per cent - in some areas as high as 15 per cent) of UDR soldiers will also be members of the UDA, Vanguard service corps, Orange Volunteers or UVF.

LOSS OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION

11. Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR. The details of UDR arms losses for 1972/3 are set out below:

a. 1972

LOST/STOLEN AT ARMOURY OR ON DUTY LOST/STOLEN AT HOME OR ON WAY TO HOME TOTALS

SLR 102
-62 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft. 38 140
- 62 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft

SMG 24
- 8 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft 4 28
- 8 were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft

PISTOL 7 15 22
TOTAL 135

( - 70 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft) 57 190
( - 70 of these were recovered shortly after the Lurgan arms theft.

A great bunch of lads.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)



A great bunch of lads.

Why do you believe what a British Army Brigadier says?

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)



A great bunch of lads.

Why did The UDR only kill two (yes 2) IRA men?

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the UDR. (From the subversion investigation by the British)



A great bunch of lads.

Are you refering to The UDA or UDR?

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do you believe what a British Army Brigadier says?

Let's just say that I would trust someone from the BA to be more impartial than someone from the anti-Catholic militias of NI.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why did The UDR only kill two (yes 2) IRA men?

Bad shots? Incompetence? Poor eyesight? Is it a trick question?

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you refering to The UDA or UDR?

I understand that there was a strong evidence of dual membership and it might be confusing for you but the report is about 'Subversion in the UDR'.

Don't be intellectually lazy. If you have a problem with the report read it through and critique it. You hardly expect me to do it for you do you now?

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Even if World War 2 had a different outcome (i.e Germany & Japan won) you would hold the same view?

Yes. Decent people don't murder innocents.

Not 100% now. You’ve added a condition to your own statement re civilian deaths.

No. In that case the individual was in a dangerous location that was a valid target. A shopping centre or main street or pub is not a valid target.

Personally I would still say that someone bombing the target should make it their responsibility to ENSURE that all civilians are clear (e.g. count people coming and going).

We're talking about murder; the caveat would be manslaughter (and not the cynically-and-sickeningly-made-up "collateral damage".

But following on from this, unconditionally stated this is incorrect. Luis Moreno Ocampo (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court) outlines his concerns re the US in Iraq in this wiki article on the principle of Distinction, as related to the application of International Law regarding the waging of war.

He has his opinion, I have mine. Not only that but the word "war" only seems to apply to excuse IRA atrocities and isn't used when it comes to giving others the same (unwarranted) benefit of the doubt. So yet again, we have people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

You won't abandon the totality of this statement even if it led to the Axis Powers of WWII being victorious?

Why would I ? They are despicable because they murdered innocents and if you conspire to murder innocents then you are removing the difference between you and them.

So if two groups are both despicable, what difference does it make ?

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Chuck's percentages view

It's not my view. It's an observation.

I didn't invent percentages.

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your view uses percentages inappropriately to back up your point. You don't need to invent a gun to use it to mug an old lady, so that last sentence is laughable.

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

What am I "twisting" ? I'm stating a fact.

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

That is a laughable view.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What am I "twisting" ? I'm stating a fact.

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

That is a laughable view.

It's not laughable on any level, it's just statistical facts, open to be interpreted on many different levels.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. In that case the individual was in a dangerous location that was a valid target. A shopping centre or main street or pub is not a valid target.

Yes. You undermined your own statement. Your merely saying it again here.

He has his opinion, I have mine.

I agree with his opinion, not yours.

Not only that but the word "war" only seems to apply to excuse IRA atrocities and isn't used when it comes to giving others the same (unwarranted) benefit of the doubt. So yet again, we have people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

You can apply this to other posters, not me.

Why would I ? They are despicable because they murdered innocents and if you conspire to murder innocents then you are removing the difference between you and them.

So if two groups are both despicable, what difference does it make ?

Are you for real? This is a disconnect from the consequences of historical events on a mind boggling scale TBH.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Let's just say that I would trust someone from the BA to be more impartial than someone from the anti-Catholic militias of NI.



Bad shots? Incompetence? Poor eyesight? Is it a trick question?



I understand that there was a strong evidence of dual membership and it might be confusing for you but the report is about 'Subversion in the UDR'.

Don't be intellectually lazy. If you have a problem with the report read it through and critique it. You hardly expect me to do it for you do you now?

You're not very good at this are you 'chuck' (LOL).

You suffer from what I call IRISHI/TIS - an assumption that any answer to a question will do.

Still - the audience for the imbecilic thoughts of Irish Nationalists is THE IRISH, so I guess it doesn't matter.

LOL
LOL
LOL

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

You're just twisting, because he presented statistical analysis in a different way? And not because the statistics were incorrect?

Are you Irish Karma?

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you Irish Karma?

I am.

Also Liam, I had a look at the figures of your analogy there, here's what I found.

Total numbers:
30 killed
14 guilty (of what I'm unsure)
16 innocent

percentage wise this shows that;

you killed 67% of all victims
person B killed 33% of all victims

53% of all killed were innocent
47% guilty

Of the innocents Killed;

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

trendyvicar wrote: »

Are you Irish Karma?

I am.

Also Liam, I had a look at the figures of your analogy there, here's what I found.

Total numbers:
30 killed
14 guilty (of what I'm unsure)
16 innocent

percentage wise this shows that;

you killed 67% of all victims
person B killed 33% of all victims

53% of all killed were innocent
47% guilty

Of the innocents Killed;

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

Did you look at the figures?

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here. To me this tells me that you do not even understand your own argument.

By the way, it was you who brought up the fictional account.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes. And as I said, despite the above figures, Chuck would have you believe that they are worse than me, because they killed a bigger percentage of innocents.

Anyway, enough about fictional murders; considering the topic and the actual murders involved I'd be afraid that someone might interpret the above figures as being real.

Did you look at the figures?

62.5% of innocents were killed by you
37.5% of innocents by other guy

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here. To me this tells me that you do not even understand your own argument.

By the way, it was you who brought up the fictional account.

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statements from earlier:

Liam Byrne wrote:

]And a smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger number.

Liam Byrne wrote:

621 vs 156 vs 412 in real figures. So the IRA murdered more than the others put together.

Chuck Stone wrote:

]It's your problem if you don't want to accept the fact that proportionately the IRA killed less civilians than any other protagonist.

You are arguing with the wrong person, karma! You are defending Chuck Stone and attacking me, even though you AGREE with me and DISAGREE with HIM!

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statement from earlier:

No, this does not invalidate Chucks figures either, had you provided other information in your analogy, we could have gone deeper.

Like I said, there is different ways of interpreting and analysing statistical information, you dismissed it as 'laughable'.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh my good Jesus! Will you look at Chuck's twisting of the percentages before making such farcical posts ?

His point would be that 50% OF MY VICTIMS would innocent, while 60% of theirs would be innocent, making them worse than me!

You are attacking me about HIS lack of logic! I agree with YOUR synopsis, not his!

But you previously defended his views, despite - as you now realise - any logical interpretation of the facts implies THE OPPOSITE!

My statement from earlier:

No, this does not invalidate Chucks figures either, had you provided other information in your analogy, we could have gone deeper.

Like I said, there is different ways of interpreting and analysing statistical information, you dismissed it as 'laughable'.

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

Not only that, but when you thought I was saying what Chuck was saying, you yourself used the word "twisting", and yet now you're saying "open to interpretation" - why? Because you realise the argument was by a fellow apologist ? Because you realise it's not my point ?

I haven't laughed as much at a u-turn in years! Thanks!

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

The reason I ask is to ascertain something about The Irish.

On all The Irish forums I've been on, those commenting on 'the troubles' seem to have a great difficulty coping with reality. They seem to exaggerate everything, selectively sample data and generally talk out of their backsides.

Is this something they learn to do in Irish schools or is it cultural, or even genetic?

Or is it just something that Irish Nationalism encourages?

It seems to me that The Irish are a childish folk that can't get beyond their own emotions or needs.

Of course, it might be that these retards are actually from Birmingham (England or America), in which case forgive my observations.

Reality? I was born into the troubles, and lived my whole life in NI right up to the GFA, I got my fair share of reality thanks.

Also, could you have got any more bile squeezed into a single post?

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

How is it rubbish? It's just mathematics, if you feel Chucks figures are wrong, then show us, it should be easy.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! No "extra information" was required. You agree with my figures and have been arguing with the wrong person, and u-turning now is laughable!

How is it rubbish? It's just mathematics, if you feel Chucks figures are wrong, then show us, it should be easy.

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Remember : I was "twisting" but Chuck is just "interpreting"

If Chuck is just "interpreting" then surely I was too ?

Not according to you jus a few posts ago, because you clearly accused me of "twisting".

Why aren't you accusing Chuck of twisting ?

Because he's on your "side" ? :rolleyes:

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

And I'm off to debate with someone who isn't so transparently blinkered and biased that they don't mind undermining their own credibility with a u-turn worthy of The Stig.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

I feel like banging my head into a table right about now.

How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?

I think what you mean is, you just don't like one particular interpretation, well too bad because it's still not wrong.

Like I said previously, if you believe Chuck's figures to be wrong, then show us, it's quite basic math.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The figures aren't wrong - the interpretation is.

As you yourself were arguing quite well until you realised you were arguing with Chuck and not me.

Just let it go now before you fall over yourself back-pedalling.

I feel like banging my head into a table right about now.

How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?

I think what you mean is, you just don't like one particular interpretation, well too bad because it's still not wrong.

Like I said previously, if you believe Chuck's figures to be wrong, then show us, it's quite basic math.

You said just a page ago that I was "twisting" when you thought my argument was his.

Why is it not now "twisting" ?

YOU spent a page telling me that I was wrong, when you thought my argument was his.

Why the change of heart ?

Since just a page ago you reckoned it was wrong and involved twisting, you should be able to answer the above.

Or were you lying or being misleading on the previous page ?

Oh - and re "How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?"

One phrase : "the boom is getting boomier"

Figures and stats can prove anything if you want them to, hence the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said just a page ago that I was "twisting" when you thought my argument was his.

Why is it not now "twisting" ?

YOU spent a page telling me that I was wrong, when you thought my argument was his.

Why the change of heart ?

Since just a page ago you reckoned it was wrong and involved twisting, you should be able to answer the above.

Or were you lying or being misleading on the previous page ?

Oh - and re "How can an interpretation be wrong when the figures can back it up?"

One phrase : "the boom is getting boomier"

Figures and stats can prove anything if you want them to, hence the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

Let us go back to the post I was replying to first.

You said:

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

I proved you were wrong, by using the figures and information you provided.

The figures Chuck show earlier, were of something very different, if you doubt this, go back and look, there is nothing wrong with teh figures he posted, nothing at all.

Liam Byrne

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :

karma wrote:

they show the opposite of what you're claiming here.

Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :



Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

I posted that, because it does show the opposite of what you're claiming.

You gave an analogy without thinking it through, then on the basis of that analogy said that Chuck would say that you were less evil because their percentage was higher.

The FACT is that your % was higher, which immediately invalidated your argument.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just one last comment.

When karma thought I was making Chuck's argument, they explicitly posted the following :



Now that they realise that it's not my argument, but Chuck's, there's no acknowledgement that the percentage "show the opposite" of what Chuck is saying.

Based on the above, impartial readers can make up their own mind re Karma's credibility in this matter, because this thread is gone miles off topic.

I do hope it served as a reminder re the mindset : "if it's an opponent, dispute it and argue but if it's one of our own the defend the exact same argument to the hilt".

I posted that, because it does show the opposite of what you're claiming.

You gave an analogy without thinking it through, then on the basis of that analogy said that Chuck would say that you were less evil because their percentage was higher.

The FACT is that your % was higher, which immediately invalidated your argument.

My head hurts!

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

My total was higher, their percentage was higher.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

Now you're failing at basic maths.

The moral here is that you shouldn't post stupid analogies that can be ripped apart with 2 minutes of thought.

Liam Byrne

karma_ wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How is 50% higher than 60% ?

Now you're failing at basic maths.

The moral here is that you shouldn't post stupid analogies that can be ripped apart with 2 minutes of thought.

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

Hannibal

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

RMD

Dotsey wrote: »

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

I'm not backing up Loyalists in the slightest, I hate those scum. But something to take into account which regularly isn't is the Loyalists weren't at war with the state, members of the security forces whether it be RUC or BAF weren't targets for them. The only people who posed as opponents to them were Republicans and Republican sympathisers in essence (pretty much all Catholics as they saw it).

Sadly, because they had such a narrow pool of "legitimate targets" available, the main victims of retaliation attacks were civilians. Who targeted what though doesn't justify either, at the end of the day hundreds of civilians died at the hands of paramilitaries, some through direct attacks and others as "collateral damage" in bombing campaigns. Either way, they died due to the actions of cowardly scumbags.

trendyvicar

RMD wrote: »

I'm not backing up Loyalists in the slightest, I hate those scum. But something to take into account which regularly isn't is the Loyalists weren't at war with the state, members of the security forces whether it be RUC or BAF weren't targets for them. The only people who posed as opponents to them were Republicans and Republican sympathisers in essence (pretty much all Catholics as they saw it).

Sadly, because they had such a narrow pool of "legitimate targets" available, the main victims of retaliation attacks were civilians. Who targeted what though doesn't justify either, at the end of the day hundreds of civilians died at the hands of paramilitaries, some through direct attacks and others as "collateral damage" in bombing campaigns. Either way, they died due to the actions of cowardly scumbags.

Why do you hate them?

trendyvicar

Dotsey wrote: »

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

Who gave them the right to murder police officers and those acting in support of the police?

Liam Byrne

Dotsey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know what you are at at this stage. I really, really don't. The above was a rhetorical question because you had claimed that my proportional percentage / ratio (which is what Chuck was on about) was higher

In total, IRA killed more innocent people.
In total, the IRA killed more people.

Chuck's argument was that the IRA killed proportionally less than the others in percentage terms, as if that was something to be approved of.

He chose to ignore the fact that they murdered far more, despite their lower percentage.

In my scenario, I had murdered more innocents, but the other guy's percentage / ratio was higher.

Now if you can't see past your bias - despite the fact that you yourself argued a page ago that his logic was wrong - there really, really is no point in dragging this thread any further off-topic.

I think the point that Chuck was trying to get across by using the percentages was that although the IRA killed far more, and that's not in dispute. It's the fact that where they targeted these killings.
The IRA operated on a bigger scale than any other group or army during the Troubles so their stats are obviously higher but the stats also show that they didn't primarily target civilians, unlike say the loyalists who going by the stats their civilian kill percentage was through the roof so it shows the difference between the groups mentality, their capabilities and the direction in which they were intending to go in.

Leaving bombs on streets is targeting civilians. No amount of "but look we didn't overall" will change that fact.

And they were pretty damn good at it, since they murdered more than all the rest put together.

karma_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Leaving bombs on streets is targeting civilians. No amount of "but look we didn't overall" will change that fact.

And they were pretty damn good at it, since they murdered more than all the rest put together.

You know, the thing is, I agree with you and I posted in the thread earlier that there was no justification for any violence by Republicans in NI, none whatsoever. However, this thread turned a good few pages back, where even though moderate nationalists agree with this they were still getting attacked and accused of apologising for the IRA, being bigots, and being naive.

I certainly have never apologised for them, and I never will, however, when I see pish posted about a moderate like myself getting tarred with the same brush, then I jump in, with both feet.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do you hate them?

Why do you keep asking flaccid questions?

trendyvicar wrote: »

You suffer from what I call IRISHI/TIS - an assumption that any answer to a question will do.

Still - the audience for the imbecilic thoughts of Irish Nationalists is THE IRISH, so I guess it doesn't matter.

I reject your pseudo-scientific diagnosis. Work with reality and stop trying to create your own echo-chamber.

Noreen1

snafuk35 wrote: »

The IRA campaign had nothing to do with Civil Rights. They didn't want civil rights for Catholics under British rule. They wanted Irish independence and a 32 county republic. Some impressionable idiots were fed that crap about civil rights. The ambitions of Adams and McGuinness were to become top dog once they knew the armed campaign was going nowhere so they instead switch tack and focused on a gradualist process of phasing out terror and phasing in normal politics. They have only recently completed the transformation and having left shed layers of dead skin they leave the killing and murdering up to the idiots in the RIRA.



The aim was power. Peace only came when the provos saw the door open for political power.



The people were voting for peace since 1922.



So what? They don't care and there's no chance of them going to prison now. They let Bobby Sands starve while they were planning their political trajectories.



If the Provos had done it they would telling us all contextualize it as part of the war. It's only an atrocity because they didn't do it!



Good luck with that friendo!



You know they never will.



Never going to happen.

Why so emphatic?

Your posts show remarkably little faith in the people who inhabit this Island - the very same people who voted overwhelmingly for peace.

When you say that people will never admit wrongdoing by those of their own political persuasion, you can only be referring to those who are sufficiently narrow-minded, bigoted, and immature to be capable of doing so.
The very same type of people who helped cause the whole tragic period known as "The Troubles", by fanning the flames of hatred, bigotry, and predjudice.

The majority of people have proved they do not want that - hence, it is reasonable to assume that, given enough time, such sentiments will fade.

There may always be Nationalists and Unionists. Neither have to choose to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry. That, with the advent of the peace process, has become a personal choice - and, as such obviously carries personal responsibility.

The truth needs to be told to foster understanding. That truth, elements of which may be difficult for both Communities, does not need to be inflammatory, or used as an exercise in "point-scoring", or worse, deliberate jeering.

Unfortunately, some people haven't reached that level of either maturity or humanity - yet!

maccored

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do you know how many people had joined the UDR? A lot more than the UDA. The UDR was not the UDA and of course there was Loyalist volunteers using in the UDR but that was always going to happen.

The PIRA was slaughtering Protestants, UDR, British Army, RUC and so on. And people in the Republican movement actually expect for everyone in the UDR or British Army to just accept that and for some to not use Loyalists?

It would be very naive to think like that.

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

It's a miracle that bereaved UDR men didn't assist Loyalists in targeting Republicans to a far greater extent than is alluded to on this forum.

Oh. My. God.

Thats the most loyalist apologist statement I think Ive ever read on this forum. Plus, the UDR assisted loyalist killers in targeting republicans - as did most of the rest of the corrupt security forces. These things happen in a war, but your statement there tried to make it sound like the UDR werent sectarian ****.

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

They weren't. Why do you continue to push this fiction?

Your friends in The IRA hated The UDR for the simple reason they formed part of the security forces that were holding the line against The IRA murder campaign. Some of The IRA also hated them because they were mostly Protestant. They definitely didn't want any Catholics in The UDR, for the simple reason The IRA lived in Catholic areas and having neighbours in the security forces wasn't in their interest. They also didn't want large numbers of Unionists with military experience in the event of a British withdrawal from NI. Those are the main reasons Republicans ran a continuous campaign against The UDR.

Of course, their propaganda didn't succeed did it? The 'troubles' were almost at an end when The UDR were merged to create The RIR. Yes, merged with another UK Army regiment, not disbanded. Bad luck old boy.

Have you read all the statistics on The UDR I posted? I note with interest no Nationalist responded to that post. No surprise there...

LordSutch

maccored wrote: »

Keith, the UDR and the UDA were inextricably linked so theres no point in trying to deny it.

A bit like Sinn Fein and the PIRA?

J Cheever Loophole

KeithAFC wrote: »

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

But you're not - you're a member of the "PUL community" and yet you don't seem to be so eager to admit your shame around the reasons why there was the need for a civil rights movement in the first place!! :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone has denied the legitimacy of the civil rights movement. The PIRA actually done more damage to how it was viewed than any one else.

Some really thick leadership in the PIRA at the time. Lets not focus on civil rights, lets go for the pipe dream which is a United Ireland. Laughable and tragic at the same time. Was never going to work.

So the inference from what you are saying is that there were legitimate civil rights abuses. And I'm sure even you would accept that those abuses came fom elements within the "PUL Community" - the community of which you are a part. Given that, do you feel any sense of shame for these abuses?

LordSutch

Was the Republican campaign justifiable? NO

Did militant Republicans have a mandate to murder? NO

Did Militant Republicans have the right to plant Bombs? NO

Did the PIRA Armed Struggle achieve its aims? NO

Was all the death, maiming & destruction worth it? NO

Did the Republican campaign Unite North & South? NO

Did the Republican campaigh pull the North out of the UK? NO

Did murdering Unionists/British people bring us closer? NO

Was dislodging Northern Ireland from the UK successful? NO

Is Northern Ireland more likely to leave the UK a result of the Troubles? NO

=============================================

Was a so called United Ireland all a Big pipe dream? YES

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

Oh. My. God.

Thats the most loyalist apologist statement I think Ive ever read on this forum. Plus, the UDR assisted loyalist killers in targeting republicans - as did most of the rest of the corrupt security forces. These things happen in a war, but your statement there tried to make it sound like the UDR werent sectarian ****.

Can you tell me exactly how many Republicans were killed as a result of UDR assistance to Loyalist paramilitaries?

By the way being a 'sectarian w*nker' or a 'politically motivated w*nker' doesn't make you a terrorist.