Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

trendyvicar

K-9 wrote: »

Well its better than the alternative Keith or maybe you'd prefer they still bombed?

We'd basically 10-15 years of a stalemate after the hunger strikes, neither side was going to win or lose.

Go on then K-9, tell us how a UK State victory would have looked in 1998 instead of The Belfast Agreement stalemate. I'm fascinated to hear your views...

trendyvicar

K-9 wrote: »

Northern Ireland is now subject to self determination Keith, that's a big advance.

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Discussion, negotiation, protests or - if it came to it and you view it as acceptable - actual "fighting back"

Lots of options in between "doing nothing" and murdering innocents.

Liam, you well know that wasn't what i was really on about.

My point still stands. I'd believe you'd do nothing if you couldn't fight that perfect war after said discussions, negotiations and protests were no longer an option.

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

A very, very different Stormont.

K-9

trendyvicar wrote: »

Go on then K-9, tell us how a UK State victory would have looked in 1998 instead of The Belfast Agreement stalemate. I'm fascinated to hear your views...

What? A UK state victory would have meant the IRA defeated, most locked up in jails, not releasing them.

trendyvicar wrote: »

It was under Stormont prior to The Troubles.

Grand. Can you give me a source for that?

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

You still haven't answered my question. Would you care to get back to me?

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

Pearse must be spinning in his grave...

He spins everytime the armchair republicans (as bad as the armchair loyalists/pot-stirrers) here write his first name in Irish.

Bottle_of_Smoke

SF and the PIRA were of course defeated. The stuff Martin McGuinness comes out with these days would have got him shot not so long ago.

northern ireland always had self determination as a six county entity - its just they always determined to stay in the UK as the majority within the state wanted it that way. That was the entire reason the IRA took on armed campaign.

Its the same with scotland/wales. If they ever wanted to leave the UK they could.

now mainstream unionism certainly took a bloody nose because they clearly didn't want the GFA (remember sunningdale and the workers strike) but if they took one step to the centre then Sinn Fein took 10

I think only SDLP and Alliance could say they outright stuck by their principles and got everything they initially claimed to want

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

As per Nodin's post #758 please.

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you'd have a problem with the fact that I wouldn't lower myself to murder innocents ?

There is one stage that you deliberately left out - the one where ALL TARGETS are military and where every care is taken and double-checked to ensure that innocents won't be harmed.

As per Nodin's post #758 please.

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

Anyway, we're drifting miles off-topic; the murder-of-innocents part of their campaign was definitely not justified and no amount of ganging up or nit-picking or whataboutery will change that fact.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

Anyway, we're drifting miles off-topic; the murder-of-innocents part of their campaign was definitely not justified and no amount of ganging up or nit-picking or whataboutery will change that fact.

PM sent.

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No post numbers on touch, plus that individual is on ignore

What a truly, truly pathetic load of shite. You were asked to address a straightforward question in relation to supposed principles you yourself brought up.

trendyvicar

K-9 said:

What? A UK state victory would have meant the IRA defeated, most locked up in jails, not releasing them.

Not really K-9. You seem to be suggesting that the only difference between a stalemate and a UK State victory was the early release of a few hundred Republican and Loyalist prisoners, out of the tens of thousands who had served their entire sentences previously. You could say that that happens at the end of any conflict - German soldiers were returned to Germany at the end of WWII for instance.

Grand. Can you give me a source for that?

This is the entire Government of Ireland Act, 1920 which governed Northern Ireland up until 1972.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/67/pdfs/ukpga_19200067_en.pdf

You'll have to scan it for the relevant clauses, but Wiki summarised the relevant provisions as follows:

As well as sharing the same viceroy, a Council of Ireland was envisaged to co-ordinate matters of common concern to the two parliaments, with each parliament possessing the ability, in identical motions, to vote powers to the Council, which it was hoped would evolve into a single Irish parliament. Both parts of Ireland would continue to send a number of MPs to the Westminster Parliament. Elections for both lower houses took place in May 1921.

Provisions for Irish Unity if agreed in NI were in place prior to 1972, presumably through Stormont.

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

A very, very different Stormont.

Both elected democratically. One man, one vote, etc. Just less Catholic voters.

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

Both elected democratically. One man, one vote, etc. Just less Catholic voters.

....which ignores the gerrymandered boundaries and the fact that it was not "one man, one vote" for most of its existence.

maccored

my but you are a funny fellow. first you pretend there was no link betweeen the udr and the uda ... anyone form the north over the age of 35 could easily tell you there was ... and then you insinuate I have 'friends in the IRA' ..... classic stuff.

I'll say one thing - the propaganda you were fed seems to have worked alright.

trendyvicar wrote: »

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...

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

You and your comrades on here have been thrashed by me.

oh christ this is getting funnier. No offense trendyvicar, but the only impression Ive taken away from your posts - far from you thrashing anyone - is that you have a rose tinted view of the UDR, UDA and things that happened in the north. Im afraid I missed the bits where you came out on top, as a quick read through the thread doesnt reflect that.

trendyvicar

Nodin wrote: »

....which ignores the gerrymandered boundaries and the fact that it was not "one man, one vote" for most of its existence.

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

oh christ this is getting funnier. No offense trendyvicar, but the only impression Ive taken away from your posts - far from you thrashing anyone - is that you have a rose tinted view of the UDR, UDA and things that happened in the north. Im afraid I missed the bits where you came out on top, as a quick read through the thread doesnt reflect that.

Oh dear...

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

- For example, Derry/Londonderry/call it what you will. Catholic majority in area but council made up of minority due to the resetting of boundary lines to suit that minority.
- Unless I'm much mistaken, it would have taken place since the early 40s and lasted right through and formed the civil rights origins of the so-called troubles.

If you want a good overview or insight into these times, try Peter Taylor's excellent series of books on the North (Provos, Loyalists, Brits) and accompanying ground-breaking BBC documentary series.

K-9

trendyvicar wrote: »

K-9 said:



Not really K-9. You seem to be suggesting that the only difference between a stalemate and a UK State victory was the early release of a few hundred Republican and Loyalist prisoners, out of the tens of thousands who had served their entire sentences previously. You could say that that happens at the end of any conflict - German soldiers were returned to Germany at the end of WWII for instance.

Well you're just going to say black if I say white anyway! Considering they were in all party talks after the ceasefire and eventually Government it doesn't look like a surrender to me. Its a bit like saying the old IRA surrendered in 1921 because they had a truce and had talks and not getting their aim. Its a very blinkered way of looking at it.

This is the entire Government of Ireland Act, 1920 which governed Northern Ireland up until 1972.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/67/pdfs/ukpga_19200067_en.pdf

You'll have to scan it for the relevant clauses, but Wiki summarised the relevant provisions as follows:



Provisions for Irish Unity if agreed in NI were in place prior to 1972, presumably through Stormont.

Well the Free State leaving the Commonwealth and later becoming a Republic made that a bit irrelevant! I don't see how that has anything to do with self determination either and the whole Good Friday Agreement thing of inserting a self determination clause suggests to me, no self determination clause previously existed. Its a pretty logical conclusion so I'll see if anybody can provide proof it did exist.

K-9

The freemasons were looked after anyway!

65.-(1) It
that existing enactments
relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do
not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge
of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland, or of any lodge or
society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
(2) Neither the Parliament of Southern Ireland, nor the
Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have power to abrogate
or affect prejudicially any privilege or exemption of the Grand
Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, or any lodge or society
recognised by that Grand Lodge which is enjoyed either by
is hereby declared
E
51
Special pro-
visions as to
Freemasons.
[CH.
A.D. 1920.
67.]
Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
[10 & 11 GEo. 5.]
law or custom at the time of the passing of this Act, and any
law made in contravention of this provision shall, so far as it
is in contravention of this provision, be void.
66.-(1) If the Government Ireland

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

The boundary changes were in Fermanagh and Armagh. As regards the vote - this was linked to property ownership, giving many more than one and some none at all in local government. This is well known, so I presume your earlier claim of "one man, one vote" was an attempt at provocation.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

Now you're just having a laugh and it's clear that you have no clue about the history of Northern Ireland or you are wilfully blind to it because of prejudice. My own constituency was gerrymandered up until 1997 for fcuks sake.

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

Oh dear...

Oh dear is right - I think you're here just to wind people up.

trendyvicar

JustinDee wrote: »

- For example, Derry/Londonderry/call it what you will. Catholic majority in area but council made up of minority due to the resetting of boundary lines to suit that minority.
- Unless I'm much mistaken, it would have taken place since the early 40s and lasted right through and formed the civil rights origins of the so-called troubles.

If you want a good overview or insight into these times, try Peter Taylor's excellent series of books on the North (Provos, Loyalists, Brits) and accompanying ground-breaking BBC documentary series.

STORMONT

trendyvicar

Nodin wrote: »

The boundary changes were in Fermanagh and Armagh. As regards the vote - this was linked to property ownership, giving many more than one and some none at all in local government. This is well known, so I presume your earlier claim of "one man, one vote" was an attempt at provocation.

STORMONT

trendyvicar

K-9 wrote: »

Well you're just going to say black if I say white anyway! Considering they were in all party talks after the ceasefire and eventually Government it doesn't look like a surrender to me. Its a bit like saying the old IRA surrendered in 1921 because they had a truce and had talks and not getting their aim. Its a very blinkered way of looking at it.




Well the Free State leaving the Commonwealth and later becoming a Republic made that a bit irrelevant! I don't see how that has anything to do with self determination either and the whole Good Friday Agreement thing of inserting a self determination clause suggests to me, no self determination clause previously existed. Its a pretty logical conclusion so I'll see if anybody can provide proof it did exist.

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

Oh dear is right - I think you're here just to wind people up.

I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference...

K-9

trendyvicar wrote: »

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

You were asked for a link to show NI was subject to self determination. You haven't provided it, some link to the Government of Ireland act that says nothing of the kind. You thought you'd get away with that one!

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

This isn't even an insult. Try harder.

Sunnyisland

Alas the vicar isn't trendy anymore, It should be ignored.

Tiocfaidh Armani

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

Derry City.

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

STORMONT

I think you'll find you don't get to move any goalposts on this. Nobody singled out Stormont for a start. Secondly, a "Stormont" example already mentioned.
Don't mistake me for some barstool republican or otherwise. What I and others have mentioned is no myth and no secret.

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

Please explain this remark.

KeithAFC

Gerry Adams has been using big posh hotels in America. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. Something I have heard many Socialist Republicans are upset about.

He should release a statement and apologise IMO.

Nodin

KeithAFC wrote: »

Gerry Adams has been using big posh hotels in America. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. Something I have heard many Socialist Republicans are upset about.

He should release a statement and apologise IMO.

We socialist republicans are touched that you care for our feelings, Keith.

Tiocfaidh Armani

KeithAFC wrote: »

Gerry Adams has been using big posh hotels in America. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. Something I have heard many Socialist Republicans are upset about.

He should release a statement and apologise IMO.

See if you've ever been to NYC, those hotels are not that great and nowhere near as described as 'posh' as the paper described. Go and try and find a cheap hotel in NYC and see what I mean.

I'm no fan of his but that article was largely ****. Here's another article on it:

Sometimes you have to laugh at the Sunday Independent in Ireland and their attempts to continuously denigrate Sinn Fein.

Their latest effort comes today with a lurid story about Sinn Fein spending massive amounts of money in America on their annual fundraising efforts here.

The two funniest descriptions are of the Astoria Manor in Queens, which everyone knows is a very basic down meat and potatoes outer borough catering hall where humble Irish organizations such as county associations pay about 100 dollars a plate for events

This is transformed into the "luxurious elegance at affordable prices" Astoria Manor which will come as a great surprise to those of us who frequent the Irish dinners there every year. As the accompanying photograph shows it is hardly the Ritz.

The other laughable one is the description of the Manhattan Club catering hall upstairs from Rosie O'Grady's as 'ultra swish'.

It is an honest to goodness venue for many Irish organizations who cannot afford fancy Manhattan prices. To describe is as 'ultra swish' is downright hilarious.

Then there's the dinners that Sinn Fein personel had at Bobby Van's the upmarket eatery.

A quick check would have revealed that Bobby Van's is owned in part by Joe Smith, one of Sinn Fein's biggest suporters in the US and a Belfast native.

Likewise with the Harbor Lights restaurant which is owned by the Delaney family, long time supporter of Gerry Adams.

The Affinia or Sheraton Hotels where Sinn Fein personnel stay are decent mid market hotels in Manhattan, far from the depiction of them as luxurious.

As usual the devil is in the details in these stories

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/people_and_politics/irish-media-claims-that-sinn-fein-live-it-up-in-the-us-are-far-off-the-mark-135819718.html

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Gerry Adams has been using big posh hotels in America. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. Something I have heard many Socialist Republicans are upset about.

He should release a statement and apologise IMO.

Indeed,sure its far from posh hotels in America he was reared,But I did hear he was well aversed to drop into the Europa hotel every so often back in the day.;) Maybe he got the bug from that.:)

trendyvicar

JustinDee wrote: »

I think you'll find you don't get to move any goalposts on this. Nobody singled out Stormont for a start. Secondly, a "Stormont" example already mentioned.
Don't mistake me for some barstool republican or otherwise. What I and others have mentioned is no myth and no secret.

Oh poor little Irishman has slipped in his own bullsh*t

Post 770

Show me where Stormont boundaries were gerrymandered and when 'one man, one vote' didn't apply at Stormont elections...

I suggest in future you keep your mouth shut to avoid further embarrassment. Or read the relevant posts first.

trendyvicar

K-9 wrote: »

You were asked for a link to show NI was subject to self determination. You haven't provided it, some link to the Government of Ireland act that says nothing of the kind. You thought you'd get away with that one!

The ability was within the act to pass simultaneous legislation North and South of the border with the hope that an All Ireland parliament would emerge. Said parliament would have a Nationalist majority capable of achieving Irish independence. All this would be subject to Stormont's initiation.

Can I ask what age you are K-9 and what knowledge you have of any of these areas? I ask this because you appear to be outside of your comfort zone...

trendyvicar

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Derry City.

Prove it.

And for f*ck sake remember we're discussing Stormont not the local council.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Indeed,sure its far from posh hotels in America he was reared,But I did hear he was well aversed to drop into the Europa hotel every so often back in the day.;) Maybe he got the bug from that.:)

Don't know if there is supposed to be some sort of joke in that but go on some of the Republican forums and they are laughing at Gerry Adams and his hypocrisy.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Don't know if there is supposed to be some sort of joke in that but go on some of the Republican forums and they are laughing at Gerry Adams and his hypocrisy.

Thanks for letting me know

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

Oh poor little Irishman has slipped in his own bullsh*t

Post 770



I suggest in future you keep your mouth shut to avoid further embarrassment. Or read the relevant posts first.

Would you care to explain your earlier remark here

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

Oh poor little Irishman has slipped in his own bullsh*t

Post 770



I suggest in future you keep your mouth shut to avoid further embarrassment. Or read the relevant posts first.

No bull. No slip. Try reading what is posted instead of subjectively cherry-picking.

trendyvicar

JustinDee wrote: »

No bull. No slip. Try reading what is posted instead of subjectively cherry-picking.

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

Quit the insults. Not a brave thing willy-wagging behind the cushion of an anonymous internet moniker. I'm not little for a start or a 'leprechaun' and pointed out example of gerrymandering which was a major root of the problems in NI, as did another poster, with whom I disagree on almost everything in other threads, of gerrymandering at a broader level.
Selective questions such as yours change nothing of what happened.
Like I suggested, don't assume.

K-9

trendyvicar wrote: »

The ability was within the act to pass simultaneous legislation North and South of the border with the hope that an All Ireland parliament would emerge. Said parliament would have a Nationalist majority capable of achieving Irish independence. All this would be subject to Stormont's initiation.

But irrelevant after the Free State became a Republic. Its within the context of devolved Government with representation in Westminster, a very different scenario to self determination now and well you know it.. So I ask again, how did NI have self determination as regards a United Ireland?

Can I ask what age you are K-9 and what knowledge you have of any of these areas? I ask this because you appear to be outside of your comfort zone...

I don't see how my age is relevant, late 30's, what is your age?

My knowledge? Pretty decent. My comfort zone? What do you mean?

Its a shame O'Neill was just too much out of the comfort zone for so many Unionists.

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

Not feeling so clever now are we my little leprechaun?

Next time read the relevant section of the thread before opening your mouth.

You still haven't explained this -

Believe what you like - it's part of the Irish character.